Playable first on Xbox 360, per the 2010 business deal.

The release of the official MW3 season content calendar has fired off a new volley of comments, questions, and confusion from PlayStation 3 gamers. The main question: “You said I would get content early. I paid for Elite just like the Xbox 360 gamers; why do they get content first?” A good question, and one that has a clear answer, I’m happy to say.

Back in 2010, Activision and Microsoft entered a business deal to release DLC on Xbox 360 earlier than other platforms; this contract is valid through the year 2012. This business deal was very widely reported by the games media when the announcement was made at E3 in 2010, and the DLC releases for both Modern Warfare 2 and Call of Duty: Black Ops was released in accordance with that contract. All DLC for MW3 will follow the terms of that deal as well, because it’s still 2012.

This is the short answer. Read on if you would like the long answer.

Vader in SCIV PS3 was such a big deal, he's on the Japanese box.

Exclusivity in the game biz is not uncommon, whether it’s a game franchise only appearing on one platform (Gears of War for Xbox 360, Infamous for PlayStation 3) or content that is only available to one audience or the other (Darth Vader and Yoda in Soul Calibur IV on PS3 and Xbox 360, respectively). Sometimes, as with Soul Calibur IV, this exclusive content eventually shows up on other platforms. Sometimes, as with Kratos in Mortal Kombat or the playable Joker in Batman: Arkham Asylum, it does not.

Thankfully, for Call of Duty DLC, all consoles get all the same content, but there is a delay as to who gets what when. This type of exclusive is not that uncommon either; other games, such as Battlefield 3 and Skyrim, have also arranged timed exclusives, anywhere from a week to a month. Eventually, though, everybody gets everything.

Eric Hirshberg explained Elite's offerings and pricing at XP 2011.

Enter Call of Duty Elite. Premium members pay $49.99 up front and get all the MW3 DLC that will come out over a nine-month period — DLC that Eric Hirshberg said at XP 2011 would cost $60 if it was bought via traditional map pack bundles. Even if you didn’t care about anything else that Elite premium offers, that’s a no-brainer for dedicated CoD players. But somewhere along the way, people convinced themselves that an Elite subscription would trump the 2010 DLC exclusivity deal that was created before Elite existed — that by paying for Elite, they were somehow invalidating a contract between Activision and Microsoft. It doesn’t make any sense, but it is what people started to think.

The Elite team tackles Elite audience Q&A at XP 2011.

I wondered where people would have gotten that idea — had someone actually promised that, or said something at XP 2011 that I missed? — so I researched it. What I found was that you can’t prove the non-existence of something. I can find no evidence of “buy Elite, get PS3 DLC same time as 360″ ever being so much as suggested by any official source. It was never one of the things listed in the official benefits chart; it was never promised by any representative of Activision, Call of Duty, Elite, or its developers. Honestly? I think gamers just convinced themselves that it would happen because they wanted it to happen. That makes sense, but it doesn’t make it true.

Still, the Call of Duty team must have known this assumption could be a source of confusion. So the Elite FAQ is very clear:

Similar to Map Packs, X360 Premium members will receive their Content before PS3 Premium members. All Call of Duty ELITE Premium members will receive a steady stream of content released monthly for 9 months through the Content season, and they will also receive their Content before non-premium members on their console.

I know I am not everybody’s primary source of Activision information, but I also noted this back in June 2011 in my massive “What I Know About Call of Duty Elite” article:

Elite subscribers will be able to access the DLC before it goes on sale to a la carte purchasers. The window of time has not been disclosed. For PS3 owners, this does not override this business deal that currently brings Call of Duty DLC to Xbox 360 first; that deal is valid through 2012. However, Elite members will get the DLC before the non-Elite members on their respective platforms.

So…that’s where we are. The deal from 2010 is why DLC comes out on Xbox 360 first. I’m seeing people scream “rip-off” and stuff like that, but nobody’s going to get ripped off; every gamer will get everything they were promised and everything they paid for. It’s unfortunate that people assumed things about Elite that turned out to not be based in fact, but I hope the truth is clear now. Unpopular, I’m guessing, but clear.

Also, you don’t have to pay to play Call of Duty multiplayer. But everybody knows that now, right?

UPDATE 1/28: I’m sorry to see people taking this article the wrong way. My intent was not to be mean or arrogant; my intent was to clear up the confusion and dig into how we got to this point, because ultimately this is a case of what was said vs. what was assumed. That’s always difficult.

But sorting out the facts does not mean that I don’t understand how frustrated people are. I totally get where the confusion came from; it makes sense and I totally understand why people are upset — and I am sorry about the situation. But I think the flames are starting up now because people wanted to hear something else, and I can’t say what they want to hear. I’m sorry about that, too. All I intended to do was offer the facts and show my work, and I had hoped being clear would be helpful to people who were still confused and asking me about it on Twitter. Perhaps not, in hindsight. So if you need to rage at me about it, okay.

Time for another round of the Internet Gossip Game. News stories like this and this are trumpeting an “official statement” by Activision on a Spider-Man: Edge of Time Facebook page. When asked if the game would appear on OnLive, the “official response” was “We do not consider OnLive a platform for our game to appear on. We would rather focus on mainstream consoles and legitimate gamers. Thank you.”

Dammmn! Wicked burn! Trouble is, it’s a web of lies. (See what I did there? Because it’s Spider-Man. Web. Heh.) The quoted comment did not come from an official page or an official Activision representative. It was some fan running their own Facebook page and pretending to be the real deal. Fact check fail.

Here’s a few reasons why skepticism should be your first reaction:

1) The grammar is atrocious. “For our game to appear on”? C’mon.

2) Every Marvel gamer knows that Activision’s official portal for real info is Hero HQ. There is a Hero HQ outpost on Facebook as well as Twitter. Hero HQ has been around for several years now; it’s a well-established source and there’s no reason to send the audience to two pages at once. Why go anywhere else? (Except OneOfSwords.com, your friendly neighborhood source for information lifted from responsibly credited to HeroHQ.)

3) Even if Activision games are not currently available via OnLive, this industry moves pretty fast;  if you were Activision, would it make sense to openly dismiss a potential business partner? That’s just stupid.

Still, to be clear, the gang at HeroHQ had to post a note on Facebook, reminding people that they are the real deal and the comments that got people so fired up were bogus in the first place.

The internet is a business, and the quest for traffic sometimes trumps the quest for truth, so I beg you to keep your wits about you as you hear “news” — if it sounds ridiculous, maybe it is.  As always, I remain your humble servant in factual accuracy. Thanks for stopping by.

I’ve been fielding a Call of Duty Elite question over and over again lately, and it’s a fair question to ask, but since my answer in my main Elite article didn’t do it for most people, I guess it’s worth its own blog post. The question is ”Do I get DLC on multiple platforms if I get a membership to Call of Duty Elite?” That is, if you have both a PlayStation 3 and an Xbox 360 and you buy Modern Warfare 3 for both, will one Elite premium membership get you all the DLC for both platforms?

Short answer: No, sorry. With an Elite premium membership, you get all the MW3 DLC for one platform of your choice. If you want the DLC for the other platform as well, you will either need to buy the DLC a la carte/via the traditional pack-at-a-time method, or you will need a second Elite premium membership specifically for that second platform.

Hope that clears it up, but there’s a deeper explanation beyond the jump, if you want it. 

First, realize that Elite was built with the majority of Call of Duty gamers in mind. Most gamers play Call of Duty on one platform. If you’re buying the same game on two platforms, that’s uncommon — not rare, but certainly not the typical gamer’s experience. I mean, I play CoD on all platforms, but that’s because I work at Activision and it’s my job to participate in all those communities. If I didn’t have this job, I’d probably just play on one platform (and that would be dictated by where most of my friends were playing it). So right off the bat, this question is likely coming from super-hardcore players, and they are a special case.

Second, remember that Elite is a service, but you still get your DLC via each console manufacturer’s digital download store. Activision is saying “In addition to the other benefits, Elite gets you DLC at a discount” — but the delivery method for that DLC, like in past years, is still coming through Sony’s PlayStation Store or Microsoft’s Xbox Live Marketplace, and they each want their share of that business. I am currently unaware of any situation, gaming or otherwise, where you can buy a product from one retailer and get that same product again for free from a completely different retailer (unless the person making that offer owns one of the stores, a la Valve offering Portal 2 PC for free to PS3 owners — which is totally different from what we have here). I love my food analogies, so consider that you can buy a large Coke at McDonald’s, but you can’t take that cup into Wendy’s for a refill — same product, different store, different transaction, and Wendy’s doesn’t care that you paid McDonald’s; they didn’t see a dime of that large Coke. So MW3 DLC will be available to members of both PlayStation Network and Xbox Live — whether you use Elite to get it or not — but like any other DLC content purchase, you don’t get content on two platforms for the price of one. (It’s a nice dream, though.)

Free stuff like your player card is free to all players on all platforms.

One minor clarification: You will only need one CallofDuty.com account to access Elite, regardless of platform or membership. If you play on 360 and PS3, you can access your Elite data for both through the same CallOfDuty.com account; you just have to choose which one you want to see at any given time. If one is premium and one isn’t, no problem. If both are premium or neither is premium, no problem.

Hope that makes sense. A shorter version of this answer is incorporated into my main Elite article which I do recommend reading — I am keeping it updated with the latest Elite info as I get it.

I spotted this news story from Reuters which asked — and got an answer to — a question that I have heard a lot of gamers ask: “Is that really Bobby Kotick, the CEO of Activision Blizzard, talking to Brad Pitt in the trailer for Moneyball?”

Mind you, some people were more surprised than others (one particularly ridiculous, anything-for-traffic headline: “What the F*** is Bobby Kotick Doing In This Brad Pitt Movie?”), but, yes, it is really him. Check this trailer, about 15 seconds in:

Click here to view the embedded video.

The answer turned out to be a good one: charity. Bobby is friends with director Bennett Miller, and he agreed to the cameo only if Miller made a film for the Call of Duty Endowment, the charity Bobby set up to give veterans quality jobs when they return to civilian life. Reuters has a full quote:

We were having dinner and Bennett was talking about Moneyball and he asked me a little bit about an owner’s psychology and what an owner would be like. I started reading the script and I said, I really think the words don’t capture how an owner would react to this part of the conversation.  I also loved Michael Lewis’ book Moneyball . We were having this back and forth and Bennett said ‘why don’t you do it? It would make the role very authentic.’ And I said, ‘I will, but only if you made my Call of Duty endowment movie.

Miller agreed, and apparently we’ll see the results of both ends of this deal soon — Moneyball opens September 23, and the Endowment film’s release is TBD.

Meanwhile, Bobby intends to make this a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity: “I don’t get a credit and you’ll never see me acting again.”

UPDATE 11/10: Please visit  http://bit.ly/codelitestatus for the latest operating status of Call of Duty Elite, and check http://bit.ly/elitefaq for more detailed answers about individual Elite elements, such as Founder rewards, console & mobile apps, and the 30-day subscription extension.

[UPDATE 9/6: A lot of information information was revealed at Call of Duty XP this past weekend, so I have incorporated new information and revised several parts of this article, removing outdated data and adding the latest. The official website is still the best source of information.]

In February, Activision announced the formation of Beachhead Studio, a new Activision studio dedicated to, in the words of Activision Publishing CEO Eric Hirshberg, “an innovative new digital platform and social service for our Call of Duty community”? Their project: Call of Duty Elite, a service for Call of Duty players which will launch this fall, integrated into Modern Warfare 3.

I have been following the project internally for a several months, and this frequently revised article is intended to be a storehouse of verified information and straight talk. I also have an interview with the COD Elite creators from Beachhead, which you can listen to, read in full, or just read the highlights. If you want a quick video, Eric Hirshberg talked with Geoff Keighley about Elite during E3, and his summary is pretty much all you need to know. For frequent updates, check twitter.com/CallOfDutyElite.

This article is constantly being updated so check back often – the short URL is bit.ly/codelite.

Call of Duty Elite is not a game, it’s a service.
Take the best bits of a stat-tracking service, a social network, an interactive strategy guide, and a competitive gaming site, then custom-design all that for the Call of Duty community, and that’s Elite. The three words you’ll hear most often to define the service are Connect, Compete, and Improve — the Elite website offers a little insight into what that means, and the official FAQ goes deeper. You can create custom leaderboards with friends, learn from detailed stats of your entire CoD career performance, consult expert players, join competitive leagues, win real prizes — lots of stuff. There is a video, “The Legend of Karl,” that gives an overview of what Elite will offer here.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Call of Duty Elite will launch alongside Modern Warfare 3 on November 8, 2011.
Elite was designed with MW3 in mind, so it only makes sense that they launch simultaneously. A public beta was launched during the summer and ran from July to October. (More on this later.)

Activision is NOT charging for Call of Duty multiplayer.
Because it needs to be said (over and over, apparently), the COD multiplayer experience you know and love remains exactly as it is now with no additional fees. Elite ties into the multiplayer of both Modern Warfare 3 as well as Black Ops, but that integration is at no cost to you, and nothing is being taken away from the multiplayer experience. Just the opposite — Elite is here to enhance it, and it’s also free.

Activision has its own statement on this from the official FAQ: “The Call of Duty “out of the box” experience that our players expect: a great single player campaign, co-op missions, and the deepest and most accessible multiplayer anywhere — at no additional cost — remains the same as ever. Our promise to you is this: Elite only adds to the Call of Duty experience. Nothing will be taken away from the experience you know and love. If you want to continue to play Call of Duty as you always have, you will still be able to do just that, including the ability to buy Map Packs a la carte. With Call of Duty Elite, we’re adding a new choice for those who want to get even more out of the game. Even haters can play for free.”

LOL.

Call of Duty Elite is free for all players.
The core functionality of Elite is free, and includes everything listed in the Free column here – any Call of Duty player will be able to log in and use any of that stuff for no charge.

There is an optional Premium Membership for $49.99 a year.
For players who want more, an annual $49.99 Premium Membership will get you all the stuff in the Premium column. That price includes all the DLC that will be released for Modern Warfare 3, which will be 20 pieces in all, delivered monthly, and none of it is themes and gamerpics — it’s all in-game content. International pricing should be finalized shortly.

Before that price was announced, Netflix was name-checked as a similar value by the Wall Street Journal. Netflix is $7.99/month. With the final price of $49.99 a year, Elite breaks down to less than $5 a month.

A lot of people were freaked out when they heard “paid Call of Duty content,” but the simplest and best analogy I can think of is television. You can watch NBC, CBS, and ABC all you want, just for the price of buying a TV. However, if you want more — Comedy Central or HBO or NBA League Pass — then you subscribe to a cable or satellite service to get those extra programs. You don’t have to; it’s a question of whether or not you want to see those other shows. If you’re happy with your usual high-quality network television, keep on enjoying it. If you want more content from your TV, you can choose to subscribe to more. Easy.

DLC is included with your Elite membership, or you can buy it  as a standalone download.
Says Activision: ”Elite is an all-inclusive membership, and that means you get all of the playable game DLC for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 as part of your premium membership. No need to buy additional DLC.” Again, nothing is being taken away and nothing is compulsory — you simply have another choice when it comes to getting DLC. You can buy COD DLC the traditional way — a map pack at a time — or you can automatically get the DLC as part of your Elite premium membership. Chacko Sonny, studio head of Beachhead, makes this extremely clear in an interview that is part of podcast 071: ”If you are the player who wants to purchase DLC seperately, that option is still there — you can go ahead and buy the DLC independent of the premium membership if you want. That said, if you want to purchase the premium membership, get the benefits that will be offered in terms of the features on Elite and get the DLC with it, it will be a great deal for you.”

Elite DLC is permanently owned DLC. 
Whether you buy the DLC a la carte or get it as part of your Elite membership, it is yours to keep; the DLC will not deactivate if you decide not to renew your subscription next year. It’s yours to keep as if you had bought it the traditional way.

Elite Premium Members get DLC earlier than non-members. 
Elite subscribers will be able to access the DLC before it goes on sale to a la carte purchasers. The window of time has not been disclosed. For PS3 owners, this does not override this business deal that currently brings Call of Duty DLC to Xbox 360 first; that deal is valid through 2012. However, Elite members will get the DLC before the non-Elite members on their respective platforms.

A Premium Membership to Elite is included with the MW3 Hardened Edition. 
A standard edition of Modern Warfare 3 will cost $59.99. The Hardened Edition of MW3 will be $99.99 on PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360; it comes with several collectibles for the series’ biggest fans, as well as a one-year subscription to Call of Duty Elite. That’s ten bucks less than buying them seperately, so it’s extra savings on top of the DLC savings. (If you attended Call of Duty XP, you received a redemption code for MW3 Hardened on 360 or PS3– send that in and you’ll get the game when it’s released.)

Early Elite adopters will be granted Founder status. 
Founder status will be granted to anybody who signs up for Elite within the first week of its existence — activate before November 13, and you’re a Founder. There are a few perks that go with it — an exclusive group, an XP boost for your clan, a special emblem, an exclusive weapon camo, stuff like that. If that’s of interest, get in early. Alternately, you can use the Founder code that comes on a card in the Hardened Edition of MW3. To my knowledge, there will be no other way to obtain Founder status beyond these two methods.

Your Elite membership gets you DLC on the primary platform of your choice.
Some hardcore gamers have asked if you get DLC on both PS3 and 360 with one Elite subscription. Sorry, no — you get DLC on your choice of primary platform, singular. You can use the free stuff like stat tracking on all platforms, of course, but the DLC is tied to your gamertag or PSN ID, like any traditional DLC purchase would be. If you bought Black Ops DLC maps on PS3, you did not also get them on 360 as well — you would have to buy them for each system separately if you wanted them on two separate systems, because the online stores are run by Sony and Microsoft, and they each want their cut. Same with Elite.

Elite is NOT going to sell players competitive advantages with microtransactions.
If you are worried about someone buying their way into Prestige or Activision selling people special weapons that they wouldn’t normally be able to earn through gameplay, don’t be — that’s not what Elite is about. “We’re not doing anything like that,” Chacko Sonny says. “It’s not part of the plan.” Activision also has an official statement on this: “No, players are not able to buy prestige weapons or levels through Elite. While Call of Duty Elite wants to help people become better players, there’s still only one way to level up to new weapons, XP and prestige, and that’s to earn it in game.” (Also, for clarity, Elite is not the same thing as the COD free-to-play MMO currently being built for China. That’s a completely different project for a completely different country, and that’s the one that will use microtransactions.)

Elite has been in development for two years already.
While Call of Duty Elite has been designed to integrate into Modern Warfare 3, it has been developed over the last two years using live data from Black Ops. Everything you’ve done up to this point in Black Ops has been tracked, logged, and will be waiting for you the first time you get to try Elite for yourself.

You can access Elite from many devices.
One of the goals is to let fans interact with Call of Duty when they’re not able to play it — at lunch, on a bus, whatever. If you’re thinking about it, why not pop in and see what’s new on your stats and leaderboards? The web interface is the most obvious way to access Elite, but mobile clients are in development too (hello, iPad), as are console-specific apps for the PS3 and 360. The Activision version from the FAQ: “We’re designing Call of Duty Elite to be widely accessible and customized for a number of platforms — via web browsers, through the game, and through mobile applications as well – including iPhone and iPad, as well as Android tablets and smartphones.” At XP 2011, the team expressed a desire to also create an app for Windows Phone 7, but said nothing was firm and nobody should expect mobile platforms beyond iOS and Android at launch.

There is already a OneOfSwords group on COD Elite.
“I don’t play online because it’s just a bunch of kids/racists/racist kids” is a big (and fair) complaint I hear about online gaming. Everybody would prefer to play with gamers who share their sensibilities and interests. So, the first thing I started playing with was the Groups function, which lets you find like-minded gamers and communicate with them. Pick any interest — gardening, zombies, juggling, your town, your school, your sports team — and then type it in. Ta da! You’ve joined a group, or created a new one — it’s just that word with a # in front of it. Anybody can join it just by saying “yeah, that’s me too.” Each group shares a comment wall, all their stats, and can easily organize community nights. Naturally I started a OneOfSwords group, which means everybody can see each other’s stats and laugh at mine. And since you can join up to 64 groups at the moment, well, when you get your chance to try Elite, you are required to join my group. And when will that be? Well…

The free public beta for Elite started July 14.
Call of Duty Elite will launch at the same time as Modern Warfare 3 — November 8, 2011, but a public beta will run this summer, starting July 14. Chacko Sonny says this is “not just a teaser, it’s a real beta” — that is, not a beta for marketing purposes the way game betas are sometimes used. The team is looking for how the community uses it and what they like and don’t like, as well as how the service handles the traffic of the COD community.

Since the beta is a real live beta, its schedule is organic and it is moving forward as fast as it is safe to proceed. Project Director Noah Heller says the beta will roll out in waves, so if you don’t get in right away, don’t panic — you’ll have more chances as the summer goes on as they open the beta wider and wider. It turned out that the beta started with Xbox 360 data and will incorporate PS3 data before long. If you are interested and want to try it out ASAP, they’re taking signups at http://www.callofduty.com/elite. Within two weeks, more than two million gamers had signed up. I have a FAQ just about the beta logistics here.

Elite will be customized for PC; it will be free. Release TBD.
In this interview with Eurogamer, Noah Heller said “We’re working really hard right now on the customised version of Elite for the PC, because it’s an open platform and has some challenges.” Dedicated servers, configurable as the admin sees fit, put a lot of power into the hands of PC players, but when it comes to something like Elite, you need to guarantee that the data being reported from the servers is not being altered. That’s the challenge the team faces right now. Clearly, what works for a closed console ecosystem will not work for an open PC ecosystem. It’s strange to think of it as a restriction caused by freedom, but that’s not far off. As a result, the exact PC plan for and implementation of Elite have not yet been announced. Noah and Chacko gave me an update in October that specifically said it’ll be ready when it’s ready.

UPDATE: I’ve fielded several questions from the community on Twitter, so here’s a quick mini-FAQ.

Isn’t this just Bungie.net for Call of Duty?
No, although you have probably spotted some similarities — for instance, Bungie also offered its players post-game stats and heat maps free of charge. However, Elite is going a lot deeper and is integrating the data in a different way, and that might not be clear until you get to try it for yourself. An official Activision quote from the FAQ: “Elite ups the ante of any free service by offering a range of innovations on well-established multiplayer features, such as leaderboards, heat maps, and rich player data.” This, arguably, is at least what Bungie.net offers, and depending on how it’s integrated, Elite might offer even more, still for free. But for sure, nobody on the Elite team is saying they invented heat maps or player stat tracking. Good ideas tend to pop up more than once…because they work and people like them. As long as what you enjoyed from Bungie for free is free in Elite as well — and really, it looks like it is — I don’t see this as a bad thing.

Is everything shown in the Legend of Karl video going to be free?
No — in fact, go to 6:25 in the video and you’ll see a slate that says “Some Call of Duty features mentioned in video require a paid Call of Duty Elite membership.”  You may have missed it because the wonderfully distracting lawyer song plays over that section.

I got an email inviting me into the beta but I didn’t get a confirmation that I’m in. What’s up?
Many people got emails inviting them to sign up for the beta, but please don’t mistake that for “you’re in.” It’s more of a reminder that you can’t participate if you don’t volunteer. If you are chosen for the first wave of the beta, you will receive an email closer to the July 14 start date. Even then, you might not be chosen until one of the later waves, but they are going to try to accomodate as many users as possible during the beta. Either way, don’t panic — nobody is actually in the beta yet, so you are not missing out on anything.

Will the beta include everything that I’ll get if I get a membership?
No, because some of the stuff that the membership level of Elite will offer is tied to Modern Warfare 3 specifically, and full info on that game isn’t out yet. So everything you see in the beta will be in the final, but there will be additional things activated at launch.

If I sign up for a premium Elite membership, do I get the DLC cheaper?
Yes. The complete collection of DLC for Black Ops ran roughly $60. The Elite membership promises all the MW3 DLC for ten bucks less than that, plus it will offer more features and options as well.

If I sign up for Elite, can I get the DLC on multiple platforms?
Sorry, no. You get DLC on your choice of primary platform, singular. You can use the free stuff like stat tracking on all platforms, of course, but the DLC is tied to your Xbox Live gamertag or PSN ID, like any traditional DLC purchase would be. Analogy: You can buy a large Coke at McDonald’s, but you can’t take that cup into Wendy’s for a refill — same product, different store. Elite’s DLC discount will be available to members of both PlayStation Network and Xbox Live, but like any other content purchase, it does not cross over.

Will Elite support Modern Warfare 2?
Elite was built around Black Ops & MW3 and will support games beyond that, but I am unaware of any plans to integrate it into MW2.

As I’ve said, I will keep updating this document as more information is made available. Stay tuned — bookmark bit.ly/codelite for easy reference.

A blog recently posted about the expiration of five domains, all of which were permutations of gameoftheyear.com. The blog’s opening lines state:

What happens when you don’t win Game of the Year at the 2010 Spike Video Game Awards?

Well, in the case of Activision, which saw its best selling game in U.S. history, Call of Duty: Black Ops, lose to Red Dead Redemption— the company has decided not to renew several of its domain names surrounding “Game of the Year”.

My only concern with this statement is its complete and total inaccuracy. I posted my comments to that effect on the article, but people are saying they can’t see them — maybe they were removed, maybe it’s a glitch. So I’ll post it here.

Truth is, there is no link between the expiration of these URLs and the Spike VGAs. What’s more, there’s barely a connection between these URLs and Activision. These URLs were registered by Vivendi/Sierra, and were used to promote the Game Of The Year editions of Half-Life in 1999 and Half-Life 2 in 2005.

If you check all five URLs listed in the article (one two three four and five), they all point to the same Half-Life promotional website. As you can see from the Wayback Machine archive graphs, this site has been inactive since the Half-Life marketing campaign concluded in 2005.

If you needed any more proof, you can see the “gameoftheyear.com” URL on the back of the Half-Life GOTY box itself in this eBay auction photograph:

It's a bit blurry, but it's there, under the Mature black box. Yes, PC boxes used to be this big. Higher res in the link above the photo.

So if gameoftheyear.com belongs to Half-Life, where does Activision enter into it? Well, Activision merged with Vivendi in 2008 — three years after gameoftheyear.com was last updated. Activision has never used those URLs for any of its products; it seems Activision merely inherited those domain registrations as part of the merge.

The statement that Activision would not renew these domains because Red Dead Redemption won at the Spike VGAs suggests a cause-and-effect situation which simply does not exist, no matter how catty and emotional the blog’s unnamed author might want to make the situation seem. There is no evidence that Activision is letting them expire out of spite. Or Spike, as the case may be.

That said, if you have big plans for your next game project and you’re looking for a hot URL…act now.

Today Bizarre Creations officially closed its doors. I can’t offer them any better sendoff than their own video, which — rightfully — focuses on the games they have made. I am happy to hear that many employees were approached by potential employers, but I will miss their output as a team.

In the wake of the final news, several people have asked if Blur‘s servers will be going offline today as well. Thankfully the answer is no. It was the first practical question I asked when I found out that Activision was recommending the closure of the studio, and I was told the following, on the record, for podcast 053:

There will be no impact whatsoever to the overall game infrastructure and, as such, game sessions and all other network/multiplayer aspects of the game will remain intact and as is.

I will keep an eye on this, because nothing lasts forever, but I don’t believe there’s someone in a big room somewhere, waiting to pull a giant Frankenstein switch, asking “Now? Now?” Usually servers go offline once players stop playing in significant numbers, so as long as people are playing Blur, I don’t expect anything to change in the near future. If I hear otherwise, of course, I will let everyone know. Meanwhile, keep racing.

And Bizarre? Thank you.

For the last several months, there have been rumors that Activision is going to charge people to play the multiplayer component of Call of Duty. These rumors are false. This page has become a historical archive the rumors’ origins as well as Activision’s official statements on the matter. But I’ll give you a hint: They keep saying the same thing…

POSTED 7/19/10: There’s a video that made the rounds today of a 360 player getting a glitchy, incomplete message that uses the phrase “Modern Warfare 2″ and half of the word “membership.” Uh oh — does this mean Activision will start charging for COD multiplayer? No, it does not.

This video shows just a glitch — since you can access a Live subscription renewal from within the MW2 game interface, it appears some data got jammed between two parts of Live. It’s not a secret portal to some nefarious plot to charge people for COD multiplayer — and there are no plans to do that. As I was poking around for some answers, Infinity Ward’s Robert Bowling addressed it on Twitter:

Modern Warfare 2 subscription plan rumors going around. For the record, nobody has to pay to play COD or MW2 multiplayer, nor will they.

UPDATE 7/19/10: Robert has also added a blog post on the topic where he confirms that no subscription plan for MW2 exists nor is one being planned.

UPDATE 7/19/10: To me, that was pretty clear that we’re talking about COD as a whole. But just in case you are worried that this only covers MW2, Treyarch’s Josh Olin has added a bit more clarity for the upcoming COD: Black Ops:

No, you will not have to ‘Pay to Play’ #CODBlackOps Multiplayer either. Rumor -> Squashed.

UPDATE 7/19/10: Activision has given IGN an official statement as well:

Reports of a subscription membership in Modern Warfare 2 are not true. Activision has no plans to charge gamers to play Call of Duty multiplayer.

Obviously, if you are playing on Xbox 360, you will need to pay for your Xbox Live Gold subscription as you currently do. But there will be no additional fees to play MW2 or Black Ops.

People often assume the worst, so thanks to all the people who asked if this was real or not before they reacted. There are often logical answers to those kind of questions.

UPDATE 11/24/10: Amazingly, months after its July appearance, this rumor remains in November, so Activision Publishing CEO Eric Hirshberg addressed it yet again in a recent interview with Industry Gamers:

Are we going to be charging for multiplayer? The answer is no. The experience you have out of the box, connecting with the online community to play Call of Duty is absolutely integral to the experience and we’ll never charge for that. It’s not going to be something we’ll attempt to monetize; it’s part of the package.

All I’m trying to get across is I can unequivocally say we will never, ever charge for the multiplayer.

UPDATE 2/12/11: Happy new year! This rumor persists so I am bumping it up on the blog. The Q4 2010 earnings call announcement of a studio called Beachhead has fanned the flames yet again, but the data in this document stands. Everything everybody said last year is still true: you will not have to pay to play COD multiplayer. Even the game announced for the Chinese market is a free-to-play model supported by microtransactions. Please, tell your friends — the fact that the rumor mill keeps churning this one up despite direct statements from the people who actually would be able to make those decisions…it’s downright ridiculous at this point.

UPDATE 5/10/11: I am stunned that the rumor is making the rounds again, so I’m updating this story with the latest reiteration of the same thing that has been the truth since the beginning. In the Q1 2011 earnings call held yesterday, while answering a follow-up question about Beachhead Studios’ project, Eric clarified this one more time for good measure:

While we are attempting to deliver new, incremental experiences [...] we are not attempting to monetize or take any experience away that currently comes as part of the value proposition of buying the game.

UPDATE 5/31/11: We now have details about Beachhead’s project, and it’s called Call of Duty: Elite. Both COD multiplayer and COD Elite are free — so not only is Activision not charging you for multiplayer, but you’re going to get more stuff for free. Elite will offer an optional premium membership for some of its services, but it does not take anything away from multiplayer, nor does it unbalance MP gameplay. You can get more info at callofduty.com/elite.

If you really, really want to pay for the multiplayer experience on its own — if what you have paid is simply too good a deal and you feel deeply obligated to fork over more cash — then pick a dollar amount that seems fair and please donate that to the Call of Duty Endowment. Then you can enjoy the value-packed multiplayer experience guilt-free.

I dream of a day this rumor goes away. I’m starting to think that people would rather be angry about something that does not exist than they would be happy about getting what they expect for their money…!

Well, that’s what I get for expecting a boring investor update. All kinds of info came out in today’s conference call — some good, some bad, and some that are sure to be slightly mangled by the rumor mill. You can read the full transcript yourself, but if that’s a bit daunting, here are the facts that matter if you’re a gamer:

What Was Said: First Strike DLC will come out on PlayStation 3 on March 3.
My Take: Huzzah! Glad there’s a firm date. PC gamers, look for it “later in the quarter.” As I hear more info, I’ll report back.

What Was Said: Call of Duty is coming to China with a free-to-play microtransaction business model (but not this year).
My Take: That’s all that was said; no details. But microtransaction games — like, fantasy MMOs where it’s free to enter the dungeon, but you can buy bits of armor and weapons if you want to upgrade quickly — are very common in China and South Korea, so this sounds like a case of making a game to fit the audience. If you’re a gamer in those territories, this news probably isn’t too surprising, and if you’re not a gamer in those territories, it doesn’t affect you, as you won’t be playing it. This is being built for China, where games like Call of Duty: Black Ops are not available for sale in stores. You get that, they get this.

What Was Said: A new studio, Beachhead, is being formed to work on online COD stuff.
My Take: Beachhead is, according to Bobby Kotick, “focused solely on the development of an innovative new digital platform and social services for our Call of Duty community.”  Eric Hirshberg says the platform has been in development for over a year and features “in-game integration.” Remember, Activision says it will “never, ever charge for the multiplayer” of COD games, and they really can’t go back on that — this will have to be something different. And just from that tease, it sounds like it is.

What Was Said: Something big will be announced at Toy Fair.
My Take: Eric Hirshberg spoke of “an all-new gaming universe that brings together the worlds of toys, videogames and online play in a way that I believe to be unprecedented.” It’s expected to launch late this year, and an announcement is coming at Toy Fair…which is a few days from now, so we won’t have to wait long. [Update: He was talking about Skylanders.]

What Was Said: Someone dropped the name “Family Guy.”
My Take: When talking about licensed franchises like Transformers, X-Men, and Cabela’s, Activision COO Thomas Tippl mentioned the phrase “Family Guy” among them. So…guess we’ll hear about that soon? I’ll poke around.

What Was Said: True Crime: Hong Kong is cancelled.
My Take: After the teases and glimpses we got last year, I was looking forward to seeing how this game would turn out. But it Activision says it’s a quality issue. “To be blunt,” said Activision Publishing CEO Eric Hirshberg, “it just wasn’t going to be good enough.” As a fan of quality games, I support this; if you don’t want to win, why enter the race? The developers, United Front Games, are independent (they did ModNation Racers for PS3 last year) and I’m interested to see what they do next.

What Was Said: The Guitar Hero business unit is going away.
My Take: When something is very successful, it’s not unusual to see companies restructure to cater to that success. GH was super hot for a while, so they created a special business unit for GH games. Now it’s cooled off, so there isn’t much need for a dedicated arm of the business to cater to it — time to reshuffle again. That does not mean Guitar Hero is dead, as some people have said, but it is taking at least 2011 off, and quite possibly more time. GH will remain an Activision franchise and the existing titles will still be supported [Update: I'd reported that DLC was still in development, but I was wrong. DLC development has been stopped too -- nothing past February. The source of my confusion is here.]. Mostly, the business unit thing is more an internal hierarchy/flowchart thing and won’t have a direct impact on gamers.

What Was Said: Headcount is going down.
My Take: That’s the nice way to say “there are layoffs.”  Eric Hirshberg and Thomas Tippl said it’s due to the restructuring and it impacts about 7% of the company’s global workforce, or around 500 people. I work with some of the folks who are leaving and I’m very unhappy about it.  It’s always unfortunate when people lose their jobs and, of course, it’s never done lightly — but it’s also worth noting that you rarely hear anything when people are hired back on. Thomas Tippl noted that they are also hiring up in other areas, so it might actually even out by the end of the year. If that happens, it’s not likely going to be reported.

That’s basically all the important stuff that I heard and all the details I was able to gather. Again, now that there is a transcript of the call online, you can read the original for yourself. If you have questions, I have my notes and a recording of the call, so I’ll try to answer below.

Twitter is exploding with “I heard Guitar Hero is dead” and “RIP Guitar Hero” and stuff like that. Seems a little dramatic from my understanding.

Here’s what actually happened: On today’s quarterly earnings call, Activision announced that the GH business division was been dissolved, and there’s no game in development for 2011. Having a dedicated division for GH made more sense when the music genre was bigger business; not so much now. Guitar Hero DLC development will continue [Update: No it won't, see below] and the existing games will be supported, but there’s no new game coming in 2011.

Activision Publisher CEO Eric Hirshberg’s exact quote, from a transcript of the earnings call:

After two years of steeply declining sales, we’ve made the decision to close our Guitar Hero business unit and discontinue development on our previously playing Guitar Hero title for 2011.

So, honestly…is that “death” or a much-needed break? For a while there I couldn’t drown out the cries of gamers on forums, blogs, and Twitter saying GH should take some time off, and from all appearances, that’s what this is. Step back, let it breathe for a while, don’t make any major plans, and see what happens in the future. I’m very okay with that, even if the break turns into a long time.

Chapter closed? Sure, okay. Book burned? I doubt it.

Rock, as always, on.

UPDATE: After thinking about it, I went back to the recording of the call and listened to the part about DLC again, and now I’m not so sure my interpretation that DLC will continue is right.

At around the 26-minute mark, Eric Hirschbeg said: “Given the considerable licensing and manufacturing costs associated with this genre, we simply cannot make these games profitably, based on current economics and demand. Instead, what we’ll do is focus our time and energies on marketing and supporting our strong catalog of titles and downloadable content, especially to new consumers as the install base for hardware continues to grow.” Now, I took the “catalog of titles” and “downloadable content” to mean two different things, two different avenues that would get support — but since licensing costs are part of making DLC, now I think he might have been talking about simply supporting the existing 500-some songs available for download and import, and not necessarily generating fresh DLC.

So. I’ll try to get to the bottom of that one, but my instinct is now telling me I read it wrong and DLC development might be stopped too. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best, I suppose.

UPDATE 2: It’s official; I was wrong. From the GuitarHero Twitter account, the clarity I was looking for:

We will release the previously announced DLC track and mix packs for February, but we will not be able to release new DLC packs

So there you have it — this will be the last month for GH DLC. Sorry for getting that one wrong, but happy to update with the new info.

Either way, Friday’s playdate is still on.

A rumor went around this week suggesting that Activision was threatening to take down the PS3 servers to Call of Duty: Black Ops. I’m happy to pass along the word from Treyarch’s Josh Olin that the rumor is not true. According to a Twitter post from @JD_2020:

“PS3 Servers” comments were taken out of context. @Treyarch‘s committed to supporting the PS3 community with some great updates on the way.

ATVI_Randolph from Activision’s Customer Support team also sent out a pair of tweets:

Hi all, I apologize for the misunderstanding yesterday. I can assure you that the Call of Duty: Black Ops servers are not being shut down.

A comment from one of our reps was taken out of context for which I apologize. I’m sorry for any inconvenience/worries this may have caused.

Remember that Treyarch has dedicated update threads that evolve from player feedback. You can get the latest progress on Xbox 360,PlayStation 3, Wii and PC at any time — just click those links. If you experience something that isn’t listed there, jump into the conversation at the CallOfDuty.com forums and let the developers know.

I woke up today (this was originally posted November 15) to find several people asking why 200 people were let go from Bizarre Creations and why the studio was closed. And right away, I asked, “Did that actually happen?” I didn’t see an Activision statement about it, and when WeTheGamerz got Bizarre on the line, they said the rumors weren’t exactly true either — but didn’t go into detail. So I went digging internally.

Short answer (revised 1/19): The studio was not closed when the rumor first went around, but after 90 days, no buyer could be found, and Activision did reluctantly recommend the studio’s closure. Develop has the story.

More details below.

According to the official statement which was issued shortly after the November rumors hit — for which I’m citing Gamasutra because I felt it was pretty clear (and I called it “not hysterical” which was a poor choice of phrase — sorry about that) — the site says the studio has been given notice that the next 90 days will see Activision “exploring” its “options” for what to do. Those options are not clearly stated beyond “potential sale” being one of them, but Gamasutra points out it could be layoffs, restructuring or maybe even closure.

I find this news hard to take. I have championed Blur all year out of sheer love, not some corporate mandate. I am scared by this change, because I was secretly hoping someone would come up to me soon and say “hey, we know you’re a big Blur fan, so we wanted to show you what they’re working on next.” This was not the thing I wanted to hear.

I am bracing myself for the worst, because it’ll be easier to take if it happens — but I am still sending positive vibes out in hopes that things will work out. At the very least, maybe things just get scaled back, which is what happened at Neversoft earlier this year. The studio had to let people go, but made the tough cuts and carried on. My fingers are crossed.

UPDATE 11/16: Not 24 hours later, Develop is reporting that there are indeed parties interested in buying the studio. That would be, in my eyes, the best possible outcome for everyone involved. My fingers are still crossed!

UPDATE 1/17: Well, I kept the faith but braced myself for the worst, and it looks like the worst will be the outcome after all. Develop reports that Activision has officially recommended the closure of Bizarre Creation. Activision Worldwide Studios’ chief operating officer Coddy Johnson spoke to Develop about the situation, and here are some of the quotes, which I’ve rearranged for flow:

I want to be clear, our first choice was to try and keep this group together and find a buyer for the studio. But unfortunately, so far we’ve not been able to find any interested parties. [Activision] explored a lot of leads – pretty much anyone you can imagine in the industry. So we’ve made as a last resort, a recommendation to the team for closure. We of course care about this team. We’re offering the studio as many resources as possible, including counselling, external placement services and external career fairs.

I’m really disappointed that no buyer could be found but I’m glad they tried. As the studio members look for new employment, I suspect many UK dev studios will benefit from Bizarre’s talents, but the closure is still something I hoped would not happen. But this is the reality of the situation and I’m just trying to accept it.

On a personal level, I wish the team at Bizarre Creations nothing but the best as they make games for others in the future, and sincerely want to thank them for the great games they delivered. I’m not going to stop playing them.

A few weeks ago I blogged about the Guitar Hero: Metallica import deal — being able to add 39 of the game’s tracks to your GH library. Today it went live, but not without a few hiccups. But thankfully, the hiccups have a cure. Let me explain.

There was a glitch on the Guitar Hero: Metallica code redemption earlier today, but that has been resolved. People who did redeem the codes (apparently about 125 people, from what the server reported) and got a code that was short a few characters will be able to resubmit their same code once the back end stuff is fixed — the database needed to be cleared. They are still working on fixing those borked instances, but it will work — give it a little time. People who have not tried to redeem their code yet are good to go ahead and do it. UPDATE 1: I hear it’s clear sailing for anybody caught by the redemption bug. Go enter a second time and you should be fine as well. If you have any other issues, drop a note to the helpful folks at Activision Customer Support, and remember that if you’re friendly to them, it’s easier for them to be friendly to you.

However, just from checking around the internets, I have spotted three major misconceptions unrelated to that bug that I want to help clear up:

How can I get this free?
If you are in the US and you buy GH:WoR before October 5 Tuesday, October 12 [UPDATE 3: extended an extra week!], you can import those GH:Metallica tracks for free. If you wait or if you are not located in the US, you can import them for the standard fee (which, in the US, is the equivalent of about $6). The free offer is only good in the US; that was stated at the beginning but I think someone got mixed up along the way. UPDATE 2: I understand the freebie is actually working fine for gamers in Canada as well, so this free offer is unofficially working in “North America.”

How does the code redemption work?
The GH: Metallica instruction booklet comes with a code, and the GH: Warriors of Rock instruction booklet comes with a code. Both are printed on the back cover of the manual. Enter both those codes at http://hub.guitarhero.com/metallicaimport/ and it will generate a new code, which you then enter into the console marketplace store of your choice.

Please note that the Metallica import is not the same thing as a standalone DLC pack. You need to legitimately own the game and its manual to get the code you need to import those tracks. If you just want to import the tracks without the free offer, go to the Music Store in the GH game you own and it should be one of the Import Tracks options.

What about Wii?
It was originally announced as 360 and PS3 only, but I found out this week that the import deal also works on Wii. So we’re good to go on all three platforms.

Even before I came to blog about the inner workings of Activision, I had seen the same negative comments made about the company over and over again. Whenever someone wants to slam Activision lately, they often turn to the same phrases, the same offenses, and — let’s be completely honest — the same handful of controversial public comments made by the guy in charge.

I actually don’t think that people truly hate Activision as a company or even its individual development studios; I think they just disagree with any number of the company’s business decisions, and that manifests as bitter, often irrational, comments about Bobby Kotick. And gamers really love to focus on him because of…Those Infamous Comments.

When I saw how frequently these comments were brought up, I decided to put my journalistic hat back on and investigate them. I mean, saying you want to take all the fun out of gaming…that can’t be real, can it? Sure enough, when I looked at the original statements in their original context, I found that many people are citing Those Infamous Comments incorrectly, reinforcing factual errors and misinterpretations — maybe accidentally, maybe willfully.

I think that Those Infamous Comments have become entrenched simply because nobody has stopped to consider that there might be more to the story than those soundbites suggest. But now that I’ve done some research, I’d like you to look at them again. Be warned that what follows is very dense — it’s not casual reading and there are no pictures to jazz it up. It’s just analysis.

But I would like to lay Those Infamous Comments to rest once and for all.

Belief: Bobby Kotick wants to “take the fun out of making videogames.” He cultivates a culture of “skepticism, pessimism, and fear,” and wants to keep his employees “focused on the deep depression.”
Source: Comments made at the Deutsche Bank Securities Technology Conference, September, 2009

Truth: As soon as I heard this quote when I was at OXM, I knew (and said at the time) that what was being reported, while likely word-for-word accurate, was not the full information or spirit of the quote. So I went digging and found the full, correct meaning.

You have to start with a look at exactly what was said in full and in its conversational context, which was transcribed from the audio recording and posted by Gamespot:

Jeetil Patel, Deutsche Bank Securities – Analyst
“What do you think the retailers’ willingness these days is to hold inventory on the video game side? Are they building positions today or are they still very reluctant and very careful of how they are buying?”

Bobby Kotick, Activision Blizzard, Inc.
“I don’t think it is specific to video games. I think that if you look at how much volatility there is in the economy and, dependent upon your view about macroeconomic picture and I think we have a real culture of thrift. And I think the goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks that we brought in to Activision 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games.”

“I think we definitely have been able to instill the culture, the skepticism and pessimism and fear that you should have in an economy like we are in today. And so, while generally people talk about the recession, we are pretty good at keeping people focused on the deep depression.”

Looking at the original statement in full (not to mention the question that spurred it), it’s clear that all the key terms that people have since cited — “focused on the deep depression,” “skepticism, pessimism, and fear” —  are not in relation to human effort, but are all related to the financial aspects of running a big business. That depression is economic, as in 1929 stock market crash; please note that it’s preceded by a comment about the recession, which was the hottest financial topic of 2009, and he is talking to a room full of financial professionals. He’s not talking about depriving someone of happiness or breaking someone’s creative spirit, which is how a lot of gamers took it.

As for “taking the fun out of games,” it sounds to me like a joke that flopped. What’s more, I found it’s a joke he has told before — as early as 2004 to the Hollywood Reporter, where it was not misinterpreted — but it clearly wasn’t so funny this time. A better way to put it would have been to take the financial irresponsibility out of publishing videogames. It helps to know the history here: Gaming is littered with companies that reached too far, got too risky, and in some cases, just thought the business of fun was more fun than business actually is. As gaming has evolved, many publishers have gone out of business despite many hit games — even pioneering ones. No CEO wants that fate for their company.

As Bobby Kotick discussed in his Game Informer interview in the February 2010 issue (couldn’t find this available online, sorry — it pays to subscribe!), when he invested in Activision in 1990, the company was in dire straits. The fiscal term is “insolvent” — severe, company-ending debt. The glory days of the 2600 were gone; the company was trying to do business software under the name Mediagenic and was not doing it well. Bobby loved games and wanted to spend his time working with something he loved. He turned the company around and built it into a success through disciplined business practices. If you want to succeed on the level Activision has reached, there’s no guesswork, no “close enough,” no “whatever happens happens.” There’s a lot of people around the world looking forward to playing these games — so get serious! In other words…take the fun out of making games.

A lot of people took this quote to mean “I don’t want Activision’s developers to enjoy making games” or even “I don’t want the games Activision makes to be fun.” But when you consider the original context, that’s clearly not true. I will agree it was not the best choice of words, and if it’s taken at face value, I would see why people would be upset. But at the 2010 DICE conference, Bobby admitted that it was a stab at humor to a serious crowd of bankers, and the joke failed.

“When I said ‘I want to take all the fun out of video games,’ I was talking to investors. And what I meant was that our development isn’t some disorganized Wild West mess.”

It may be unfunny, but it’s definitely not the negative worldview people have made it out to be. He was speaking financially; gamers were listening emotionally. That’s the disconnect.

Belief: Bobby Kotick doesn’t play games.
Source: “In an industry full of passionate gamers, Kotick stood apart: the guy who never picked up a joystick. (He vaguely recalls enjoying the arcade hit Defender as a teenager. In college he abandoned playing videogames for good.) Still, despite his personal dislike for using his own product, he was determined to make his mark by catering to the needs of deeply passionate game designers.” – Forbes Magazine, February 2009

Truth: As inaccurate statements go, this is a whopper. This is based on a kernel of truth, but it’s not accurate to say he plays no games, and it’s flat out false to say he dislikes them.

In the past, Bobby has talked about playing Guitar Hero with his family, and he does dabble in Call of Duty, but he was actually a hardcore gamer back in the arcade and early PC days (not something he “vaguely recalls”). However, he was so into gaming that he had trouble doing anything else. As he got older he got more responsibilities (like, you know, running Activision) and that left less time to game, or at least less time to game responsibly. What’s more, he identified that he had an addictive personality and had to put a limit on his playing, which he mentioned at this year’s DICE keynote. Again, it’s best to go right to the direct quote:

I play from time to time, but the nature of my personality is such that if I was regularly playing Modern Warfare 2, I would not be able to stop it. It would be at the expense at all my regular responsibilities.

You can also hear this quote for yourself if you watch the keynote video, courtesy of G4TV.

So. Bobby Kotick does not play with the same intensity or volume that you or I do, but that doesn’t mean he plays no games. Think of this as a guy who owns a Ferrari dealership but has lost his license due to speeding tickets; he loves being surrounded by the cars even if he doesn’t get behind the wheel. And as for a “dislike of his own products”? The only person saying that is the author of the Forbes piece; you will note there is no Kotick quote to this effect in the story.

Belief: Bobby Kotick wants to raise game prices.
Source: “You know, if it was left to me, I would raise the prices even further.” — Activision second-quarter earnings conference call in August 2009

Truth: Bobby was adding a self-deprecating joke to a straight answer by then-CEO Mike Griffith, who answered a financial question from analyst Tony Gikas. It was a one-liner at his own expense.

Here’s the transcript of the original exchange, available from investment website SeekingAlpha:

Tony Gikas:
“[...] And a second question, if you don’t mind, just your comfort level regarding pricing of some of your new games that have some expensive controllers and any feedback that you had from retail as we move through the holidays. Thanks, guys.”

Mike Griffith:
“[...] On the pricing, we’ve had for all of our launch titles in the back half of this year, some of which contain peripherals, as you point out, very strong retailer acceptance and support for all parts of our plan, including our merchandising plans, our marketing programs, and our price points.”

Bobby Kotick:
“And Tony, you know if it was left to me, I would raise the prices even further.”

What you do not get from the transcript is that it was said with a laugh, which then elicited other laughs from other people on the phone call. I would have thought that would have explained it away for critics. The laugh was noted by a few websites including VG247 and the now-extinct EndSights.  He was poking fun at his own image…but it would appear few people noticed, or they didn’t find a joke like that funny during a recession  (which is understandable), or maybe they didn’t want to believe that he could have a sense of humor about himself. It’s like me saying I’m waiting for my Pulitzer, or Al Gore saying “Hello, my name is Al Gore, and I used to be the next president of the United States” at the start of An Inconvenient Truth. It’s self-deprecation…plus misinterpretation.

Belief: Bobby Kotick doesn’t want to publish any games he can’t “exploit.”
Source:Activision earnings conference call, November 05, 2008 — specifically, the Q&A section with investors and analysts

Truth: Similar to the earlier example of taking financial terms in an emotional context, this one was boiled down to one charged word — “exploit” — and made it sound much worse than it was on the call. The topic of discussion was the recent merge with Vivendi Universal — specifically how the games already in development at the other company would be handled under the new umbrella. Here’s the exchange from the transcript, once again courtesy of SeekingAlpha:

Jeetil Patel – Deutsche Bank

“[...] Why are you de-emphasizing some of the kind of lesser known brands and focusing on the bigger franchises out there? Is it industry that is causing that or do you think it is more strategy on your part that seems to be [winning] big? I kind of want to understand the dynamics there.”

Robert A. Kotick

“With respect to the franchises that don’t have the potential to be exploited every year across every platform with clear sequel potential that can meet our objectives of over time becoming $100 million plus franchises, that’s a strategy that has worked very well for us. It’s something that we have been very disciplined about and so while there are lots of promises for a lot of these products that we had in the portfolio, I think generally our strategy has been to focus, especially given the increase in development expenditures on the products that have those attributes and characteristics that we know if we release today, we’ll be working on 10 years from now. And that has been — you know, narrow and deep has been essential to our strategy of how you expand operating margins. The difficulty in establishing new franchises or unproven franchises as we have seen over the last 20 years, that is one of the great challenges of the business and I think that you have a less than accepting and tolerant retail environment.

A little earlier in that transcript, speaking on the same subject on the same call, Bobby told Tony Gikas:

“There were a lot of different projects and businesses that we identified as not likely to achieve the profit margin potential that we look for. Most of those products had found homes at other places and are probably more appropriate strategically for other publishers.”

Focusing on big games made for large audiences is a business approach you either agree or disagree with — I’ll respect either outlook — but I don’t feel there’s compelling evidence to suggest this statement was made with or reflects an evil intent. Activision is hardly unique by saying “we want to keep focusing on what works best for our business.” Every company, from restaurants with signature dishes to Honda’s ubiquitous Civic, wants their success today to continue and grow tomorrow. And “exploit” in a business context means exactly that: Let’s keep this good thing going. I found EA’s Nick Earl using “exploit” in the same financial context. Here’s John Carmack using it the same way talking about id’s big IPs. It’s just biz speak.

Gamers took issue with the word on an emotional level — nobody wants to think of someone taking advantage of a hobby they love or preying on it when it’s weak. But that definition of “exploit” simply isn’t this definition, and I think people who only heard that one word had an instant negative reaction to it. I understand why, but it’s not the right interpretation.

I think the core disconnect and gleeful gamer anger all stems from this: Bobby Kotick is responsible for the business end of Activision, but the developers are responsible for the creative and emotional ends. Gamers don’t connect with boardroom balance sheets; they connect with game experiences. When the biz stuff comes through on the gaming wavelength, it’s an easy jump to a poor conclusion — “Bobby doesn’t play games much so that (illogically) means he hates them, and I like games, so I don’t like him. Bobby makes a comment about the economy, but I think (illogically) that he was talking about people, and I am people, so I don’t like him.”

Throughout my media days, I’ve always tried to determine the truth, whether that’s popular or unpopular. If what has been alleged about Those Infamous Comments were true, I could totally understand the outrage. But when these “facts” are really just negative assumptions and faulty interpretations, and people keep repeating them anyway as if they’re truth…well, I felt that should be straightened out.

That’s what I’ve learned and how I learned it. I’m looking forward to your comments.

International financial news doesn’t always catch my attention — no offense to the euros and the pounds, but you know, I’m busy playing games. But I do notice when it involves games.

In late June, the news broke that the British government would be scrapping plans for a tax incentive that would help UK-based developers stay competitive in the world market. Naturally, many game biz folks cried foul over the broken promise — and then a rumor went around suggesting that a major publisher actually sided with the government on this one. That publisher, according to the rumor mill, was probably Activision. No source or logical reason was offered for that rumor, so I got suspicious.

I put on my old journo hat, contacted some people, and found the truth is the exact opposite: Not only is Activision not to blame, Activision might be why that tax break is saved.

Dr. Richard Wilson, CEO of TIGA

First, a little background. In the UK, there are two important trade orginizations to know: TIGA and ELSPA. “Our vision is to make the UK the best place in the world to do games business,” says TIGA CEO Dr. Richard Wilson. “To that end, we lobby the UK Government and politicians in the Westminster Parliament and in the Holyrood (Scottish) Parliament to ensure that we have a fiscal and regulatory framework that is favourable to the video games industry. We also work to raise the media profile of the video games sector.” Wilson says ELSPA — the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers’ Association — is “traditionally focused on tackling piracy and dealing with age ratings” but also represents the interests of dozens of UK game makers.

The tax break was a major promise in an election year, so the sudden decision to abandon the plan (officially, the budget document says “Video games tax relief: not introduce”) is a major blow. “Game developers in many competitor countries receive national or state tax breaks for games production,” explains Wilson. “No such tax breaks exist in the UK and so investment and jobs are in jeopardy.” He adds that between July 2008 and July 2009, 15% of British video games firms went out of business, and an alarming 7% of the UK development workforce lost their jobs if you extend that period to March 2010. “Only a tax break for games production will enable the UK video games industry to compete on a level playing field.”

I went looking and quickly found evidence that Canada and Australia both support game development with tax breaks — it’s an exportable product that can bring long-term profits as well as act as a cultural outreach to the rest of the world. Here at home, North Carolina (hope of Epic Games) just announced its own incentive plan to keep top talent local, and other states have similar programs.

DJ Hero 2 developer FreeStyleGames has studios in London, Brighton, and Leamington Spa.

Traditionally, the developer-focused TIGA and the publisher-focused ELSPA have not always agreed on the issues, but they do on this one. “In the past, TIGA and ELSPA have disagreed on the need for a tax break for games production. Encouragingly, ELSPA now backs a tax break for games production and is supporting TIGA’s campaign. By cooperating closely, UK politicians cannot claim that the industry is divided on the tax break issue.”

James Bond 007: Blood Stone, currently in development by Liverpool's Bizarre Creations

But then there’s that rumor, posted by Develop (which has since taken the story offline), that “one of the biggest game companies in the world exerted pressure on the UK government and British trade associations to abandon plans for UK tax breaks.” The company, which was not named, suggested that this tax benefit would give the UK “unfair advantage over other nations.” Speculation ran wild and, of course, Activision was named because…well, as I’ve said before, I think people like having someone to hate, and right now, they like hating Activision.

However, the rumormongers didn’t do any research. Activision Blizzard — a member of TIGA — was actively involved in rallying everyone around the cause to get the tax breaks. Bobby Kotick spoke to the Financial Times in support of tax relief:

The talent pool in the UK is among the best in the world for what we do. But we really need to see some more incentives. We are seeing great incentives in Canada, Singapore and eastern bloc countries.

“Activision Blizzard’s decision to join TIGA has given our campaign for games tax relief a powerful boost,” says Wilson. “As the world’s largest games business, Activision Blizzard’s views carry real weight. Supportive statements from Bobby Kotick have further strengthened our cause. Activision Blizzard’s positive backing for the campaign in turn encouraged ELSPA to support the tax break initiative and for the industry to present a united front on tax breaks for games production.”

Please read that last sentence again: ELSPA got on board because Activision got on board. I’m glad everybody’s galvanized and working together, but let’s look at the logic anyway: If Activision owns two UK developers — FreeStyleGames (DJ Hero & DJ Hero 2) and Bizarre Creations (Blur & Blood Stone) — why on earth would it oppose tax breaks there? Supporting a tax break directly helps Activision’s bottom line and long-term investment, so squashing it would make no sense at all. Whoever the villain may be in this story, it was never Activision.

You didn't think you were getting through an article about UK-based developers in the Activision family without a Blur screenshot, did you?

So what now? With so many voices in chorus, the UK government is getting an earful from a unified front; all of the above mentioned parties are still lobbying to get what they were promised. It should be noted that the tax break is as much a cultural issue as it is a financial one — British games often have a unique feel and sensibility, an extension of the culture in which they were created. And if UK developers disappear, so do those experiences, plain and simple. “If the tax break for games production is not introduced, then the UK video games industry will lose jobs, businesses and investment,” says Wilson. “This in turn means that UK consumers will have a smaller choice of ‘British’ video games. Unless the UK Coalition Government introduces games tax relief, our historically successful industry will fail to fulfil its potential.”

I’ll keep an eye out for further developments, because I really hope this isn’t the end of the story. But at least now we know the facts that trump the rumors.

You don’t know how long I’ve wanted to write that headline.

Last year, Activision released a DLC pack for Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 featuring five new characters — Psylocke, Carnage, Black Panther, Magneto, and Cable — and said the day that it went online (November 5) it was only going to be available until December 31. Some press outlets reported that very important detail, but for whatever reason, most did not. So when the DLC disappeared at the announced time (if not a little before, due to some PS3 hiccup), everybody accused Activision of lying, cheating, and generally being Grinchy, when it was just the end of a biz deal. Admittedly, it was lousy timing — everybody who got the game for the holidays hit the Xbox Live Marketplace and PlayStation Store in January to find none of the DLC they’d heard about the month prior. It was super frustrating, made even worse when you consider the DLC came with Achievements that people couldn’t even get, and that people who had the DLC could not play with people who did not. Oof. And I’d just started the job, so it was lots of fun for me to walk into loud, angry questions about the situation, which I barely knew how to answer. I prepared ‘em for the worst: What’s done is done, and business is business. I didn’t have any reason to believe it would come back.

But it did. It’s back now, in fact. Details after the jump.

I can totally understand why people would want the DLC, if only just to do this.

But gamers weren’t just telling me they wanted the DLC back — they were telling Activision and Marvel too. And here’s proof that they both listened. There’s a post over at HeroHQ.com — which is Activision’s official forum for discussions about its Marvel games — that says the DLC is due back in a matter of days. Here are some choice quotes from admin Kalina:

We made our case (your fan support helped), begged, pleaded, cajoled and didn’t give up and were able to convince the ‘powers that be’ to bring MUA2 DLC back!! This is really happening.

In terms of timing, now that it’s been approved, we need to coordinate to get this back up on Xbox Live and PSN. As soon as I know definite timing, I will let you know.

And this is important – I want to make sure this is super clear from the beginning – all good things must come to an end and we are only allowed to have the MUA2 DLC back up through the end of 2010.  So there will be about a 6 month window to download the content again, and then it will be gone for good.  It’s not a strategy and not our choice, this is just what is allowed so I’m giving you all the advance notice I can.

Also noted in that post: There will not be a Gold Edition with the DLC baked right in to the disc. There were hopes, there were assumptions based on the fact that the original MUA had one, but not this time. I can live with that, after the drama that surrounded this whole thing. I’m just happy that the DLC will be back, and you’ll have six months to buy it, then forever to enjoy it. (Just to be safe? Don’t delay.)

UPDATE 7/1: It’s official: thee nightmare is over. From today until December 31, 2010, you can once again download the Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 Character & Sim Mission Pack with its five extra characters, and you can finally earn all the Achievements/trophies that go with it. It’s $9.99 for PS3 players and 800 Microsoft Points for 360 owners. Additionally, Juggernaut is available as a separate downloadable character — he’s apparently too big to fit in the digital download wrapper with all the other guys — for $1.99 or 160 MS Points.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

UPDATE 7/2: The last detail: What about DLC owners being able to play with non-DLC owners? Apparently there was a free fix for that all along, but it was removed from the online marketplaces as part of the original DLC removal. It’s back and it’s free. It’s available on PS3 under the name “Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 Character Compatibilty Pack“ and, confusingly, on Xbox 360 as “Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 Character & Sim Mission Pack Teaser.” I know — makes no sense to me either. But that is the download you need to make sure every MUA2 player can play with every other, whether they own the DLC or not. Excelsior!

UPDATE 7/2 part deux: Apparently all this good stuff is NOT on the PS3 yet — several people have reported that they can’t find it, and I can’t find it either (and I mistakenly thought that web listings were tied to their actual store, the way MS does it). I’ve got a request into the team for an ETA but with the holiday weekend, I’m guessing it might not be up until Tuesday’s PS Store update. Until then: Don’t worry, it’s not just you, and you’re not going crazy.

UPDATE 7/7: Well, Tuesday has come and gone and it wasn’t in the PlayStation Store update. You are still not going crazy. The PS3 DLC is inexplicably delayed. I don’t know exactly why. But I can confirm that it IS coming. Some folks on Activision’s support team are saying they don’t know “if or when” it will be available, but I’m digging deeper, and my sources assure me that PS3 DLC is coming back, it’s just delayed. I will stay on top of it and let you know the minute I get confirmation. Until then, all I can say is I’m sorry my hunch was wrong about Tuesday, I know this is not the straightforward happy ending you were promised, and I appreciate your patience while it gets sorted.

UPDATE 7/8: Okay, I have a fresh date for the PS3: Tuesday, July 20. This will be part of that day’s standard Store update. Sorry for the delay, PlayStation peoples, but it’s a-comin’.

UPDATE 7/20: I have checked and confirmed with Sony that the DLC should be reactivated today as part of the Store update. The Store update usually happens late in the day, afternoon/evening, and I’m writing this around 1pm, so I would not expect it for a few more hours.

UPDATE 7/22: GOOD GOD WHY WON’T IT DIE. Now it appears there’s a delay in the European PlayStation Store rollout. I thought it would be going up at roughly the same time, as most DLC seems to do. But the marketplaces are obviously independent and I do not know why it’s not there. This is a question for Sony in Europe, I’m afraid. I am still trying to find out info on this end, but with the Marvel team at the San Diego Comic-Con and it being an international question about someone else’s e-commerce site, I’m not expecting definitive news anytime soon.

UPDATE 8/15: Finally, the EU PS Store has it. We’re good. Go get it, go play it, and thank you for your patience!

UPDATE 12/28: Sony has removed the DLC from the US PlayStation Store a few days ahead of the date. (I don’t know why — that is a question for Sony, as it’s their store and the expiration date has not yet arrived.) Hope you got it. DLC for Xbox 360 is still available but, you know, if you want it, I would not put it off.

Back in February, when Bobby Kotick spoke at the DICE conference, his speech included a bombshell — something about half a million bucks to be awarded as part of an independent games competition. We finally have the details on that competition today, in the form of an official press release as well as a page containing the official rules and entry process.

I’m going to have Laird Malamed, Senior VP & Head of Development, on my podcast tomorrow to talk about some of the details — but I have already heard some incorrect assumptions (and crushing negativity) about why Activision is doing this, so I wanna address that. This competition is not intended as a way for Activision to buy new IPs or even new studios. The only string attached to this prize money is that Activision gets a “first look” deal at the resulting game. Laird has clarified this to Industry Gamers:

If we do a publishing deal, then IP ownership is discussed, and we get the rights to it. For anything else that is submitted or doesn’t win, they keep their IP. One of the reasons we’re using an independent judging system and also using a third-party collection and submission process is that Activision won’t see a majority of submissions at all. Names will be turned into code numbers and all that sort of stuff to protect privacy and to protect IP if they submitted an idea and didn’t win. The ultimate goal here is that they are making their games, and if they win the prize and we don’t publish it, then that’s great, it’s theirs. We hope it comes out and we hope to get to play it.

UPDATE 6/3 (a few times): I want to clarify the IP ownership even further, because Laird’s statement isn’t entirely accurate. Some folks have interpreted the rules and/or Laird’s quote above to mean that Activision will automatically own the IP if you win. I see what they see when I read that quote, but my podcast conversation with Laird was different, so I looked into it and found that Activision does not automatically get the winner’s IP.

If the winner creates a game that Activision would want to publish, then they would discuss that publishing deal after winning, and that publishing deal would involve, as Laird suggests, a discussion of IP ownership. Many publishing deals do involve IP ownership, so I think that’s why he phrased it the way he did — it’s the norm for the industry, but this contest is the first of its kind, and the winner’s situation and resulting deal might be different. According to the lawyers who drew up the rules — because I went back to them and asked — relinquishing IP ownership is not a provision to enter this contest, and the publishing deal would be a separate negotiation, starting from scratch. And of course, first, you have to make a game and win the competition before you can do that…so in terms of the contract, this “maybe down the road if a publishing deal is agreed upon” aspect actually has no bearing on what will be created this summer. If you want to know the rules of the contest, read the rules of the contest.

The only thing the contest rules state about IP is that, by entering, you are assuring Activision that YOU own the IP to what you have created — that is, you’re not using copyrighted characters or music or elements from existing properties, and Activision would not get in trouble for bringing your game to the market. That is a reasonable thing for Activision to ask you to be very, very sure about. But that is quite different from what people have misinterpreted it to be. So, just for the record, the IP of the contest entry game remains the property of its creator unless the creator chooses to relinquish it as part of a publishing deal that may or may not take place after the contest concludes. First, get the money and make your game. Then you can decide what you want to do with the IP.

(And that, folks, is why the site is called OneOfSwords.)

There’s more discussed in that article, as well as my interview with him on this week’s podcast, but that nugget’s worth getting out there before people start assuming things that aren’t there.

The rules are worth reading. Even if you’re not a programmer and can’t create a prototype or show a video of a work in progress or something fancy like that, you might find that you want to enter based on the strength of your game idea and your ability to articulate it.

While there were some rumors going around last week that the next MW2 DLC pack would not be hitting until next year, it’s often better to wait until there’s some sort of official announcement. And that announcement came today: the Resurgence Pack will feature five more maps for Modern Warfare 2 and will be available June 3. As with the first map pack, this will be available on Xbox 360 before other systems. (Also, they’re sneaking in more Double XP weekends back to back leading up to this release — the weekends of May 28 and June 4.)

The first MW2 DLC collection, the Stimulus Package, set crazy records so I can’t think this is a surprise to many people. Throughout the recent flurry of headline news, Infinity Ward has said they’ve been working on more DLC. I like the irony, while the world has been drowning itself in drama, IW has been focusing on the game. I suspect that was the right course of action all along.

Ah, but there are still many questions. Will “the second pack of new multiplayer maps” be “new” maps, or we will see returning venues updated for MW2? What will the price be? When will mapathy.com be updated? Don’t know the answers to any of that stuff yet; the only info is the name of the pack, the release date, and the Xbox 360-ness of it. I’ll update when I have more info, but you will also want to check Robert “fourzerotwo” Bowling on Twitter and his website, because he’s at the source.

UPDATE: The five maps have been announced by Robert Bowling in a conversation with Major Nelson. Two are updated maps from COD4 (Vacant and Strike) and the other three are new: Fuel, set in an oil refinery; Trailer Park, which takes place just where you think, and the one I’m looking forward to most, Carnival. Armed guys with guns in abandoned amusement parks? I’m there.

"I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling Rangers"

Screens of each level are available at Joystiq, Kotaku, GamesRadar, and wherever else fine videogame news is delivered with snark and a smile.

Today has been very interesting. The over-reactions to partial and assumed information has been even more interesting. Now that the dust has settled, I’d like to point out a few things, manage some expectations, and answer a few questions folks have thrown my way.

Activision did not buy Bungie. Bungie remains an independent studio.
When Bungie sought its independence from Microsoft in 2007, it was not a publicity stunt. For some good background on why they went indie, I recommend this article from OXM called “Life After Halo”. It discusses why Bungie wanted its independence in the first place (by all accounts, their relationship with Microsoft has been very positive), and what the studio had in mind for the future. The third and fourth pages of that article contain some really interesting quotes about where Bungie’s head has been for the last two years.

Bungie controls its own IP.
This new partnership is based around a new intellectual property that Bungie is currently developing. It will remain Bungie’s IP to control creatively as they see fit, even though Activision will be working with them on it. I know a lot of people are concerned about who has creative control over what, and I made a food analogy to try to explain what most developer relationships are like. With this new IP, it’s very clearly Bungie’s and it will remain that.

Bungie is no longer console-exclusive to Xbox platforms.
“We chose to partner with Activision on our next IP because of their global reach, multi-platform experience and marketing expertise,” said Harold Ryan, President of Bungie, in the press release. This is pretty fantastic news if you just want to play games on whatever system you own. No platforms have been announced for whatever this new project is, but it is clear that this deal does enable Bungie to bring their games to multiple platforms. And as a gamer, I like hearing that.

Bungie does more than just shooters.
A lot of people have made jokes/assumptions that this new game is “just going to be Halo again” or stuff like that. When I think of Bungie, I obviously think of the Halo series…but the company made its first impression on me with the first two Myth games, which were groundbreaking 3D RTS games that even I, a dreadful RTS player, thoroughly enjoyed and reviewed very highly when I was at GamePro. (Take 2 now owns that franchise.) I also remember Oni, the anime-inspired third-person action adventure game that Rockstar published on PlayStation 2.  Considering those and weighing some of the intriguing statements from that OXM article that “the whole team was on the same wavelength” about what to do next, I am putting my assumptions aside.  But my expectations are high because…

Jason Jones is heading up this new project.
Both parties have confirmed that the game at the core of this deal is already in development, but Bungie’s blog post did note that, while one team has been working on Halo: Reach, “Another core team, led by our co-founder and Studio Creative Director, Jason Jones, has already begun laying the groundwork to bring our newest universe, stories, and characters to life.”

Bungie is nobody’s fool.
Bungie’s Brian Jerrard spoke to G4 today and said “we were able to pretty much get the exact deal that we sought to get and retain all the things that are most important to Bungie. That alone has been super exciting and invigorating, as well.” I do not believe that Bungie would have entered into this agreement were it not one that would make them happy and confident.

It’ll be a while before we see anything.
This is just an announcement, and Bungie is focused on finishing up and launching Reach for the time being. Other than the fact that we know it’s an action game and that Bungie is building a long-term plan around it, we won’t be hearing any specifics for some time.

Brian Jerrard has given a lot of interviews today and I’m supposed to get a chance to talk to him, so I’ll keep you posted on how that goes.

So I woke up to find that part of one of my recent public conversations has been picked up by the press, and some of my personal conjecture has been taken as official statements. I’m lucky it hasn’t happened until now, but it was inevitable that the lines would be blurred. Problem is, this time, I think I helped blur them.

Looking at the way I phrased my points this morning, I wish I hadn’t said things that way, and of course, some of what I said led to other points that were left out of the reporting. But you can’t get the whole summary of a conversation in a headline, and I know that. If you’ll allow, I just want to make two points.

One, I like being honest about my opinions, and they are, in fact, that – my opinions. But I also understand how people will see anything I say and will assume it’s policy. For what it’s worth, that’s not always the case. I’m trying to be a human conduit TO the information, but I risk becoming a source OF it. I’ll be more clear from now on when I’m speaking off the top of my head, the way I was in that conversation, and when I am referencing official info. (And yes, this post is me talking.)

Two, in the conversation in question, I tried to break down points in that are in the legal documents in a friendly way, but I came off as callously twirling my moustache and looking like a jerk instead. I cringed when I read it the way other people read it. That was totally not my intent and I am legitimately sorry for the way it came across. For all our technology, we still don’t have a good way to show tone of voice online.

And really, I shouldn’t be saying anything about the lawsuit anyway. The documents are out there; they should be read directly.

That’s all. Thanks for listening.

I was over on Facebook today talking with the accurately named Gamers Against Bobby Kotick and Activision, and we hit on part of a discussion that I think a lot of people are having in the wake of the Infinity Ward situation: How can you preserve the developer’s need for creative freedom from the publisher’s desire to make money?

I think too many people assuming that this is an either/or situation, that those goals cannot co-exist. But a Tasty Dan Amrich Food Analogy™ will prove that they can.

At Activision, the publisher/development relationship is pretty simple. Activision foots the bill; the developers follow their muse. There are a handful of studios under the Activision umbrella, decentralized and doing their own thing their way, and they each have creative freedom.

Yes. They have creative freedom. As proof to this claim, I submit Exhibit A, which is all their games. Please note how a Treyarch game is not the same as a Vicarious Visions game, and how Neversoft does things differently than High Moon Studios. Each studio is autonomous, yet still reporting back to and working with the mothership.

When a game is in development, Activision’s producers work with the developers, saying “here’s what we’d like” or “can you change this,” and discussing the decisions along the way. The publishers make helpful suggestions and give the devs what they need to get the job done. But the game vision, the way the game experience unfolds, all the heavy lifting and asset creation and gameplay and all the sensory stuff that you personally connect with when you play game — that comes from and is executed by the developers.

You know, just like a restaurant.

Thanks to John P. for the image of Houston's Steakhouse. (Click it.)

I see the publisher/developer relationship very much like going to a steakhouse. You show up and you’re handed a menu; before you came in, the chef wrote that up to say “These are the dishes I am proud, qualified, and eager to make you today.” Maybe the chef has a signature dish upon which he built his reputation. And you say “Great, these all look very tempting — but I have questions. How big are the portions? Are those ingredients in season? And can I have it with beets instead of parsnips?” And the chef can answer those questions, but when the heat is on in the kitchen, he is the one making the meal. You are merely asking that he respect your deadly parsnip allergy. You are, after all, footing the bill for the meal.

Now, does that substitution of beets for parsnips constitute a lack of creative freedom for the developer? If you ask for a dish most of the way he wants to prepare and but a little bit your way, I don’t think his creativity as a chef is being infringed upon; you’re the customer, and it’s reasonable to ask for your meal without some elements and with some other elements. And so the chef says, okay, I can see what you’re asking for, and he does his best work…and he gets paid for it. He gets to make your food his way — creative fulfillment — and he gets paid for doing what he is obviously very passionate about and good at doing.

Beets. Thanks to Katrin A. for the photo. (Click it.)

This kind of flexibility, where the person footing the bill has input into the product but the person making the product has the majority influence on how it turns out, happens every day in restaurants around the world. The game world is no exception to these kinds of lopsided collaborative arrangements; it’s just at higher stakes than, um, steaks.

I am not suggesting that any portion of this delicious analogy applies to any specific situation. I do not know the particular details of what is stored inside Infinity Ward’s refrigerator and I do not know the nature or intensity of Activision’s requests for different side dishes or “recipe improvements.” Maybe on some games, it’s not just beets and parsnips, but from my experience, I think the cases where someone walks into a steakhouse and asks for so many alterations that it ceases to be a steak at all are exceedingly…rare.

So that’s my point, and my understanding of game development: The creative decisions lie with the developer, even if the publisher has some say about them.

There was an “internal human resources inquiry” a few weeks ago. You may not have heard too much about it, so here’s a quick recap: Activision let Vince Zampella and Jason West of Inifinity Ward go, and then Vince and Jason filed a lawsuit against Activision.

From that moment, it became a legal matter, and legal matters mean silence unless you’re talking through a lawyer. I knew we’d get no more reliable info on the situation unless or until a) it went to trial, b) a settlement was announced, or c) Activision filed a counter-claim.

Well, as of today, it’s c), counter-claim. Activision’s lawsuit was filed today, and several media outlets picked it up. [UPDATE: IGN has posted all 23 pages of the claim itself.]

I have some perspective on this.

I’m not happy to see more lawsuits in an already messy situation, but I am relieved that we now have both parts of the dispute. Vince and Jason’s position was made clear by their lawsuit, but Activision didn’t say much in return. Everybody asked “Why would Activision do that?” — and I think that was the absolute right question to ask. Did such a bold move really come out of nowhere? That didn’t seem likely to me. So what on earth went so wrong that it led to such a public and dramatic event? Now with the counterclaim, we know a bit more of what Activision was thinking that led them to that choice. On that level, all the people watching and wondering from the sidelines have a little closure.

So, now the two parties have made their statements. It’s balanced. What happens next?

Uh, nothing. Really. Expect to hear nothing from here on out.

I know the drama lovers will be eager to stoke the fires again, but honestly, things will almost certainly go totally silent now, because there are even more lawyers involved. Anything you hear after today will likely be gossip or unsubstantiated rumor; the next official info will likely be news of a settlement or a trial date. For the peanut gallery, the show is now over.

Just as I somehow found the strength to pick myself up after the life-altering disasters that were Bennifer and Brangelina, here’s how I plan to cope: After giving this situation the thought it deserves, I’m getting back to playing games. Many gamers have posted and boasted and tried to insert themselves into this situation, as if the fight between these two parties somehow involves them — but it really doesn’t. No amount of blog-comment diatribes or forum posturing will actually affect this situation. At the end of the day, none of us can or will have any input into what is basically a private political employment situation — pardon me, an “internal human resources inquiry.” We got a little gawking insight from the addition of two public lawsuits (which is more than we got from Gertsmanngate) and that’s really where it ends. The gory accident has happened; now that we’ve rubbernecked, all we can do now is drive on.

Actually, I’ve already given it all the thought I really want to give it. Sifting through the ashes of an horrific crash is not my idea of fun.

Every so often, the message gets mangled. This is one of those times — time for a Fact Check.

I didn’t say much (or anything) about the recent business restructuring that happened at Activision because…well, it’s boring. A few people moved around, a few people got new titles, and instead of a Guitar Hero division, there’s a Call of Duty division to go along with the Owned division (Singularity, Blur, True Crime) and the Licensed Division (How to Train Your Dragon, Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions, Transformers: War for Cybertron). I didn’t say anything because if you’re a gamer, it doesn’t affect any of the games in development, and therefore, you don’t care.

Or so I thought. I got a letter today asking about all this stuff and I didn’t know why. Now I do: a few news outlets are inaccurately reporting (and repeating the inaccurate reporting of others) that there are four publishing divisions — those three I just outlined plus Blizzard. Um, no. Blizzard is not the fourth division; Blizzard is Blizzard. In my never-ending quest for clarity, let me explain how it breaks down.

The company is officially called Activision Blizzard, and as the name suggests, it has two main publishing divisions, Activision Publishing and Blizzard Entertainment. The Activision part reorganized into three business units. Blizzard Entertainment has remained the same — the restructuring was only on the Activision side, and Blizzard continues to do its thing as it sees fit. This week, “its thing” includes turning me into a pink bunny rabbit while I search for Noblegarden eggs.

So, as engaging as I’m sure that was, now you know the naked truth: Blizzard is not a sub-division of Activision. Nor can I think of any reason it would be.

And that’s a Fact Check. I need a “The More You Know” kind of graphic for these.

A lot of info came out last week about Blur at the press event that Bizarre Creations held, and some of that info seems to have been lost in translation. It’s understandable; those Liverpool accents are thick. But I’ve seen some media reports that are spreading regarding how “cross-platform challenges” work and, well, they don’t actually work that way.

Kotaku is reporting that you can send challenges to other players on Xbox Live even if they’re Silver accounts. That’s true — these challenges are based on single-player, career-mode events, like coming in in X place with X fans and X number of crashes or what have you. You unleash  a corker on LA Docks in your career, for instance, and then you can send an XBL message to a friend who is also working their way through their own indepedent career mode, and they get a dashboard message with your boasty challenge and all its rude details.

But the Twitter integration and how it lets you send challenges around is something different. Twitter built in to all three versions of the game (PC, PS3, and 360) and you can customize your messages before sending them out (i.e., you’re not stuck with whatever statement the game decides you should send out), but both Kotaku and MTV Multiplayer suggests you’ll be able to send each other challenges between platforms through that. Well, yes; if I’m watching my Twitter account and a friend on 360 says “Hey, @OneOfSwords, I just got this time on this track, try and beat it,” and I’m playing the PS3 version…that’s a cross-platform challenge. I can certainly read that message, then sit down at my machine and try to beat his time. There is no technical infrastructure or data link between those two platforms; you can’t send from Twitter directly to someone’s 360 or PS3 inbox. Blur makes it easy to send your gameplay information out from the game, but the player still has to process that info themselves.

Makes sense when you think about it. 360 sends info to 360 people, PS3 sends info to PS3 players, and Twitter sends data to Twitter. They do not cross-pollinate into each other’s internal messaging systems. Mind you, that’d be a cool trick. But it’s not a trick I’ve seen any game pull off yet. The world of multiplayer gaming would be a very different place.

Anyway…in case you were getting your hopes up, allow me to dash them. The Twitter and challenge messages are cool and few if any other games give you this much control over their content — but they’re not quite as far advanced as some of the reports suggest.

Here’s a press release that just went out. The only juicy thing it says about the recent Infinity Ward kerfuffle is that Vince Zampella and Jason West are no longer with the company — which was assumed based on the reports and their LinkedIn/Facebook pages, but it’s now confirmed by Activision. As I suspected, nothing else is said about why or what really happened, and because it’s going to have legal tendrils that deal with private personnel issues, I don’t expect to hear anything else about that soon. People’s minds will no doubt wander but it’s the nature of these kind of situations that the public is left in the dark.

But everything else in this surprisingly rich press release should raise some eyebrows. Highlights include:

• Activision is starting a new business division for future Call of Duty games. This unit is being built “with the same focus seen in its Blizzard Entertainment business unit” and “will include a focus on high-margin digital online content.” I know there are rumors about an MMO based on COD, and I have not heard anything to suggest that those rumors were true, but if you put the concepts of “like Blizzard” and “online content” together, I can see where those rumors will gain steam. (I still personally don’t think it’s going to be an MMO, but that’s my guess based on the lack of historical success for FPS MMOs and little else.)
• A COD title for 2011 is confirmed — before we even know what COD 2010 is. Kinda “duh” to people who notice that games come out on an annual basis, but still — considering how close to the vest Activision plays things, this is interesting.
• Treyarch is now confirmed as this year’s COD developer — which, again, most people suspected based on historical examples. But at least that is now fact.
• Sledgehammer Games — the Bay Area studio made up of ex-Dead Space developers — is working on a COD action/adventure title. I wondered what they were cooking up; I had kind of hoped they might be reviving Phantasmagoria or something creepy to play into their recent success.
• The MW2 DLC currently in development is still coming out and will not be affected. Saw a lot of people wondering about this when the IW drama unfolded, so that’s a relief.
• A few of Activision’s internal people are heading over to IW to oversee operations in the interim.
• Activision is looking to start selling games in Asia. Few companies have had major success with this (you may remember how hard Microsoft fought for Xbox acceptance in Japan) but Blizzard is one of them, so I’m curious to see how this unfolds.

That’s all the news so far. I’ll update if there’s more. If I can clarify anything, hit me in the comments below.

I saw the same G4 story you did. When I learn something I’ll pass it on but so far I don’t know anything.

UPDATE March 2, 12:54 AM:
Still don’t know much, but this SEC filing was posted, and this phrase within it makes me doubt we’re going to hear much of anything in the way of concrete details:

“The Company is concluding an internal human resources inquiry into breaches of contract and insubordination by two senior employees at Infinity Ward. This matter is expected to involve the departure of key personnel and litigation.”

The phrases “internal human resources inquiry” and “litigation” almost ensure that nobody involved will be able to say anything, whether they want to or not. Companies never talk about lawsuits until they’re settled, and I’ve never heard of a company that had personnel issues that was willing to come out and talk about them…remember how officially quiet Gertsmanngate was? Nobody got a straight answer from any of the involved parties. The less any of the principals say, the better it is for them. Of course, that just makes the rumor mill kick into overdrive…but the rumor mill doesn’t have to appear before a judge.

I strongly suspect nobody will be able to say anything unless whatever expected lawsuits address this matter go to court and become a matter of public record. Until then, everybody’s probably going to clam up for legal reasons. I think a lot of “news” tomorrow will be rumor and gossip rather than fact.

Tomorrow promises to be…well, fun isn’t the word. I’m going to bed. Maybe if I’m lucky, I will die in my sleep.

UPDATE: March 2, 10:30AM
No such luck.

The only thing I want to clarify this morning…well, it almost stuns me that I have to clarify it. I was not there, I do not know exactly who showed up at IW’s offices and what was done…but I am giving you my personal guarantee that nobody was murdered or kidnapped by mercenaries. I have seen these incredible assumptions out there, and I have watched them spread to the point where I felt I had to say something.

And what I want to say is: Seriously, folks? Seriously? Activision makes fantasy wargames; it doesn’t play them out. Activision is a videogame publisher, not a videogame. When there are serious personnel disputes or layoffs that extra personnel is brought in to make sure it all goes smoothly. There’s a difference between extra people to make sure things don’t get nasty and dudes roping down from choppers with knives in their teeth. It stuns me that that’s the mental image people had of what, by all rational accounts, was a tense business meeting.

Every time you pass around a completely mental rumor like that “ZOMG KIDNAPPERZ,” you are hurting everyone and everything in gaming. I don’t care if you’re a fan in a forum or a member of the media — if you don’t think rationally for a moment, resist the temptation to spout off sensationalist nonsense, and make that key distinction between fantasy and reality, gaming will never get out of its cultural ghetto.

End o’ soapbox.

Some confusion out there about the Blur beta, so let me do a quick clarification before I get in a tin can and hang in the sky for 12
hours.

Several websites will be launching contests and giving away beta
tokens starting on Tuesday, March 2. The gameplay sessions that those tokens unlock does not begin until Monday, March 8. This March 1 date that some media sites are reporting is not the right date for the public beta.

I will have some tokens to give away too. Stay tuned for details…

I’m figuring that most people here are interested in games, not businessmen, but Activision’s CEO Bobby Kotick spoke at the DICE 2010 summit today. It’s an annual think tank for the bigwigs of the game industry; often there are some interesting speeches about the future of the industry and things like that. It’s not really an event where people uncork hot new gameplay videos or make huge announcements. But Bobby Kotick made some anyway — the biggest in my opinion being the casual announcement of the 2010 Activision Independent Games Competition.

There weren’t many details offered, but here’s the basic outline: You present Activision with your creative game concept in text and video, and you might win enough money to make that concept into a living, breathing game. More details are “coming soon” and I don’t know them yet. But if you’re an indie developer or even dreamed of being an indie developer, I figure this is good news. When I find out I’ll pass it on; there are obviously many more details that need to be announced anyway. For now, I guess you should be brainstorming your game ideas and polishing your prototypes accordingly. [Update: There was some paperwork online but apparently it had the wrong info, so I'll link to the right info when it's posted.]

For me, that was the biggie of the speech. Gamasutra has a pretty concise wrapup with lots of quotes, and if you missed GamePro and 1Up‘s live blogs, you can replay them. But here’s some stuff from the speech I found interesting:

- No PowerPoint slides. It was just him talking, dressed in jeans and a sweatshirt. It was all rather personal and a lot of time was spent talking about his early days as a software developer and playing Defender and Infocom games.

- He mentioned that pitched a game himself back in the day and it didn’t get picked up.

- He underestimated Harmonix when making the deal to acquire Guitar Hero. “We really didn’t even think, hey, we should go to Boston and meet these Harmonix guys and see what they’re up to.” He also suggested that it could have a profitable partnership. I almost wished he’d said “we could have made beautiful music together.”

- He doesn’t play a lot of games because he’s afraid it’s basically all he would do. His addictive personality makes it too tempting, so this is as close as he can get. “”If I was regularly playing Modern Warfare 2 I would not be able to stop and it would be at the expense of all my other responsibilities.” I think this is a bit like someone with lots of points on their license owning a Ferrari dealership. You do what you can to be close to what you love.

- He clarified the whole “taking the fun out of making games” quote as a joke told to a room full of bankers — he’s referring to the wild, irresponsible companies that surrounded him back in the day who thought the business of games was supposed to be fun too — and they went bankrupt having all that “fun.” I remember saying that was probably what he meant on KOXM back when he made the comment, and I was right. Yeah, he should have said it differently, but at this point, all you can do is clarify or let people continue to beat you to death with your own words.

- He said, “I thrive on seeing someone so inspired that they’re up at 4am creating content at the expense of their family life.” I strongly suspect this was his way of saying “I love it when people are really passionate about what they do” but it can be read (and has been reported) as “Ignore your children and get back to work!” I suppose your interpretation entirely depends on whether you like seeing Bobby Kotick as a guy in charge of a company who speaks to a large audience uncensored, or you have more fun making him out to be a monster.

While it was great to be able to confirm new games yesterday, it’s not as nice to confirm the stories of layoffs making the rounds today. But this much is true: Neversoft and Radical let people go, and Luxoflux is closing.

You can read the official statement at Joystiq, IGN, and other news outlets, but the logic is pretty simple: If, as Activision announced yesterday, the plan is to publish less games this year, the size of the teams at the studios that make those games is going to be adjusted accordingly.

I see comments on some of the news sites from people making cruel insinuations, assumptions, and allegations about this stuff…and all I can think of is the people that I knew at each developer. I certainly don’t take any pleasure in confirming bad news.

UPDATE 2/11 10pm:
The LA Times offers the same story but suggests that some Luxoflux folks might be employed at nearby Treyarch. I hope that turns out to be true.

UPDATE 2/12 11:40am:
I came in this morning to a few meetings, then found out the rumors about Underground Development being closed were also true. The statement that went out to the press, which you can read on Kotaku:

“As part of our overall strategy to release fewer skus for Guitar Hero in 2010 we are closing the Underground studios and relocating RedOctane to our Santa Monica headquarters under the leadership of David Haddad.”

I saw someone suggest that maybe RedOctane was closing too, but they’re just moving from NorCal to SoCal.

Today Activision held a conference call to discuss its quarterly earnings and announced several games that will be coming out this year. I sat in on the call and my eyes glazed over on all the fiscal discussion, but I woke up when they started talking about new games. So, I’m only posting about the stuff that I think really matters. Accepting that the call was going to say “we turned a profit” and “MW2 is crazy popular” no matter what, let’s dig into some of the juicier bits and what I personally took away from them:

What Was Said: A new Call of Duty game will be released late in 2010.
My Take: Surprise! But still, this is one of those weird things where Activision had not yet actually announced that a new COD game would be coming out in 2010. You, me, and everybody else on the internet assumed it would happen because there’s a historical pattern…but it’s not actually official until Activision says “it’s official.” So, it’s official.

What Was Said: Activision will release only two music games this year: a new Guitar Hero title, and a sequel to DJ Hero.
My Take: Thank goodness. Like a lot of people, I felt overwhelmed by the number of Hero titles last year. That doesn’t mean I didn’t enjoy playing them, but I prefer it when a new Hero game is more of an event. So as a fan of “less is more” in this case, I’m glad that’s exactly what we get this year, one GH game and a sequel to DJ Hero. I just started playing DJ Hero myself (check my gamercard for my progress) and it’s humbling to go from playing GH on Expert to DJ on Medium. But I’m enjoying it, and I’m eager to hear what they build on for the next game.

What Was Said: A Spider-Man game is on the way this year.
My Take: Several people have been wondering how Marvel’s new relationship with Disney would affect Activision’s games. So at least this confirms that a) Activision and Marvel are still working together and b) it’s Spidey in the spotlight this year. I’ve seen a few screenshots of what they’re working on for this game…I liked what I saw and I’m both intrigued and a bit surprised. (And just because I’ve heard some confusion, Iron Man 2′s game will be published by Sega. Agent M over at Marvel.com has the scoop.)

What Was Said: A James Bond game is coming out this year, too.
My take: Twitter’s @MitchyD noted that this Bond game announcement comes even though there is no Bond movie this year. That’s correct. So that begs a question: what do you expect from a Bond game that isn’t based on a movie? Chime in below.

What Was Said: Shrek Forever After will ship in May, followed by Transformers: War for Cybertron and Singularity.
My Take: Mmm…not quite. Shrek is good to go for May, but Singularity is actually shipping in June. The statement on the call was a list of upcoming games starting with a May release, so I understand how it could sound like all those games were coming in May, and that’s what some outlets are reporting. But I just checked, and Singularity is slated for June. Just FYI — as I’ve said, clarity is my goal here.

What Was Said: The Tony Hawk Ride board took longer to develop than expected, which left less time to work on the software. A new TH Ride title is planned for this year.
My Take: Everything didn’t come together on Ride as planned, and the reviews made that much clear. But as someone who has the skateboard controller in his living room, I’m glad to hear that the part that is feature-complete is the physically larger and potentially more expensive part. Software is much easier to improve; I’m glad to hear I won’t have to upgrade the board for the next game. And I am curious to see what lessons were learned from last year. As an old arcade rat who played Top Skater and Air Trix, I like the idea of a physical board controller, and I just want the execution to live up to it.

UPDATE 2/11:
What Was Said: True Crime is gonna be a biggie.
My Take: To make up for leaving it out of the main infolanche, I tackled this in its own follow-up post.

Thoughts?