EA's recent attacks on Activision and specifically the "mudslinging" aimed at Call of Duty are bad for the games business as a whole, according to Activision Publishing boss Eric Hirshberg.
"Competition is of course a good thing. It keeps us all on our toes and ultimately makes the games better. It's healthy. But it's one thing to want your game to succeed and another thing to actively, publicly say you want other games to fail," he said, according to Eurogamer.
"Recently a competitor of ours [EA CEO John Riccitiello] was quoted as saying that he wants to see Call of Duty 'rot from the core'. I've been asked countless times to respond to this comment and I've generally chosen not to. My job is to help our incredibly talented, passionate teams to make the best games they can, not to throw insults around at others. But I actually feel this kind of rhetoric is bad for our industry.
"Can you imagine the head of Dreamworks animation coming out with a new movie and going to the press and saying that he wants Toy Story to 'rot from the core'? It's kind of hard to imagine, right?"
Hirshberg went on to say publishers should concentrate on making the best games they can in a bid to grow the market, rather than negatively focusing on others.
"As someone who runs one of the biggest publishers in this business I can tell you that I want as many games as possible to succeed, whether we created them or not, because I want this industry to keep growing and bringing in new people. I believe that as many great games as this industry can make, that's how many people will buy. I say that not only as the CEO of Activision but also as a gamer.
"We shouldn't be tearing each other apart fighting for a bigger piece of the pie - we should all be focused on trying to grow a bigger pie. If we as an industry act like there's a finite number of games in the world, then there will be."
Comments
56 comments so far...
Tinseltopia on 18 Aug '11 said:
Oh come on! Bad for the industry what EA did....
So rehashing the same game every year and over-pricing it to the extreme is good for the industry? Activision genuinely annoy be with there arrogance....they know they've got one of the best selling franchises of all time...and yet they still show no respect for their customers. At least EA invest in new IP's from time to time and allow certain developers time extensions to make sure the game is perfect before release.
And I think not only EA but plenty of people want to see Call of Duty riot from the core... Un-innovative recycled crap
craiglackenby on 18 Aug '11 said:
Here is what will happen with BF3 vs CoD.
Lots of CoD only fans and casuals will buy BF as they will be bored with Blops and want another FPS.
They play it and realise it's just not that easy to pick up and play.
A lot of copies of BF will be traded in on the 5/6 of November.
RoKuShaKuBoJutSu on 18 Aug '11 said:
I think the run away success of CoD has been the most damaging thing to the game industry, more than abit of "mudslinging". This generic annually rehashed FPS is the industries biggest cash cow and developers and publishers seem afraid/hesitant to release a game without a lil bit of the CoD DNA spliced in somewhere so that the masses wont feel alienated from their comfort zone when playing a game that steps outside the square. So many reviews and articles liken games or aspects of games to CoD, it's boring and unfortunate. It's a shame that REAL magic and creativity displayed in gems like Portal 2, SotC and ICO aren't industry cash cows, cause then we would have more innovation instead of what we have now.
StonecoldMC on 18 Aug '11 said:
Welcome back evil Electronic Arts*, weve missed you!
*Remember what the ethos of Electronic Arts was when it first started and the irony wont be lost on you.
StonecoldMC on 18 Aug '11 said:
Jebus almighty people!
Give it up with the COD Hate.
OK, you think its just a yearly rehash and is damaging the industry. Dont buy it then!
It may be out anually but it has a 2 year dev process just like UC3 and Gears 3, split over 2/3 teams.
I can remember when it was EA that were derided and generated the most Hate for a Publisher, although we didnt have the internet to vent our Fury and Anger
.
Everything changes, it always stays the same.
c3dpo on 18 Aug '11 said:
And you sir annoy me with your arrogance!
EA have been doing this since the dawn of time, and more so than any other publisher!
Blur = Original IP I think :p though, the trouble is too many muppets just lap up the over commercialized games, take Alan Wake for example, beautifully crafted game but sales didn't do much
verynaughtyboy on 18 Aug '11 said:
Although I don't buy COD games since COD4 I am sure it's still a great game and I'm not going to diss it. On topic though I don't think Activision have a leg to stand on because the worst thing for the business is Booby Kotick! (The Booby was a mistake but I thought I'd keep it)
Ali_ on 18 Aug '11 said:
That's how EA shifted 1.5 million copies of Medal Of Honor last year.
As for CoD players buying BF3, I'd rather they didn't. I've never experienced a game that attracts such offensive, in bred, racist, sexist, homophobic, knuckle draggers. BF3 will be better off without them.
Mind you, the joy of being an experienced BF player and pwning they're repulsive asses for a week hasn't been lost on me...
MattyR95 on 18 Aug '11 said:
I hope COD rots from the core as well. But EA's comments are making activision sound better because they can take the morale highground and make EA look like dicks.
Stryker89 on 18 Aug '11 said:
Hear, hear!
lmimmfn on 18 Aug '11 said:
Awwww, Activation is the poor little underdog in all this. How cute.
YouStoleMyKill on 18 Aug '11 said:
“Here is what will happen with BF3 vs CoD. Lots of CoD only fans and casuals will buy BF as they will be bored with Blops and want another FPS.They play it and realise it's just not that easy to pick up and play. A lot of copies of BF will be traded in on the 5/6 of November.”
why would anyone trade it in 5/6 november
i could of sworn mw3 is released 8th november worldwide
STE MO on 18 Aug '11 said:
My dads bigger then yours!
CJG on 18 Aug '11 said:
Activision and EA... a match made in hell. Seriously, how can anyone support the actions of these two slime balls?
coruscant on 18 Aug '11 said:
It's funny how Battlefield fanboys bash CoD games for being very similar to each other when Battlefield does exactly the same thing, "We've got even better destructible environments this time" e.t.c
TheLastDodo on 18 Aug '11 said:
+1
BUT to be fair, not all CoD players are like this. Thankfully there's a mute button for those "people".
I don't understand why anyone would truly care about this "war of words", it's just harmless banter between two competitors, thats all. Activision aren't saints either, remember the "Our game runs at 60 FPS" story? Exactly so don't take it all so seriously, there is no out & out "good guy" in this "war". No need for childish boycotts or petitions from "outraged" forumites either.
EA and Activision been dicks to each other won't result in Battlefield 3 or Modern Warfare 3 being better or worse games so let them get on with their mudslinging for the next few months and buy whichever game takes your interest most (or buy both).
Multiplayerking on 18 Aug '11 said:
EA Sports - It's no longer in the game.
humanhand on 18 Aug '11 said:
I don't trust Activision, even when they're taking the moral high ground. Which I'm sure is a calculated PR move anyway.
casshern09 on 18 Aug '11 said:
personally I'm happy for CoD to stay where it is. It doesn't affect me at all. I haven't liked it for a long time, being a PC gamer I stopped playing at MW2 after the complete fail that game was released in, unbalanced weapons, broken perks, no dedicated servers. The hackers literally owned that game and still do.
Black Flops, oh man, my flat mate bought that and couldn't run it (even on a high end rig) for about 5 months because of the poor state it was released in.
personally I have always prefered BF games. I much prefer the team ethics of it and find the people playing it to be more mature, (for the most part) But mostly I like it because you can't just pick it up and rack up a huge kill streak with little to no skill.
I don't want CoD to fail, mostly because I don't want the people who play that to come and play BF3. It ruined it when BFBC2 first came out, all the little CoD kiddies sat on the hill playing recon and whinging cos you have to actually aim and lead your target. Stay where you are guys, BF players are happy without you.
Very_Silver_Ownz on 18 Aug '11 said:
You know if BF was the big seller and released every year with no change people would hate on it too. CoD haters will be first in line for MW3 which is the funny thing.
Orox on 18 Aug '11 said:
I actually agree with him. These guys are highly paid executives but come off sounding like school children throwing stupid insults at one another, thus fueling the rabid man-child fanboys.
Leave it out, Just make the f'king games.
KK-Headcharge78 on 18 Aug '11 said:
Like Dodo says it horses for courses with big rivals, it's all the more childish as the BF and COD kids lap this s**t up (as some have demonstrated in this post) What is more incredulous, pathetic and total b*****ks is this holier than thou idea that people who play COD cannot or are no good at playing BF, utter s**t. The games are very similar with respect to controls although the strategy is differenty it is neither hard in each game nor demanding of huge skill as in games such as Halo (I may not like it but it is challenging) Guitar Hero, Trials HD, Streetfighter 4 CE online, Super Meat Boy or back in the day with games like Shinobi, R-Type or Ghouls and Ghosts. I would wager most of the people who play BF also play COD, and some of the people who play COD will play BF simply due to the relative user base of each franchise.
I wouldl't say how good I am at BF or COD, I'll leave that to cretins who think it is important, but I know for a fact that I don't find one more challenging than the other at all.
lordirongut on 18 Aug '11 said:
Jesus Christ Activision just can't win with you people can they? EA are just as bad as Activision for the yearly rehashes - they have an entire division dedicated to them FFS - EA Sports!
The chap from Activision is right. Wanting your thing succeed is cool. Wanting something else to fail isn't cool.
Now can we please concentrate on the new Great Evil which is Ubisoft and their draconian DRM?
PS3Tard on 18 Aug '11 said:
And knocking out rehashes of the same old sh!t year after year is a positive boon to the industry isn't it.
gmcb007 on 18 Aug '11 said:
You know what? I wish both sides would just shut the hell up. They're getting on like this is a bloody election. They should look around Gamescom and see what else is being shipped out between their games. If anything their games are on the same level as Batman AC, U3, Oblivion and so forth.
pRM8 on 18 Aug '11 said:
I don't particularly 'like' either EA or Activision for many reasons but for me it comes down to this: Which one of them do I dislike the least?
And at the moment that would be EA as some of the Devs they have are working on some great titles that I am very interested in, the same cannot be said of Activision. If Activision developed a game that interested me then I would be ready to buy it but they are not.
Regarding the 'rehashing' of sports titles, well I feel sports games need a game every year due to the many changes involved with sports clubs, players, data etc. You might argue that all that info could be updated through a patch or some DLC but if they are making the actual game and gameplay better along with all the up-to-date info then what's the problem? Over the last few years FIFA has made massive strides and arguably gone from 'the same old s**te' underdog from PES to leader in the genre. A simple rehash as some of you suggested wouldn't have made that possible and neither would a 3 year development cycle.
almanac2015 on 18 Aug '11 said:
To an extent I agree. Competition really needs to be seen in a more friendly light - it seems so adversarial at times.
Though at the same time bleeding franchises dry with yearly releases also hurts the industry.
Ali_ on 18 Aug '11 said:
I don't hate CoD, just the minority of obsessive people it attracts. I still play it from time to time, but comparing it to even the current Bad Company games is like comparing Ridge Racer with GT5. It's an incredibly simplistic arcade shooter with small levels and only superficial depth. Sometimes, I'm in the mood for that,and it lasts 15 minutes before I remember why I don't play it anymore!
The Living End on 18 Aug '11 said:
I really don't understand why people take issue with Activision milking CoD, put in the executive seat any one would do the same, or they wouldn't be there very long. How long you think a CEO would last if they said "no we aren't going to release this game thats guaranteed to become the biggest selling game ever"
It doesn't hurt the industry at all, the creative innovators will still innovate, the fact is, this is what people want, if it wasn't then it wouldn't be smashing records every year. It might not be what the vocal minority want, but make no mistake, we are the minority. Millions of people are perfectly happy with the yearly CoD release.
CoD alone has sold more consoles outside of Japan than any of the respective exclusives. I don't know how that qualifies it as harmful to gaming.
I'll close by saying I won't be buying MW3 or BF3, the ridiculous amount of coverage they have both recieved has put me off both of them.
Mastermue on 18 Aug '11 said:
Yes..mud slinging is bad...just like when Activision fired West and Zampella (founders of IW and creators of CoD) and not paid them their royalties from MW2 or when they dropped Brutal Legend and then when EA decided to publish it claimed they still had the rights to publish giving us one of the very best responses to the Bobby squad. "We doubt that Activision would try to sue. That would be like a husband abandoning his family and then suing after his wife meets a better looking guy."
Yes, Activision are clearly the shining light in games publishing..oh sorry meant to say whining sh*te....
widgy82 on 18 Aug '11 said:
actually growing pies is a hobby of mine, they should make a pie growing simulator
MysticR on 18 Aug '11 said:
This personifies what I hate about a lot of online comments, and indeed the deep-rooted ideology in many British people. By this, I mean the bashing of anything that becomes big, popular and otherwise not the underdog, with no discernible reason other than "everyone likes it so I don't." I've got a friend with this mindset, mostly with an anti-iPhone slant, but it's typical of many.
I'm a gamer, and have been for about 19 of my nearly 25 years. Due to general life getting in the way, I'm not able to play as much as I'd like nowadays, but still get in a few hours every week. I bought Call of Duty 4, played it a great deal, and then moved on to MW2, which is also a great game, and in my opinion offers an even more enjoyable multiplayer experience than its predecessor. I can understand that some may want a 'purer' gameplay experience, but that's no reason to bash what is a supremely enjoyable piece of entertainment. I don't own the PC version, so can't comment on the problems raised above, but I get a huge amount of pleasure from it, nearly two years on.
Every online game suffers from, if you'll excuse the pun, certain insufferable members of our 'community.' I've spent many hours playing Halo 3, and the same can be said for that as it can Call of Duty, and I'm sure Battlefield and many others. COD just has more players, so I guess the proportion is a little higher. That mute button is easy to press, though, and it's actually easy to find a game with no one speaking at all.
As you may have guessed, I don't own a Battlefield title. Does that mean I'm a COD fanboy? Of course not; there's a strong possibility I'll give 3 a try, as I'm sure many will.
Call of Duty may be out every year, but considering each incarnation has an entirely new setting, multiplayer features and set pieces, this is a pretty good offering from a company that is in the money-making business (that would be all firms, then). For a guaranteed cash cow, to overuse the phrase, they could ship a far worse product and still rake in the cash.
This brings me back to the original article; rather than focus on what the Activision CEO has actually said, many rather foolish posters have chosen to focus on their puerile bashing of his company and its biggest hit. His was actually a very eloquent and dignified speech; the public bashing that has come out of EA's camp has been deeply unprofessional and childish. It can do the industry no good whatsoever, and is an extraordinarily cheap tactic. Rely on the merits of your own efforts, not the perceived negatives of the competition. This playground is big enough for them to keep their distance if they dislike one another.
Uzi77 on 18 Aug '11 said:
If we're talking Publishers here, and not DICE or IW, then really EA has the upper hand. Perhaps I'm wrong, but didn't Activision f**k over the IW devs with payments etc? Has EA done this? When it comes to Publishers, Activision are hardly the Angels here.
TheLastDodo on 18 Aug '11 said:
@MysticR: You conveniently forget to mention that Activision have also participated in this "mudslinging war" with EA but I'll take it that it was just a mistake.
Both sides do things that are bad for the industry, from online passes to shutting down games and their studios because they either failed/couldn't be "annualized". Hell if people cared so much about things that are "bad for the industry" then no one would ever buy Rockstar games, going on with what has happened during development of RDR and L.A Noire.
Honestly if anyone truly cares about two of the biggest publishers trash talking each other, trying to get any little advantage over their competition that they can, then they've got way too much time on their hands.
I enjoy both BF and CoD and it doesn't matter what EA or Activision say about each other, I'll be getting both games at some point, y'know why? Because Sledgehammer telling me that BF3 won't run at 60 FPS on consoles won't make BF3 any less fun and it won't make that Caspian Border trailer any less impressive. Does EA banging on about Frostbite 2.0 every 10 minutes or about CoD "rotting at the core" detract from how much fun I'll have playing mike myers with mates in MW3? No it doesn't.
Just stop caring so much about things that are so insignificant, it's harmless trash talking, nothing more and nothing less (for now).
I can't wait till November to join the 15,000,000 other people that also won't give a s**t about this "mudslinging" because they'll be too busy playing BF3 and MW3.
You guys can stay on here and pretend to get all outraged at nothing at all.
KK-Headcharge78 on 18 Aug '11 said:
This.
KK-Headcharge78 on 18 Aug '11 said:
Very well put, sadly it won't be wholly recieved that way. Sadly in a few years BF will be in exactly the same positon probably, well not sadly for me as I'll still be bumming both
eXciSioNz on 18 Aug '11 said:
will people stop crying! i see alot of BF fanboys saying only children play cod when tbh, your the ones crying over a GAME! grow up, people buy what ever game they f**king want, it doesnt make them a worse gamer or a better gamer, its just a f**king game! in the end it comes down to preference, do you like realism? battlefield is for you, do you like fast paced cinematic action? play cod, simple now stop crying and get a life.
TG Rusty Monk on 18 Aug '11 said:
Oh sure! Because DICE doesnt make a new engine every 4 years, where as Activision, are still running CoD on a HEAVILY uprated version of iD tech 3 (with iD tech 4 elements thrown in) that was made for Quake 3 back in 2000! How is battlefield the same game every time?
They started with 1942 (WWII for the unknowning), then moved onto Vietnam (not the expansion to BC2, this was its own game), then moved it to modern day with BF2, then futuristic with BF 2142. Now back to modern day with a big bang and better features. If you still think its the same, go look at the new multiplayer vid 'Caspion Borders' shown at GamesCon, and tell me how CoD can be called a new game when BF strives to innovate something. Ive played all the CoD's since 1 on the PC in 2003, and since CoD4:MW, the game hasnt changed much since, i refuse to buy MW3 as it doesnt try anything new.
The reason i dont include the Bad Company splinter series, is because it was more of a tech test (mainly testing the console's limits). It was a series designed to draw the interest of console gamers, up until then, no BF had a single player mode, and to be fair, never needed one.
To make it clear, im not a CoD hater, i LOVE the first two and 4:MW, they are great games, but i fall for the same story that its different, its new and its better, but in truth, its the same game every year with a few extra's tacked on. Ive tried being loyal and its not payed off. BF has treated me better, oh and it never asked me to pay for a single map they gave as DLC, CoD... well lets just say either rich kids pay for those maps or people get into debt over it, they are outrageous.
theideal on 18 Aug '11 said:
Why are people getting bent out of shape over what a couple of suits say to each other?
It's game development, not Coronation Street. Who gives a s**t?
Just buy the one you like, ignore the one you don't... Or, god forbid, buy both.
liveswired on 18 Aug '11 said:
Maybe so, but at least EA support staff and are proud of their work instead of destroy them like Activision.
ZeroTime on 18 Aug '11 said:
That is a terrible reason to not buy a game.
craiglackenby on 18 Aug '11 said:
@Ali_ I thought MoH sold 5 million +
vulcanraven01 on 18 Aug '11 said:
Not a fan of Activision or EA.
EA should not have made comments like that though.
The problem is that Activision is becoming what EA used to be; a horrible company ruining the games industry with overpriced rehashed games.
Yes, EA still pump out yearly updates of titles, but they have invested in many new IP's, and are slowly reviving older franchaises for the modern generation of gamers.
I think EA feel threatened, and unfortunately, more people will buy the new COD over BF3, because that's what they want.
I personally hate the COD games. It's generic FPS action, but so many people have been brought into gaming thanks to COD, so I can see the good side.
End of the day, we can complain about games like COD all we want, but if people keep buying them and paying higher prices, then they will keep being pumped out year after year.
In the mean time, I'll be buying, playing and supporting the games I like.
KK-Headcharge78 on 18 Aug '11 said:
Eh?
KK-Headcharge78 on 18 Aug '11 said:
Nice name, sadly that's about it.
CJG on 18 Aug '11 said:
Do you have a list of absolute reasons not to buy a game?
sonic_uk on 18 Aug '11 said:
Greed i' vision are absolute c*&^s and deserve to rot from the core. They deserve everything they get. I can't believe this is the same company that made the excellent Enduro on the Atari 2600 (my favourite Atari 2600 game of all time). A lot has changed since then, for the worse I'm afraid.
TheLastDodo on 18 Aug '11 said:
Personally I do but I'm not sharing them, you'll have to get your own.
Only thing is my reasons are because they directly impact the quality of a game, nothing EA or Activision have said about each other will directly impact the quality of their games in a negative way.
Anyway I've changed my mind now, I'm not buying BF3 or MW3 because the milkman didn't show up on time today, meaning I couldn't have Coco Pops for breakfast. The selfish b***ard.
Yeah it makes no sense but if other people can have their own stupid reasons then I can have one too.
The Living End on 19 Aug '11 said:
No it isn't, the coverage has bored me to the point that i'm not interested in playing them, they will probably both be really good, but i'm not going to buy them just so they can sit in my collection not being played.
Since when has disinterest in a game been a bad reason not to buy it?
TheLastDodo on 19 Aug '11 said:
Why is a game getting publicity a good reason not to buy it?
You said before you were interested in both but because of the coverage you won't be getting either now.
It's not the games fault that CVG, IGN, gamespot etc are going OTT with their coverage of both games nor will all this coverage detract from the quality of the finished products.
The Living End on 20 Aug '11 said:
I never said the coverage would affect the quality. But the point you seem to be missing is that I am not interested in these games anymore. The publicity is not my reason for skipping them, my own disinterest is. Whatever the cause of that lack of interest is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that i'm not buying games I have no interest in playing.
TheLastDodo on 20 Aug '11 said:
So you said you were interested in both of them yesterday but the "coverage" has put you off.
You then say the "publicity" isn't the reason but your own disinterest is.
So which is it?
Irrelevant as it might seem to you, I'd like to know how you came to be interested in something and then lost that interest for seemingly no reason at all.
If I could learn to think like you then it would help curb the impulsive habit I have when it comes to buying games.
wasted-again on 21 Aug '11 said:
Call of Duty has done more to bring adult males into the video game market than any other game franchise around today. And it's not that long since all the Activision haters were hating on EA and their popular games. As for those who who go on about COD being the same game every year? Grow up, I don't see you sending letters to Ford telling them to stop making Fiestas and Escorts, because they're just the same cars, year after year, or telling your bosses that your work is rubbish because it's the same thing you do week after week, and they should sack you...
TheLastDodo on 21 Aug '11 said:
Ford, year after year, find new ways to improve their Escorts and Features, whether its by adding new safety features, making them more "green friendly" or just by adding new features so why would anyone complain about Ford?
gmcb007 on 24 Aug '11 said:
What..the..I don't even.
Cars are a very bad example., I mean not much people buy a new car annually. Like Dodo said, Ford update and improve their models and FLAWS. You're whole comment is quite frankly, stupid. Oh and btw, the Escort hasn't been made for 10 odd years!
lordirongut on 25 Aug '11 said:
In his defense, the point is still valid. Perhaps iPods would have been a better example - they are released year on year with minimal improvements and noone complains about that. And if you're gonna call someone stupid, then get you're/your grammar right