 |
|
|
| |
Take-Two: 'The Safest Place To Be Is In Triple-A'
by Chris Remo [PC, Console/PC, Exclusive]
|
|
| |
|
December 3, 2009
|
| |
In a period of historically weak consumer confidence -- and as publisher Take-Two is increasing its loss projections for the fiscal year -- Take-Two's chairman Strauss Zelnick believes core, triple-A games remain the industry's best bet.
"The demand for top-tier products is okay. The demand for lower-tier products is not so clear," Zelnick (pictured) said during an analyst conference call attended by Gamasutra today. "The safest place to be is in triple-A."
Part of that is because triple-A games targeted at dedicated gamers can retain value, while lower-end games or titles targeted at less hardcore audiences are more likely to be devalued as retailers institute promotions.
"Some people were hoping for a nice [sales] bump [in games] over the Thanksgiving weekend, and generally speaking it was a little bit on the soft side," said CEO Ben Feder, who pointed out that many of the bright spots over the holiday were "on a highly promotional basis."
Such promotions, which can decrease profit margins, are less likely to be necessary for top-tier games. "This is a high-value product; consumers see it this way... particularly at the triple-A level," Feder said, comparing such games to other media. "So I think pricing will be preserved."
That said, the company is staying conservative in its sales estimates for 2010, and its slate includes BioShock 2, Mafia 2, Red Dead Redemption, and the re-delayed Max Payne III, a situation that may be exacerbated by the additional funds the publisher has allocated to ensure its quality expectations are met.
"We've committed additional development resources to some of our fiscal 2010 products," Feder said, explaining that the decision "will likely reduce potential profits on some of these products -- [but] we do expect each of these products to make a positive contribution."
He added that the company is confident it has made the "right decision to ensure their quality and potential in the market," but that it has also "assumed lower unit sales for the majority of our titles in 2010."
Feder also said that despite its financial troubles -- some of which are due to an underperforming baseball game market and additional unspecified product delays -- Take-Two believes its strategy of pursuing a relatively smaller slate of high-quality intellectual properties is the right path. Both Zelnick and Feder stressed multiple times that when the company does release a major title, it is always a considerable driver for the company.
"We do have this distinction of, across the board, when we do put out a triple-A title, it's a profit contributor of [significant] proportion," Feder said at one point. Most recently, that held true for the Gearbox-developed Borderlands, which the CEO said "shows every sign of becoming an important, long-term franchise."
And, of course, it applies to Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto games, which Zelnick called "gratifying in every way that one could imagine" to Take-Two as a company.
"This is an exceedingly profitable enterprise. GTA IV and the subsequent line extensions were profitable," he added, responding to a question about the thinking behind releasing downloadable expansions to Grand Theft Auto IV rather than moving more quickly on the next main title. "It's especially gratifying that the creative team was willing to try new platforms, to try new formats, [and] consumers were delighted with the results. I think that bodes extremely well for the franchise going forward."
"We don't feel that GTA ought to be an annualized franchise," Zelnick said. "There's a balance between how long it takes to develop such an incredible title...and how long you wait for the [consumer's] appetite to be both satisfied and whetted for the next title. That's something I think the company has done well."
In the long term, as Zelnick pointedly noted in response to an analyst question about projected losses due to Take-Two's Major League Baseball contract, "the baseball contract does have a termination date, and GTA does not."
Encapsulating the tone of the call overall in a simply-stated mea culpa and forward-looking projection, Feder offered the following: "We understand we are accountable for our performance, and have a responsibility to deliver better results. We firmly believe that our strategy of focusing on a select, diverse roster of the highest quality titles is the best course of action."
|
| |
|
|
Yep, I agree with your points. However, I would add that perpetuating the consumer bias towards certain games would be the industry media. Not to say that a solid title does not deserve to be picked up again as a sequel. However, I don't think innovative indie or AAA titles do not need to be simple as much as they need to be engaging, entertaining, and a great gaming experience. And, I certainly agree that cost is a factor as you pointed out. But, looking at the article, the main point that scares the pixels out of me, is when individuals in the industry start talking about "safe places to be." That screams "more of the same." Looking around the store shelves today, that is exactly what we see -just more of the same.
But I digress, there exist many factors and many arguments to this matter.
@Dustin
Yep, jobs getting cut in the industry is always a bad thing. That is certainly a whole can of worms on its own. It is relative, especially in the current economic environment. Companies will "play it safe" during harder economic times too. All the more reason to remain a smaller entity at this time. Lean and mean development is key to reducing overhead. I see many names in the industry jumping ship these days and starting their own indie devs. There is a reason for this.
"I think the worst place to be today is in the triple-A industry"
Yeah?
Tell Infinity Ward/Activision and Modern Warfare 2 that (the game sold a staggering 4.7 million copies for a total of $US310 million on its first day of sales. And that was in just the US and the UK alone. It then proceeded to sell 8 million copies and make $550 million in just one week of sales).
Show me any non tripe-A game that comes even close to that record, than we can talk. They made their entire budget for the game back in just one day of sales, then proceeded to make at least 200% profits just from first day sales alone.
Activision has consistently made more profits than any 3 rd party publisher in the video games business, and Activisions's profits in this December quarter wlil blow the door off it's hinges. And a lot of that is based on turning out AAA games for the PS3/360, not shovelware garbage.
" Innovation is stagnating,"
I don't see any evidence of that.
This generation has had some of the best/most innovative video games ever made.
Halo 3, COD4, Uncharted 1/2, Orange Box, Bioshock, Left 4 Dead 1/2, Assasin's Creed 1/2, Gears of War 1/2, Crackdown, Mass Effect, etc etc.
"jobs are getting cut,"
They are not neccesarily being cut from the companies making top selling AAA games. Valve for example has been making really great games, kicking butt and taking numbers, and making good profits. Same thing with Epic.
"Every single game you listed (aside from Assassin's Creed and possibly Portal) is from the same genre."
What does that have to do with whether the game is inovative or not?
A game being innovative has nothing to do with what genre it is. Every genre can have great innovation.
You know that.
", but they're all first or third person shooters that only appeal to mainly males 18-34 years old. "
The 18-34 year old males, just happen to buy more games per capita than anyone else.
The most innovation should go to the market that buys most games so you can pay for the innovation. That's the free enterprise system and capitalism at work right there.
There is no Obama "bailout" for you if you squander tens of millions on an "innovative" game to a market that won't buy your game. You will go out of business.
"We aren't Hollywood; we shouldn't only have dramas, comedies, horrors, documentaries, etc (in our case, RPGs, FPSs, RTSs, and MMOs). "
Now why don't you let the market decide all that?
You gotta pay your workers somehow. Why on earth would you not make most of your innovation and your top games for the demographic/genre that buys/sells most games?
"We have an endless amount of possibilities at our fingertips that we aren't even beginning to tap into"
There is always plenty of innovation that hasn't been done yet. And there will always be new innovation coming from very smart, super developers, but again, they gotta be paid.
A video game company is not a charity or a place where people do basic research into the vistas of games just for the sake of it.
You are there to make games that gamers will really like so much, that they will buy the game by the millions. Innovation has to be combined with what gamers demand and will actually buy.
Bungie is Bungie and Nintendo is Nintendo, how is it "innovative" to try to become either of these?
Innovation is a word i love and loathe at the same time. Ultimately it's just one of many tools needed to craft a player experience and we should probably strive to create amazing player experiences first and then decide if we need to innovate, improve, or simply "rephrase" game design. Innovation is a tool, not an objective.
Tell me if i'm misinterpreting your last statement, it seems like innovation has turned into something that validates one's existence.
Innovation is not absolutely necessary, it's this kind of mindset that tends to produce games loaded with features with no real purpose which ultimately dilutes the player's experience.
High School musical outsold God of War by a pretty considerable margin. Also took a tenth of the development cost.
Same for Scooby Doo, and Iron Man (which is one of the worst rated games on Metacritic).
Like it or not, AAA titles require ridiculous budgets to make, and is not a surefire guarantee it will garner any kind of ROI.
"Well I'd argue that consumers who only cling to what worked for them in the past are why new innovations suffer."
It's never the consumers fault.
The most innovation should go to the market that buys most games so you can pay for the innovation."
It sounds like the one who says that believes game developers should pander only to the interests of this particular demographic, instead of trying to find ways to expand the market. In simpler terms, develop hardcore games for the hardcore and those who don't are betraying "real" gamers. It's a short-sighted line of thinking that's killing the industry now.
"Adam's point was that none of the games you mentioned are innovative at all"
He never said that. Read his post again will ya?
Every game I mentioned is in act very innovative.
"compare those games you mentioned to:
""Scribblenauts"
"Professor Layton"
"Mirror's Edge"
"Braid"
"Portal"
"Tabula Rasa"*"
My list of games are more innovative than yours.
"Professor Layton"? Don't make me laugh.
"Like it or not, AAA titles require ridiculous budgets to make, and is not a surefire guarantee it will garner any kind of ROI."
And the shoverlware that is doiminant on the Wii has guranteed ROI does it?
It's not just Take Two that are saying its better to concentrate on the AA titles, Ubisoft is saying the same thing now, after first of all jumping on the Wii bandwaagon a few years back.
Ubisoft:
"Ubisoft's Big Franchises Win, Wii Games Lose
Reporting its full first-half 2009-10 financial results today, Ubisoft stresses its confidence in franchise titles like Assassin's Creed II, while some of its Wii titles continue to under-perform
---snip---
"First week sales of Assassin's Creed II, up 32%, with positive initial indications for the second week, combined with an overwhelmingly warm reception from gamers, validates our strategy of developing bigger franchises."
If fact, Guillemot even uses AC2 to soften the blow of the mixed performance of Ubisoft's Wii lineup.
"Based on this initial data, Assassin's Creed 2 looks well positioned to outstrip targets while our Wii games have got off to a more contrasted start in a less predictable market"
http://kotaku.com/5415348/ubisofts-big-franchises-win-wii-games-lose
The Wii is a graveyard fpr 3rd party developers. It's the big AAA titles like Modern Warfare 2, Assasins Creed 2, Left4Dead 2, FIFA 10 on the PS3/360 that are saving 3rd parties this Christmas.
Name me even one 3rd party game on the Wii that is going to be in the NPD top 10 in November and December.
You are making the fundamental mistake that just because a game is cheap to produce, than it means its going to make a profit. That is incorrect.
Most shovelware are cheap to produce,AND sell very little AND DON'T make profits.
Go ask Ubisoft who have continued to register big losses on their Wii games, after jumping both feet into the Wii business and buying the Wii hype.
The most innovation should go to the market that buys most games so you can pay for the innovation. That's the free enterprise system and capitalism at work right there.
There is no Obama "bailout" for you if you squander tens of millions on an "innovative" game to a market that won't buy your game. You will go out of business."
Nonsene, the most successful platform today is the Nintendo DS, a platform, where 50% of the users are femala and the 18-34 year old male is not the majority. This platform generates bigger profit then the traditional hardcore gamer consoles. The second most successful platform, the Wii, that, if you like it or not, generates more profit, then the XBox360 and PS3 combined, has a similar demographic.
Except from that I don't see anyone calling out for a bailout or for something like that. It's people talking about the best strategies for the industry to survive a bitter crisis it is in right now. Some people like you say, it has to be AAA titles, but then, you should face the fact, that in 5 years we will only have 10 software companies left, that will be able to make games. Gone will be the idea of independent developement.
Citing both of our examples, I would be more inclined to believe that established IP's that have reconizable mindshare would be the main money maker. Sequels, and movie tie-ins.
The lack of a Dark Knight game on the shelves when the Dark Knight movie hit the screens was likely a key reason as to why Pandemic was shut down. If they released any piece of shovelware for that window of opportunity, it would have likely sold over 5million copies regardless of review score. Newsweek reported that it likely cost over $101million in missed revenue.
As much as most of you hate to hear this, but Bobby Kotick is right. New IP's are a tough sell, even if they are AAA.
Quality is almost irrelevant if the IP is solid. Video Game consumers as a whole are a pretty oblivious lot.
Do you mind opening my eyes, why you think the games you listed (Halo 3, COD4, Uncharted 1/2, Orange Box, Bioshock, Left 4 Dead 1/2, Assasin's Creed 1/2, Gears of War 1/2, Crackdown, Mass Effect) are innovative?
"Nonsene, the most successful platform today is the Nintendo DS, a platform, where 50% of the users are femala and the 18-34 year old male is not the majority"
The DS sells more hardware than anyone else. Sure.
But..ummm..tell me this: How many top 10 or top 20 games has the DS had in the monthly NPD chrarts this year, as compared to say, the 360?
And..another thing: How many 3rd party publishers made more money on the DS than the 360 in this country(the US)?
This article is about Take Two, which is a 3rd party, no?
The fact of the matter is, 3rd parties in this country, sell vastly more games, on the 360 than on the DS.
The DS , despite it's high install base, is not even on the same planet when it comes to 3rd party sales here.
For 2009, the 360 has sold more 3rd party games than the BOTH the Wii and the DS.
About the only place where the DS outsells the 360 in 3rd party games is Japan, and western 3rd party sell very little in Japan anyways, so Japan is not too relevant to Take Two or Activision.
"This platform generates bigger profit then the traditional hardcore gamer consoles."
It generates bigger profits for who exactly?
I have looked at the earnings reports for EA, Activision, THQ, and the other top 3rd party publishers in this country, I don't see the DS generating bigger sales/profits than the 360.
If you have any such figures, I sure would be glad to see 'em.
"The second most successful platform, the Wii, that, if you like it or not, generates more profit, then the XBox360 and PS3 combined, has a similar demographic."
The Wii makes money for Nintendo sure..but..ummm..how much money does the Wii make for everybody else?
Both Ubisoft and EA have revently came out to complain about the poor pickings they are making on the Wii.
" Some people like you say, it has to be AAA titles,"
It's not just me.
Read the article at the top of this page wil ya?
It says, and I quote:
"Take-Two's chairman Strauss Zelnick believes core, triple-A games remain the industry's best bet."
"As much as most of you hate to hear this, but Bobby Kotick is right. New IP's are a tough sell, even if they are AAA."
I agree. Great Sequels to top selling franchises, proprely done, will sell.
"Quality is almost irrelevant if the IP is solid."
Quality is very relevant.
If Activision brings out Modern Warfare 3 in say 2011, and there is very little impovement from Modern Warfare 2, it simply won't sell.
Halo 3 ODST for example, sold far less than Halo 3 did, because it lacked matchmaking in the firefight mode, and was overpriced (at $60) for a game, that was not really a full game.
You either keep making great improvements to the sequels, or the sequl is not going to sell that well.
"What are sales figures of Halo 3 vs ODST? "
Halo 3 2007 US NPD sales figures.
September : 3,300,000
October : 434,000
November : 387,000
December : 743,000
Total in 4 months : 4,864,000
First 2 months total : 3,734,000
Halo 3 ODST 2009 NPD figures so far.
September : 1,520,000
October : 271,000
Total for 2 months : 1,791,000
So ODST sold less than half what Halo 3 sold in its first 2 months.
You don't seem to get it, if people are willing to buy games in great ammounts, like they did with Nintendogs, Wii Fit, etc. it is ridiculous to say it is impossible for a 3rd party publisher to sell games on the Wii. The 3rd party publisher only has to do games, that, in the eyes of the consumers, are as good as the one Nintendo makes. On the Wii, 3rd party publishers weren't able to do this right now. On the DS, take a look at games like "Drawn to life", which does extremly well and is not from Nintendo.
"I have looked at the earnings reports for EA, Activision, THQ, and the other top 3rd party publishers in this country, I don't see the DS generating bigger sales/profits than the 360.
If you have any such figures, I sure would be glad to see 'em."
Can you share this detailed reports, you seem to have with us? I am not aware of any reports, that indvidually show the earnings for different platforms.
"Both Ubisoft and EA have revently came out to complain about the poor pickings they are making on the Wii."
Wrong, if you read the statement from Ubisoft, it is:
" "On the Wii it's very early to say because we think December will be a very full month for that machine," Guillemot claimed. "What has happened is because there are very strong games and very successful games on the 360 and PS3 it's putting lots of pressure on the games side of the machine, that's why it has been less popular recently. But with Christmas we will see all the people that bought the machines that will come back to the market and will buy lots of products."
"We think it's too early to say if it's a problem or not yet; it's only on the gamers game side that we have a clear indication that there are lots of games that are very popular on the other machines."
"The Wii is still the machine that has great penetration so if we do high quality games on the machine we think it can be very profitable." "
Source:http://www.totalvideogames.com/Assassins-Creed-II/news/Ubisoft-Posts-Six-Month-0
910-Loss-Talks-Wii--Natal-14789.html
Do you mean this as a joke? Or do you serious insist, that Nintendo managed an accident to get Yokoi killed? First I thought you were just kidding, but rereading your post, I am not sure.
But the Ykuza link is to ridiculous to be taken seriously, so I think you wanted to make a joke.
"You don't seem to get it, if people are willing to buy games in great ammounts, like they did with Nintendogs, Wii Fit, etc. it is ridiculous to say it is impossible for a 3rd party publisher to sell games on the Wii. "
Anything is possible (within reason of course). In reality, it's the Nintendo games that continue to sell by far most of the games sold on Nintendo systems, even as 3rd parties pick up the crumbs from the table. That's FACT.
By contrast, 3rd parties sell vastly more games on the PS3 aand the 360 than Sony or Microsoft do.
So if you are a 3rd party like Activision, it makes plenty of sense to put your top AAA games on the 360 and the PS3.
"The 3rd party publisher only has to do games, that, in the eyes of the consumers, are as good as the one Nintendo makes"
How do your propose they do that?
3 years ago, Ubisoft loudly declared they were going to put a lot of resources into the Wii. They did, and then just this week, they anounced that their sales on the Wii are not doing so well, and instead it's their AAA games on the 360/PS3 like Assassin's Creed that are selling great.
http://kotaku.com/5415348/ubisofts-big-franchises-win-wii-games-lose
The thing is, it's pretty easy to know the kinds of games that will sell millions on the 360/PS3. You make a game like Aassasin's Creed, MW2, GTA IV, L4Dead, FIFA, Splinter Cell etc, and you are guaranteed huge sales.
With the Wii, what I'd call "hardcore" type games that have been released this year, have continued to bomb with depressing regularity.
MadWorld bombed. House of the Dead Overkill bombed. Dead Space Extraction bombed (it sold only 9.2K in it's first month). The Conduit bombed. Excitebots bombed (only 13K sold 1st month). Even Boom Blox Bash Party bombed as well.
And Madden 10(Wii) sold only a measely 67K on the Wii in August, as campared to 928,000 on the 360, and that was after EA had gone to a lot of trouble and expense to make a special version of Madden 10 for the Wii.
So it's not like 3rd parties are not trying hard on the Wii. They are. They are just not meeting much success.
"Can you share this detailed reports, you seem to have with us? I am not aware of any reports, that indvidually show the earnings for different platforms."
You wouldn't be would you?
Now why don't you go take a look at the earnings reports for any of the top 3rd party games firms out there. Every one of them break down their revenues by platform. Now I have never seen the DS, sell anywhere near as much games by revenue or units, as the 360, in any earnings report I have seen from Activision or EA for example. And those 2 are the biggest 3rd party publishers in America.
Now this is what you said in your post, and I quote:
"Nonsene, the most successful platform today is the Nintendo DS, a platform, where 50% of the users are femala and the 18-34 year old male is not the majority. This platform generates bigger profit then the traditional hardcore gamer consoles"
So I asked you, the DS generates them "bigger profits" for who exactly?
The DS sure don't generate bigger profits for Activision than the 360 or the PS3. Nor does it generate bigger profits for EA than the 360 and the PS3. Nor does it even generate any profits for top developers like Valve and Epic, who consider the DS as some kind of joke.
So who is the DS making these "bigger profits" for? Nintendo of course . Not 3rd parties.
""We think it's too early to say if it's a problem or not yet; it's only on the gamers game side that we have a clear indication that there are lots of games that are very popular on the other machines."
Ubiosft has gone flat out on the Wii for close to 3 years now, put big resources on the Wii for years. This generation of consoles is already half way through it's life cycle, and now you are going to tell me it's "too early" to say whether the bad sales on the Wii are a problem?
You gotta be kidding me here!
"Wrong, if you read the statement from Ubisoft, it is:
" "On the Wii it's very early to say because we think December will be a very full month for that machine," "
Oookaaay.
So..why don't you tell us exactly what wonderful games from Ubisoft are going to register these wonderful, great sales in December on the Wii, so Ubisoft sales on the Wii can match the already massive sales of Aassain's Creed 2 on the PS3/360 in the Nov/Dec holiday period then?
"I wonder if ODST would've sold more than twice as many units if it were priced at $30 instead of $60. I think it was widely felt that ODST simply wasn't worth $60"
It sure wasn't worth $60.
In a recession, people are not going to buy a half game for $60.
The game was originally supposed to be an expansion pack for Halo 3, but they added some extra to it. It only took a bit over a year to develop, so why on earth would Microsoft sell it for the full $60 price of a full game?
Plus ODST did not have matchmaking for the Firefight mode. That is a big drawback.
It's a good game, its just not worth $60.
I sometimes really don't understand some of these people who run Microsoft E & D. They could have sold a heck of a lot more ODST's if they had initially priced it at say $40. Maybe sold at some 70% more, and ended up making more money, despite selling each unit at a lower price.
At least they seem to have learned some sense and are now selling ODST for $40.
"Now why don't you go take a look at the earnings reports for any of the top 3rd party games firms out there. Every one of them break down their revenues by platform. Now I have never seen the DS, sell anywhere near as much games by revenue or units, as the 360, in any earnings report I have seen from Activision or EA for example. And those 2 are the biggest 3rd party publishers in America."
Any source, where anybody on earth can look at these numbers?
Maybe you guys should stop playing too much video games and start face the reality. The video games business is facing a crisis, that could lead to a collapse of the whole industry. This crisis isn't made by evil yakuza members or company bosses seeking for revenge and killing their employees. This only happens in bad hollywood movies and video games, that are trying to look like those movies.
The crisis, we are facing now is the result of a series of wrong decisions made by the leading managers of the soft- and hardware companies in the games business.
So the closed-mindedness you are talking about can be only about the fact, that I don't believe any internet rumour, that angry fanboys are spreading anonymous on the blogspot pages, rumours which would be funny, if there weren't enough 15 year old kids, who start to believe garbage like that.
It's interesting, strange rumours and accusations like this always seem to come from the american side and seem to be regarding japanese companies. I start to believe many people in the US think, that every japanese business is tight to the yakuza in one way or another. But this is like saying, every american business is tight to the mafia. I bet most americans on this site would be upset, if somebody from europe or asia would start to make crazy accusations, that Robert Koitick or Peter Moore are on the payroll of the mafia and that the companies they are working in are only successful, cause the mafia silences the competition, by arranging deadly accidents.
maybe you should read my post more carefully, I wrote
"It's interesting, strange rumours and accusations like this always SEEM to come from the american side and SEEM to be regarding japanese companies. I start to believe MANY people in the US think, that every japanese business is tight to the yakuza in one way or another." (captial letters for better understanding)
I don't see, what this has to do with George W. Bush at all. All that I said, was that you are making wild accusations against the management of a company, without any proof. You went this far, to take an interview with Yamauchi's son-in-law and questions regarding his obvious difficult personal relationship to Yamauchi and Nintendo to proof you totally crazy accusation. And this is a downright pathetic thing.
By the way, I don't hold resentment against the americans as a whole, all I said was, that making wild and crazy accusations, like accusing a company of killing ex-employees or working with the yakuza, is not the nicest thing to do.
But it's crazy to say, that many americans SEEM to think, that japanese companies are working with the yakuza and are killing ex-employees?
Strange logic on your side.
If you have evidence, that Nintendo is killing ex-employees or is working with the yakuza, you should make them public, this would be your duty as a citizen.
"You aren't attacking any of my evidence or analysis, you're just using your prejudice against Americans as your argument."
Right now, I am still waiting for any evidence. You can't seriously say a blogspot page from somebody saying, without any source, Nintendo hired Yakuza Members in the 19th century, or a BBC documentary, which has a completely different subject, Yakuza ties weren't even mentioned, are evidence for your wild and crazy accusation.
"The only counter you have to my argument is, "You're just a crazy American who is just like the rest, thinking that all Japanese companies are run by Yakuza"."
You are crying very loud out on this point. It only made up about 1% of all I have written in this thread. I wonder, why you put it so high, after you accused Nintendo of killing an ex-employee, without any evidence, in fact on the basis of a Wikipedia entry, which didn't said anything like this.
But what you bring up here as "evidence" is just a crazy bunch of accusations, that are a conspiracy theory. As funny, as those conspiracy theories can be, I loved Illuminatus as a teen, so boring are they, when people try to prove something with them. What you are building up is no evidence. Evidence would mean, that you have something, that proofs your point.
What you do, is making an accusation (Nintendo killed Gunpei Yokoi), to proof this accusation you say:
The car was driven by a Nintendo businessman and Nintendo benefited from the death. First of all, only because somebody from Nintendo drove the car doesn't make him a killer, you can be sure, the poor man has a terrible life being involved in this accident even without your tasteless accusations and second, every day high profile people from companies are departing their former employer and take trade secrets with them. But if, I don't hope this happens, Peter Moore tomorrow dies in a car crash, and somebody from Microsoft is involved in it, I wouldn't think, MS assassinated Peter Moore.
Kotik is a deuche who has largely gotten lucky and will eventually talk his way out of the games business. Licensing for tie-ins is expensive enough that mediocre selling tie-ins aren't going to make the type of profit that a AAA franchise can generate. The name of the game for at least the last two console cycles is two hit it big with a new high quality IP like Halo, Gears, Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, etc., and then pump out the sequels. That business model has absolutely failed on the Wii.