The other issue (if Kotick isn't talking about the abstract, but literally ripping the cutscenes out of the game and just putting them into a video file) is that without the actual bits of gameplay, a lot of the narrative will be missing. Who the fuck is going to want to watch a movie of
"Okay, here's the score for this upcoming mission. We need to do this, this and this and will be up against this, that and that. Let's go do it"
*transition effect*
"Okay, great job on that mission, we've advanced our goals a whole lot. Okay, see everyone later."
*transition effect*
"Okay, welcome everyone for our next mission!"
You're losing out on most of the action, and all the little dialog quips in between missions that further the story along. Terrible idea for a million reasons.
'You' = Anybody who'd care to see this. Kotick doesn't give a shit about gamers, gamer culture, or anything that doesn't generate constant streams of fat sacks of cash.
I mean, you're the one that brought up interstitial dialogue as being important to the flow of the story. He's the one that stated people would/should pay twenty or thirty dollars to watch a string of CG cutscenes. His concern isn't about telling a coherent story. Not even in the games themselves. Kotick simply doesn't care.
Okay, that might make sense if you didn't ignore one of the first things I posted. which is why would anyone, gamer or not-gamer, want to watch a cut-up movie missing important bits of the narrative. It has nothing to do with what Kotick thinks of gamers: it has to do with who the fuck would pay money for such a thing. Kotick prickness is irrelevant to my argument. I'm saying it's a flawed idea because nobody is going to want to see movie that's been cut into pieces to the point where it wouldn't make sense.
I mean, if you want me to relate it to Kotick, I'm saying that such a thing would not sell to it's target audience (gamers) and definantly wouldn't sell to any other audience who would have even less tolerance for watching a movie with most of the action missing. IMO, it won't sell, which means it wouldn't make money, which IS something Kotick cares about. :P
'You' = Anybody who'd care to see this. Kotick doesn't give a shit about gamers, gamer culture, or anything that doesn't generate constant streams of fat sacks of cash.
I mean, you're the one that brought up interstitial dialogue as being important to the flow of the story. He's the one that stated people would/should pay twenty or thirty dollars to watch a string of CG cutscenes. His concern isn't about telling a coherent story. Not even in the games themselves. Kotick simply doesn't care.
Well, in fairness, we probably shouldn't be taking Kotick literally when he was referring to making a DVD composed of Starcraft II cutscenes - it's more likely that he was talking about producing an original film using the game engine as a platform (this is more clear when you read the second half of his statement).
It's still a bullshit comparison and still a bad idea, especially if you don't go into it understanding what made the game itself so appealing. Kotick really doesn't seem to grasp anything beyond 'X brand is a cash cow. Must exploit', which is how a lot of good franchises have had all of the magic squeezed out of them.
I dunno, I'm a huge blizzard fanboy and I still can't say with 100% certainly that Blizzard's decision to split SC2 into three parts wasn't due, in part at least, from Activision meddling. It just fits into Kotick's "Spam the shit out of every franchise" plan too well.
At this point, I'm just hoping the quality stays high.
That probably was Activision meddling, but look at it this way Scottsman; with all the stuff Blizzard put into the first installment of a three-part sequel, they resisted the half-assing they could've done to meet the goal. As I understand it, WoL is fucking ace.
Until you decide to play as zerg on ladder and realize that you're playing an incomplete race.
That can be fixed with balancing. Which, from blizzard track record, is ALWAYS needed on a new game. Anyone remember mutalisks in launch SC1?
They don't add new units in balance patches.
Zerg literally has about 3-4 fewer units to work with than Terran.
'You' = Anybody who'd care to see this. Kotick doesn't give a shit about gamers, gamer culture, or anything that doesn't generate constant streams of fat sacks of cash.
I mean, you're the one that brought up interstitial dialogue as being important to the flow of the story. He's the one that stated people would/should pay twenty or thirty dollars to watch a string of CG cutscenes. His concern isn't about telling a coherent story. Not even in the games themselves. Kotick simply doesn't care.
Well, in fairness, we probably shouldn't be taking Kotick literally when he was referring to making a DVD composed of Starcraft II cutscenes - it's more likely that he was talking about producing an original film using the game engine as a platform (this is more clear when you read the second half of his statement).
It's still a bullshit comparison and still a bad idea, especially if you don't go into it understanding what made the game itself so appealing. Kotick really doesn't seem to grasp anything beyond 'X brand is a cash cow. Must exploit', which is how a lot of good franchises have had all of the magic squeezed out of them.
Yeah, I think I have to agree that he's not saying literally take that stuff out of the game and put it as is. It was just more of a for instance and example that they already have hours worth of "movie" like work under their belt and that the consumers of that product like that, so taking more like that and putting it out there directly for those consumers would gain them a lot of money, and he's theorizing it would gain them a lot more money in some instances than putting it through the normal Hollywood model of making movies because they can directly sell it straight to the consumer without any sort of middleman.
Speaking of cutscenes making a movie, how'd that Red Dead TV movie do? The one where it was the first act's cutscenes shown on FOX?
Wait, what? This actually happened?
Yup.
A week before I bought the game I actually decided to use the TV to you know, watch things on it, then I see a cut scene from Red Dead Redemption, figured it had to be one of those Videogame review shows that air at crazy hours, only the cut scenes kept going on, since I was planning to buy the game I quickly turned the channel.
This Saturday at midnight (ET), Fox will air a 30-minute short film made from Red Dead Redemption. That's right -- this film was created using in-game assets. And it's not just any old basement machinima -- it's been directed by John Hillcoat (The Road) and, according to Rockstar's description, "reimagines" protagonist John Marston's, uh, redemption, as he pursues that prickly Bill Williamson.
The nation's largest video game publisher has shuffled its senior management team and realigned its internal structure without telling investors or the public.
Thomas Tippl, formerly chief financial officer and chief corporate officer, has been named to the new position of chief operating officer. He is now the only executive reporting directly to Kotick and oversees Blizzard President Mike Morhaime and the head of Activision publishing, a role he has also been filling on an interim basis.
"This is an important change as it will allow me, with Thomas, to become more deeply involved in areas of the business where I believe we can capture great potential and opportunity," Kotick said in the memo to employees.
Pretty sure it was Couscous that posted a comment or two from Tippl in the past who bragged about how every year they would repackage cleaning liquid and make people believe they had to have that version. Betting he viewed games the same way.
'You' = Anybody who'd care to see this. Kotick doesn't give a shit about gamers, gamer culture, or anything that doesn't generate constant streams of fat sacks of cash.
I mean, you're the one that brought up interstitial dialogue as being important to the flow of the story. He's the one that stated people would/should pay twenty or thirty dollars to watch a string of CG cutscenes. His concern isn't about telling a coherent story. Not even in the games themselves. Kotick simply doesn't care.
Well, in fairness, we probably shouldn't be taking Kotick literally when he was referring to making a DVD composed of Starcraft II cutscenes - it's more likely that he was talking about producing an original film using the game engine as a platform (this is more clear when you read the second half of his statement).
It's still a bullshit comparison and still a bad idea, especially if you don't go into it understanding what made the game itself so appealing. Kotick really doesn't seem to grasp anything beyond 'X brand is a cash cow. Must exploit', which is how a lot of good franchises have had all of the magic squeezed out of them.
Yeah, I think I have to agree that he's not saying literally take that stuff out of the game and put it as is. It was just more of a for instance and example that they already have hours worth of "movie" like work under their belt and that the consumers of that product like that, so taking more like that and putting it out there directly for those consumers would gain them a lot of money, and he's theorizing it would gain them a lot more money in some instances than putting it through the normal Hollywood model of making movies because they can directly sell it straight to the consumer without any sort of middleman.
From a business standpoint, I have to say that Kotick is onto something and we'll most likely see something like this happen. Most "regular" video game movies don't make money because they have to be presented to the general audience, compete with all other regular movies, etc. But what if you could target exactly those people you already know are into Warcraft? Why does Facebook make so much money - because you can sell a lot more with lower cost by targeting people who are more likely to buy your stuff. If they can knock these movies out at a low cost then I can see them making money, just look at other game add-ons like books, action figures, etc.
Very low production costs combined with addictive gameplay that encourages buying more crap. Even using ingame assets, the costs would be decent for any decent ingame crap. Really, you might as well make some shitty five dollar DC you can have your slave labor work on. You could also use Korean slave labor and make an animated movie.
'You' = Anybody who'd care to see this. Kotick doesn't give a shit about gamers, gamer culture, or anything that doesn't generate constant streams of fat sacks of cash.
I mean, you're the one that brought up interstitial dialogue as being important to the flow of the story. He's the one that stated people would/should pay twenty or thirty dollars to watch a string of CG cutscenes. His concern isn't about telling a coherent story. Not even in the games themselves. Kotick simply doesn't care.
Well, in fairness, we probably shouldn't be taking Kotick literally when he was referring to making a DVD composed of Starcraft II cutscenes - it's more likely that he was talking about producing an original film using the game engine as a platform (this is more clear when you read the second half of his statement).
It's still a bullshit comparison and still a bad idea, especially if you don't go into it understanding what made the game itself so appealing. Kotick really doesn't seem to grasp anything beyond 'X brand is a cash cow. Must exploit', which is how a lot of good franchises have had all of the magic squeezed out of them.
Yeah, I think I have to agree that he's not saying literally take that stuff out of the game and put it as is. It was just more of a for instance and example that they already have hours worth of "movie" like work under their belt and that the consumers of that product like that, so taking more like that and putting it out there directly for those consumers would gain them a lot of money, and he's theorizing it would gain them a lot more money in some instances than putting it through the normal Hollywood model of making movies because they can directly sell it straight to the consumer without any sort of middleman.
From a business standpoint, I have to say that Kotick is onto something and we'll most likely see something like this happen. Most "regular" video game movies don't make money because they have to be presented to the general audience, compete with all other regular movies, etc. But what if you could target exactly those people you already know are into Warcraft? Why does Facebook make so much money - because you can sell a lot more with lower cost by targeting people who are more likely to buy your stuff. If they can knock these movies out at a low cost then I can see them making money, just look at other game add-ons like books, action figures, etc.
Yep, that's exactly what he's on to. The "movie" would be better for fans because it's targeted to them specifically and done by the same people that do the game for the most part.
Yeah, there's something to be said of visibility if there's a ad for a SC2 movie on the main SC2 screen, with a big "Buy now" button under it.
And I've been saying pretty much exactly this. They've got people hooked onto the games and everything to do with them and they have their CC info because of the DLC stuff and with WoW the monthly payments. They're one button click away from getting the exact target market's money, whereas the movie business has to go through a huge distribution model including theatres and the movies have to be made for a general audience.
Also, someone at neogaf pointed out this. So basically Blizzard has already done exactly this, except they sold it on DVD except straight to the consumer.
I have my doubts that the cinema quality of video game movies will suddenly skyrocket if you start marketing them directly to gamers. But I tend to be cynical like that.
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
this might be getting off topic, but you counted overlords as a zerg unit? you might as well count supply depots as a terran unit.
They act as transports still, don't they?
...And scouts. And detectors. And creep generators. And they can morph into spellcasters.
There is no comparison between depots and Overlords, other than 'they both generate food'.
I have my doubts that the cinema quality of video game movies will suddenly skyrocket if you start marketing them directly to gamers. But I tend to be cynical like that.
No, the quality won't go up - but it's easier for Activision to make money (or so goes the argument) than a Hollywood studio because Activision isn't using an antiquated distribution method.
Personally, I think that if Kotick wants to milk his titles like this without them very, very rapidly losing all of their value, he needs to do some homework and at least understand what gamers like. Look at, say, a business model like Riot Games has, where they sell aesthetic in game content. That would be pretty cool and pretty successful (new skins / model tweaks to customize my armies in Starcraft? YES PLZ!)
This is where it becomes obvious that the guy is hamstrung by his own lack of interest/knowledge when it comes to the industry he chose to dive into. I mean, how can he hope to innovate - or even keep up with current innovations - when he doesn't even know what the Hell goes into a game?
Personally, I think that if Kotick wants to milk his titties like this without them very, very rapidly losing all of their value, he needs to do some homework and at least understand what gamers like.
I have my doubts that the box office of video game movies will suddenly skyrocket if you start marketing them directly to gamers. But I tend to be cynical like that.
Fixed. I really, really doubt that the box office of, say, Mortal Kombat would have increased appreciably if the game was made to appeal to the true drooling fans. Mainly because the true drooling fans would have seen it anyway, and the more casual fans don't really care if it's more game-centric.
And lest we forget: $30. Biggest box office ever. Using the same cutscenes in the game the fans already own.
I have my doubts that the box office of video game movies will suddenly skyrocket if you start marketing them directly to gamers. But I tend to be cynical like that.
Fixed. I really, really doubt that the box office of, say, Mortal Kombat would have increased appreciably if the game was made to appeal to the true drooling fans. Mainly because the true drooling fans would have seen it anyway, and the more casual fans don't really care if it's more game-centric.
And lest we forget: $30. Biggest box office ever. Using the same cutscenes in the game the fans already own.
Aside from Scorpion and Sub-Zero being mind controlled servents of Shang Tsung, the first Mortal Kombat was surprisingly accurate to the MK mythos. There was little that could have been done to target it more to fans.
Well, other than making it rated R and filling it with gore I guess...
Steel Battalion: continuing the tradition of "fuck the XBox controller."
Capcom meeting:
"OK. We need to start developing some games for the kinect. Any idea?"
"We could port some of our games."
"We already did that three years ago."
"But we didn't even know about the Kinect three years ago!"
"We're that good. Any other ideas?"
"Well, I think we should try making a sequel to one of our games that already doesn't use a lot of buttons."
"That is a stupid idea. I have a better idea. We will make a sequel to Steel Battalion. That game was a huge hit if you take the price and controller into consideration. It is the perfect fit."
"But that game used a complicated controller. How are we supposed to make a sequel to a fairly hardcore game like that that doesn't use any buttons?
"I don't know. You figure it out."
"Sigh. Yes, sir."
"Oh. Kif, you should also tie it into Resident Evil somehow. Maybe the enemies are zombie verticle tanks."
"Sir, that is crazy."
"You are right. Make them not-Spanish not-zombies. Worked well for that one game."
Posts
Okay, that might make sense if you didn't ignore one of the first things I posted. which is why would anyone, gamer or not-gamer, want to watch a cut-up movie missing important bits of the narrative. It has nothing to do with what Kotick thinks of gamers: it has to do with who the fuck would pay money for such a thing. Kotick prickness is irrelevant to my argument. I'm saying it's a flawed idea because nobody is going to want to see movie that's been cut into pieces to the point where it wouldn't make sense.
I mean, if you want me to relate it to Kotick, I'm saying that such a thing would not sell to it's target audience (gamers) and definantly wouldn't sell to any other audience who would have even less tolerance for watching a movie with most of the action missing. IMO, it won't sell, which means it wouldn't make money, which IS something Kotick cares about. :P
Well, in fairness, we probably shouldn't be taking Kotick literally when he was referring to making a DVD composed of Starcraft II cutscenes - it's more likely that he was talking about producing an original film using the game engine as a platform (this is more clear when you read the second half of his statement).
It's still a bullshit comparison and still a bad idea, especially if you don't go into it understanding what made the game itself so appealing. Kotick really doesn't seem to grasp anything beyond 'X brand is a cash cow. Must exploit', which is how a lot of good franchises have had all of the magic squeezed out of them.
Uh.
TERRAN:
Marine
Marauder
Ghost
Reaper
Hellion
Siege Tank
Thor
Banshee
Viking
Medivac
Raven
Battlecruiser
(12 Total)
ZERG
Overlord
Broodlord
Zergling
Baneling
Roach
Hydralisk
Infestor
Mutalisk
Queen
Overseer
Ultralisk
(11 Total)
...Nope. Not a '3-4' unit difference.
Man, I'm tired of the ONLY 1/3RD a RACE bullshit. Zerg are perfectly functional & viable, and the top tier players regularly demonstrate this.
Substandard FMV movies aren't officially licensed Starcraft product.
30$
Yeah, I think I have to agree that he's not saying literally take that stuff out of the game and put it as is. It was just more of a for instance and example that they already have hours worth of "movie" like work under their belt and that the consumers of that product like that, so taking more like that and putting it out there directly for those consumers would gain them a lot of money, and he's theorizing it would gain them a lot more money in some instances than putting it through the normal Hollywood model of making movies because they can directly sell it straight to the consumer without any sort of middleman.
Wait, what? This actually happened?
Yup.
A week before I bought the game I actually decided to use the TV to you know, watch things on it, then I see a cut scene from Red Dead Redemption, figured it had to be one of those Videogame review shows that air at crazy hours, only the cut scenes kept going on, since I was planning to buy the game I quickly turned the channel.
Pretty sure it was on for half an hour at least.
There's some kind of machinima available on XBL. I don't know if that's the same thing or not.
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/26/red-dead-redemption-machinima-film/
They act as transports still, don't they?
Pretty sure it was Couscous that posted a comment or two from Tippl in the past who bragged about how every year they would repackage cleaning liquid and make people believe they had to have that version. Betting he viewed games the same way.
From a business standpoint, I have to say that Kotick is onto something and we'll most likely see something like this happen. Most "regular" video game movies don't make money because they have to be presented to the general audience, compete with all other regular movies, etc. But what if you could target exactly those people you already know are into Warcraft? Why does Facebook make so much money - because you can sell a lot more with lower cost by targeting people who are more likely to buy your stuff. If they can knock these movies out at a low cost then I can see them making money, just look at other game add-ons like books, action figures, etc.
Pssst! You want some Lore? I've got some Lore. It's some real good shit, dawg.
Yep, that's exactly what he's on to. The "movie" would be better for fans because it's targeted to them specifically and done by the same people that do the game for the most part.
And I've been saying pretty much exactly this. They've got people hooked onto the games and everything to do with them and they have their CC info because of the DLC stuff and with WoW the monthly payments. They're one button click away from getting the exact target market's money, whereas the movie business has to go through a huge distribution model including theatres and the movies have to be made for a general audience.
Also, someone at neogaf pointed out this. So basically Blizzard has already done exactly this, except they sold it on DVD except straight to the consumer.
...And scouts. And detectors. And creep generators. And they can morph into spellcasters.
There is no comparison between depots and Overlords, other than 'they both generate food'.
No, the quality won't go up - but it's easier for Activision to make money (or so goes the argument) than a Hollywood studio because Activision isn't using an antiquated distribution method.
Personally, I think that if Kotick wants to milk his titles like this without them very, very rapidly losing all of their value, he needs to do some homework and at least understand what gamers like. Look at, say, a business model like Riot Games has, where they sell aesthetic in game content. That would be pretty cool and pretty successful (new skins / model tweaks to customize my armies in Starcraft? YES PLZ!)
This is where it becomes obvious that the guy is hamstrung by his own lack of interest/knowledge when it comes to the industry he chose to dive into. I mean, how can he hope to innovate - or even keep up with current innovations - when he doesn't even know what the Hell goes into a game?
I better not be the only one who saw this.
That's excellent!
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Fixed. I really, really doubt that the box office of, say, Mortal Kombat would have increased appreciably if the game was made to appeal to the true drooling fans. Mainly because the true drooling fans would have seen it anyway, and the more casual fans don't really care if it's more game-centric.
And lest we forget: $30. Biggest box office ever. Using the same cutscenes in the game the fans already own.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssss
I"m pretty damn excited personally
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Aside from Scorpion and Sub-Zero being mind controlled servents of Shang Tsung, the first Mortal Kombat was surprisingly accurate to the MK mythos. There was little that could have been done to target it more to fans.
Well, other than making it rated R and filling it with gore I guess...
Finally, I won't have to spend insane amounts of money to play it!
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
:^:
Capcom meeting:
"OK. We need to start developing some games for the kinect. Any idea?"
"We could port some of our games."
"We already did that three years ago."
"But we didn't even know about the Kinect three years ago!"
"We're that good. Any other ideas?"
"Well, I think we should try making a sequel to one of our games that already doesn't use a lot of buttons."
"That is a stupid idea. I have a better idea. We will make a sequel to Steel Battalion. That game was a huge hit if you take the price and controller into consideration. It is the perfect fit."
"But that game used a complicated controller. How are we supposed to make a sequel to a fairly hardcore game like that that doesn't use any buttons?
"I don't know. You figure it out."
"Sigh. Yes, sir."
"Oh. Kif, you should also tie it into Resident Evil somehow. Maybe the enemies are zombie verticle tanks."
"Sir, that is crazy."
"You are right. Make them not-Spanish not-zombies. Worked well for that one game."
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
That is too sane. Microsoft Flight Simulator.
I, for one, would buy a Dancing Mech game
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
How do you think Steel Battalion is going to be played?
Twitter
To contemplate that is to stare into the abyss.
Beware!
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
"Reactor; online. Sensors; online. Weapons; online. All systems nominal."
No wait wrong mech game.