I want to touch base on a topic I have discussed in the past concerning videogames and their release dates. Specifically, the amount of videogames that are released at the end of the year, just in time for the holiday rush. I read an article recently published on GOONL!NE, by Jonathan Cullen, and is titled “Congratulations, Activision, You’ve scared Everyone Off.” I found this article and Jonathan’s theory quite interesting. Interesting enough to post a comment, reluctantly in defense of Activision. Don’t get me wrong, the people talking about Activision as if they are turning into the EA of old, have a point. I agree with them to a certain extent but not regarding their Q4 2009 game releases. To blame Activision for making Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 one of the most wanted games of the year, and in turn scaring off other publishers from releasing their games around the same time is just not a theory I choose to believe. One game scaring off more than half the competition into 2010? C’mon! There are gamers out there who do play other games besides Call of Duty, y’know?
First off, all a publisher needs to do is look at the saturation of game releases of Q4 in 2008. (You can read my gripe about this in a post I wrote back in February titled “Too many games, not enough time.”) There were a lot of games released last year during a short period of time. A lot of excellent quality games. A couple of the good ones that didn’t get as much attention as it should have at the time, came from EA. Dead Space and Mirror’s Edge. They didn’t really sell as much as they had hoped. All publishers have to do is look back at 2008, and learn from EA with concern to their release dates. I think that’s what a lot of them are doing. It’s not necessarily all Activision’s fault for “scaring everyone off,” but more of a learning experience from years prior by all who plan to release their games into a sea of established titles. Not just Modern Warfare 2. EA has publicly discussed their release date mistakes in the past with GamesIndustry.biz: “EA: We’ve learned out lesson on release dates” and it’s about time others learned from them.
Here is the comment I posted on Jonathan’s article:
“More games getting pushed into 2010 the better in my opinion. Last year during the holiday was ridiculous with the amount of games released. Even if these delayed games were released holiday 09 as planned, we still wouldn’t get a chance to play them until 2010 anyway. We would be busy playing ODST, Modern Warfare 2 and Uncharted 2 etc. So many games, not enough time to play them.”
“I’m not a huge fan of Activision, but to blame them for making one hell of a game and marketing it properly, just doesn’t make sense. It’s a smart business decision for other publishers to delay most of their triple A games ’til 2010, Warfare 2 or not.”
“I agree, Activision has become the EA of old though.”
Jonathan made some other arguments to back up his theory, regarding the MW2 price increase in the U.K. but I won’t touch on that topic. He makes some decent points. Especially after hearing Activision is suing Double Fine to stop Brutal Legend from being released. Indeed, Activision needs to be careful they don’t alienate the huge fan base they have created over the years with Call of Duty, and the Guitar Hero franchises. Don’t get greedy now guys! But to imply that the reason the game industry is seeing a large amount of games being delayed into Q1 2010, (except for Halo 3: ODST, Assassin’s Creed II, Forza 3, Uncharted 2 and others), is specifically due to Activision’s must have title releasing at the same time, just doesn’t make sense to me. Indeed, publishers probably did take into account the mass popularity of MW2, but there has got to be other factors involved.
Publishers are changing tactics and I think they are looking at 2008 as a prime example. We, as gamers, should not expect the holiday season to be saturated with all these “must have titles” like it has been the case in years past. The economy has changed, publishers and developers have changed and well.. in the end, they’re running a business. So I think it’s a smart move on their part to delay their games, and spread out the release dates more evenly throughout the year. Whether Modern Warfare is released during Q4 of 2009 or not. But imagine this… imagine having 1 to 3 “must have titles” coming out each month throughout the year. How cool would that be? I’d much rather have that then for all of the big name games to be released in the same quarter. I just don’t have enough time to play them all. I can’t speak for you though, maybe you do?
Besides what I’ve written above, if Jonathan’s opinion is true, Activision’s Modern Warfare 2 is scaring everyone off into 2010, what does that say about those games being delayed? Doesn’t look like the developers and publishers are too confident in their games. Maybe the delay is a good thing? Lots of people get Christmas money and they’ll need to spend it on something right? I don’t know about you, but after spending money on gifts for my family and friends, the last thing I have is more money to buy games for myself before Christmas. I think it’s a smart move on the publishers part to delay some of these games until after Christmas. Spreading them throughout the year ever more would be the best case scenario. If it’s a good quality game, I will buy it no matter what time of year.
What say you? I’d love to hear what you have to say in the comments.
The Gamer Report 