Are these the faces of pure evil?

It’s said that no press is bad press, something that Activision CEO Bobby Kotick would probably agree with. As the outspoken head of the world’s most profitable third-party video game publisher, Kotick has built up a brand with an amazing roster of titles and some of the most talented designers in the industry. Yet, despite all of this, all is not well in the eyes of many. Amidst growing concern over expensive peripherals, rehashed sequels and extravagant packaging, some of the company’s most ardent followers have now turned a corner. A boycott has been called pertaining to Modern Warfare 2’s pricing in the UK, and worries over Guitar Hero 5’s impending launch have resulted in drastic measures to entice potential buyers. At the center of this all has been Kotick, with an unending string of controversial statements and an apparent disdain for the consumer’s happiness. Public opinion has swayed against the mighty giant, comparable to the way EA was looked upon several years back. Is Activision really the corporate monster that some of their actions have seemingly made them out to be? Is Kotick the real-life manifestation of Flintheart Glomgold? In short, is Activision evil?

Well, I guess that all depends on what you deem evil. In reality, Activision is a very smart company, whose billions have been secured by the corporations ’safe’ actions over the past few years. One of the publisher’s harshest criticisms pertains to sequels, and how Activision can’t seem to get enough of them. With seven Hero titles released in 2009 and a stable of yearly franchises, some have chastised the publisher for not creating enough new intellectual properties and for milking their most successful titles into an early grave. All of this is true of course, yet this exploitation of popularity is a brilliant move that doesn’t really hurt anybody. While your average NeoGAF poster wouldn’t be interested in Guitar Hero: David Hasselhoff (do want - Ed), there are millions of casual players out there who would be (especially in Germany). Their availability is as harmless as the existence of the Imagine series, and just as easy to forget. The other fact worth mentioning is that peripheral-based franchises tend to have a fairly short shelf life. Does anyone really think that Guitar Hero would have stayed as popular as it was had they not flooded the market with releases?

The same can be said for Call of Duty, which Activision controversially handed over to different development teams to guarantee a new release every year. Once again the criticism against this move seems fairly unwarranted. World at War may have been a rehash, but it was a competent rehash that kept CoD fans happy. Activision could have released a Daikatana-quality shooter with the Call of Duty name slapped on the box to sell a few million easy copies, but WaW’s Metacritic average of 84 speaks to its commitment to brand strength. After acquiring Sierra, Bobby Kotick was quoted as saying that Activision wasn’t interested in titles that “don’t have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential,” sending his critics into a frenzied stupor. Newsflash: that’s what every publisher thinks. EA titles like Dead Space and Left 4 Dead were made to become franchises, and these cheaper-to-produce sequels are the bread and butter of a successful corporation. So while many might be unhappy to see Shrek Returns Origins 2009 rolling onto store shelves, these sequels are funding unproven new IP like Prototype, Blur and Singularity, and they allow the publisher to take established franchises in risky new directions like Tony Hawk Ride and DJ Hero.