Why Gamers Hate Activision

04 Mar 2010 at 00:00:00 by Andy Alderson

In a week that saw the departure of Infinity Ward's Jason West and Vince Zampella from the Call of Duty developer, there has been much debate as to who was at fault. Are the former Infinity Ward guys tortured geniuses, hamstrung by the oppressive bureaucracy of their publisher? Or are they wailing prima donnas who tried to use the financial clout of their only franchise to batter their publisher into submission? Truth is, we don't know and, for as long as the story endures, every day someone will publish a new insight into the controversy. However, although the community may be split over who is to blame, it seems gamers can all agree on one thing: they hate Activision. 

Check out any forum thread or comments section on the issue and I guarantee that amid the extensive debate you'll see more than a few posts starting like this: “Now, believe me, I'm no fan of Activision...” It seems even those who suspect Activision was right on the Infinity Ward issue can only do so grudgingly, in comments littered with caveats and jokes about Bobby Kotick's oddly-shaped head (which we in no way endorse). So why do we all hate on Activision? It can't just be down to Bobby Kotick's bulbous noggin can it? 

Well, no, it can't. While many members of the gaming community seem happy to jettison logic in favour of blind loyalty/prejudice when it comes to forming an opinion, most arguments against Activision can be supported. For one, there's the assertion that, all accusations of arrogance aside (which we'll get to in a bit), Activision's publishing record can be rightly questioned. While it undoubtedly sits towards the top of the tree, thanks to the Blizzard merger, some suggest that it has mishandled its most lucrative franchises. There has been criticism over the model it has adopted for the Call of Duty franchise – with Treyarch unfairly taking the brunt of it – and that the publisher's focus on quantity will undoubtedly affect quality. Sure, anything with Call of Duty across the cover will sell but eventually, unless a distinct effort is made to push a series forward, it will suffer (see Medal of Honor). Yesterday's announcement that we can expect three new CoD titles over the next couple of years did nothing to calm this fear.

But while the CoD franchise is still proving to be successful for the publisher both financially and critically, some of its other big IPs are not. Take the Tony Hawk series, for instance. Formerly the undisputed king of the skateboarding genre, the Tony Hawk brand has seen its sales figures and review scores tumble over the last few games. The release of RIDE marks the nadir for the franchise and, no matter how much Tony Hawk tells you that it's brilliant and that it got bad reviews because journalists are evil, he's wrong. It's bobbins. The fact that Robomodo is taking a second swipe at getting it right may indicate the publisher's desire to turn the franchise around, or perhaps to squeeze another title out of the IP before it's buried.    

And then there's Guitar Hero which may continue to sell but, at least creatively, it's on a downward spiral. With a focus on band-related titles rather than gameplay innovation we've seen Guitar Hero fall behind its main competitor, Rock Band (at least creatively), which showed how a band-specific music game should be handled. Hell, it may not be making EA any money, but god bless Harmonix for keeping the music genre alive. 

The next tier of Activision franchises is faring little better. The Spider-Man games, by Kotick's own admission, are a bit on the rubbish side, its control of the Bond License didn't exactly get off to a good start and it ditched Robert Ludlum's Jason Bourne after one predictably mediocre effort. The long-awaited return of Wolfenstein to the gaming world should have been a great moment for hardcore gamers but, yet again, it suffered from a lack of innovation. And this is arguably the biggest problem at Activision. 

Could it be that Bobby Kotick's business model, which he believes is the key to financial success for Activision, is not conducive to innovation? “Narrow and deep” said Kotick, not referring to his vision and pockets respectively, but rather his idea of how Activision should work. His language is telling and when Kotick says the company should focus on IPs that can be “exploited every year on every platform” you get the impression that quality is not the primary concern. 

And, of course, there is Kotick himself, whose comments at least keep the publisher's PR team busy. From his ill-advised “taking the fun out of gaming” statement to his earnings call rhetoric littered with references to squeezing more from the consumer, all too often it seems the publisher finds itself at the centre of PR skirmishes. Now, these are great for journalists like me (long may the blundersome comments continue) but arguably bad for the company. “Any publicity is good publicity” goes the old cliché. “Except bad publicity” is the bit that's missing. The prime example came when Bobby Kotick, all hopped up on the unstoppable power of the Activision brand, decided a little sabre-rattling was in order and threatened to drop support for the PS3. While this may have earned him those crucial column inches that he seems to crave, the move earned Kotick the derision of gamers and industry figures alike. Which, as much as the publisher will argue otherwise, is harmful to the brand. Yes, people will still buy the games but only so long as a certain degree of quality is maintained and we've seen that Activision has problems in this area. 

In many of the anti-Activision comments we've seen following IW-Gate, reference is made to the publisher being like the “old EA” of a few years back which, in many cases, focused heavily on quick-turnaround, innovation-lite annual-updates which rarely captured the imagination of gamers or critics. However, that has since changed and, for the most part, there's a lot more respect for EA in the industry these days as it is run be people who aren't afraid to take creative chances. Do I think Activision needs a similar kind of rehabilitation? Probably. Will it happen? Unlikely. One thing is for certain, however: Activision needs to get its IPs in order if it wants to maintain its reputation as one of the industry's biggest players. 

Comment