Activision: Guitar Hero still alive
True Crime would have scored 80+.
Guitar Hero is still alive, Activision has said.
It's just "on hiatus".
"Actually, just to clarify, we're just putting Guitar Hero on hiatus, we're not ending it," Activision head of developer relations Dan Winters explained to Eurogamer sister site GamesIndustry.biz.
"We're releasing products out of the vault - we'll continue to sustain the channel, the brand won't go away. We're just not making a new one for next year, that's all."
Earlier this year Activision shocked the gaming world when it announced the closure of its Guitar Hero business.
"Due to continued declines in the music genre, the company will disband Activision Publishing's Guitar Hero business unit and discontinue development on its Guitar Hero game for 2011," explained the publisher.
Since then Activision has continued to sell track packs for Guitar Hero and Freestyle Games' DJ Hero.
Meanwhile, Winters said open world gangster game True Crime: Hong Kong, axed by Activision alongside Guitar Hero, would have scored 80 plus review scores.
Activision pulled the plug on True Crime: Hong Kong in January, explaining, "In an industry where only the best games in each category are flourishing, to be blunt, it just wasn't going to be good enough."
Winters countered that initial statement, however. "We think that the game was tracking to be a very good game.
"The question was really the size of the prize based on how good it could be. We are confident that thing would have been 80 plus. 85 maybe. They're a really talented group at United Front.
"We were really confident that they were tracking towards a very good game. The challenges in the market place right now, when you're talking about open-world games that are going to compete with titles like Red Dead Redemption, expectations for the consumer are really high.
"That would have been, and still might end up being, a very successful mid-tier opportunity for someone. But, as I said, we changed our business model to where we were going to change our business model to focus disproportionately on three big, huge monsters. Those three monsters are the Bungie, Call of Duty and Spyro titles.
"So that left the True Crime title being a mid-tier opportunity which we felt was an opportunity cost against other things. But we have a lot of confidence in the quality of the studio and the quality of the title, just not in the scale of the opportunity."
Activision's decision to drop True Crime sparked redundancies at developer United Front Games.
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...
-
Going Hardcore in Diablo 3
Just how much fun is permadeath, exactly? 71
-
Judge recommends US Xbox 360 ban
Motorola vs Microsoft patent dispute heats up. President Obama may have to step in. 156
-
Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Review
Techno prisoners. 123
You may also like...
-
Going Hardcore in Diablo 3 71
-
Judge recommends US Xbox 360 ban 156
-
Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Review 123
-
Japan chart: My Little Sister Can't Possibly Be This Cute takes top spot 71
-
Diablo 3 Review 242
-
Wii U Darksiders 2 graphics "at least as good" as PS3, Xbox 360 versions' 56
-
Sony developing Shadow of the Colossus movie 42
-
App of the Day: This Could Hurt 3
-
Growing Paynes: How Remedy's Hero Went Rockstar in Max Payne 3 37
-
Face-Off: Max Payne 3 146
-
Dragon's Dogma Review 126
-
Diablo 3: Blizzard nerfs monk in first hotfix 49
-
Inside Xbox team set up on their own 31
-
Diablo 3 fastest-selling PC game ever, biggest PC game launch in history 71
-
Street Fighter 25th Anniversary Collector's Set announced 42
Comments (47) Latest comment 1 year ago
Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
so what is their excuse for all the crap they DO release then
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Definitely would of.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Ok then.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Maybe there was a sound financial argument, but if they're going to resume GH game in future then they'll virtually be starting a team from scratch.
What a waste.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
SPYRO WTF!!!!! What's worst he is now a fat chubby retarded dragon with plastic toys as friends.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
SPYRO!?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
By focusing on 3 franchises (oh, and LOL @ Spyro) they're setting themselves up for a fall if one or more fails. Then they'll have to work on building a new IP from scratch or resurrecting an old one.
Think EA's tactics seem more sensible. Sure, focus on the big hitters that guarantee your revenue (Madden, Battlefield etc), but also work hard to establish new franchises alongside these (Dead Space).
New IPs fare better at quieter times of year, so stop releasing them in the xmas run-up (look what happened with Enslaved and Vanquish with this tactic). Rockstar have the right idea with LA Noire, and I imagine Brink will do well as well, avoiding the Sep/Oct crush (though the latter suffers stiff competition from other FPS titles).
New IPs need a lot of effort and TLC, but they can work if the long-term commitment is made.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Its a good job they're only distributing for them.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
No it wouldn't.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
maybe a different publisher could have done better with it and maybe they could offer the orginal team and game to another publisher if they wanted to come back , shame the developers are tied to publishers and when it all goes wrong they cant switch to someone else.
At least the concept and what i saw looked intresting but never really know now how it would have turned out.
I also hope it was not far into development , would it really cost them more to bring game out if almost finished.
I may not be too intrested in true crime like everyone else is but we need stick up for game makers if they done a project and its cut near the end , the desicions need be made near the start.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
This year "We're concentrating on our three big franchises, COD, er... Spyro and er... er... a game we haven't even named yet".
I'd be a little worried if I was one of the developers working on Spyro, "big franchise" developers at Activision seem to get sacked a lot.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"Those three monsters are the Bungie, Call of Duty and Spyro titles"
The Bungie game will be out late 2012 the earliest. Does this mean Diablo 3 won't be coming till 2013? Cause there is no good reason to exclude Blizzard from their monsters.
They seem to think they have the next Pokemon with this years Spyro title. My guess is you have to buy each action figure for $10 and one comes with the game. So about $360 for the complete set. People don't buy plastic instruments anymore, well maybe they wiill buy plastic unlock codes for ingame characters (cause in the end those action figures are nothing but unlockable DLC, it's like buying a matchbox car in order to drive the same car in TDU 2, ridiculous). Probably won't.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
So sayeth mathematics!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Freestyle " can we get someone to buy the publishing rights from you ?"
Acti " true crime would be brilliant .. who wants to buy it ? anyone .... anyone ? "
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"But, as I said, we changed our business model to where we were going to change our business model to focus disproportionately on three big, huge monsters."
So, they already know that they are putting a disproportionate focus on three games? And that's still their plan?
@ RexRunti
That highlights the risk of Activision's strategy pretty well. If more of their 'big three' fail (as has already happened to 2 of them), what up-and-coming franchises do they have to replace them?
@ Subdominator
80% isn't high enough. If you compare metacritic to sales, the difference between an 80% game and a 70% game is marginal, then there's generally a huge jump in sales for 90%+ games.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
And the only way they could guarantee it'd be an 80+ title is if they'd already prepared their bribes to counteract the inevitable EDGE/EG/etc lower scores.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Who exactly was shocked?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I'm sure anyone who's ever bothered with the series has a guitar already.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
One of these things does not belong here, one of these things is not the same...
Comment below viewing threshold Show
If I'm not mistaken only 2 of these are franchises. Unless I have been underground for the past 10 years and there has been a game about a guy tied to a rope
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I find it strange that EA in particular harp on about building 90+ Metacritic games considering the above. Sure, it generally means us gamers have a better end-product, and I applaud any efforts by big studios that aim towards quality, but in this case, True Crime most likely would have been met with luke-warm reception at best and probably not sold enough copies to keep the obese shareholders of Activision happy.
I long for the day when it call comes crashing down at Activision, if only to back up the sentiment that they had been using a poor business model all along and that nuturing new IP's and investing in their talented studios (ala EA) should be at the top of their priority list. Call of Duty will fall, and it will be glorious.
To all of those affected by Acti's greedy gut and short sightedness, they don't deserve your talent. I only hope that they land on their feet and as they say, when one door closes, 10 more open. There is so much potential in the indie scene at the moment, as Cliffyb would say "its the fuckin wild west out there".
Comment below viewing threshold Show
the first one was a blast.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I'm sensing desperation on the activison front- and it is delicious.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
It goes without saying? I'd dispute that, though I don't have the figures.I'd expect there is a strong correlation between a high metacritic score and high sales numbers, which is no doubt the reason why publishers/devs see it as important.
In the absence of any other kind of yardstick, I'm happy for developers to have a high metacritic score as a primary goal.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Wii Play - 58%, 27 million+ sales
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Alternatively, Okami for PS2 - 93%, around 350,000 sales
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
As I said, I don't have the numbers but I had a quick Google and found this, on a Wall Street Journal blog:
"About 18 months ago, Activision also conducted a study of 789 games made for Sony Corp.'s PlayStation 2 console and found a strong correlation between some high game scores and strong sales. Activision Chief Executive Robert Kotick says the link was especially notable for games that score above 80% on Game Rankings, which grades games on a 1-to-100 percentage basis, with 100% being a perfect score. For every five percentage points above 80%, Activision found sales of a game roughly doubled. Activision believes game scores, among other factors, can actually influence sales, not just reflect their quality."
Also this, from a Guardian article about Metacritic:
"I was watching the new Fox Business Network shortly after Super Mario Galaxy was released. The anchor was interviewing Reggie F-A of Nintendo, and across the bottom of the screen was a banner stating that the game has received a Metascore of 96. That floored me. More and more businesses and financial analysts are referring to Metacritic numbers as an early indicator of a game's potential sales and, by extension, the publisher's stock price. Apparently, they're able to use quantifiable review data as a predictor of a games success before the NPD sales data is officially released."
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I stopped buying any Activision related product in 07, and unfortunately I also had to cut Blizzard out as well - it's breakup by association. It's a shame because I was really looking forward to starcraft 2 and diablo3.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
@ daeltaja
What you're basically saying there is that review scores only matter to a small minority, which I don't believe to be true for one second. How many times has a game not remotely been on your radar until the EG review has popped up with a 9 or a 10? At which point you've suddenly sat up and taken notice?
How much less notice do you take when a game you haven't been following comes out and receives yet another 8?
All a 90+ metascore says is that whatever source a consumer uses for their buying advice, it's uniformally telling them to buy this game.
All the evidence of studies correlating review score to sales figures show that 90+ is the sort of scores you need to be getting to tip people from "not buy" to "buy". Whether you get a 70% or an 80% is less critical. The people who were enthusiastic about the game won't be put off, but you won't draw in the extra punters.
Obviously there are exceptions. Critically acclaimed commercial disasters, like Okami and Shadow of the Colossus. Heavily marketed installments of big franchises that still sell millions, like Need for Speed or Call of Duty. But as a general rule, of it's not a big franchise and it's not tracking for 90+ scores, it's not likely to do the kind of numbers that Activision are now solely interested in. You're very much going to be looking at a "mid-tier opportunity".
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Sorry, I think I misworded what I was trying to say. As someone else pointed out, Wii Play's 58% average did nothing to hurt its crazy sales, ok granted it's bundled with a controller, but take Homefront or even Call of Duty as a closer example. The general public do not check metacritic. They also don't buy their games based on meta averages, and the bulk of Modern Warfares 2's 25mil+ sales were these people. I'm not trying to trash talk the the general public, far from it in fact, it's just that they couldn't care a less about these things. If the game looks appealing in the shops, they buy it. If someone buys it and likes it, chances are his mates will also buy it so they can play together. Ok, Black Ops doesnt have a poor Meta score per se, but Homefront sold because it was a multiplayer FPS. Simple. It was also a broken, buggy mess with a woeful campaign. I could go and list 100's of more examples. Clearly a games launch window is also paramount to its success when factoring in other releases around it and might carry as much sales influence as a Meta score.
Going on a bit of a tangent here, but I suppose the point I'm trying to get across is that Metacritic scores are not synonymous with sales. Reviews do matter of course, they have certainly helped me at times as I've often bought titles (usually iphone/steam) based on strong reviews, but they can also be way off mark too. I don't generally use reviews as a gage for my higher price purchases though, I already have my mind made up about which titles I'll be buying, as I know what I like to play and thats usually all that matters.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I do agree with you that there is a large portion of the market who don't read reviews at all. Which is why low scoring, heavily marketed games can still do well; but there really aren't many that do that without being part of one of the mega-franchises.
And that's what we are talking about here: overall trends. The overall trend is that review scores very strongly correlate to game sales, with the largest drop off being when a game drops below 90%. A lot of people don't read them at all, but they will be heavily influenced by the people that do.
Homefront is actually a great example. It was marketed to buggery, but the quality bar isn't high enough. It did 750k in week 1 sales worldwide. Not bad. I'd take that. But that's what Activision would term a "mid-tier opportunity", which is not what they're about. Compare that to Red Dead Redemption, to use the example from the article, which hit higher scores and clocked 2m in its first week.
Games that do 2m sales in week 1 are generally, in fact almost invariably, either:
a) Entries in a big franchise.
or
b) Racking up 90%+ review scores.
Or both.
If your business plan is only to release games that can do 2m in week one, as with Activision, that's the two things you're going to focus on.
There honestly really is a quite well established correlation between big, big sales and 90+ scores, especially on PS3 and 360. Publishers focus on it because the numbers back it up. 80+ games only get close if they're big franchise releases. Otherwise, they're Blur. Homefront at best. For Activision, that's not enough. I reckon they would have canned Homefront.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
SPYRO??!!