Jason Rubin proven wrong with the EA, Respawn Entertainment deal?
If I recall correctly on a recent episode of the Bonus Round, Jason Rubin said no publisher would build a studio around one or two developers no matter how big their name was in the industry. With EA giving over millions of dollars to the ex-Infinity Ward heads to create their own studio through EA partners, isn't that EA proving Jason Rubin wrong?
haha, I actually remember this, but I think his point still holds, even if it was a little exaggerated. The heads of Infinity Ward are pretty much as big as it gets now - I can't imagine any mid-level employees being given the same freedom.
I saw the same Bonus Round, Jason made some great points but was rarely given the time to clarify them.
I don't think this deal proves him wrong, although it is definitely debatable. First these two guys are not just 'big', financially they're probably the biggest developers in the world (they even had CAA representing them!). The Modern Warfare brand shits gold. Also, they didn't approach EA on their own, as it was obvious that a lot of IW devs will follow them - essentially they're half a studio already.
Jason's point was that a successful solo developer cannot approach a publisher and expect a deal to start a AAA studio, similar to how a great director can approach a film studio and immediately get a deal. In that respect he is absolutely right. What is happening here is a very much a fringe case.
And your icon is amazing. Night Trap is awesome.
I saw this, and it's quite funny how quickly this came back on him. That said, I believe the gist of it -iirc- was that to do it you would need to bring a whole team with you - you could argue that these two guys and EA were pretty certain they could actually achieve that relatively easily. So far, it's looking like they were right.
I see that Pachter seems to think that losing the top talent from Infinity Ward isn't a big deal in the long run, and that they can be easily replaced - I think he is very, very wrong. You don't sell as many copies as MW2 by having the 'very good' working on it and calling the shots, you sell that many by having 'the best'. You may be able to to point at Treyarch and say "Look at how many they sold!", but that's only because they already had IW's blueprint to work from. Without having the very best in the business working for them, I think it's inevitable that Activision's dominance of the FPS market will start to falter. Maybe not overnight, but eventually it will.
You make a good point regarding Treyarch. Modern Warfare was a great game, Treyarch's follow up was a good game. IIRC Treyarch used Infinity Ward's engine and pretty much copied the entire multiplayer (with a few additions). I very much wonder how good their game would be had they been forced to start from scratch."I see that Pachter seems to think that losing the top talent from Infinity Ward isn't a big deal in the long run, and that they can be easily replaced - I think he is very, very wrong. You don't sell as many copies as MW2 by having the 'very good' working on it and calling the shots, you sell that many by having 'the best'. You may be able to to point at Treyarch and say "Look at how many they sold!", but that's only because they already had IW's blueprint to work from. Without having the very best in the business working for them, I think it's inevitable that Activision's dominance of the FPS market will start to falter. Maybe not overnight, but eventually it will. "
Show Pachter that hypothetical game, and then see if he changes his mind.
Regardless of his point, it was a smart business decision to bring those two on. They have proven for many years now that they are capable of running a great development studio, and are responsible for the heading up development teams that deliver and sell quality games that sell like gangbusters. Medal of Honor, Call of Duty and now the MW series. And on top of that, if EA can get the core members of the same team that made MW2? It would be fucking ridiculous not to throw money at them.
then theres the fact they will likely bring alot of talent out of IW with them, something on 5 staff members have left since the heads left, with 1 or 2 going to other studios and no word on the other 3..its a safe bet to say they followed them.
" I saw this, and it's quite funny how quickly this came back on him. That said, I believe the gist of it -iirc- was that to do it you would need to bring a whole team with you - you could argue that these two guys and EA were pretty certain they could actually achieve that relatively easily. So far, it's looking like they were right. I see that Pachter seems to think that losing the top talent from Infinity Ward isn't a big deal in the long run, and that they can be easily replaced - I think he is very, very wrong. You don't sell as many copies as MW2 by having the 'very good' working on it and calling the shots, you sell that many by having 'the best'. You may be able to to point at Treyarch and say "Look at how many they sold!", but that's only because they already had IW's blueprint to work from. Without having the very best in the business working for them, I think it's inevitable that Activision's dominance of the FPS market will start to falter. Maybe not overnight, but eventually it will. "
Yeah, but so much of what made MW1 and 2 great is already established and can be replicated by the remaining team. They made a game that looked beautiful, ran at 60fps, had awesome multiplayer and was insanely popular. Now that the brand is so entrenched in gamers' brains, I doubt it will effect the sales too much. Just look stuff like Halo 2 and 3, the multiplayer barely changed from the first game, they just updated graphics, added new maps and slapped a number on the end.
They may eventually falter, but they can probably ride on the coattails of MW2 for at least 2 Call of Duty games. The fact that the treyarch games still sell is proof that a less talented studio can turn out a pretty close replica of those games.
" I saw this, and it's quite funny how quickly this came back on him. That said, I believe the gist of it -iirc- was that to do it you would need to bring a whole team with you - you could argue that these two guys and EA were pretty certain they could actually achieve that relatively easily. So far, it's looking like they were right. I see that Pachter seems to think that losing the top talent from Infinity Ward isn't a big deal in the long run, and that they can be easily replaced - I think he is very, very wrong. You don't sell as many copies as MW2 by having the 'very good' working on it and calling the shots, you sell that many by having 'the best'. You may be able to to point at Treyarch and say "Look at how many they sold!", but that's only because they already had IW's blueprint to work from. Without having the very best in the business working for them, I think it's inevitable that Activision's dominance of the FPS market will start to falter. Maybe not overnight, but eventually it will. "
"Yeah, but so much of what made MW1 and 2 great is already established and can be replicated by the remaining team. They made a game that looked beautiful, ran at 60fps, had awesome multiplayer and was insanely popular. Now that the brand is so entrenched in gamers' brains, I doubt it will effect the sales too much. Just look stuff like Halo 2 and 3, the multiplayer barely changed from the first game, they just updated graphics, added new maps and slapped a number on the end.You're right, but replication isn't the issue in the long term, it's consistently beating everybody else to the punch on the next thing - that's what having the best talent brings to the table. Realistically, I would expect MW2 to be feeling out-dated within two or three years. So yeah, I think 2 games is about right for how far brand recognition alone will go. The quality of those games will then decide what happens next.They may eventually falter, but they can probably ride on the coattails of MW2 for at least 2 Call of Duty games. The fact that the treyarch games still sell is proof that a less talented studio can turn out a pretty close replica of those games."
When you're built almost entirely on 3 franchises -as ActivisionBlizzard are- gambling on the continued supremacy of one of those franchises like that is a dangerous game to play. EA became a 'replicating' company instead of the driving force in the industry - it soon spirals.
I think Rubin is up his ass. I am happy that this happened both because these devs are very talented, and because it poops on Rubin's theory.
True talent is always going to be sought after and rewarded. It doesn't really matter what industry you're in. I think Rubin is obviously bitter about something and it's coloring his entire view of the industry. I would take his "analysis" with a huge grain of salt.
i just wanted to come in and drop the irony that this kinda happened once before, only the other way around, with Zampella and West leaving EA for Activision.
" @sixghost said:But really, who else is innovating in the FPS genre? Almost every FPS game made in the past 3 years is derivative of the IW CoD and MW games, gameplay and multiplayer-wise. The only real threat to MW's FPS crown is whatever game Respawn makes, but who knows how long that will take considering the company was just formed like a week ago."Yeah, but so much of what made MW1 and 2 great is already established and can be replicated by the remaining team. They made a game that looked beautiful, ran at 60fps, had awesome multiplayer and was insanely popular. Now that the brand is so entrenched in gamers' brains, I doubt it will effect the sales too much. Just look stuff like Halo 2 and 3, the multiplayer barely changed from the first game, they just updated graphics, added new maps and slapped a number on the end.You're right, but replication isn't the issue in the long term, it's consistently beating everybody else to the punch on the next thing - that's what having the best talent brings to the table. Realistically, I would expect MW2 to be feeling out-dated within two or three years. So yeah, I think 2 games is about right for how far brand recognition alone will go. The quality of those games will then decide what happens next. When you're built almost entirely on 3 franchises -as ActivisionBlizzard are- gambling on the continued supremacy of one of those franchises like that is a dangerous game to play. EA became a 'replicating' company instead of the driving force in the industry - it soon spirals. "They may eventually falter, but they can probably ride on the coattails of MW2 for at least 2 Call of Duty games. The fact that the treyarch games still sell is proof that a less talented studio can turn out a pretty close replica of those games."
Activision's already pumped out so much Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero that their sales have dropped from their peek and look to continue to fall. With Activision dumping the heads of their second biggest franchise (causing a number of the top talent from that developer to leave as well) and putting three different developers into development onf three different titles in the Call of Duty franchise, is it possible they will bury this series much faster than maybe it would have at even one title a year made by two different developers (one being IW with the original heads and there full original team)?
@Romination:
Why do you think EA was willing to forgive and forget the previous situation with the Respawn heads? Soley for the amount of money they believe can be made? Can they come even close to the sales of MW2 or even MW1 with a brand new IP? When you reach sales of that size, you have to be reaching a market that doesn't pay attention to the developer of the game but the title on the box.
He said it in such a personal way, you know that he has tried to do that. Well, Naughty Dog circa 2006 is not the same as Infinity Ward circa 2010.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment