Why Activision closed Bizarre

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 24 February, 2011

In ex-staffer Gareth Wilson's own words.

One of the former senior staff members at now closed Blur and Project Gotham Racing developer Bizarre has broken the silence surrounding its demise.

Speaking exclusively to Eurogamer, ex-Bizarre design manager Gareth Wilson offered his opinion on why Activision shuttered one of the UK's most-loved development houses.

"It was a perfect storm of unfortunate circumstances," he said. "The landscape of the industry has changed massively even in the time from when Bizarre was acquired. In particular getting a new IP noticed at this stage of the console cycle combined with the global economic situation meaning gamers are less willing to 'take a risk' is really difficult.

"It's not just Blur that didn't sell in 2010, great new IPs like Enslaved, Alan Wake and Vanquish have struggled to make to make an impact while Halo and Call of Duty have broken sales records."

Activision's January 2011 announcement that it intended to terminate Bizarre came after a three month long search for a buyer.

Many staff at Bizarre used that time to search for new jobs. Wilson found one at Sheffield based Outrun Online Arcade developer Sumo Digital – he is now its new chief games designer.

"When it was announced that Activision was looking to sell or close the studio the majority of people started looking around, obviously still hoping that a buyer could be found," Wilson said. "This wasn't clandestine at all,  while the situation with the studio was unclear Activision allowed us time off to go for interviews and training."

Some have pointed to disappointing sales of eye-catching 8/10 racer Blur as evidence that Activision's decision to shut Bizarre down made business sense. The game launched during the same crowded window as Black Rock racer Split/Second, which also struggled to sell, and Red Dead Redemption, which most certainly did not.

"The release date probably didn't help," Wilson admitted, "but nowadays that 'middle ground' of two to three million sales is getting harder to find.  Games either 'break out' and sell four million plus, or really struggle to break even. Also the quality bar has risen enormously. Did you know there were more 80 per cent plus rated games in 2010 than any other year?"

Many gamers have expressed anger towards Activision over Bizarre's closure, but for Wilson, the drawn out nature of the saga has allowed him to come to terms with the demise of the studio he held so dear.

"Now I can feel more philosophical about it, it was upsetting when it was announced back in November. As there was a three month consultation where a buyer was sought it's been more of a slow realisation over the weeks that followed that the studio was likely to close."

Last Friday, on the day it closed, Bizarre said goodbye with a touching video showcasing its superb portfolio of games.

Eurogamer's report on the video sparked over a hundred comments – an outpouring of support staff at Bizarre couldn't help but notice.

"Yes, the comments that people left made us all feel extremely proud of what we've achieved," Wilson said.  "In particular the number of people saying Blur was their favourite racing game of 2010 or they enjoyed the beta was nice to see considering the disappointing sales figures."

Now, Wilson looks to the future. At Sumo he wants to "make 85 per cent plus rated games that reach a wide audience." It's a developer he describes as "very similar to how Bizarre was when I joined" in terms of culture and size.

"As you'd expect I can't confirm or deny anything about the projects on the go at Sumo right now, but what I can say is the games Sumo are working on are some of the most exciting projects in the industry and a big reason why I joined Sumo over other studios."

All that's left, then, it to ask Wilson the inevitable question: what's your favourite Bizarre game ever?

"As a fan, the Killing Game Show way back in the day was a fantastic game that ate up most of my summer holidays!  As a project it was PGR3 without question.  We really felt we were pushing new boundaries all over the place with that game, whether it was the platform features like 360 Achievements or Trueskill matchmaking that we helped develop or game features like Gotham TV.

"Plus I'll never forget the faces of you journos when we showed you the in car view for the first time on that massive HD screen!"

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (52) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • altitude2k #1 1 year ago

    He makes a very good point about the sales of other games. I guess in these tough times, people are far more likely to flock to the "safety" of titles they have purchased before.

    I do really hope he's keeping something about PGR5 under his hat, though.

  • Eraser #2 1 year ago

    Well it wasn't me that caused Blur's failure. I bought it day 1 and played the hell out of it.

  • JoeGBallad #3 1 year ago

    PGR5 would be nice, but given sumo's past relationship with sega I can't help but hope for a new daytooooonnaaaaaaa

  • Freek #4 1 year ago

    I dissagree. What all those titles have in common is that they diden't review particularly well and word of mouth was not verry strong either.
    It was "nice games, but they have some issues". Blur wasn't as visually spectacular as Split Second wich released at the same time. Enslaved's platforming and fighting wasn't as good as people expected. Alan Wake was very repetative. All franchises with potential that needed some fixing.
    Dead Space was a new IP that did verry well, MoH reboot, also had some issues but EA is giving it a chance. And Vanquish is by Platinum, a japanese action game is a bit of a niche genre these days.

    Gamers aren't risk averse at all, they always demand new and original things BUT those new things also need to be of stellar quality. Usually that polish doesn't set in untill part 2 of a franchise.

  • bf #5 1 year ago

    A modern version of the Killing Game Show would have saved them, well at least in my dreams that would have worked...

  • Ultrasoundwave #6 1 year ago

    The bottom line is, Activision bought Bizarre, they made quality games which didnt sell (for whatever reason) and Activision didnt make as much money as they wanted to, so , they were shut down.
    Ninja Theory made a great game in Enslaved, it didnt sell, but there are no rumours of them being shut-down because they work for a GOOD publisher.

    Its also worth mentioning that with Blur and Blood Stone, in both cases, i walked into Game to buy them and on both occasions there was only ONE copy in the shop AND they were the only games in the shop (and probably in the world) that had a £45 price tag on them...........now whose fault was that?

    Fuckin' Activision.
    Edited by Ultrasoundwave at 24/02/11 @ 08:49

  • RoOhDaMite #7 1 year ago

    Sega+Bizarre= MSR

  • waynenot #8 1 year ago

    At Sumo he wants to "make 85 per cent plus rated games that reach a wide audience." Man, I'd aim for at least 87 percent. Why not just say " I want to make really good games"? They all sound like bloody Stepford Wives, spouting this Metacritic nonsense these days.

    Edited by waynenot at 24/02/11 @ 11:07

  • menage #9 1 year ago

    I'm still playing BLUR, to the point as where I really don't even need another racer for a long time coming. So freaking addictive.
    Online is awesome.

    But the marketing for it certainly didn't work. And yeah, releasing at the same time of RDR must be the stupidest releasedate ever.

    I also love BLUR looks now that I've played it for a long time, but at first it looked really generic and impersonal. That couldn't have helped.
    Edited by menage at 24/02/11 @ 08:50

  • XBoxDragon #10 1 year ago

    @Ultrasoundwave also, ninja theory is not owned by a publisher, they either make enough money from what they develop to survive, of they don't. Rather than not make enough for a publishers whims or get closed.

  • GamesConnoisseur #11 1 year ago

    I think the consequences are that publishers less likely than ever to support innovative and new games, sticking to established franchises. Gamers don't help when they ignore reviewed well games and gone for same fares.

    IF Ico was released today on far more expensive HD generation and didn't sell well as it did not before, the studio would very likely gone under.

    Whoses fault? Developers for trying something daring? Gamers for not trusting OR checking reviews? Waiting for sufficient words of mouths where most are just waiting for enough people to have played in first place?!

    Don't give me BS that Ico released today will do well or any differently, perhaps with unaffordable level of COD marketing blitz, then we would see it moving upwards but giving a profitable return after all that?!

    There are lessons here, but we seem to be repeating history regardless.

  • Gumersindo #12 1 year ago

    To Sumo Digital?.
    Two requests: Daytona (whatever the number) and Scud Race for PSN. Thank you

  • homerramone #13 1 year ago

    Based on what he said... instead of closing down bizarre they could then have got them churning out more 'know quantities' that are safe sellers ?

    But of course thats not really it at all - 'They (bizarre) dont do call of duty games, and thats where all the money is right now so everything else might as well fuck off' seems to be the activision order of the day.

    Edited by homerramone at 24/02/11 @ 09:13

  • Whitster #14 1 year ago

    @Ultrasoundwave

    Thats probably more down to game wanting to flog you a pre-owned copy than Activision not producing enough. I popped into game yesterday to look for something and was shocked at the lack of space new titles are afforded. I visited Gamestation after and found their section much more filled, despite them making they're companys name on the back of preowned.

  • RFturrican #15 1 year ago

    I still can't understand why Microsoft didn't take them back. I can only imagine the money was just too much to buy back from "The Vision"

    Shame really, as PGR's disappearance has left a rather big gap in the first party release schedule for the 360 owners.

    Personally, I just want to see that holy grail of gaming.... Geometry Wars 4 player multiplayer :D

  • BigDannyH #16 1 year ago

    They did Geometry Wars, right? That was awesome, if somewhat evil. Will never know how my mate got those crazy high scores ...

    I only didn't buy Blur as I've no interest in racers. Does anyone still buy racing games? GT5 is surely the CoD of racers yet I've not heard much about massive sales or even much love for it post release.

    Not sure it was Blur's fault, just no market for it.

  • vegard #17 1 year ago

    Blur deserved so much better. The best four-player experience I've had since Goldeneye!

  • DefendoCroc #18 1 year ago

    "Did you know there were more 80 per cent plus rated games in 2010 than any other year?" ......... gee i wonder why when sites like this and the other usual suspects all firmly in publishers pockets with paid for reviews (via advertising) giving bog standard games (see BulletStorm) ridiculously high scores.
    The big boys are onto the metacritic and you cant even trust that now ... you need to add your own modifier to meta scores based on how bent the critic site is, EG reviews arent worth the virtual paper they appear on.

  • savant #19 1 year ago

    The marketing and release for Blur were a disaster, plain and simple. It was marketed on TV as a grown up Mario Kart, which immediately alienated both fans of casual games and the driving audience who'd loved PGR. Releasing alongside Split/Second and RDR was a stupid stupid move.

    Wilson does himself a disservice by blaming the gamers. Vanquish sales figures probably didn't go stratospheric because of release timing - it was competing with DJ Hero 2, Fallout New Vegas and other high-profile titles at retail. Don't forget: Bayonetta was batshit crazy and still sold more than a million ;)

    Enslaved didn't sell because people probably played the demo and found pretty graphics but shoddy controls and laggy gameplay.

  • menage #20 1 year ago

    GT5 may be the COD saleswise. BLUR was Car of Duty for real.

  • asphaltcowboy #21 1 year ago

    The "unfortunate circumstance" was being owned by Activision!

  • kadooosh #22 1 year ago

    Well he seemed like a nice fellow.

  • arcam #23 1 year ago

    It was marketed on TV as a grown up Mario Kart

    The game a grown up Mario Kart. I remember hearing that description many times in the comments on EG.

    *edit: Is. Is a grown-up Mario Kart. Why when I use tags sometimes does part of my comment disappear?
    Edited by arcam at 24/02/11 @ 10:19

  • IkariW #24 1 year ago

    A Gareth has said, it does sound like a series of unfortunate events....

    But as I may have commented on previously, there is something I don't understand, and it is highlighted in this statement:

    "It's not just Blur that didn't sell in 2010, great new IPs like Enslaved, Alan Wake and Vanquish have struggled to make to make an impact while Halo and Call of Duty have broken sales records."

    Activision, one question, as a company you can obviously make huge amounts of profit, of that there is no question, As Gareth just mentioned, with Call of Duty being one of the games braking sales records...
    So my question is this, in one hand you have COD breaking sales records (As well as WOW of course) in the other you have a studio that is struggling to sell as many games, but not through lack of talent, why didn't you use the considerable profits in one hand to cover the loses in the other?

    Surely this is basic business sense? I'll tell you why... complete and utter greed.

    This really shows a lack of responsibilty on Activisions part in my opinion, I mean, we all know how Publishers work, they will have there over inflated Design 'opinions' during development, and push these onto the developer, but when it doesn't work out, what then?

    "Oh, we told you not to do that, nothing to do with us, its all your fault!"

    Bottom line (For me anyway) Publishers in general need to fund projects and not 'design' them, leave that to the professionals.
    Its high bl00dy time that Publishers stopped looking at developers as numbers and balance sheets, and maybe start understanding that there is no magic formula when it comes to making great games... no matter how much they may think there is.

    Yet again I end up ranting... god I hate you for making me do that Activision...
    Edited by IkariW at 24/02/11 @ 10:48

  • Shikasama #25 1 year ago

    All of the 'fuck Activision' posters need to realise that Activision had Bizarre up for sale for three months and noone was interested.

    That means no other company out there wanted Bizarre. Wether that is due to sales performance, staff issues or whatever, it is a very telling statement about how healthy or profitable the studio was.

  • SandyMcD #26 1 year ago

    While I understand why Blur has its fans, it's niche as hell. It was obvious from the moment they announced it that it was never going to sell. The blame lies with the tools at Activision who green lighted it.

  • photoboy #27 1 year ago

    Cool, Outrun 3 is definitely going to have kudos points now!

  • Bearillusion #28 1 year ago

    I'm still mad at them for not releasing Geometry Wars on PSN. Maybe now Activision will. I've supported them and am disappointed it never came out. I bought PGR1 and PGR4. Completed and loved 2 despite not owning it. I even bought Blur on PS3. GWars has been released on everything but PSN.

  • The-Bodybuilder #29 1 year ago

    @Shikasama

    Do you know what the price was (especially when you consider how activision price their own games)?
    Did they come with any valuable IPs?
    More importantly? Why buy a studio when you can just wait for them to disband and just hire the valuable staff at a MUCH cheaper price?

  • arcam #30 1 year ago

    Its high bl00dy time that Publishers stopped looking at developers as numbers and balance sheets, and maybe start understanding that there is no magic formula when it comes to making games... no matter how much they may think there is

    The thing is, there is a magic formula for making games, just as there is a magic formula for making popular music or movies (except it's not magic, it's based on science and statistics). Activision know the formula, and they know it better than some of their developers.

    I'm happy to join in with berating Activision for lack or creativity and innovation, but slagging off their business is foolish. They are the number one publisher for a reason. That reason is they know the type of games that will appeal to a mass market, they know the type of features a that keep people coming back for more and they know how to market a generic game to maximise sales.

  • IkariW #31 1 year ago

    "That means no other company out there wanted Bizarre. Wether that is due to sales performance, staff issues or whatever, it is a very telling statement about how healthy or profitable the studio was. "

    No, that means no other company wanted to out lay many millions to buy a new company this close to the financial year end.
    They have share holders to impress with their profitable balance sheets remember?! Theres no way they would risk looking like they weren't as profitable as possible at this time of year, WHETHER they wanted to or not. ;)

    Just unfortunate timing.

  • IkariW #32 1 year ago

    @arcam

    You say Activision know a magic formula? well how can they when they have such up and down results game to game? To say that a publisher knows more about making a game that a developer is also 'abit foolish' in my opinion.

    I certainly wasn't questioning Activisions business accumin, there's no question they make money, that was kind of my point.
    To say that they know the type of features that keep people coming back for more though, thats pushing it. WHO do you think developed these features, put them on the table and made them work in the first place?!

    "they know how to market a generic game to maximise sales."
    Yes, they do, but that doesn't make those games good. Plus, Blur wasn't a generic title? so surely that shows a weakness in Activisions marketing greatness?
    Edited by IkariW at 24/02/11 @ 10:49

  • arcam #33 1 year ago

    To say that a publisher knows more about making a game that a developer is also 'abit foolish' in my opinion.

    A developer knows best how to make a good game. A publisher knows best how to make a profitable game.

  • Ryze #34 1 year ago

    Get DAYTONA USA Online Arcade on the Sumo agenda!

  • IkariW #35 1 year ago

    @arcam

    "A developer knows best how to make a good game. A publisher knows best how to make a profitable game."

    Well this wouldn't seem to be the case looking at Blur would it?!

    But I agree and disagree with the developers knowing how to make good games, not all do, but in Bizarres case, they did, thats what gets me down about Activision letting them go.

  • menage #36 1 year ago

    Also, a lot of IP don't start making money until the sequel nowadays (Dead Space being the prime example of success not being defined by initial sales). So maybe develooping new IP should take into account.

    You can't always build a huge fanbase for a game the first go around (unless you're Bioware, Rockstar or Blizzard), stuff takes time

  • nickthegun #37 1 year ago

    The killing game show!! I used to love that!

  • AgentBalti #38 1 year ago

    They couldn't make PGR5..."Project Gotham Racing" as an IP belongs to Microsoft. That is all.

  • Shikasama #39 1 year ago

    The Bodybuilder - Do you? No? You're just going to assume that they set an unreasonably high price for an asset they didn't want anymore so that you can keep saying 'fuck Activision/Kotick/my own arsehole'?

    Activision actively looked for a buyer. No-one registered interest. There is absolutely nothing to suggest a new studio is being formed and one of their top people has already moved to another studio.

    But yeah, I'll say Activision are evil because it'll get me green numbers next to my post.

  • Kerome #40 1 year ago

    I do find it odd though. Sure, Blur didn't sell great, but it still did 700k+ which must have been close to break-even. Games development has been a crapshoot for years, but those kinds of numbers usually earn you another go on the merry-go-around, rather than a straight path to the exit.

    Something smells of politics behind the scenes...

  • ccfb #41 1 year ago

    I blame greedy Bizarre senior execs who saw a chance to get rich by selling to Acti. Business is business, and business for them was offloading it a price and letting the "brand" take its chances.

  • metallicorphan #42 1 year ago

    I have PGR3 and 4,and i have to say i love 4 more,in fact PGR4 is my favourite arcade racer of this current Gen,i loved taking in game photos of me getting my arse trampled from other cars while i raced/fell off my bike :)

  • Xardan #43 1 year ago

    I really liked PGR4 too. Now i doubt we will see PGR5 anytime soon, and if we do it wont be as good without the original studio working on it.

  • Fatnick #44 1 year ago

    I don't follow games as regularly as i did, but i generally check Eurogamer and the like in my lunch hour so i am still connected to a reasonable degree.

    I had no idea Bloodstone even existed. Nice work Acti.

  • azix2 #45 1 year ago

    What I find weird. Why would someone buy a studio of people? Why not just hire all the people and put them to work for the new publisher? You are making it a hard choice if you are asking them to buy your employees etc, then pay them to make games.

  • KD #46 1 year ago

    I'm level 8 legend on blur, not all my work as it's the game I put on when mates are over my place, some house or DnB on in the background and we play online for hours. No better game out there for it and it's been on during quite a few party here.

  • jynxce #47 1 year ago

    Guy is pretty reserved with his words because any working class stiff realizes there an etiquette of not bashing formal employees publically. There are plenty of devs that survive and maintain their livelihood working in this industry just fine under the umbrella of their publishers -- even ones that ink out mediocre to well received games and software. It's not that Activision did not break even or profit from their games. They're just the epitome of the nastiest of capitalisation and greed in the industry right now and it's a shamethat so many peoples' livelihood were and will be ruined by it. I hope other independent devs tread very lightly when considering to deal with Activision as a publisher.
    Edited by jynxce at 24/02/11 @ 16:10

  • tinyspark #48 1 year ago

    @agentbalti

    But we could get MSR2, doesnt Sega still own the rights to that name? :)

  • Markjarvis1990 #49 1 year ago

    Reminds me about sniper ghost warrior making 1mil + , when quality games are failing

  • ExplodingClown #50 1 year ago

    "A developer knows best how to make a good game. A publisher knows best how to make a profitable game."

    But sometimes a publisher ruins the good game the developer made by sticking their big clumsy fingers into the process. Rather like when studio execs fuck up a decent movie because they think the slackjaws at the test screening in Shithouse, Ohio won't understand the ending.

  • XboxOZ360 #51 1 year ago

    @Markjarvis1990
    Have you played Ghost Snipper? for anything longer than an hour?

    I love FPS, especially those that are steeped in good single player fashions. This was one game that did just that.

    It was NOT a huge run-n-gun feast, nor a team event as a major MP, which seems the rage these days, it was a game that appealed to the person who does love to play a game for its merits.

    It wasn't an easy game when played on hard, with no aids as you had to take wind, height etc into consideration. Unlike many FPS out there. Operation Flashpoint 1 and the Upcoming Red River will have similar followers onboard, as it too is not a mass market run-n-gun-feast.

    Snipper sold because it presented a great gameplay for solid FPS gamers, not MP screaming idiots on live or PSN.

    Bizarre did a great job during their time, but were on the slid since they left MS, not because they left MS, but because they turned their back on what they did best . . . Even running their own studio down as to the games they produced earlier while under MS.

    Sadly, the main fault lays with gamers . . as while many 'claim' they want new IP's, innovation, new experiences etc etc, when given them, with games like Blur, Enslaved, Alan Wake etc etc, they shun them not only due to lower than 8/10 metacritic BS scores, but because there's a 'learning curve' involved in "learning" a new game, any game.

    So if it doesn't fit the normal mould, doesn't have similar features as many others do, and why would it if it's a New IP with innovative design concepts, then the gamer these days don't even bother to grab it off the shelf.

    Gone are the days when a good game had a decent 7/10 score, the 'average was 5-6/10 . . Games now, due mainly to the ppl behind Metacritic, MUST have a predetermined average score of min 8/10 or at best a 8.5/10 estimated score, otherwise the publisher, not the developer, turns the fuel off, and shelves the game.

    The break even sale target for games 2-4 years ago was the magic 500k-700k mark. That is no longer the case.

    A game must turn a minimum 1mil sales within the firs several days in order for it to keep the momentum going for future sales. Publishers have a 14 day window of sales opportunity to get maximum sales across the board. Even less these last few years. Failure to do that means the game will not turn a profit, nor will it regain it, unless something is offered for it to gain re-sales further down the track aka Bad Company 2 with the Vietnam ONLINE ONLY pack. You had to buy the older game again in order to play the new MP pack. Good marketing actually.

    Bizarre tried shooters, it to was great, but, new and somewhat innovative . .did it sell ? No, because even though it had a decent marketing budget, it was NEW, and required a different approach to normal shooters, which many newer gamers shunned, thus not enough sales.

    Gamers these days are the crucial factor in whether a game survives - or fails, don't go blaming the developer or the publisher, they poor tens of millions into these games, we put in $au100 - $au120 per title . . . And that figure has remain 'relatively' fixed over the last 2-3 decades, with many earlier titles on earlier gaming platforms being much dearer in all countries.

    1st-Gen Xbox games were only $au10 less across all levels in 2001-2005 (ie AU$90 - $110 in 2001 now $100 - $120 in 2011) Yet cost on making said games has increased exponentially. If we want to throw some blame around, like everyone seems to be doing, how about accepting that a large part of it is the fickledness of gamers these days, and their unwillingness to try new things, and 'invest' time into the newer, more innovative titles.

  • DrStrangelove #52 1 year ago

    Also the quality bar has risen enormously.

    I must have missed that bit somehow.