Unknown Soldier
Member
Bobby took so much shit as CEO of Activision but it turned out he was completely based and everyone had him figured wrong
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bobby Kotick told Microsoft “You shouldn’t be in gaming, you’re not a creative company”
- Thread starter RetroGamingUK
- Start date
- Business
MiguelItUp
Member
Bobby Kotick of all people? Really? Come on now, lmao.
Kokoloko85
Member
He’s not wrong
Arsic
Loves his juicy stink trail scent
Activision is a giga success. And blizzard portion was their creative angle. They had overwatch during that time, heroes of the storm, hearthstone, and to some extent even Diablo 3.
As time went on the portfolio and success went to shit at blizzard.
Activision itself? Call of duty machine but at least they published sekiro under his watch.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
"Bright, Bright Future"
NickFire
Member
Honestly this year’s COD is legit. I’d like to think the core gameplay will stay top notch at least until someone else develops a better game which will not be easy. But anything that requires a lot of new development is now controlled by the MS division that killed its own hardware with lackluster offerings when it mattered.
March Climber
Member
Ok Ken.
Blank Space Invader
Gold Member
Bobby Kotick talking about creativity. That's funny!
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
What you're arguing in entirely irrelevant.
You can claim Activision is creatively bankrupt all you want, from your own subjective standard of creativity (which is again irrelevant), because the context of the discussion between Kotick and MS is about the level of creativity needed to consistently sell games.
My argument is that the proof is in the pudding. You don't need fucking Da Vinci, auteur-levels of creativity to make appealing games. In fact, the most creative, artsy games aren't even the bestselling games in the industry. Activision is creative enough to consistently produce and publish fucking mega-hit games. Something MS couldn't even fucking dream of coming close to.
Ergo... the context of Kotick's comments is that MS is not creative ENOUGH to win in the industry. Activision is, hence their success. To argue otherwise is fucking inane beyond belief.
What you're trying to do is argue a strawman, that because Activision is not the most creative artsy company in the industry, they must be creatively bankrupt. Creativity is not a fucking binary. It's a spectrum.
That's the whole point, that you're too obtuse to grasp, is that Activision's level of creativity doesn't HAVE to be impressive to YOU. Your standard of creativity is fucking irrelevant. It only needs to be appealing enough to a majority of gamers... and guess what!?!? IT IS!!!! They sell a fucking bajiliion copies of their games.
Robot Carnival
Member
CoreyFlawless
Member
Eh, that pretty much all companies. Hell I feel like apple the same way now
intheinbetween
Member
OP’s favorite theme, XBOX doom ‘n gloom.
Kotick, aka Master of Creativity
Kotick, aka Master of Creativity
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
I'm not sure how much credit they can take for Halo and Gears, weren't they both created independently before MS got involved and made them MS exclusives? They had a good run milking those for a bit but not sure they've created anything themselves particularly noteworthy since they've been in the business?
Ritsumei2020
Report me for console warring
Everything Microsoft touches eventually turns to shit. Case in point: Halo.
RafterXL
Member
I don't think it has anything to do with Microsoft, at least not in the way he is claiming. Microsoft has been, over the years, plenty creative. The problem is they've fallen into the same traps as the rest of western companies. They don't hire the best people to do the best job, they hire the best people to fill a specific quota, and it's biting them in the ass. When you are making creative endeavors the most important thing should be creativity, when when you making games the most important thing should be the games. On a hierarchy list neither of those things would be top 5 at current Microsoft, or any western developer for that matter. The only real difference is that this bullshit from Microsoft proper bleeds into Xbox far more than other gaming companies.
Are we really going to pretend that Activision/Blizzard wasn't having the same exact issues before Microsoft purchased them? Same infection, same decline, same hiring practices, etc. just on a smaller scale because there wasn't some massive entity like Microsoft behind them speeding up the process. There is a reason many people what Sony Japan to be the rein holders and not Sony of America. Creativity in the west has been dogshit for the last decade and a half and it's only been getting worse. The most creative places on the planet are in eastern Europe and Asia, because they've yet to be infected.
Are we really going to pretend that Activision/Blizzard wasn't having the same exact issues before Microsoft purchased them? Same infection, same decline, same hiring practices, etc. just on a smaller scale because there wasn't some massive entity like Microsoft behind them speeding up the process. There is a reason many people what Sony Japan to be the rein holders and not Sony of America. Creativity in the west has been dogshit for the last decade and a half and it's only been getting worse. The most creative places on the planet are in eastern Europe and Asia, because they've yet to be infected.
The artful mincer
Member
What exactly is your definition of creativity? As far as I can tell your argument is commercial success equals creativity???
If that's the case that's an odd argument to make against fucking Microsoft of all companies.
Complistic
Member
If Bobby said it, it's probably incorrect.
Ritsumei2020
Report me for console warring
The way I see it, Activistion at least seem to understand that game series need some kind of variety after a while. So they take turns with Call of Duty, try different eras, etc. Im not a big fan of CoD but I can admit that.
MS strategy is to run franchises into the ground with sequels that fail to live up to their predecessors and NEVER ever change the formula. Ever. Halo, Forza, Gear, until people cannot stomach yet another Halo, Forza, Gear.
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
I think CoD studios dont get enough praise for the risks they have taken over the years. CoD4 went from ww2 to modern day and completely turned the gaming landscape upside down. but instead of making modern day games every year, they had treyarch do a vietnam era game instead. then they realized that games are taking longer to make so Kotick had 3 studios making a game every 3 years. I thought Advanced Warfare was a very bold move considering just how popular Modern Warfare was at the time, but kotick trusted Sledghammer to do the job. Then Infinite Warfare which was the largest departure in a cod game to date. I mean you were in space, fighting battlecruisers in your space jet.
They have only regressed the past few years where covid really fucked with their release cycles despite kotick forcing every single activision studio to work on it. Every game feels safe now, but i thought warzone was brilliant and easily the best version of battle royale i have played. Plenty of people tried to copy battle royale but only cod succeeded. that has to mean they have some creative people working there.
MS on the other hand, good god. i cant think of a single product they have introduced that i actually admired. they lucked out on acquiring Bungie, and getting Gears' exclusivity, but then completely ruined halo when they finally took over. Failed to work with Peter Molyneux. Ruined Rare. and while I wont fault them for Starfield, Redfall, and other zenimax studio failings, they clearly all went there and took photos of themselves playing those awful games and did not have the common sense to say, hey wait, this fucking sucks dick.
You need those guys at the top to have that creative bone. The ability to discern shit from gold. Phil, Matt Booty and Satya dont have that.
Bonfires Down
Member
Microsoft doesn’t have to be creative. They just have to not stifle the creativity of the studios they own, and I don’t think they will. Some studios will go under or be sold off, but chances are they wouldn’t have survived anywhere else either.
Ritsumei2020
Report me for console warring
You dont think they will? Like they did with Halo?
DeltaPolarBear
Member
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. The main issue is that MS literally doesn't know what a good game looks like. It would be like trying to run a restaurant when you can't taste food. You can hire other people to work for you but you couldn't monitor them properly.
And at this point it is clear MS doesn't know how to grow studios. All the old purchases died. The only hope is that Activision can run itself.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
Any meaningful measure of evolution on existing themes and ideas.
The other poster seems to define it only in terms of revolution. That's more radical creativity; on the extreme end of the spectrum.
E.g. COD would simply not be as successful as it has grown to be if the series only ever stuck with the WWII setting that the series originated. But instead, the publisher Activision has fostered the diverse talents of multiple studios to reinvent the series multiple times, covering a diverse range of settings from the Cold War, to modern combat, to near future with exosuits, to the space-faring far future. Games like COD: Infinite (my personal favourite) could be argued to be barely considered a COD game, since it's so divergent from the series roots.
If you're just going to argue a shitty strawman, then you're wasting everyone's time here. I made clear my argument for creativity and nowhere did I equate creativity with commercial success. Instead, my point was that the level of creativity that forms the threshold for success in the industry has been demonstrated many times over by Activision.
They (and every other game publisher) do not need to be spectacularly creative in order to be successful. And I'm arguing that the context of Kotick's statement to MS wasn't about spectacular creativity, but rather that MS was lacking even the basic level of creativity as a business to succeed in gaming.... i mean, this was self-evident by the fact that MS was trying to buy Activision in the first place. It was a desperate, last-ditch attempt to escape Xbox becoming irrelevant.
Look at the top 100 best-selling games. None of them are the most creative. So, creativity doesn't correlate with commercial success. Kotick's discussion with MS was commercial one, by definition. So, his comments about creativity should be understood from the perspective of how creativity impacts the business of a gaming publisher; and not just being about pure creativity in absolute terms.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
Thank you.
Finally, someone who understands.
The other puerile tools posting laughing emojis seem to be making the mistake in thinking that if a publisher is not putting out Zelda: BTOW, then they're creatively bankrupt. It's an absurd false dichotomy.
They missing the context of Kotick's comments. He's not talking about pure creativity in absolute terms. He's saying MS lacks the basic level of ability to foster creative talent in order to be successful in the gaming business.
The reality of the gaming business is that gamers don't even want extreme creativity. The most creative, most original games are not the highest selling. Gamers want something familiar that also is new enough to fell fresh and compelling. Activision has mastered this with COD better than almost any other publisher; especially MS.
It's exactly as you so eloquently stated, Slimy. While MS was running their biggest franchises into the ground through a complete inability to make sequels that didn't just overwhelmingly feel stale, Activision has reinvented COD sufficiently and frequently such that it's the biggest the franchise has ever been today.
Refining what works, while take some measured creative risks is how Activision's studios accomplished this. That's the level of creativity Kotick was talking about.
Last edited:
Hero_Select
Member
Imagine saying this about Bobby after all he's said and done. Cringe.
Kumomeme
Member
they didnt even tried to be one. atleast the Xbox division as whole separate from the main company. they still act like a service company than a gaming company.
we can see most of major focus, agenda and hiccup all is bussiness oriented mindset foremost than creative. it is not wrong but they should not forget that they(Xbox) are gaming division foremost at same time. lot of these decision end up biting them back due to failure to comply with the needed necessities. what worse, lot of these major bussiness venture that they are taking are with mindset of instant massive profit and market monopoly intention while their creative output as a gaming company severely lagging.
its been going on atleast for 10 years since 2013 8th generation console launch
- Xbox One era : always online and game sharing
- XSX era : game subscription service, Series S and X sandwich strategy and major 3rd party gaming company acquisition
we can see the mindset on these agenda push are all about quick controlling and monopolizing. they are hasty with it too. while we see lacking of similliar enthuasiasm when coming to managing and nurturing their studio or making a quality IP which is the most important aspect as a 'gaming company'. it is something people been complained for decade too. they been in this industry for almost 25 years and they still behave like a software service company than a creative gaming company.
in comparison we can see Nintendo and Sony are always pondering about what next big game to be developed or what gaming device/system need to be created while Microsoft in comparison are always what bussiness model and what fancy branding label name need to be put on it. people would remember Mario, Pokemon, Nathan Drake, Horizon etc but for what for Microsoft? Gamepass? the acquistion dont fix the problem. more like quick temporary patch hole IMO.
it is fine to do all these bussiness idea. some of it has big potential but it still need equal or more output on creative side from them so for it can be executed properly as expected. but the result wont change overnight. it took time, years but they are severely impatient and always looking for shortcut all the times. what funny is they got all the time atleast since middle to end of 8th generation to properly laid and build it up but they pass it in favour of greedy quick monopoly rich scheme.
Last edited:
nial
Member
Sure, but not all of them. Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. actually developed games by itself from the very beginning (Motor Toon Grand Prix 1-2 and Gran Turismo 1), with a good chunk of the talent at game developing coming straight from SMEJ.
Last edited:
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
I knew someone would say this and it's not really true. Even the companies they bought, they cultivated.
Let's take a look at the history of Sony in gaming. When Sony decided to get into console manufacturing, they actually already had a company developing games called Sony Imagesoft. They fell under Sony Music.
Sony Imagesoft. Sony Imagesoft was mainly a publishing unit and they had a long history of working with Psygnosis. In 1993, Sony would go ahead and buy Psygnosis to bolster their European branch. Sony Imagesoft would fold into SCEA and become Sony Interactive Studios America and then rebrand to 989 Studios. 989 Studios would brand out into development teams that we know as San Diego Studio and Santa Monica studio splintered out of this group.
Polyphony Digital was built out of a team from within SCEJ
Team Asobi also spun out of from Japan Studio.
Sony bought Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Guerilla, and Sucker Punch... all of whom have flourished under Sony. All of which have released titles that sold over 10 million copies. Even Bend Studios which started out as Eidetic and had relationships with Sony dating back to like 1997 have done fairly well under Sony and Day's Gone sold over 10 million copies I believe.
Sony has been involved with most of these companies since their infancy.
There is not one successful studio where Microsoft can say the same. Even great studios like Ensemble were run into the ground by Microsoft.
Hyet
Member
He clearly knows his stuff. Under him, he was able to leverage frachises that dominated the market until they bled dry. First it was THPS then GH, then Skylanders, and now CoD for ages.
No other company has able to dominate the market with such a range of genres as Activision. So Bobby is a scumbag but he knows a thing or two about creativity leading to success.
Compared to MS, all of their successes have been funded and developed externally, then acquired the creators, the IP or both. What Kotick and Jobs say is 100% correct. They are not creative and they have no style. Their products won't pull the public in with their atractiveness and their personality unless someone else has previously stablished that. And they won't cover for that flaw because they have learned thay can just buy it.
Last edited:
Ogbert
Member
Again, understood.
But you’re making my point. Sony have done a very good job of curating and developing teams and studios they have acquired.
There’s no reason why Microsoft could not do the same. And it’s silly to rearrange the furniture and pretend that Halo and Gears didn’t have a huge impact on console gaming. And, very specifically, online multiplayer - which is something Microsoft really did push.
They just lost their way and are now pointless.
The Gamepass gamble, in particular, has driven a significant downgrade in standards.
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
So did the Wii and the Switch, but the difference is those gambles worked out.
There's another dimension where instead of buying ABK, Microsoft locked down exclusive deals for Elden Ring, Hogwarts Legacy, Baldur's Gate 3, and Cyberpunk (yes even with the issues) to GamePass/Xbox and sold considerable units.
Sorcerer
Member
Microsoft is a reactionary company basically. They see something has been popular for years and then they decide far too late that they can do a thing better, only they can't. Phones, Video games, mp3 players...
I would not be at all be surprised if Microsoft goes all in on Fidget Spinners soon.
OG Xbox had a horrendous launch lineup, only saved by Halo. I wonder what would have happened had Microsoft never acquired Halo. Would they have made it to the 360?
I believe Ed Fries himself took responsibility and blame for the lackluster launch lineup (Minus Halo).
I will give them credit for having the foresight to invest in Live. That did a lot help their fortunes. When most people would rather pay for Live as opposed to the then free Playstation Network you know you finally got something right.
I would not be at all be surprised if Microsoft goes all in on Fidget Spinners soon.
OG Xbox had a horrendous launch lineup, only saved by Halo. I wonder what would have happened had Microsoft never acquired Halo. Would they have made it to the 360?
I believe Ed Fries himself took responsibility and blame for the lackluster launch lineup (Minus Halo).
I will give them credit for having the foresight to invest in Live. That did a lot help their fortunes. When most people would rather pay for Live as opposed to the then free Playstation Network you know you finally got something right.
Last edited:
BattleScar
Member
Its not that they can't, they simply have failed to do so for 20 years. 15 if you want to argue about the 360.
Microsoft as a business is just M&A + Windows at this point.
They also had DOA 3, Project Gotham Racing and Oddworld. Hardly horrendous.
Were an electronics giant. It's not 1999 anymore.
RetroGamingUK
Member
You mean the company that kerb stomped Microsoft out of the console market?
The artful mincer
Member
I think this too vague and can be used to argue almost anything.
I seem to remember the switch to modern warfare came from the devs. The executives wanted the series to remain in WW2.
From Ghosts to Infinite warfare the series was indeed at its most creative. Unfortunately it was the commercial low point as well.
Thank you for clarifying.
This just isn't true though. Microsoft clearly showed they could compete in the 360 generation. The reasons for Microsoft ultimately failing is a lot more complex than simply lacking creativity.
I respectively disagree. I would argue Bobby and Activision were worse than creatively bankrupt. He was Destructive to Creativity....ON PURPOSE!
To be fair this worked and made Activision the most successful Western publisher in the 2010s but the strategy reached it's natural conclusion in 2020s. Hence the declining stock and Bobby bailing in his golden parachute.
I have what I think is compelling data to back this up but I will detail that in another post.
The artful mincer
Member
But this is the Activision strategy as well. The difference is Activision actively kills franchises were at least MS trys to keep them limping along.
Call of Duty is almost literally the only Franchise the main Activision Studios produce today.
Last edited:
Felessan
Member
Kotick is a businessman of creative industry. He both businessman and know how creative industry works.
He for sure not forums astroturfers those think gamedev business is a charity for creative minds to realize whatever shitty idea came to their mind (it's not). Ideas are tested and if proven good - capitalized. Even turned to franchise if very good. On other hand Kotick doesn't run his games as business soft division, he do understand this "nurturing" part of franchise.
As a proper businessman he of course prioritize things that brings more profit, i.e. CoD given much more resources that some random shit no one wanna buy.
And MS... it just run their franchises to the ground, making them trash and obsolete and that's all. It's not a story of success.
He for sure not forums astroturfers those think gamedev business is a charity for creative minds to realize whatever shitty idea came to their mind (it's not). Ideas are tested and if proven good - capitalized. Even turned to franchise if very good. On other hand Kotick doesn't run his games as business soft division, he do understand this "nurturing" part of franchise.
As a proper businessman he of course prioritize things that brings more profit, i.e. CoD given much more resources that some random shit no one wanna buy.
Activision do it due to franchise success. They need 3000+ people to actively run CoD franchise across all medium (CoD, Warzone, mobile) - and they have no free resources for other games. It's a price for such a big success of CoD franchise. Similar to "film games" eating most of Sony resources.
And MS... it just run their franchises to the ground, making them trash and obsolete and that's all. It's not a story of success.
Microsoft haven't actually exited the console market, as much as you like to repeat "Xbox is dead" as part of your morning affirmations.You mean the company that kerb stomped Microsoft out of the console market?
Besides, the Sony that MS feared in the late 90s ceased to become a threat to them a long time ago.
Rusty Shackelford
Member
They need J Allard back.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
The artful mincer
Member
Activision was making billions of dollars a year. They could of easily expanded... but they chose not too. They even chose stop development of successful franchises like Crash Bandicoot.
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
Don’t even waste your time going down that rabbit hole!You mean the company that kerb stomped Microsoft out of the console market?
All that needs to be said in this regard was done so, fantastically I might add, by
Mibu no ookami
. Regarding the Kotick stuff, no matter what one thinks of him, he’s making sense here. Microsoft’s output only confirms it!
noob smokes
Member
Hes not wrong ms look at gaming like every other business/service they have thru an excel spreadsheet they outsource anything to anyone for the cheapest rate just to make the books look good this why halos in a mess rn & why they had to buy these big publishers to make up for the lack of ip