Shooting From the Lip

Well I'm not able to announce anything yet, but what happens - I think people think of these consultation analysis periods as a fait accompli, that it leads to closure. Sometimes, like in the case of Bizarre, it did. Sometimes, like in the case of UFG, we were able to find a buyer for the work that had already been done on True Crime and they've been able to keep that group together and complete their vision. We couldn't be more thrilled and we worked very hard to create that opportunity.

We've got some opportunities in the hopper for Freestyle - I think very, very highly of that studio and the creative talent within it. We're doing everything we can to keep that group together.

No, it's not. Obviously we have to be beholden to our shareholders and we have to run a profitable business in every way that we can. But this is a creative business and the road to profitability is hand-in-hand with creative excellence.

The analysis process has to do with, not only marketplace performance, but also potential. In the case of Blur, for example. I thought Blur was a great game. I think Bizarre did a tremendous job. When we greenlit that game, the racing category was on fire, there seemed to be a lot of growth there. In the three years or so it took to create the game, the racing genre really shrunk.

Everything else happened in the industry that you mentioned before, people started playing fewer games, and so we found ourselves in this position where we were like, okay - this is the world's sixth or seventh racing title now. It's new IP in a category with huge franchises like Gran Turismo and Need For Speed and Forza which are very well established.

So we had to be honest with ourselves and say, do we think we can out-execute the entire category by so many laps, excuse the pun, that we can break through all of that brand strength in a shrinking market? We just felt that our investment dollars were better spent on other projects where we had more of a competitive advantage.

I think gamers have spoken there too. Blur was a really great game, but the world didn't seem to have the appetite for another racing game. So that's not to say that it's not important. We often get painted with the brush that says we're only just working on our existing franchises. New IP with Bungie, new IP with Skylanders, doubling down on new IP with Prototype. What we're focused on is making the games that we feel we can make better than anybody else, the places where we have a unique advantage, idea or development partner, that can set us apart.

I thought Blur was a great game. When we greenlit that game, the racing category was on fire. In the three years or so it took to create the game, the racing genre really shrunk.

In a world where only the top one or two games in a genre really succeed on a grand scale, I think that's a smart strategy.

Well, first of all on Bobby's quote - people have a tendency to bring them up as if they were meant in perpetuity. That was said at a moment in time and I think at that moment it was insightful. A lot has happened since that quote. I think we see a very exciting business in mobile, particularly, as well as social.

But we have a different approach, which you're touching on. I think that these things can be gaming platforms in their own right. People forget that we have two or three of the top-grossing apps of all time on the App Store with CoD Zombies and Guitar Hero and I think there's a very well performing Crash game as well. So we were there early, but at the time it wasn't the kind of business which would take resources away from a much bigger opportunity somewhere else. That's changed.

The other thing is that I think we have a unique approach in that we're using social and mobile to expand our games universes and expand people's ability to connect with the games that they love. That's a different strategy to just throwing every piece of IP we have up on the App Store - which may or not be a great gaming experience. A lot of the console games I've played on the App Store aren't suited to that device and that interface and control mechanism.

So we haven't done that as much as some people in the industry have, but there's more than one way to skin a cat. I'm not going to say whether that's a successful approach for others, but I think our approach is a very sound one. Call of Duty Elite will exist on mobile, it will interact with your FaceBook friends, it will bring in elements from social media. It'll be on tablets, smartphones - all of that will connect, two way, with the game.

It used to be, if you were a sports fan, that the only way you could interact with your sport, was when the game was on. But now there's this whole ecosystem of content, whether it's highlight shows, fantasy leagues, websites, analysis, that connects people with the sports they love every day whether there's a game on or not. Why can't we do the same thing? 30 million people play Call of Duty, why can't we steal their time on their train commute setting up a game for that night with their friends, or messing with their loadout or studying how they did on the map last night?

I think that's a different approach to social and mobile than a lot of people have, and I think that's really exciting.

Well not from us. It's clearly a strategy, it's clearly a decision they've made.

I don't know! [laughs] What I do know is that...Even the answer you just shared about stealing market share...What about creating market share? I feel like it comes from a place that assumes that there's a finite number of gamers in the world. If we as an industry act like there's a finite number of gamers in the world, and just beat each other up to get access to them, I think that will come true.

On the other hand, if we act like we can constantly pull people into this passion, which is what has happened - the industry has grown exponentially - then I think that we can bake a bigger pie instead of fighting over a bigger slice of the existing one.

I don't really want to respond too much, if you don't mind. Let me think about how exactly I want to phrase this.

It's not a new strategy for challenger brands to try to get themselves mentioned in the same breath as leader brands. Coke didn't do the Coke challenge, Pepsi did the Pepsi challenge. It's a tried and true strategy to try and get yourself mentioned as much as possible in the same breath as the leaders so people start thinking of you in that context.

That's fine - competition is good for this industry and every industry. I think that, as I said last night, there's a difference between wanting your game to succeed and openly wanting other games to fail. To me this is an art form, and the more great content we create as an industry the larger the market for it will be.