I don’t know about the others, but I’ve been past Raven’s HQ & it’s not big enough for 500 people. LinkedIn says 201-500, but I see places saying 229, 279, 350. I don’t think they’re 500.
I could see the others being near or over 500, but I really don’t think Raven is. For reference, here’s their “studio picture” - even granting that it’s probably missing quite a few people, there’s no way they have 500.
So basically 1500+ people working on COD which excludes all those other studios. They shouldn’t need thousands of people working on one game. That’s insane.
Anyway, reason I was asking is that while they will keep COD annually for the rest of this generation, I believe that for next generation (2028), they should have one game for next generation (no cross-gen) and let those three studios add to it as a platform which should eliminate the need for every studio to be working on COD. Because with 1500+ people working on the game as a platform, more if you include Raven Software, I don’t see why all the other studios would need to be stuck on COD for life.
Dont forget support studios like Beenox
Its fucking sad and outreagoeus. Hopefuly ms sort this out.
Agreed. If all these other studios do nothing but COD, that’s going to be disappointing because in my mind, they’re all just being wasted.
It’s not same game. There are many COD. Example, one team works on Modern Warefare while another works on Black ops 2 while another works on Cold war, etc… It’s still Call of Duty, but it is not the same game.
It is how they are able to make COD yearly. You need big team of 4-5 devs studio with many workers to rotate around making COD every year.
I know that but you would think that the animations and whatnot are already in place, just create a new location, story, characters, etc. kinda like an expansion. Look at the Witcher 3’s Blood and Wine. New location, new story, new characters and released 16 months after the base game.
If COD was made into a platform like Sea of Thieves or other games, I don’t see why they wouldn’t be able to do the same especially since they would have 1500 people working together to bring out a yearly expansion with seasonal stuff throughout the year.
For me, if this truly ends up being all that the Activision studios do, then none of this is exciting at all for me because im hoping the other studios are able to develop other games and whatnot. Even if those other games aren’t for me, still better than everyone working on COD every year.
According to this gameinformer article based on an ABK press release raven software has 350 people working there. However, that figure wouldn’t account for anyone working who would be contracted or subcontracted through an agency. As they would technically be self employed or employed through the third party agency. So it can partially skew how many people are working at a given studio. Hover we know atleast 350 people at minimum.
Put the 3 main studios (Infinity Ward, Treyarch and Sledgehammer) on COD and release a new COD every 2 years, this will give each team 6 years of development and that’s more than enough. The rest of the studios can work on other games.
I can’t see that happening, it would also slash their revenue.
I read it so you don’t have to, and you are exactly right about what the article is saying. it is about that ‘you already won’ quote.
Phil, and I believe others at microsoft have stated that such change of directions in actiblizz or any other studio they acquire, will come from within the studio with no push from ms. I believe they’ve proven that by now, the fact that they are very hands off with studios (for better or for worse as we’ve seen in the recent past) they acquire, especially ones as successful as bethesda and abk.
For what it’s worth I don’t think they’ll do such thing. You don’t just choose to stop making the best selling video game every year but every two years.
Not to mention a new CoD every year will be a huge driver of not only new GP subs but the ultimate subscription retention
I could see them going two years eventually if the teams are requesting it because of extreme burnout or it just becomes unsustainable, otherwise they will keep it yearly like they always have
Pretty much…
https://twitter.com/marketswithmay/status/1676678438315257856?t=rUZdMiluRfVwLt0qOYMDCg&s=19
Idk what this means
Stock Traders playing their games to make money.
Casual Wednesday in the stock market basically.
Yeah I saw the article with the clickbait headline but, and I may be the extreme minority here, it’s not a bad article.
The factually incorrect headline (but “true from a certain point of view”) will be shared and in the few cases where the article is read, it details how much of the FTC’s actions are a complete sham. If it is shared on fanboy forums the contents of it educate folks on how this entire process was rigged. Which I think is a good thing but not many read past the headline.
It’s a summary of all the observations made here on this forum in one easy to read article.
Though I do agree that it’s not worth giving clicks by posting it here because of the irresponsible clickbait attempt that could have been easily avoided with one adjustment. They knew exactly what they were doing and it’s going to negatively affect the stock market because most don’t read past the headlines. Again, this isn’t an innocuous mistake.
For anyone wondering “binary event” is trader speak for an event that triggers a large jump or collapse in a share price.
You manage binary events through a few different methods. Most obviously diversification. The more diversified your portfolio the less likely you are to take a big hit (or reward) if a binary event occurs in a stock you own. Other common ones are take profit and stop loss points. So a big fund might take a position on the Activision Microsoft merger and then mitigate risk by setting a low point where a certain amount or all of their stock will be sold to minimize loss. They do the opposite to “guarantee” a return.
It’s all just done with complex risk management algorithms and a host of other things. The big thing to keep in mind is that the large institutions that have the ability to move a share price seemingly out of nowhere make their money on movement in the market, not just upwards movement. And that as small investors you or I tend to interpret upward movements in a share price as a sign of positivity and downward as a sign of negativity. That can be the case. But it can also just be noise from all the various risk management strategies being employed by the big players
Also note that these large institutions have computers and algorithms that monitor the market. If the computer notices movement outside of the ordinary it can buy/sell/etc… automatically in a split second. This can potentially create massive swings as the computers react to each other.
12 more days and hopefully all of this will finally be over and done with either which way.
