Kotick has another idea

Post by **Drakonis** » 17 Sep 2010, 09:53

Activision’s Bobby Kotick, speaking at a Media, Communications and Entertainment Conference in California yesterday has revealed a few startling possibilities for future titles under the Activision-Blizzard banner. His main point was that the company is no longer looking at revenue growth, emphasising profits on existing titles instead, but he also mentioned something about video game cut-scenes

Sojourn · Post by **Sojourn** » 17 Sep 2010, 10:31

Do they reeeeeally think we believe them when they say they do not care about revenue growth?

Since when are these guys happy with maintaining profit margins only?

I have to to say that most if not all of Blizzard/Activision's title's are for the most part brilliant. So their cut-scene comment confuses the heck out of me... Cut-scenes? Really? Are we supposed to be exited now after that ambiguity?

Post by **Drakonis** » 17 Sep 2010, 10:40

You did read the entire thing, where Acti-Blizz may want to start charging for cut-scenes, right? I really hope that Bobby Kotick just phrased that badly

rustypup · Post by **rustypup** » 17 Sep 2010, 10:43

i think every wow subscriber in the world can now smack themselves on the back of the head... 'cause this is pretty much your doing...

<looks pointedly at Sojourn...>

RuadRauFlessa · Post by **RuadRauFlessa** » 17 Sep 2010, 10:45

Drakonis wrote:You did read the entire thing, where Acti-Blizz may want to start charging for cut-scenes, right? I really hope that Bobby Kotick just phrased that badly

+1

I for one would hate to buy a game at a bottom price only to find out that should I want the whole thing I would have to fork out another R500

If it is something like SC2 I would be fine with it as some people will only buy the game to play multi player in any case and will never see the cut scenes. In that same sense for them you might as well cut the campaigns completely.

RuadRauFlessa · Post by **RuadRauFlessa** » 17 Sep 2010, 10:47

rustypup wrote:i think every wow subscriber in the world can now smack themselves on the back of the head... 'cause this is pretty much your doing...

<looks pointedly at Sojourn...>

How do you deduce that reasoning?

I still pay for the cut scenes in WoW even though there aren't a lot of them. Yes I pay a monthly fee but that is for the constant stream of content updates.

rustypup · Post by **rustypup** » 17 Sep 2010, 10:48

when diablo 3 is announced as subscription based, i'll be the tjop with the pitchfork and flaming faggot on your doorstep...

RuadRauFlessa · Post by **RuadRauFlessa** » 17 Sep 2010, 10:51

rustypup wrote:when diablo 3 is announced as subscription based, i'll be the tjop with the pitchfork and flaming faggot on your doorstep...

As far as I can see from his rantings it is not a matter of subscription based. It is an issue of having a game released for next to nothing and then having people pay extra for those interested in the full/extra content such as the cut-scenes. But then again Diablo is kinda pointless without the movies.

SykomantiS · Post by **SykomantiS** » 17 Sep 2010, 10:57

That's not how I understand it

The way I read that, he is looking at selling the games, business as usual (cutscenes and all), then, apart from the game, take the cutscenes (and what was unsaid- expand on them) and produce a movie from them, and selling that.

In effect, for every new game, they may also have a movie- much like we already see in Hollywood, except this time around it's not some random producer slaughtering the franchise, but rather the original game developers doing a proper job from the start.

All in all, sounds good to me.

Post by **Drakonis** » 17 Sep 2010, 11:06

It is more likely that we might wind up with an original presentation that compliments whichever game it is based on. So, same style as the cut-scenes, expands the story, totally optional... that would be something I could live with. But if Kotick was being totally literal... that would suck.

Sojourn · Post by **Sojourn** » 17 Sep 2010, 11:49

Drakonis, exactly... frankly if the (whichever) game itself is unchanged as far as gameplay and other core gaming features goes, personally I don't care about the mini-vids in between the chapters. Chances are you will be able to see some of that eventually on the download server nobody knows about at the office - same goes for a full movie using cut-scenes.

Rusty, what makes me worried is the DLC route where some games will be "unbundled", so you buy a game for R350... but wait... Chapter 2 3 4 5 is only available on DLC at R100 a pop.
Now you are paying a total of almost R900 for what should be a R500 game. Also... Want that nice gun upgrade? DLC at R50 a pop.

I can see how this is wow's fault...this item DLC crapp was play tested in wow extensively with mounts.

GreyWolf · Post by **GreyWolf** » 17 Sep 2010, 12:56

rustypup wrote:when diablo 3 is announced as subscription based, i'll be the tjop with the pitchfork and flaming faggot on your doorstep...

why you gotta hate on homosexuals?

Anyway, don't blame all the WoW players.. just those chops that bought the astral horse mount.

RuadRauFlessa · Post by **RuadRauFlessa** » 17 Sep 2010, 12:59

Yeah who would like to buy a horse which is nearly invisible, can fly and is only available by buying it with real money.

StarBound · Post by **StarBound** » 17 Sep 2010, 13:17

Hey the retarded horse looked cool and I figured I wouldnt have to buy another mount in my life. But it really isnt a substatute for the headless horsemans mount.

The upside is that CoD games will not be paid to play and I assume that counts for multiplayer too (except if you own a xbox). But I dont get the right message from the rest. They saying they will cut the movie parts from games and sell them back to you? So R500 for Starcraft 2 Heart of the Swarm, then remove the movies and resell them back to you for R300?

RuadRauFlessa · Post by **RuadRauFlessa** » 17 Sep 2010, 13:21

Well the way you people see it you will have the movies in the game in any case so it will be pointless to buy the extra movie as you will already have it. Unless you really want to watch all the in game movies without any game-play in between which will provided you with sizable gaps in the story.

StarBound · Post by **StarBound** » 17 Sep 2010, 13:26

I can see how the youtube version gets over a million hits:

Youtube #1 for the week: Starcraft 2 HotS Act 1 Briefing Movie: 1254064 hits

SykomantiS · Post by **SykomantiS** » 17 Sep 2010, 13:27

RRF, that's my point, those gaps will be filled with more cinematics. Like Doom 3. Game >> movie, and it sucked somewhat. Now if the devs do it, it would probably suck less (and be more to the point).

So if they're gonna do it anyhow, might as well be the game devs doing it.

RuadRauFlessa · Post by **RuadRauFlessa** » 17 Sep 2010, 13:27

Wahahaha yeah youtube will make this fail.

RuadRauFlessa · Post by **RuadRauFlessa** » 17 Sep 2010, 13:29

SykomantiS wrote:RRF, that's my point, those gaps will be filled with more cinematics. Like Doom 3. Game >> movie, and it sucked somewhat. Now if the devs do it, it would probably suck less (and be more to the point).

So if they're gonna do it anyhow, might as well be the game devs doing it.

Point conceded. I would just be more than happy to actually play the game. For me a game is meant to be just that. If they want to sell the movie of the game they should make the movie and release it for the cinema. That way they will not only draw gamers to the movie but also normal cinema peeps who does not play the game. And they can still make it themselves and rip most of the footage from the game.

SykomantiS · Post by **SykomantiS** » 17 Sep 2010, 13:33

Well, yes. That would be ideal.

RuadRauFlessa · Post by **RuadRauFlessa** » 17 Sep 2010, 13:34

And you telling me they can't thing past their noses

SykomantiS · Post by **SykomantiS** » 17 Sep 2010, 13:35

Apparently not

StarBound · Post by **StarBound** » 17 Sep 2010, 14:46

So what is his idea then? Make the game with the movies/cut scenes/cinematics then release a developer developed movie from the game scenes and fill in the gaps with flowing cinematics? As in full game + movies or half game + movies?

RuadRauFlessa · Post by **RuadRauFlessa** » 17 Sep 2010, 14:50

No Idea StarBound either one will be a fop. If I were them I would do a cinema release of the movies. It would gross more than limiting its sale to those who buy the game.

StarBound · Post by **StarBound** » 17 Sep 2010, 15:04

Both fall under the entertainment industry. Does america have a law when it comes to seperating interactive and non-interactive entertainment?

PCFormat Forum Archive

Kotick has another idea

Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea

Re: Kotick has another idea