Duo from Infinity Ward headed to EA

[CQI13]

<p>The duo fired by Activision are returning to EA (after they left the Medal of Honor brand).</p><p> </p><p>

Wonder how it will all turn out.</p><p> </p><p>

<a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28054/Analyst_West_Zampella_EA_Deal_The_Ultimate_ScrewYou_To_Activision.php" rel="external nofollow">http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28054/Analyst_West_Zampella_EA_Deal_The_Ultimate_ScrewYou_To_Activision.php</a></p>

[Remianen]

Should turn out well, assuming Activision can't get some jurisdiction's judge to issue an injunction of some sort. But ideas mean (Richard) unless they're implemented right.

[GatorBait19]

I heard Act. is sueing them West and the other one

[CQI13]

They are, but even if they win, the two of them must pay, not EA.

[GatorBait19]

They are, but even if they win, the two of them must pay, not EA.

 

 

lol no it's a countersuit to them suing act.

[ampulator]

Honestly speaking, I never liked Medal of Honor. This is coming from a guy that hasn't played any Call of Duty games since the Call of Duty 2.

[GatorBait19]

see the thing I don't understand, is Activision isn't EA, so why let two guys who really helped that franchise (Call of Duty) and we saw how the Medal of Honor Franchise went downward.

 

Now what I mean by Activison/Infinity isn't EA is simple. EA can put out a crappy game (Madden for a couple years running) and still sell it and be okay, Activison and Infinity Ward, have to put out good games (although, Guitar Hero has helped them) But Call of Duty

 

 

 

also since they left, 5 more people have left IW as well, so it this a cleaning of house and rebooting the seires in a way? (call of duty 7)

[Remianen]

see the thing I don't understand, is Activision isn't EA, so why let two guys who really helped that franchise (Call of Duty) and we saw how the Medal of Honor Franchise went downward.

 

Part of Activision's beef is that those two were developing a game on Activision's time, without Activision's knowledge. You're also trying to compare two completely different corporate cultures. Compare the CEOs and you'll get an idea of how different the two companies are. John Riccitiello, as big a moron as he is, knows money when he sees it. He knows how to milk franchises but sometimes he goes overboard with the milking and the cow kicks him (like when he let those two leave). Bobby Kotick is an accountant. He knows (Richard) about games. All he's looking at is the bottom line. It's one reason why they keep him as far away from Blizzard as possible. As far as Kotick is concerned, people are interchangeable parts. They don't matter. That's why Activision isn't likely to do as well outside of the Blizzard half. EA has eleventy billion studios of varying sizes, who are often given carte blanche to produce the best products possible (by and large. BioWare isn't the only EA studio with a mandated focus on quality). The Sports division is run by someone else, who is closer to the bean counter end of the scale than anyone else.

[GatorBait19]

on a scale of 1 to 10, how much does the lose of 7 key members of the last two call of duty games (modern warfare) effect Call of Duty 7?

 

I personally say 7

[TommyDreamerFan]

It's really not any big deal. It just means theres more room at Activision for someone to step up to the plate and make something cool.

 

Game making is white hot right now, no? I doubt theirs a slump in talented programmers.

[Remianen]

It's really not any big deal. It just means theres more room at Activision for someone to step up to the plate and make something cool.

 

Game making is white hot right now, no? I doubt theirs a slump in talented programmers.

 

Um, no. You seem to be operating on the assumption that every developer is like Adam (has the ideas and knows code). That's not usually the case. If all it took was someone to "step up" when the lead designers/ideas person (or people) leaves a project, you wouldn't have so much utter tripe being released right now.

 

And no, game making is not 'white hot' mainly because the audience's demands have gone way up. Then again, maybe it's different when you're developing for shallow platforms like consoles. Console players don't get too many 'Fable' type games (which take years to produce and cost ridiculous amounts of money), though CoD is getting close. The only 'white hot' section of gaming right now is social gaming (see: Farmville). Plus, you have to keep in mind the times. Game development at many studios is funded in part or in whole by venture capital. If VCs aren't on board, the project probably won't see the light of day. VCs tend to only like games with mainstream audiences, which means basic adventure and shooter type games (not a cinematic quality RPG). When VCs stop investing, games outside of the major publishers (and even sometimes within the major publishers) tend to stop being made.

 

EDIT: And Gatorbait, it depends on who those people were. If they were leads, I'd put it at 8. If it was a couple artists and some code monkeys, 4.

 

One reason online gaming was/is so attractive is the potential for recoup and profit over time (via subscription fees). A typical CoD game earns the box sale. A typical MMO earns the box sale AND (hopefully) a recurring subscription. But now that's getting too expensive now too, even with the emerging hybrid subscription/microtransaction model coming to acceptance. A AAA title tends to cost $25-50 million to create and the ceiling used to be $80 million (World of Warcraft). Now, Bioware with its blank check from EA, is creating a game that should surpass the $150 million mark sometime between Thanksgiving and Christmas (so should go well north of that since beta isn't until next February). Not too many people can compete with that (which is why Facebook gaming is about to go supernova).

[TommyDreamerFan]

well, yes I am talking strictly consoles, I think PC gaming is a niche market at least in america. I don't know many people who have the time/wits to own a gaming capable PC and keep up with upgrades and the like.

 

I do think it's more mainstream then it was back in the 80s/90s. Colleges across the country are teaching game making.

 

really is COD:MW2 really that ground breaking? It's a good shooter, well polished, but it's not amazingly ground breaking. It really didn't evolve the genre in any significant way.

 

Now looking at the sandbox genre for example, GTAIV improved on the genre by adding a great cenematic story and creating the most realistic looking sandbox to play in. Saints Row 2 went the cartoony route, but makes up for it by having all these various types of mini-games to play that for the large part are completely original and fun.

 

I'm just saying, really just thinking out my ass because it's not really an industry I follow, there doesn't seem be a shortage of people who want to make games. And I'm not convinced that it would be impossibly hard to replace these two guys.

[Remianen]

well, yes I am talking strictly consoles, I think PC gaming is a niche market at least in america. I don't know many people who have the time/wits to own a gaming capable PC and keep up with upgrades and the like.

 

Heh, no. You'd be very wrong. Tell me, why push the envelope on tech if the audience is 'niche'? Does that make any sense? Consoles profit from PC advancement (unless you think nVidia, Intel, and ATi make their profits off the behind the curve chips they make for the 360/PS3/Wii) since their generational turnover is measured in half decades, not months.

 

But it also has to do with preferences. I own all of the major consoles but I'm not a console gamer. Most of my friends have specific consoles to play specific games but they're not console gamers either. There is a misconception that being a PC gamer is somehow more expensive than being a console gamer and it's false (and always has been). I have a PC that was built in 2007 that can still play today's games, on full settings (which is wholly unnecessary most of the time. Who needs lots of bloom, for example?), to this day. It might come down to the 'wits' part you mention though. If you run to Dell to price out a PC, of course it's going to look insanely expensive.

 

I'm just saying, really just thinking out my ass because it's not really an industry I follow, there doesn't seem be a shortage of people who want to make games. And I'm not convinced that it would be impossibly hard to replace these two guys.

 

Couple things: First, just having people who want to make games, doesn't mean it actually gets done. Second, people are extremely important in the creative formation of viable, high quality games. There would be no Ultima without Richard Garriott. There would be no TEW without Adam Ryland. There would be no Deus Ex or System Shock without Warren Spector. SimCity and The Sims without Will Wright? Wouldn't have happened. It's really like saying you can create the Mona Lisa without Da Vinci.

 

Making good games is very much art, though I imagine EASports would like you to believe it's a science. For example, the ideas behind the concept of Spore are so simple, you wonder why couldn't anyone make it. You look at Portal and wonder the same thing. But someone needed to bring those ideas together and that's where people come in. Going by the logic you put forth, all you need to make a good shooter is X, Y, and Z and we all know that's not the case. It's people who take X, Y, and Z and inject H and B and some shades of W to create something that fits a genre but has its own uniqueness. You can plug people in and try to replicate someone else but everyone familiar with your series is going to know something is off (since people bring their own perspectives).

 

It's really not as simple as 'just replace 'em and you're good to go'. Just ask yourself, do you think TEW would be the same (or better) if you just replaced Adam? It might sound extreme but it's very true: try to produce a human baby without any input from a woman. Sure, maybe someday it'll be possible but that someday isn't today. Making good games is very similar.

[CQI13]

 

EDIT: And Gatorbait, it depends on who those people were. If they were leads, I'd put it at 8. If it was a couple artists and some code monkeys, 4.

 

 

So far, it's been: Lead Designer, Lead Software Engineer (at the beginning of the month), and then 7 others have left as well (not all following the two others to EA, but moving to other ventures). So if I'm understanding correctly, it's 9 employees plus the two that went to EA.

[darthsiddus2]

yup I'd say Call of Duty is screwed.

[TommyDreamerFan]

Heh, no. You'd be very wrong. Tell me, why push the envelope on tech if the audience is 'niche'? Does that make any sense? Consoles profit from PC advancement (unless you think nVidia, Intel, and ATi make their profits off the behind the curve chips they make for the 360/PS3/Wii) since their generational turnover is measured in half decades, not months.

 

But it also has to do with preferences. I own all of the major consoles but I'm not a console gamer. Most of my friends have specific consoles to play specific games but they're not console gamers either. There is a misconception that being a PC gamer is somehow more expensive than being a console gamer and it's false (and always has been). I have a PC that was built in 2007 that can still play today's games, on full settings (which is wholly unnecessary most of the time. Who needs lots of bloom, for example?), to this day. It might come down to the 'wits' part you mention though. If you run to Dell to price out a PC, of course it's going to look insanely expensive.

 

 

 

Couple things: First, just having people who want to make games, doesn't mean it actually gets done. Second, people are extremely important in the creative formation of viable, high quality games. There would be no Ultima without Richard Garriott. There would be no TEW without Adam Ryland. There would be no Deus Ex or System Shock without Warren Spector. SimCity and The Sims without Will Wright? Wouldn't have happened. It's really like saying you can create the Mona Lisa without Da Vinci.

 

Making good games is very much art, though I imagine EASports would like you to believe it's a science. For example, the ideas behind the concept of Spore are so simple, you wonder why couldn't anyone make it. You look at Portal and wonder the same thing. But someone needed to bring those ideas together and that's where people come in. Going by the logic you put forth, all you need to make a good shooter is X, Y, and Z and we all know that's not the case. It's people who take X, Y, and Z and inject H and B and some shades of W to create something that fits a genre but has its own uniqueness. You can plug people in and try to replicate someone else but everyone familiar with your series is going to know something is off (since people bring their own perspectives).

 

It's really not as simple as 'just replace 'em and you're good to go'. Just ask yourself, do you think TEW would be the same (or better) if you just replaced Adam? It might sound extreme but it's very true: try to produce a human baby without any input from a woman. Sure, maybe someday it'll be possible but that someday isn't today. Making good games is very similar.

 

I'm not saying it's as easy as saying "Hey you! Janitor! You want a raise? Make me an epic game!" what I'm saying is I'm sure Activision houses other talented ideas men that now have an opportunity to step up to the plate and offer their ideas.

 

I can clearly understand why PC gaming is better, but I really think the PC gamer base is anywhere near as huge as the console. But this is coming from a person who just goes out and buys a new PC every 7-8 years or so.

[Remianen]

I'm not saying it's as easy as saying "Hey you! Janitor! You want a raise? Make me an epic game!" what I'm saying is I'm sure Activision houses other talented ideas men that now have an opportunity to step up to the plate and offer their ideas.

 

True, but like I said, it's not the same. Different people bring different ideas to the table, many of which may not 'fit' the franchise. Many people like CoD the way it is, so moving it forward to take advantage of new tech might be the only thing required to maintain and increase its success. Adding something "new" just for the sake of adding it (or because a competing title has it) may not fit the game it's being shoehorned into. That's basically what I'm talking about.

 

I can clearly understand why PC gaming is better, but I really think the PC gamer base is anywhere near as huge as the console. But this is coming from a person who just goes out and buys a new PC every 7-8 years or so.

 

Ah, but the PC gamer base encompasses every existing PC in the world, without exception. Every PC created comes with some kind of games on it (if only on Windows). If you're only counting people who actively go out and buy games specifically, that's a small fraction of the total gamer base. Remember, as much as snobs (like me at times) would like to believe that PC gaming is some kind of elite club, it's simply not true. Also, PC gaming is branching out onto alternative platforms far faster than consoles could hope to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no XBox Live iphone app, is there? There are dozens of games with apps that connect to them. Is Facebook on consoles yet? And honestly, as someone who buys a PC basically once a decade (or thereabouts), you must know that the rising price of consoles is shoving many people out of their audience, right? Are you going to spend $600 on a box of plastic that only plays games (for now) or use the box of plastic you already have that can do the same thing, better, and allow you to do other things as well (work, game, do your taxes, etc)?

 

I'm not saying the console audience isn't large. But if you have 15 million consoles in existence, that's nothing compared to the sheer number of PCs (which would easily be ten times that).

[The Masked Orange]

Little bit of a fish out of water here, but I have to agree with Remi.

 

The only thing is that commercially, a console has much better advertising and more coverage than the PC. I've only ever seen MMO's like WOW advertised on TV. Many MMO's have a bad rep with a lot of people (my mum's friend's kid thinks that only nerds play WOW, and refuses to even try it. Apparently all of his friends are the same.) and the fact that if you walk into a GAME or even Gamestation (but they don't really sell PC games now) in the UK, the most expensive non- MMO PC game is in the "3 for £9.99" section.

 

There are dozens of adverts for consoles and for their games. People are made to believe that a Console can do things much better than a PC. Currently, with look at where all the major developers money is. Console games. If they made a game the quality of COD-MW2 with the same amount of hype, potentially you could have a really big seller.

 

Another thing, people like multiplayer's. If you have four people in a house they will have a much easier time playing on the Wii with the television screen than huddling round the computer, which is normally designed for one and just one.

[Trashbear]

Sorry to weigh in on the conversation so late, hopefully I'm not being redundant.

 

In my opinion, the PC has been at the forefront of every major genre in the last twenty years, with the lone exception of platformers (Super Mario Bros., etc...). Without PC gaming, online multiplayer would be at least a decade behind, or at best a niche market.

 

But, most people view a good gaming-quality PC (a rig that can handle the latest and greatest on the market) as prohibitively expensive, especially now that the lifespan of this current generation of consoles looks to be at least two years longer than average. That is to say, 6-8 years rather than 4-6 years for a console. More and more people are willing to throw down four or five hundred bucks once or twice a decade. And for quite a number of PC users, the skills to upgrade your machine are simply lacking, making the console more attractive.

 

While the PC has influenced modern gaming to an almost incalculable degree, it simply is no longer the place to be. There are unique experiences to be had, and some genres are still better suited for the PC, but heyday of the PC gaming is behind us.

[The Masked Orange]

Sorry to weigh in on the conversation so late, hopefully I'm not being redundant.

 

In my opinion, the PC has been at the forefront of every major genre in the last twenty years, with the lone exception of platformers (Super Mario Bros., etc...). Without PC gaming, online multiplayer would be at least a decade behind, or at best a niche market.

 

But, most people view a good gaming-quality PC (a rig that can handle the latest and greatest on the market) as prohibitively expensive, especially now that the lifespan of this current generation of consoles looks to be at least two years longer than average. That is to say, 6-8 years rather than 4-6 years for a console. More and more people are willing to throw down four or five hundred bucks once or twice a decade. And for quite a number of PC users, the skills to upgrade your machine are simply lacking, making the console more attractive.

 

While the PC has influenced modern gaming to an almost incalculable degree, it simply is no longer the place to be. There are unique experiences to be had, and some genres are still better suited for the PC, but heyday of the PC gaming is behind us.

 

I hate to agree with you, but it's true. I was having this exact conversation with a code monkey friend of mine. When you look at where the big money is being thrown around in terms of the future of gaming, it's console. PC has been better mostly because it had more stuff, like the Internet and better processors etc.

 

Now you can play online from your television without ever having to touch a keyboard. You can download movies, heck you can even get BBC iPlayer. There is very little territory that the PC has left it can expand into before consoles, or that the PC already has over consoles.

 

I love PC gaming, it is the only place for games like this. But in terms od non-text based games, console's are about toleap far ahead.