More Activision (and Call of Duty) Kookiness - hist Blog - www.GameInformer.com
Switch Lights

The lights are on

What's Happening

More Activision (and Call of Duty) Kookiness

So the notorious "market analyst" who shall not be named** is at it again. According to many media outlets (including Game Informer), he's upset that Activision Publishing's CEO has come out and definitively stated that Activision will never charge for multiplayer in Call of Duty. Since this market analyst has been saying for months now that Activision *is* planning on doing it, he's now gone on record as saying it's a crime against the shareholders for Activision *not* to do what he's been saying they're going to do.

"Wah!!!! They're proving me wrong, so I'm going to whine about it!" he said.

Ok, that may not be the exact quote.

(Quit your whining, or you're next!)

But there are a couple of things about Game Informer's article that I would like to address.

First, either the Activision hatred causes such blind rage that reading comprehension is affected or people are reading too quickly.

The GI article says:

"It should be noted that Eric Hirshberg is the CEO of Activision Publishing, not Activision. That's Bobby Kotick, and he definitely wants to charge you for multiplayer."

But the article they link to doesn't really support that statement, other than in the strictest sense of the phrase. Yes, he *wants* to charge you for multiplayer. But the article goes on to say that he realizes it's not going to happen, at least to the current spate of CoD titles and on the consoles.

Kotick's statement is the same kind of pie in the sky statement as me saying that I'd really love to date Sarah Michelle Gellar. Yeah, I'd *love* to do that (though who knows? I may regret it later). But it will never happen. I'm not a Hollywood person. I'm already married. *She's* already married (not that this is much of an impediment in Hollywood anyway). There's no way I would even meet her, much less date her.

But hey, I'd love to do it.

I think he (and Activision) realizes that there's no way they can change the current model and not piss off a large number of their customers.

What they want to do is in the article GI links to:

"We have always been platform agnostic. [Consoles] do a very good job of supporting the gamer. If we are going to broaden our audiences, we are going to need to have other devices."

"According to the article, Activision is planning to "aggressively support" a new line of gamer-friendly PCs from Dell and HP that are designed to be connected to TVs. If successful, this could grow the PC gaming market and give Activision more of an opportunity to launch a PC-only, subscription-based Call of Duty that could be [sic] work."

In other words, they're looking to broaden the Call of Duty name, and in the broadening, add a subscription-based service that would be in addition to the annual Call of Duty release. I would assume, based on the context, that they're thinking of some kind of Call of Duty MMO, but that's just a guess.

Will this work? I don't know. People are stating emphatically that they will never pay for CoD multiplayer, but what if they did make it into some kind of subscription-based MMO? I wouldn't do it, but some people might. And since it's a completely separate product, there's no "losing customers" aspect to take into account. It's just whether any new customers would be enough to make money compared to the costs.

But, whatever the case, I think it's a bit misleading to say that this article means "Bobby Kotick wants to charge you for multiplayer."

The second thing is that I wish people would read a bit closer before going off half-cocked. Or even fully cocked.

Wishing Bobby Kotick dead? A bit harsh, don't you think?

And this is an article that is basically stating they're *not* going to charge you for multiplayer, so why all of the "if they charge for multiplayer, I'm not playing Call of Duty again!!!!" comments? They just said they're not going to!

But, of course, this follows from my first point, since that's taken from the original Kotick article.

This blind Activision hatred is really getting old.

I'm not a fan of all of their business practices, of course, and I do find Kotick to be a real a-hole sometimes.

I just wish that gamers would pay a bit more attention before unloading with both barrels.

 

**(I'm with Dan Americh in that I don't want to give the guy any more attention than he's already getting. Why add another Google hit to his name?)

comments