Call of Duty: Never again a GOTY nominee

[ZEE]

I've been playing the CoD series for over a year now, mostly World at War (which i think is superior to Mw2 anyway) and being the age that i am and the real life working experience that i have can safely say i can post an honest opinion about the IW thing and know what I'm talking about. That said:

I think Activision and IW are BOTH at fault for this MW2 row. First IW is at fault for stomping their feet and throwing the temper tantrum against a highly successful and experienced gaming company such as Activision. You do not go up to the boss and blatantly do things that you know that will piss them off, no matter how great of a job you do FOR him, because you will get fired. Even if Activision is fully to blame for whatever reasons this whole thing started from, IW handled this like spoiled teenager from my perspective.

NOW Activision is also to blame for the way they threw their machismo around against known disgruntled employees that are making you a LOT of money. As a boss if you see an employee that YOU KNOW is pissed off in the first place, you do not go in and storm their office with your goons and not expect immediate repercussions (such as some IW programmers quitting and the lawsuit.) That is something an inexperienced and hot-headed boss would do, not a multi-million (billion?) dollar corporation and respected powerhouse publisher would do.

AAHZ-Prediction™: IW will not exist in a few years, possibly sooner, and its definitely the end of the Modern Warfare series... but I liked Treyarch's games better anyway

[Asher]

I think Activision and IW are BOTH at fault for this MW2 row. First IW is at fault for stomping their feet and throwing the temper tantrum against a highly successful and experienced gaming company such as Activision.

Yes, you do, when you know the 'gaming company' is running your franchise into the ground.

You have to keep in mind the upper management these days at Activision are not gamers. In fact, the CEO of Activision is somewhat openly hostile to gamers. Before Activision, he worked for a kids' television production company. He's strictly a business guy, not a gaming guy. He uses words like "exploit" when describing what he wants to do with the CoD franchise.

If you put your blood, sweat, and tears into a franchise and then some soulless CEO talks about wanting to exploit your work by forcing you to not make substantial changes to the gameplay, keep things the same, and by the way...release a version every year? Also, they'd take the franchise away from you and give it to other talentless development shops to cash in on the craze.

Activision was killing Call of Duty just like they killed Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk. It's how Activision works. The IW guys were bright enough to get the hell out of there while their names still meant something, working on further, derivative MW3/4/5 games would hurt their rep, not help it. Especially since Activision was tying their hands on what they could or could not do. Activision wants minimal change, period.

[Asher]

On The Activision CEO:

Kotick is a controversial figure in the press and gaming community. This is in part due to advocating a business strategy focused on developing intellectual property which can be exploited over a long period, occasionally to the exclusion of creating new, risky or niche titles.[6] In responding to why Activision Blizzard chose not to publish certain games following the Activision/Blizzard merger, he stated that focusing on franchises that "have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million franchises" has "worked very well for [Activision Blizzard]". Kotick described this business strategy as "narrow and deep" and cited it as key to attracting development talent who may not be drawn to "speculative franchises".[7] This strategy has received a hostile reception from gamers and members of the gaming press who see it as anathema to widely anticipated small-studio developments such as Brutal Legend, originally to be published by Vivendi but dropped after the Activision Blizzard merger. Geeks.co.uk discussed the strategy under the headline "Activision's Bobby Kotick hates developers, innovation, cheap games, you".[8]

Kotick also created a stir when commenting on Activision Blizzard's peripheral-driven franchises. During Activision Blizzard's Q2 2009 financial results conference, Kotick was challenged over his "comfort level" around high prices attached to "new games that have some expensive controllers" (presumably the Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk and DJ Hero franchises), and said, "If it was left to me, I would raise the prices even further."[9] While some news services took the comment at face value,[10] other outlets thought the comment was a joke, but (as Gamesindustry.biz put it) could be seen as "insensitive at a time when consumers are likely to be feeling the economic pinch".[11]

A frequent complaint from the gaming press is the gap between Kotick and Activision's chief consumers, the gaming public. Ars Technica editor Ben Kuchera wrote, "Kotick doesn't play his games, and it shows."[12]

During a speech at the 2009 Deutsche Bank Securities Technology Conference, Kotick received significant criticism from enthusiasts and the media for stating, "We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games." Kotick later stated he tries to promote an atmosphere of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear" in his company and, "We are very good at keeping people focused on the deep depression."

[Asher]

'Infinity Ward Employee Group' sues Activision for $150M to $625M.

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/04/27/infinity-ward-employee-group-sues-activision-for-75-to-125-m/