So it seems that Activision have put the staff of Bizarre Creations on ninety days notice. The studio is not, as many rushed to report, being “closed down”, at least not yet. It is in line for some drastic action though, and that is never a pleasant experience for anyone, in any job, to go through.
Basically, Activision owns the studio (because the previous owners sold up when they decided they’d rather have the cash than the control – a popular business decision). For whatever reason, Activision no longer see it as a viable business proposition and wish to sell it on, restructure it or possibly close it altogether. That’s often what happens in business. Since Activision owns the studio, it’s their prerogative to do what they wish with it. That doesn’t make the situation any less uncomfortable for the employees who face the possibility of redundancy.
Let’s be perfectly clear: we all wish the very best for the talented people at Bizarre Creations. We think (from our distant viewpoint) that, although a number of their recent titles have been a little underwhelming (for whatever reason), they have done some solid work and probably could have been supported a lot better by the marketing wing at Activision. The uncertainty they now find themselves in is a terrible shame and we sincerely hope that they come out of it stronger and more successful than before.
It’s easy to immediately jump on the ever-popular bandwagon of vehemently criticising Activision for their presence in this situation. In fact, it’s not just easy, it’s lazy. Some people jumped on the story last night (GMT) and pressed for as much conflict and sensationalism as they could from the situation, misreporting aspects at will and without shame. They will probably continue to do so for the rest of today, possibly tomorrow and a few more times before the story draws to a conclusion. Then they will move on to the next sensationalist headline and forget about the talent at Bizarre Creations who have had to relocate, retrain or rethink their careers because of this situation.
That brand of journalism, often celebrated by many of the big names in the UK business, is lazy, harmful and damaging to the entire industry. But it attracts attention and that is what certain outlets crave because, ultimately, attention translates to notoriety and traffic. And that’s what pays the bills.
Please don’t misunderstand; we’re not the biggest fans of how Activision goes about certain aspects of their business. In a perfect world we wouldn’t have multiple rhythm games released in the same year under the “Hero” branding. We would have more original IP and more support for smaller development teams who can keep a stake in their own ideas. In that perfect world we’d like to see smart games that are outside of the few massive franchises get a little more affection from the marketing teams. But it’s not a perfect world and we don’t own any development studios. Activision does.
Was releasing Blur in the same week as Split/Second and Modnation Racers a wise decision by the publisher? Probably not. Was releasing Blood Stone in the same week as Goldeneye and Call of Duty: Black Ops, with barely any visible marketing at all, a wise decision? Again, probably not. But those were decisions that Activision could afford to make because they bought the company. Why are we not crying foul of the people who sold their, previously incredibly successful, studio to Activision?
Let’s address the Bobby Kotick situation too, while we’re looking in that direction. It seems to be every ardent gamer’s second favourite hobby to bash Kotick at every given opportunity. We’ve even poked fun at some of his (often out-of-context) quotes ourselves from time to time. The constant criticism he finds himself under though, is mostly unwarranted. He’s not a gamer, he’s a CEO. He doesn’t care about games from a consumer’s perspective. He’s a businessman whose strategies, like it or not, have made his company an awful lot of money. That’s what he does, exceptionally well.
When Bobby Kotick talks about raising the price of games or potentially exploiting the fan base for subscription-based services he isn’t talking to you, or us. He’s talking to the people who have some investment in his company. He’s talking about the potential he sees for doing his job even better than he has been. He’s talking about selling a product. Yes, that product happens to be one that we care about very much but it’s his product to sell and if we don’t approve of how it’s sold we can simply refuse to buy it (thus endangering more of the development studios we can then champion as they go out of business, by the way). We don’t, in spite of all the self-righteous bluster, stop buying Activision-published games.
Bobby Kotick isn’t the demonic figure huge numbers of gamers (and the gaming press) seem to wish he was. He’s just a guy trying to do his job in the most efficient way possible. But where are the sensationalist headlines in that?
It’s doubtful that there’s anything more sinister going on at Activision than goes on at any number of other huge global publishers (It’s almost impossible to find a global publisher who hasn’t made lay-offs in the past few months). So what’s the difference? Well, Activision Blizzard is probably the biggest. They make huge amounts of money via a number of massively popular franchises (Call of Duty, the “Hero” games, World of Warcraft) and they have a CEO who isn’t afraid to say what he thinks his colleagues, competitors and investors should hear.
They are (at least one of) the largest publishers in the world because the games that Activision publishes are the most popular in the world, purchased by tens of millions of gamers. So how come they’re restructuring and/or closing studios? Because we, very generally, only buy games from the few most popular franchises. It’s a (perhaps sad, for some) fact that making and selling video games is a business. If they only did it for the love they’d have to live in abject poverty.
As much as we can appreciate the quality that has existed in much of Bizarre Creation’s catalogue, the simple truth is that if Blur had sold as many discs as Black Ops there wouldn’t be a problem at all. This might be put down to a number of things – did Activision support them enough with marketing? Did they allow enough time? Did they invest in the studio enough during development? Perhaps, perhaps not. It’s impossible for us to know just now but what we can be sure of is that, although things are uncertain for them at the moment, the talent at Bizarre Creations will find security once more. The cream always rises to the top.
djhsecondnature
On the Kotick issue it is perfectly warranted. Granted, he is a CEO without a care from a consumers perspective, he is a business. We are the consumer without a care for the business side of things, therefore I see no reason why it is unfair to bash him, if he does things that we, the consumers, don’t like. The reasons behind whatever decisions or comments he makes aren’t hugely valid if as a consumer you disagree. Granted you can, and I often do, understand those decisions, but that doesn’t mean I like it or have to agree with it. The examples given of his wanting to ‘raise the price of games’ is a perfect one. Yes, it would be a sound business decision financially, but the failure to explore, or at least vocally confirm the exploration, of other options is what infuriates me. Rather than support more IPs, thus potentially selling more games and increasing overall revenue, Kotick wishes to raise the price of the already hugely successful franchise as people will still buy them. That is why it is warranted.
cc_star
Blur is such a new IP, and one they backed heavily, certainly more than any other they’ve released this year.
Activion’s stated aim is to create, acquire & maintain profitable franchises – this is their whole reason for being in business, its the top, bottom, back & front of everything they do. Once people get their heads around that, they understand Activision, as indeed you do but any increase in prices is thoroughly researched and the market will never pay more than the market will want to pay (its one of the cornerstone of the capitalist world that Bobby & Acti occupy)
I don’t want to pay more & I’m not sure what the answer is, perhaps the alternative would be to follow EA’s project ten dollar, but given the bad press that gets, the general negative sentiment towards Activision would be even worse.
colossalblue
as a consumer it is warranted to complain if you feel that you’re not getting the support or service that you pay for when purchasing a product. It’s even acceptible, as a consumer, to rail against proposed price increases.
As an industry commenter (which I thought you were trying to become?) it is incredibly naive to ignore the fact that, as with any massive global business, there will be a drive for profitability and the business side is a neccessary part of that, even if we don’t approve or enjoy it. If everyone did their jobs only for the passion then noboy would be getting paid and ultimately we wouldn’t have an industry at all.
djhsecondnature
Oh I’m not ignoring it, and never stated otherwise. I even mentioned in my comment that I understood the actions taken by Kotick. That doesn’t mean I have to like it though.
JesseDeya
The thing about a having an instantly connected global community like the internet, is that a CEO can no longer hide atop his ivory tower and make harsh decisions whilst remaining faceless. Twenty years ago maybe, but not today.
So with great power, comes great reponsibility (I just made that up, honest), and Kotick is responsible at least partially for how people view his company – good or bad. He wouldn’t have the reputation as an arrogant prick if he took the time to not be one, so clearly he is reaping what he sows.
There are plenty of CEOs in the world who ARE involved in the primary business of their companies and HAVE come from related backgrounds. Typically these people can relate at least in part to their customers and that traditionally goes a long way for consumer confidence if not necessarily shareholder profit. Kotick may have good business acumen, but what he built so quickly could also crumble so quickly and when that happens he will find himself very alone. And surrounded by money. Prick.
DannyFantango
90 days notice is a long time, I was given a 30 days risk of redundancy HR51 form and have and to sit around for a couple of weeks and wait for information to come in.
Basically, it seems that they will let people go to reduce the operating costs, or restructure the office completely.
I am hoping that this situation can be worked out for the studio, but I suspect a lot of job cuts will happen if the company isn’t closed down.
BrendanCalls
Notice depends on the number of people you are making redundant. I think over 100 means a minimum of 90 days anything less is a minimum of 30 days
Im not toally certain of the number but its about right
DJ-Katy
Ultimately though, among that swathe of backpedalling and cocksucking (and yes I’m entitled to my opinion, sorry Peter, nothing personal), you did come out with the core fact:
“He’s not a gamer, he’s a CEO. He doesn’t care about games from a consumer’s perspective.”
There are two types of CEOs. There are the ones who care about money and producing good product for their customers, and there are the ones who just care about money.
Bobby Kotick is the latter. If you have no passion for gaming and you’re not a gamer, why the hell are you in the games industry? I don’t see Richard Branson regularly pimping to his shareholders how they are gonna raise the price of plane tickets and soda, do you?
Yes, Kotick has been oft-misquoted and maligned, but he’s still a dick. If you’re not interested in your product or the welfare of your consumers you have no place being a CEO.
djhsecondnature
Well said :-)
Tuffcub
Stop vanishing girl I was getting worried!
colossalblue
No backpedalling anywhere here, and no undue praise. I just tried looking at the situation practically rather than rushing to agree with the blind consensus. I think this piece, moreso than anything else I’ve seen written about Acti or Kotick, is much more balanced and fair to all sides.
As for your two types of CEO: That’s rubbish. The only “two types” are those that do what they can to further their brand and increase their company’s profit and those that are unemployed.
Basically, your comment (personal insult and all) are exactly what I would expect in response to this piece. I just didn’t expect it from you.
Tuffcub
I can’t stand Kotick just because he looks like the ginger kid from RugRats.
DJ-Katy
I’m full of surprises.
And I strongly disagree. You can increase your profit without sacrificing your integrity. Isn’t that what you’re trying to do with TSA? You are the CEO of a one-man company. Are you going to care about the end product or focus on the profit?
No personal insult, it was a comment on the tone of the article, not the author.
colossalblue
yes Katy, that’s my aim with my business. I could have been much more successful, much sooner by following a different route though. And there’s no guarantee that my route is going to be successful at all (it doesn’t seem to have worked for anyone else yet). I am following that route because I care about the end product but plenty that don’t (seem to) care about their public perception are much more successful than I.
So using my hopeful model in comparison against Activision’s hugely successful one is a stretch too far.
DJ-Katy
Yeah, but what I’m saying is, in terms of CEO attitude, the actual size of the business doesn’t matter; the business is run according to the boss’s guiding principles.
If Bobby had behaved in the manner you wish to with TSA, he may well have been less successful. And why exactly does that matter to us as gamers and consumers? The games will still have been produced, or at least most of them. What should be more important to us? Consumer welfare, or one man’s greed?
colossalblue
it doesn’t (and shouldn’t) matter to us as consumers. This piece was written looking in the direction of industry commenters, rather than consumers, as it is them who perpetuate and promote the often unwarranted negativity.
If your job is to talk about how the industry works then your constant lack of understanding as to how and why Activision works as they do is either a symptom of you being really bad at your job or it’s a deliberate attempt to garner negativity for notoriety.
Of course, as I stated in this piece, I would like to see Acti work differently. I’d love to have seen Singularity suported more at market and Blur and Blood Stone were, in my opinion, very badly timed at release. I think they sold the developers short with that. But as a company they are no less successful for their shareholders so their CEO, in simple terms, is doing a great job. Whether I (or anyone else) likes him personally or not.
DJ-Katy
Oh I’m not disputing he’s brilliant at his job in terms of reaching his own personal goals (wealth, we have to assume). I also fully agree what you wrote about Bizarre Creations and I do think Activision at least here in Norway did a good job marketing Blur.
He is however a terrible poster child for a CEO who cares about his customers though, a terrible poster child for what our industry should stand for, and I think industry commentators whose audience is consumers (ie. gaming sites and magazines, as opposed to business-like publications like MCV) have every right to bash him if they think he is putting money over consumers to be perfectly honest with you. Why shouldn’t they?
I would be pretty annoyed if I saw Gamasutra or MCV slagging off Kotick, because their job is to just present the facts (and figures) to the industry insiders or however you want to put it. On the other hand, consumer-oriented gaming journalism is, I think, supposed to stick up for the consumer and point out as vehemently as is necessary when a company or individual is acting contrary to the consumer’s interests. And I don’t think there is any doubt that personal wealth accumulation at the expense of innovation and investment in R&D is detrimental to consumers.
It is on this basis I said he is a dick and I think we have every right to point out his behaviour every time he goes mouthing off to impress his shareholders.
Activision might get bad press without fair reason nowadays at times, but it started for a good reason, the same as when EA were being bashed some years ago for just churning out their yearly tweaked sports franchises. EA took heavy flak for a long time as you know, and much of it was deserved from a consumer perspective. EA’s bad press disappeared when it demonstrated a _perceived_ change of attitude.
Square Enix has pushed out a real load of dodgy games lately among a small number of good ones, and they’ve laid off staff and closed studios. They don’t get any bad press, because for the time being we at least seem to believe they do have their customers and games at heart. Kotick destroyed that impression of Activision all by himself by shooting his mouth off on multiple occasions, so I’m sure (I hope anyway) the other consumer publications understands that Activision is a business, but you can’t blame them for hating on him.
bunimomike
Katy – I normally agree with you on most things (similar outlook on the industry, maybe) but there’s a stark difference with CEOs of big business (that seems to apply most of the time).
I’ve had the (dis)pleasure of dealing with some pretty massive companies and find that CEOs of large companies are often insanely money motivated. It often precludes and compromises the allowance of passion and the “right reasons” that many of us here wish for. The very reason they’re at the top of their game is their competitive nature and ability to look after investors/shareholders/employees/etc. Sure, there’ll be a board of directors (most of the time) but they’ll still want this single-minded focussed individual to look after the company’s future and that’s nearly always about the almighty {insert currency here}.
Thankfully we have the Bransons of this world to show us it needn’t always be this way but he’s a rare one in comparison. It’s almost like the situation we have with politicians. Most of the time it takes someone truly motivated (and sometimes power hungry enough) to make it into the cabinet or position of PM. Sadly, these are then the last sort of folk we want because they’ve very rarely cared about anyone but themselves for a very long time. Same goes for SEOs of truly massive businesses (from my experience in the last 16 years working with some of these bods).
They’ve got there because of their very nature and ability to grow the business into something financially awesome. Sadly, it’s often coupled with a disregard for the consumer. :-(
This is my take on things, at least. :-)
cc_star
He is interested in games & gaming… this is just yet another Internet rent-a-myth.
Sure he may not pull an all-nighter, or spend all day on the internet willing GT5 to be released, but the volume bullshit written about this man is incredible, and because negative articles get more page impressions than positive ones the bullshit permeates, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bobby started to believe it himself, whilst he’s got his joypad in hand – in the 2mins of downtime he must get in a day.
nofi
His interview in a recent Edge was quite telling. Seems like a genuine gamer, who has to laugh off all the negative trash written about him.
Tuffcub
Still has bad hair.
BrendanCalls
With bad hair, comes bad press
solidsteven
With bad hair comes great responsibility.
Michael
Yeah, the Edge interview was quite interesting. He sold himself as a gamer, albeit one who has so many other responsibilities that he can’t play a huge amount any more.
Forrest_01
Better than just ‘selling himself’ i suppose! :)
cc_star
I’m still trying to think of a racer which received the backing of its publisher like Blur did Activision, sure its may not be Bizarre’s fault that Blur didn’t resonate with gamers, but Split/Second didn’t either (yes I loved it & its my fave arcade racer this gen, but it didn’t trouble the charts for long).
When you sell your soul to the devil* don’t be surprised when he wants to make money from it
Let’s hope things get sorted in the staff at Bizarre Creations’ favour.
*I don’t believe that of Acti or Bobby it just seems to be popular opinion for some reason.
Also, this is pretty much a mirror image of EA & Pandemic Studios who released Saboteur at the same time as AC2, however EA didn’t try and sell off Pandemic or restructure it, they just unceremoniously closed it down
Forrest_01
The Saboteur was another horrendously overlooked title (again, mainly due to scheduling oversights one would presume) – A lot of people see it as ‘just another GTA clone’ set in france blah blah, but it’s so much more than that.
Shame about all the grinding required for the platinum though! :)
toutski
A great read CB, well done.
teflon
That’s a great article, and very well balanced.
The problem is that this is just the latest in a catalogue of industry wide closures and layoffs, and in an industry that makes so much money, it feels almost like the big kids making the little kids do their homework, but then when they only get an A- or B one or two times, they beat the crap out of them, and then sell them on to another bully… Uh, wait… I think this analogy has derailed a little…
It’s nothing new, but it’s still massively annoying when a good studio ends up being shut down or cut up. Some of the greats that have gone through this:
SCE Studio Liverpool – of Wipeout HD fame, formerly Psygnosis.
Crytek UK – of Timesplitters fame, formerly Free Radical (Thankfully mostly salvaged)
Argonaut Games – reborn as Ninja Theory, and now, to be honest, the better for it.
Factor 5 – Star Wars Rogue Squadron series, they went under when their publisher went under too, after Lair wasn’t a success.
Infinity Ward – Love them or hate them, side with them or don’t, a hugely influential developer that was torn to shreds last year.
The real problem is that the industry is largely living hand to mouth unless a developer is part of the giant publishers’ internal network. They are only giant publishers because they’ve had to make these calls time and again.
Whatever the outcome, I wish the developers at Bizarre well, and hope they can find a way to come back better and stronger than ever.
Forrest_01
This is a shame as Bizarre do indeed seem to the victims of their games being released in an already crowded schedule – Blur in particular was/is a brilliant game, but up against Modnation & Split Second, it was always going to be a bit of a runner up on PS3 (also, lets not forget that this was also the same day that Red Dead Redemption was released as well!). Now Blood Stone could have been a bit of a sleeper hit to revive the James Bond gaming experience, but gets released in the same week as Goldeneye and Call of Duty: Black Ops, which seems like pure madness to me!
Not sure what’s going on with Activisions marketing department at the moment, as Singularity was also a great game that received little or no backing in the way of advertising.
Bizarre!
Tuffcub
Activision seem to have a habit of commisioning titles and when it’s time to promote them they just chuck them on the shelves and forget about them. Singularity suffered for a start – and does anyone even know ‘Blood Drive’ is out on Friday? No.
DJ-Katy
I did actually, but only because I check the releases every week. Until 2 days ago I had never even heard of it, so I’m with you there.
Gonna send you a pm re your other reply, 2 minutes.
Forrest_01
I also knew about it, but only because i regularly check trophy info on the intermaweb (as you can often find out ‘secret’ new releases such as this via trophy info) – However, it is coming out to a decidedly muted release & i have only known about it for a week or two (had to do a LOT of scouring on the web for even the slightest info on it though).
djhsecondnature
I’m the same as DJ-Katy here. I only know as I checked the releases at the start of the week.
DJ-Katy
I’m going to confess I just glanced through the review summaries for Blood Drive on Metacritic since I had no idea what the game was about.
Seems like there may have been good reason they didn’t market it. Only a few reviews in so far with the highest being IGN with 55%, the average is 37%. It does make me wonder why they bother spending the money developing it at all.
bunimomike
Simply because you have to get so far to even see if it’s working out well or not. By that time you might as well release it even if it’s a doozy.
DJ-Katy
Hehe, well yes I know that of course, that’s not quite what I meant. They have the choice: cancel part-way through, realising it’s going to be a poor product, or release it. They will of course weigh up which is likely to cost them the least, how much development cost is left vs how many copies will we sell? What I find bizarre is that, if they are going to go through with releasing a poor product, why they don’t market it to boost sales anyway. It seems a bit half-baked; either cancel it or market it, surely?
bunimomike
I have a horrid feeling that bosses will assess if a title is a truly lost cause. This might’ve been one of them. Borderline games that need a bit of a nudge into the limelight will make the cut. Others will be taken as collateral damage.
It’s the way much of the design world works.
ico
I really felt for Singularity. I completed it and was thoroughly impressed by it as a new IP. It did everything it wanted to right with a good level of polish. Yes it cribbed heavily from other games but they put enough different spin on it to justify it. It’s a real shame when new IPs get put out with little or no marketing. I could understand it if it was pap but this particular example was a very entertaining, technically sound game.
Kevling
Excellent article, and perfect final sentence.
DJ-Katy
The cream almost never rises to the top in business. The best marketed product rises to the top, whether it’s good or shit.
VHS vs Betamax
Sky vs BSB (BSB was 16:9 at launch in 1988)
Windows vs almost any other platform (I’m talking early 90s)
Call of Duty vs tons of more interesting and innovative FPSs
iPhone vs Android
The product that is marketed rises to the top. The good stuff usually suffers.
Kevling
But that comment was not about the products, it was about the talent at Bizarre Creations.
Michael
So good stuff doesn’t get marketed? Seems like an easy fix!
iAvernus
Talent could only rise out of support. No support, talent stays at home with no job and motivation.
Forrest_01
Also, didn’t Bizarre make Project Gotham Racing on Xbox??
djhsecondnature
They did indeed. Although Microsoft own the licence to that if I’m not mistaken meaning that if the studio is closed, the franchise, in name, doesn’t die.
cc_star
Yup, Microsoft own PGR
hazelam
sega could possibly have a claim to that ip though as it was basically a carbon copy of metropolis street racer, just with a different name.
still developed by bizarre but published by sega for the dreamcast.
though if sega did hold any claim to it they would surely have gone after it by now.