Quote Originally Posted by guffman View Post
"have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million franchises" -Robert Kotick

now i do not necessarily like this guy by any means; but come on. it's not like he is the only one to think this way, just look at all the sequels that come out that are not by activision. and you have to admit, it is good business; why take risks on new titles that may not sell. look at square, they are about to release FINAL FANTASY 13! there is no reason that any of these games should be "FF" titles because only one of them is a true sequel, but the name itself sells. True?

hmmm I have a feeling this is going to get messy...
That statement on it's own wasn't necessarily damning, but combined with the other ones this guy i pretty unlikeable.

And you could say that Square is no better with the FF series and others, but their series are also generally defined by doing something new with each entry. Even EA is starting to invest in new titles and ideas such as Dead Space and Brutal Legend (which Activision dropped and was pretty successful for EA). How many Activision series can you name that do anything really new from one game to another?

Hell, Activision wanted COD4 to be set in WWII and even did market research to prove to Infinity Ward that a modern warfare game wouldn't sell. Infinity Ward ignored them by not telling anyone when COD4 was set until it was too late for Activision to stop them. Worked out pretty well in the end, but Activision likely would have seen less success if they had their way and kept milking the WWII angle for all it was worth. Saying you want franchises you can continue with and make hundreds of millions on isn't necessarily bad, but Activisions releasing marginal upgrades with expensive peripherals every year like clock work (or even more frequently) is bad for the industry and their franchises.