Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-23-2011 @ 5:14PM
Randomize said...
Having the Star Wars IP back up their game was a big boost to Bioware's game, no doubt about it. Even if it was the best game ever made, it would not be easy to break into a saturated market without a big franchise behind it. Kotick was and still is an idiot for making such a stupid comment. He damn well knows that if Activision had a chance to pick up such an offering it would do so in a heartbeat.
Reply
12-23-2011 @ 5:47PM
shatnerstorm2 said...
I think "idiot" is a bit harsh. Judging from his comment, Kotick didn't say that TOR wouldn't be profitable; he simply was *implying* that after Lucas' cut and the development costs, he "wasn't sure how the economics would work", i.e, it would be difficult to make a profit from his point of view.
Of course, all of this depends on exactly how big Lucas' cut was from TOR, but I think Kotick's point was that putting "Star Wars" on your product isn't cheap. Whereas with Blizzard, their games are essentially 100 percent profit for them because they own all the licensing rights.
12-24-2011 @ 12:57PM
emberdione said...
Considering Kotick is a Moneyball fan, I doubt it. That is exactly the mentality he is applying here. 1.5 million subs where he keeps all the money is better than 2 million subs where he has to share it. Also the point is, we don't know the share breakdown. It could be 2 dollars, it could be 7.50. Lucas has some pretty nasty lawyers on his side.