Nice Guys Come in Last

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Because they are making money people can't complain? What kind of ethics are these? The price hike in the UK is a little more than a burning papercut to the people that live there, and they can either suck it up and hand over the cash or go without a game they might have liked. But they can't complain?

People are perfectly comfortable with companies attaining success, just look at Valve. Activision are unpopular for other reasons.

No, Activision is still completely evil, just in the whole "soulless corporation slanging crack for big money" kinda way. They remind me a bit of Mcdonalds or Walmart in that way. And I actually kind of prefer it to the way of 3D Realms- "we are going to promise you a sequel for ten years then "suddenly" go bankrupt and get sued" kind of evil. ( and yes, in my book, that is totally evil.

Business is business, but fuck you Activision. I am a firm believer that business should be about the consumer, the customer, rather than the money. There should be passion and desire to do good in what is done. Activision seems to have neither. And as such, I have confidence that this will come back to bite them in the ass.

randommaster:
Yeah, but when everybody's placed artificial restrictions on themselves, the people who don't place these restrictions on themselves are going to have a much easier time becoming successful.

The same way you applied this article to Hitler, you can apply it to something like spawn camping. It's just somebody playing by the rules, but not burdening themselves with extra rules. The point of and FPS is (usually) to kill the other person more times than they kill you, not to run around and come up with awesome tactical plans. If someone can win by shooting you as you respawn, and their not cheating, then it's a legitimate strategy. People will hate you, though, because they have the notion that the point of the game is something other than simply getting more kills.

It scales upwards, too. The point of politics is (usually) to become the most influential person around. We, however, place restrictions on ourselves, like not simply killing the people in our way. Those extra restrictions are not actual rules, though. Killing millions in a massive, world war to take over the planet is going to get you desposed by the people who stop themselves from doing the same, but if you're successful, people can't really say your bad at politics because you just became the most powerful and sucecssful political figure ever. It's not like Hitler hacked the universe and godmoded his way through WWII by himself, so what he was doing was one option out of many that he could have chosen to raise Germany's stuatus in the world.

Before you start talking about the tragic event so the Holocaust, I'm not saying that it didn't happen, or that people didn't suffer, just that waging war is simply ine method out of many when it comes to gaining political power.

Activision is doing to the gamer demographic what Nintendo is doing to the what Nintendo is doing to everyone, they are targeting the broadest audience possible and not following the established business model. If people are upset with Activision be like me and don't buy their games, but you can't say their doing anything wrong.

As endlessly awesome as hacking the universe and godmoding all the way to world domination would be, I have to disagree with you.

True, they may not be doing anything wrong from a legal standpoint, and they're definitely not doing anything wrong from an economic standpoint. They are, however, doing wrong from a somewhat vague standpoint that I'm just going to go ahead and call a moral standpoint. They focus solely on their profits, and they display blatant disdain for the gaming community by pulling stunts like this. Brütal Legend is, from what I know about it, a fairly innovative (at least visually) game that has immense appeal to a certain audience and is generally being well received. However, because Double Fine has refused to shoehorn it into the Guitar Hero franchise (which is increasingly getting the image of a re-releasing cash cow, like EA Sports), Activision instead chooses to (make every effort to) kill one of the most anticipated games of this year, which has received widespread media attention and is already quite well-known and will likely become a huge (or at least larger-than-average) success. By this are they not only looking out for their profit margin, they're giving the gaming and game journalism community the finger, by showing that they don't care what the public thinks about a game, they only care about their profit margin.

The same issue is present with your spawn camping argument. FPSes are intended to be competitive, true, and spawn camping may be possible without cheating. But spawn camping is wrong from, again, let's call it a moral standpoint. By denying your opponent the chance to fight back you take the competitive aspect out of the game almost entirely, as you can just sit there calmly picking off the enemy from a safe location while the enemy barely gets two seconds of play time before they're dead, so they can't even attempt to fight back. You're doing everything right from a game-technic standpoint, as you're rapidly and steadily increasing your kill count, but from a moral standpoint you're denying the other players the chance to enjoy a nice, challenging game.

I guess this boils down to differing definitions of what "wrong" means. To return to the case at hand, yes, Activision does nothing "wrong" from a legal or corporate standpoint, by maximising their profit, but by doing so they are flipping us all the bird, all but telling us they don't give a shit about any part of us beyond our wallet. And THAT is what's wrong here.

Tony Harrison:
Because they are making money people can't complain? What kind of ethics are these? The price hike in the UK is a little more than a burning papercut to the people that live there, and they can either suck it up and hand over the cash or go without a game they might have liked. But they can't complain?

People are perfectly comfortable with companies attaining success, just look at Valve. Activision are unpopular for other reasons.

You know, this comment reminded me slightly of another comment I can barely recall from a user I barely remember;

"What ever happened to 'We are their customer' and 'They shouldn't treat the customer like that'?"

Take that how you will, but this is what business seems to come down to nowadays. While it's never completely "The customer is always right", some decency with the people you're selling to helps your own business.

Strategia:
*Holy crap we've been typing a lot*

The thing is, though, that there's a difference between breaking the rules/law and breaking social conventions.

Breaking the rules/law means that you have actually done something wrong and are no longer eledgeble to claim superior methodology if you succed. Breaking conventions means that what you are doing is looked down on by the majority, or at least the majority of the people who matter.

This is easier to see in a game because the rules are clearly defined. To use the spawn camping example again, the people who matter are the people who made the game. If they son't want spawn camping, they will make it impossible. or at least very hard, to spawn camp. A good example would be TF2, where you CAN spawn camp, but each team has an area where the other team cannot enter, so they can prepare themselves the campers. The players in the game don't matter, that is, unless they have the ability to kick you from the game. Inless they have the power to do that, though, the strategy which gives you the best advantage in the one to use. It may be annoying, but the game doesn't care about who had fun, it only cares about who won. It's not sporting, for sure, to make someone have to sit through ten minutes of camping, but if winning is your goal, then you will camp if it is the best strategy, regardless of what others think.

Now, that only applies to you if you want to win, if you just want to play, then stopping someone else from playing is just being a dick because you're not trying to achieve anyhting, just keeping them from having a good time. You can see the difference in this when it comes to tournaments and friendly matches. In a tournament, where the goal is to win, camping is something you have to deal with because the other person is not breaking any rules, they're just aggrivating you. When playing in your living room, however, camping is likely to make the other person stop playing or they will make you stop playing. Everyone may want to win, but they don't want to deprive anyone else of fun, either. The game has changed so that camping is not longer the best strategy because doing so will violate one of the rules.

It gets harder to explain when you move to the global scale, but the arguement still stands. If one strategy will help you achieve your goal better than any other, not using that strategy means that you are either not actually trying to achieve that goal, or that you are placing artificial restrictions on yourself. If your goal is to earn money, anything from mowing lawns to robbing banks is fair game. If your goal is to earn mney legally, however, you have to discard the options that involve breaking the laws of the place where you live. The same goes for trying to take over the world. If you simply want to do it, then you have to consider wholesale war in addition to negotiations. If you want to take over the world without bloodshed, however, you are forced to negotioate because killing people is now breaking the rules.

This system works well when everybody is playing by the same rules, but where a lot of people get upset, however, is when someone is willing to do anything to reach a goal, the people who have chosen to put limitations on themselves are going to raise hell. They only matter, however, if they can do something about it. When Hitler tried to take over the world, the people that he pissed off were people who could stop him, so their opinion mattered. If Hitler had succeded, however, it wouldn't matter what the rest of the world thought, because they would not matter anymore because they would have been unable to do anything. Going back to the video game example, tournaments of the same game will usually ban stages/characters/equipment that is unbalanced. Entering the tournament means that you have agreed to follow the rules. Not following them will get you disqualified, so the people who organized the tournament have power over you, so their opinion matters. The opinions of the people in the tournament don't matter, however, because they don't have the power to kick you out if you're not breaking the rules. They have to beat you within the rules, and they may have opinions of your playstyle, but as long as you beat them, what they have to say about you is mearly an opinion and carries no weight. If you spawn camp and the rules don't disallow it, then it doesn't matter is everyone in the room hates the way you play because you have followed the same rules.

Once you know the rules of the game, there is nothing stopping you from exploiting them to come out on top. The trick is, though, to find out what the rules are. When it comes to life, you won't get booted from the server for doing something. People created societies, however, so that they could enforce more rules, and anybody in that society has agreed to follow those rules. Not following them will get you in trouble, but only if you are trying to work in that society. The goal of capitalism is smply to gain the most resources, in this case, money, so the strategy that earns you the most money is the correct one. You can play for the short game, or the long game, but the goal is to make the most money in a given amount of time. We don't use pure capitalism, however, or CEOs would be assassinated left and right. Buisnesses have aggreed to not kill each other's employies/property, as well as other rules to ensure stabillity. Activision is playing by these rules, and most of the people who don't like them don't matter to Activision. The opinion of the jugde overseeing their lawsuit does, however, because that judge has some power over Activision.

I'm going to stop now because I've started rambling and I've typed way too much for something that doesn't have a due date.

evil no, bastards yes

Knight Templar:
I am tired of this " they are a company, they are suppost to shit all over you" line. No thats not how it works, they make the stuff, and I buy the stuff with my money, charging me twice as much for the same stuff is just being a greedy arse.

An arsehole is an arsehole, the fact they are making money by screwing you over doesn't strike me as a good excuse.

I agree. EA's not doing so well at the moment becuase they were dickish enough to introduce DRM, which gave pirates everywhere a justification for stealing it. And in some ways, I would agree with them.

Just look at Valve and their own online publishers, Steam. No intrusive and restrictive DRM (well, except for the EA owned games) ensure their own financial safety without punching their life support (consumers)m in the face. Couple that with an unlimited supply of game copies (again, except for EA), excellent pricing and a great online community (plus a far better messaging system than MSN), and you have a winner. They may not be the biggest guys on the market, but they do have the reins over online game stores. People don't hate them, and they don't deserve any hate at all. In fact, I would say that some people have an obligation to buy products from them.

What I'm getting at is that, while being a dick is the easy and obvious path to riches, there are two things you must consider:

1)It's only temporary. People get fed up with getting pushed around by the big guys, like what happened to EA.

2)Once someone displays a respectable quality and is genuinely nice and friendly to the consumers, you will eventually find an unwavering and powerful fanbase to be reckoned with.

Steam is just the beginning. Activision, your days are numbered.

When I picture Activision now, I think of a tall high rise office building perched on top a dark mountain as a lightning storm rages on. Shadows of CEO's and VP's laugh maniacally as they drink the blood of all the game developers they've squashed.

Sean Sands:
Nice Guys Come in Last

Activision isn't evil - but playing nice won't always win you the prom queen.

Read Full Article

In all of this debate, I think one key factor is missed.

The greatest argument against Activision is the Amstrad version of "Ghostbusters". This terrible, terrible game distils everything that is wrong with hurriedly-manufactured movie tie-ins into one neat cassette tape. It's like Hugo Boss and the design of the Waffen-SS uniforms, or George Clooney and Batman and Robin. Some sins are just too huge to be forgotten.

They are simply the current evil overlords of the industry, really nothing being said about them is any differant than what was said about EA "back in the day" (which wasn't too long ago, and arguably all of it is still being said). One of the problems with a shark tank is that there are always sharks waiting for you to slip so they can swim up and replace you as #1.

Truthfully though I suspect a lot of these big companies are already courting their deaths. See, right now it's "hip" for the big guy on the totem pole to start slapping around the hardcore (or as described above "executive") gamers. But the problem is that right now we're dealing with a situation where gaming has grown like never before, and you see more consoles in homes than say during the NES or SNES era. However in absolute terms it can only grow so much before there is a console in every home, and everyone is gaming. Once the market is established your going to see everyone becoming increasingly more picky once the newness runs away and everyone turns "hardcore" or at least hardcore compared to what they are now.

Your also looking at a situation where as the current gamers grow older (from children) they are going to take the gaming interest with them, and what this means for society in general still hasn't been revealed (though it has been theorized). Interestingly it means that your doubtlessly going to see products developed for jaded older gamers who grew up with gaming so aren't going to be as easily amused by the novelty of something like "Wii Bowling".

Of course none of this has to do with Activision's success right now, though I very much doubt it will remain the dominant force for the long term. Truthfully I *DO* expect a true gaming version of "Microsoft" to one day arise like a lovecraftian horror from the ocean, but that isn't going to happen in the current climate. Give it 20 years so the current 9 year olds are pushing 30 and the current 30 year olds are 50+ and all of them are gaming alongside the newest generations of kids.

Lord Krunk:

Knight Templar:
I am tired of this " they are a company, they are suppost to shit all over you" line. No thats not how it works, they make the stuff, and I buy the stuff with my money, charging me twice as much for the same stuff is just being a greedy arse.

An arsehole is an arsehole, the fact they are making money by screwing you over doesn't strike me as a good excuse.

I agree. EA's not doing so well at the moment becuase they were dickish enough to introduce DRM, which gave pirates everywhere a justification for stealing it. And in some ways, I would agree with them.

Just look at Valve and their own online publishers, Steam. No intrusive and restrictive DRM (well, except for the EA owned games) ensure their own financial safety without punching their life support (consumers)m in the face. Couple that with an unlimited supply of game copies (again, except for EA), excellent pricing and a great online community (plus a far better messaging system than MSN), and you have a winner. They may not be the biggest guys on the market, but they do have the reins over online game stores. People don't hate them, and they don't deserve any hate at all. In fact, I would say that some people have an obligation to buy products from them.

What I'm getting at is that, while being a dick is the easy and obvious path to riches, there are two things you must consider:

1)It's only temporary. People get fed up with getting pushed around by the big guys, like what happened to EA.

2)Once someone displays a respectable quality and is genuinely nice and friendly to the consumers, you will eventually find an unwavering and powerful fanbase to be reckoned with.

Steam is just the beginning. Activision, your days are numbered.

Glad i read the second page, otherwise i would've wasted time just typing out this again, well apart from the EA part.

Eh, They know that people are going to buy Modern Warfare 2 (seriously, screw that 'call of duty' part, it just makes the milking of the franchise name more apparent) regardless of what happens because of its avid fan base, so they raise the prices to get a profit. They spend heaps of money to develop an already thoroughly used idea and then charge the consumers accordingly.

Remember, a good game shouldn't cost heaps to make and sell for heaps but instead cost less and sell for less with the same quality of gameplay (hence why indie games are getting quite popular)

So it ties into what Krunk said, Activision's days are numbered by the indie developers creative and cheap designs and steams digital distribution to get them to the mainstream market.

wait?! being nice isn't good?!?

oh god dammit my pre-school teacher was lieing to me all along!
and kindergarden teacher
and mother
and basically every female adult mother figure I've ever had,
well screw nice-ness I going from 4 to 8 puppy kick and eats a day!

Will people buy games that suck, or they don't like, even though it's from a publisher they admire? Unlikely. Do people avoid buying games from EA and Activision? No, again, not if it's a game they want or are invested in.

I don't admire Activision, and will cheer along with others when the new "shark" comes along and devours it. Still, they recognize that, bottom line, people vote with their wallets, and to hell with being liked.

We have the power. We'll never exercise it, though, at least not in a majority. Ultimately, we get the kind of publishers and games we deserve.

I prefer the valve approach myself. Nice portfolio, Profitable, Occasionally Outrageous but never antagonistic to it's supporters ;)

Wow, Activision are definitely helping EA's reputation as they seem to be going the opposite direction somewhat in these days. :P

Sean Sands:
Nice Guys Come in Last

Activision isn't evil - but playing nice won't always win you the prom queen.

Read Full Article

i thought nintendo were the ones marketing to the broadest possible market?

more on topic, i have no problem with activision milking their franchises for all they're worth, or ruthlessly cutting games that they don't think will be profitable. i don't like how they bought guitar hero out from under harmonix and use the name to compete with them, but i grudgingly accept it.

what i DON'T accept is this brutal legend business. does anyone seriously believe that brutal legend is going to compete with guitar hero? does anyone seriously believe that releasing is going to do "irreparable harm" to activision?

they're using their business clout to quash creativity and competition. they're trying to destroy a 4 or 5 year investment for Double Fine and essentially put them out of business. publishers should never have that kind of clout over the content creators in any industry.

The Rockerfly:
They make guitar hero I can never hate them

funny, guitar hero is one of the reasons i do hate them.

If more people stopped being gullible and stopped buying their newest milkage, they wouldn't be doing so well. I'm more interested to see what happens when Starcraft II and Diablo III are released and don't live up to Blizzard fanboy expectations since it's Activision pulling their strings. Those will be interesting days.

cobra_ky:

Sean Sands:
Nice Guys Come in Last

Activision isn't evil - but playing nice won't always win you the prom queen.

Read Full Article

i thought nintendo were the ones marketing to the broadest possible market?

more on topic, i have no problem with activision milking their franchises for all they're worth, or ruthlessly cutting games that they don't think will be profitable. i don't like how they bought guitar hero out from under harmonix and use the name to compete with them, but i grudgingly accept it.

what i DON'T accept is this brutal legend business. does anyone seriously believe that brutal legend is going to compete with guitar hero? does anyone seriously believe that releasing is going to do "irreparable harm" to activision?

they're using their business clout to quash creativity and competition. they're trying to destroy a 4 or 5 year investment for Double Fine and essentially put them out of business. publishers should never have that kind of clout over the content creators in any industry.

The Rockerfly:
They make guitar hero I can never hate them

funny, guitar hero is one of the reasons i do hate them.

Why? Guitar hero is great. It has shown a generation to loads of different music, is a good party game, has some of the best music games within the franchise and is one of the best co-op games thats not a FPS on this generation of consoles

The only thing about Activision that really made me angry was the lawsuit they filed against Double Fine for Brutal Legend. If the only way to succeed in the industry is to deliberately crush the creativity of others, then hopefully video games will cease to be a profitable industry soon.

The Rockerfly:

Why? Guitar hero is great. It has shown a generation to loads of different music, is a good party game, has some of the best music games within the franchise and is one of the best co-op games thats not a FPS on this generation of consoles

which is why it upsets me that activision snapped up the publisher and started making money off Harmonix's IP.

personally i'm pulling for Rock Band.

cobra_ky:

The Rockerfly:

Why? Guitar hero is great. It has shown a generation to loads of different music, is a good party game, has some of the best music games within the franchise and is one of the best co-op games thats not a FPS on this generation of consoles

which is why it upsets me that activision snapped up the publisher and started making money off Harmonix's IP.

personally i'm pulling for Rock Band.

So? They made the franchise a hell of a lot beter with guitar hero 3, rock band has a bad interface, is too easy and drums suck on rock band

The Rockerfly:

cobra_ky:

The Rockerfly:

Why? Guitar hero is great. It has shown a generation to loads of different music, is a good party game, has some of the best music games within the franchise and is one of the best co-op games thats not a FPS on this generation of consoles

which is why it upsets me that activision snapped up the publisher and started making money off Harmonix's IP.

personally i'm pulling for Rock Band.

So? They made the franchise a hell of a lot beter with guitar hero 3, rock band has a bad interface, is too easy and drums suck on rock band

I'd disagree with that statement. Neversoft, through Activision, can't come close to the gameplay level as Guitar Hero 2, even with the current iterations of the game. Plus the fact they refuse to support the games when the newest one comes out makes the milking all that much more apparent. Nothing they have released couldn't have been done as DLC, like what Harmonix has been doing with Rock Band. As well, Harmonix doesn't screw you for not owning the newest version of the game, with all of their DLC working with either version of the game.

Plus, the game is "arbitrarily" harder on the later Guitar Heroes, with added notes and chords that don't actually exist in the song, just to make it more difficult. Rock Band is more "true" to the music, which makes it a far better game, in my opinion.

Lord_Jaroh:
-snip-

I'm sorry but that is just wrong, they upgraded the graphics, the hammer-on engine, most songs were not awful covers and master recordings or decent live recordings, online play, battle mode and the fact it was harder because you had to be more specfic of when you strum was more specific so you had to actually learn rather than practice.
Yeah thats true for like through the fire and flames and the devil went down to georgia, the rest I know on guitar most of the riffs and I can say that very few are over charted or under charted.
Rock band thinks that drums have just 4 pads, chords can be hammered on, singing doesn't require any form of pitching and finally you can play through entire songs with a rock band guitar and never strum.
Okay lets look at it this way, Activision have released 3 guitar heros where the dlc is compatible with each other (smash hits, world tour and metallica)
While Rock Band have done 2 games where they are all compatible
Finally Rock Band never does anything to advance the game, it just splurged out the same rock band game each time and they are both still about £40 (based on GAME website)
Sorry for the wall of text

I can't believe it... no one? Really? Alright. Fine.

"Carla was the prom queen." - Ifyoudon'tknowthenshameonyou

L.B. Jeffries:
And yet, when they have milked all their current IP into the absolute ground, as they are already doing, and when they have driven away all their creative talent, as they are already doing, they will cease to make any money off the derivative crap they continue to publish.

Carpetbagging is a bad way to do business if you intend to stick around as company. People forgive, they do not forget.

Another way of putting this being "Not all short-term strategies for success lend themselves well to long-term success". All I can say is, what you said is what I believe, if only because their on-going success in their current mode would sicken me, and I prefer to think that the system will balance them out.

randommaster:
The same way you applied this article to Hitler, you can apply it to something like spawn camping. It's just somebody playing by the rules, but not burdening themselves with extra rules. The point of and FPS is (usually) to kill the other person more times than they kill you, not to run around and come up with awesome tactical plans. If someone can win by shooting you as you respawn, and their not cheating, then it's a legitimate strategy. People will hate you, though, because they have the notion that the point of the game is something other than simply getting more kills.

One could as easily say that the point of the game is to engage in a balanced competitive environment which allows both parties to exercise skill and enjoy themselves, while some idiots have gotten the notion in their head that the only point of the game is a higher K/D ratio. Some of us have to deal with games which were not perfectly made, and which failed to account for all game-breaking behavior (like spawn camping). Therefore, we play the game by what seems like the only reasonable way for all parties to enjoy themselves, instead of exploiting the system in a way which guarantees that one party hates their life, and the other garners a smug sense of self-satisfaction from dominating complete strangers. This is analogous to more outright griefing. So, to bring it round, is Activision griefing? Well, they're engaging in tactics which the environment 100% allows, but which many of the participants (in particular, those being spawn-camped by the Level 80 Company raining down a campaign of Scorched Earth on their Newb Village) do not feel fits in with the spirit of the exercise (making good games which people enjoy).

So yeah, I think that's where I am with it. Activision is just playing a different game from everybody else, and it boils down to griefing, which ruins the fun for everyone except them.

And yet I find myself hating the fuckers. Churning out remakes and sequals, and some people out there still buying their wares. Sparking a price rise through games to £55. So fuck them, I don't buy their goods and why should I have to suffer a price hike because they're dicks?

Geoffrey42:

randommaster:
The same way you applied this article to Hitler, you can apply it to something like spawn camping. It's just somebody playing by the rules, but not burdening themselves with extra rules. The point of and FPS is (usually) to kill the other person more times than they kill you, not to run around and come up with awesome tactical plans. If someone can win by shooting you as you respawn, and their not cheating, then it's a legitimate strategy. People will hate you, though, because they have the notion that the point of the game is something other than simply getting more kills.

One could as easily say that the point of the game is to engage in a balanced competitive environment which allows both parties to exercise skill and enjoy themselves, while some idiots have gotten the notion in their head that the only point of the game is a higher K/D ratio. Some of us have to deal with games which were not perfectly made, and which failed to account for all game-breaking behavior (like spawn camping). Therefore, we play the game by what seems like the only reasonable way for all parties to enjoy themselves, instead of exploiting the system in a way which guarantees that one party hates their life, and the other garners a smug sense of self-satisfaction from dominating complete strangers. This is analogous to more outright griefing. So, to bring it round, is Activision griefing? Well, they're engaging in tactics which the environment 100% allows, but which many of the participants (in particular, those being spawn-camped by the Level 80 Company raining down a campaign of Scorched Earth on their Newb Village) do not feel fits in with the spirit of the exercise (making good games which people enjoy).

So yeah, I think that's where I am with it. Activision is just playing a different game from everybody else, and it boils down to griefing, which ruins the fun for everyone except them.

I'm kind of annoyed because I had this concersation earilier and I don't want to type it again, but I'll be civil.

Activision is playing the same game, but with a different objective in mind. It's like someone playing a game of CTF and trying to get the highest kill count instead of the most captures. If your goal in a game is different that everybody elses, people may not like when you try to achieve that goal because it disrupts their efforts in an unconventional way. If your goal in a game is to make the opponent mad, then you are going to play differently than someone who wants to earn more points. The same can be said for people who play soley to win. It's easiest to see a different mentality in a tournament setting, where all that matters is the outcome. People will employ strategies that prevent the opponent from playing the way they want to, but since the goal is winning, and not being a good sport, this is seen as a legitimate strategy. When playing with friends, however, the goal is usually not soley to win, it's usually to let everyone have a chance to enjoy themselves, with winning being the secondary objective. Because the final objective has changed, the strategies that are best suited for achieving other objectives (usually) become inferior.

Instead of trying to create the next big franchise, they are simply expanding on current ones that have proven successful. They are actually using the same marketing strategy as Nintendo, but on a smaller scale. Activision is targeting the mainstream gamers, as opposed to Nintendo's target of the entire mainstream, because they know that the majority of their sales come from there. Instead of trying to create an entirely new experience that people will "Ooo" and "Aah" over, they are trying to make games that people are comfertable with. When you see a Call of Duty game, you know what to expect, war, and shooting people. When you buy Guitar Hero, you know what to expect, rhithym-based gameing set to popular music. You know you aren't going to have to suddenly start fighting aliens in CoD, or have to play Tetris minigames in GH, so if you enjoyed previous instalments in that franchise, you know you will probably like the current one. Right now, this strategy is giving Activision a way to reliably predict the net profit from a game, so they can avoid disapoining sales from a hyped game.

Whether this strategy will continue being successful has yet to be seen, but it is working well at the moment. If market intrest largely turns away from current popular franchises, we'll be sure to see new IPs from Activision, but it's uncertain if or when this will happen. Activision is, as far as anyone knows, playing within the law, so they are free to use whatever strategy they see fit. Frankly, as long as Activision remaons one of the best places to put your money, you can't really say their doing anything wrong. If you think they're being total dicks about Brutal Legend and want them to change their tune, however, be like me and don't buy their games, as that is the only way they are going to stop using their current business strategy.

The Rockerfly:

Lord_Jaroh:
-snip-

I'm sorry but that is just wrong, they upgraded the graphics, the hammer-on engine, most songs were not awful covers and master recordings or decent live recordings, online play, battle mode and the fact it was harder because you had to be more specfic of when you strum was more specific so you had to actually learn rather than practice.
Yeah thats true for like through the fire and flames and the devil went down to georgia, the rest I know on guitar most of the riffs and I can say that very few are over charted or under charted.
Rock band thinks that drums have just 4 pads, chords can be hammered on, singing doesn't require any form of pitching and finally you can play through entire songs with a rock band guitar and never strum.
Okay lets look at it this way, Activision have released 3 guitar heros where the dlc is compatible with each other (smash hits, world tour and metallica)
While Rock Band have done 2 games where they are all compatible
Finally Rock Band never does anything to advance the game, it just splurged out the same rock band game each time and they are both still about £40 (based on GAME website)
Sorry for the wall of text

And to me, the graphics became terrible (take a look at a comparison between the singer from GH2 and GH3, or the drummer, especially for things like motion). The hammer-on engine was far worse, being less about timing and more about luck. Master recordings was where the industry was moving with those games anyway, but I never found the covers to be bad overall. Sure, there were a couple of wonky ones (Sweet Child of Mine for example) but none were so horrible that I gouged my ears out. I did play the previous games for years. Battle mode was shit, and remains shit. It's not about playing the song and more about who can cripple the opponent first. To me GH3 was less about learning to play "the song" to a degree and more about playing a new iteration of DDR, where the notes became arbitrary.

You say Rock Band has churned out two iterations that didn't advance the genre? How can you say that with a straight face considering Activision outright copied Rock Band's idea with World Tour? So for Harmonix I see Guitar Hero to Guitar Hero 2 to Rock Band, with Guitar Hero 80's being an "expansion" on the GH2 gameplay, and Rock Band 2 being an improvement on the gameplay in 1.

Whereas Neversoft took Harmonix's idea, churned out a worse version (GH3), and then ripped them off for the sequel (GH:WT), and then churned out more based on the same engine (Metallica and Greatest Hits being WT, with Van Halen as well probably, and Aerosmith being 3) Not only that, they spit them out as stand alone disks rather than DLC which they could easily have done, rather than milking the customer for as much money as they could. What will GH5 bring that will be new to the table? Nothing. And will your old DLC for GH3 be compatable with it? No. How about your DLC for World Tour? Again, No. They'll make you rebuy the same songs again at a later date (see Guitar Hero: Smash Hits) because that's the way they work.

Activision is about money first, and the consumer second, which is why they will fail in the end. They aren't thinking to the future, and retaining their customers. Eventually market saturation will hit, and their current customers will become just as pissed off with them as everyone else is and then they won't have anyone buying their games.

Either that or we have too many stupid people in this world who will continue to support them, and they will turn into the Wayans Brothers for video games...

Lord_Jaroh:

The Rockerfly:

Lord_Jaroh:
-snip-

I'm sorry but that is just wrong, they upgraded the graphics, the hammer-on engine, most songs were not awful covers and master recordings or decent live recordings, online play, battle mode and the fact it was harder because you had to be more specfic of when you strum was more specific so you had to actually learn rather than practice.
Yeah thats true for like through the fire and flames and the devil went down to georgia, the rest I know on guitar most of the riffs and I can say that very few are over charted or under charted.

Rock band thinks that drums have just 4 pads, chords can be hammered on, singing doesn't require any form of pitching and finally you can play through entire songs with a rock band guitar and never strum.
Okay lets look at it this way, Activision have released 3 guitar heros where the dlc is compatible with each other (smash hits, world tour and metallica)
While Rock Band have done 2 games where they are all compatible
Finally Rock Band never does anything to advance the game, it just splurged out the same rock band game each time and they are both still about £40 (based on GAME website)
Sorry for the wall of text

And to me, the graphics became terrible (take a look at a comparison between the singer from GH2 and GH3, or the drummer, especially for things like motion). The hammer-on engine was far worse, being less about timing and more about luck. Master recordings was where the industry was moving with those games anyway, but I never found the covers to be bad overall. Sure, there were a couple of wonky ones (Sweet Child of Mine for example) but none were so horrible that I gouged my ears out. I did play the previous games for years. Battle mode was shit, and remains shit. It's not about playing the song and more about who can cripple the opponent first. To me GH3 was less about learning to play "the song" to a degree and more about playing a new iteration of DDR, where the notes became arbitrary.

You say Rock Band has churned out two iterations that didn't advance the genre? How can you say that with a straight face considering Activision outright copied Rock Band's idea with World Tour? So for Harmonix I see Guitar Hero to Guitar Hero 2 to Rock Band, with Guitar Hero 80's being an "expansion" on the GH2 gameplay, and Rock Band 2 being an improvement on the gameplay in 1.

Whereas Neversoft took Harmonix's idea, churned out a worse version (GH3), and then ripped them off for the sequel (GH:WT), and then churned out more based on the same engine (Metallica and Greatest Hits being WT, with Van Halen as well probably, and Aerosmith being 3) Not only that, they spit them out as stand alone disks rather than DLC which they could easily have done, rather than milking the customer for as much money as they could. What will GH5 bring that will be new to the table? Nothing. And will your old DLC for GH3 be compatable with it? No. How about your DLC for World Tour? Again, No. They'll make you rebuy the same songs again at a later date (see Guitar Hero: Smash Hits) because that's the way they work.

Activision is about money first, and the consumer second, which is why they will fail in the end. They aren't thinking to the future, and retaining their customers. Eventually market saturation will hit, and their current customers will become just as pissed off with them as everyone else is and then they won't have anyone buying their games.

Either that or we have too many stupid people in this world who will continue to support them, and they will turn into the Wayans Brothers for video games...

Yeah the drummer was crap on thre but if you look on 2, the entire crowd was sycronised and band members just looked like crap. The hammer on engine was easy, it was luck in 2, all you have to do in 3 was hold the note and not rely on odd timing.
You didn't find thr covers bad? You have got to be joking, "Killing In The Name Of", "Beast and The Harlot", "Freebird" sound like crap and thats off the top of my head. The guitars are right but the singers sound awful on them.
So? Battle mode is still fun, if a little unbalanced but thats the point of a game is to have fun, if I want to just play through the song I have co-op or campaign mode.
Yeah but guitar hero 2 barely advanced the series, rock band was a stupidly easy conclusion and so what if a good idea is copied, is that such a bad thing.
Activision made battle mode, online rankings, decent drum kits and vocal parts which meant you actually had to sing the song and wireless guitars
Yeah okay what about rock band expansion packs? Rock band acdc? They're just as guilty as activision and since Rock band 2 didn't advance the series in any way or form, why wasn't that released as dlc?
You have to rebuy dlc because the engine changes, it's made better and thus the old versions are not compatable.
Guitar hero has better sales than Rock band because the instruments don't feel so cheap and are more accurate on the game so if Guitar hero is going to fail, it has got a long way.

The Rockerfly:

Lord_Jaroh:

The Rockerfly:

Lord_Jaroh:
-snip-

I'm sorry but that is just wrong, they upgraded the graphics, the hammer-on engine, most songs were not awful covers and master recordings or decent live recordings, online play, battle mode and the fact it was harder because you had to be more specfic of when you strum was more specific so you had to actually learn rather than practice.
Yeah thats true for like through the fire and flames and the devil went down to georgia, the rest I know on guitar most of the riffs and I can say that very few are over charted or under charted.

Rock band thinks that drums have just 4 pads, chords can be hammered on, singing doesn't require any form of pitching and finally you can play through entire songs with a rock band guitar and never strum.
Okay lets look at it this way, Activision have released 3 guitar heros where the dlc is compatible with each other (smash hits, world tour and metallica)
While Rock Band have done 2 games where they are all compatible
Finally Rock Band never does anything to advance the game, it just splurged out the same rock band game each time and they are both still about £40 (based on GAME website)
Sorry for the wall of text

And to me, the graphics became terrible (take a look at a comparison between the singer from GH2 and GH3, or the drummer, especially for things like motion). The hammer-on engine was far worse, being less about timing and more about luck. Master recordings was where the industry was moving with those games anyway, but I never found the covers to be bad overall. Sure, there were a couple of wonky ones (Sweet Child of Mine for example) but none were so horrible that I gouged my ears out. I did play the previous games for years. Battle mode was shit, and remains shit. It's not about playing the song and more about who can cripple the opponent first. To me GH3 was less about learning to play "the song" to a degree and more about playing a new iteration of DDR, where the notes became arbitrary.

You say Rock Band has churned out two iterations that didn't advance the genre? How can you say that with a straight face considering Activision outright copied Rock Band's idea with World Tour? So for Harmonix I see Guitar Hero to Guitar Hero 2 to Rock Band, with Guitar Hero 80's being an "expansion" on the GH2 gameplay, and Rock Band 2 being an improvement on the gameplay in 1.

Whereas Neversoft took Harmonix's idea, churned out a worse version (GH3), and then ripped them off for the sequel (GH:WT), and then churned out more based on the same engine (Metallica and Greatest Hits being WT, with Van Halen as well probably, and Aerosmith being 3) Not only that, they spit them out as stand alone disks rather than DLC which they could easily have done, rather than milking the customer for as much money as they could. What will GH5 bring that will be new to the table? Nothing. And will your old DLC for GH3 be compatable with it? No. How about your DLC for World Tour? Again, No. They'll make you rebuy the same songs again at a later date (see Guitar Hero: Smash Hits) because that's the way they work.

Activision is about money first, and the consumer second, which is why they will fail in the end. They aren't thinking to the future, and retaining their customers. Eventually market saturation will hit, and their current customers will become just as pissed off with them as everyone else is and then they won't have anyone buying their games.

Either that or we have too many stupid people in this world who will continue to support them, and they will turn into the Wayans Brothers for video games...

Yeah the drummer was crap on thre but if you look on 2, the entire crowd was sycronised and band members just looked like crap. The hammer on engine was easy, it was luck in 2, all you have to do in 3 was hold the note and not rely on odd timing.
You didn't find thr covers bad? You have got to be joking, "Killing In The Name Of", "Beast and The Harlot", "Freebird" sound like crap and thats off the top of my head. The guitars are right but the singers sound awful on them.
So? Battle mode is still fun, if a little unbalanced but thats the point of a game is to have fun, if I want to just play through the song I have co-op or campaign mode.
Yeah but guitar hero 2 barely advanced the series, rock band was a stupidly easy conclusion and so what if a good idea is copied, is that such a bad thing.
Activision made battle mode, online rankings, decent drum kits and vocal parts which meant you actually had to sing the song and wireless guitars
Yeah okay what about rock band expansion packs? Rock band acdc? They're just as guilty as activision and since Rock band 2 didn't advance the series in any way or form, why wasn't that released as dlc?
You have to rebuy dlc because the engine changes, it's made better and thus the old versions are not compatable.
Guitar hero has better sales than Rock band because the instruments don't feel so cheap and are more accurate on the game so if Guitar hero is going to fail, it has got a long way.

"Better drum kits"? You mean the ones that had the problem with the cymbals not responding correctly?

Warhobo:
-almighty snip-

Some had problems but i've never experienced them yet and mainly play drums on world tour and I play them hard. Even if they do break, it's not exactly complex to repair them.

randommaster:

I'm kind of annoyed because I had this concersation earilier and I don't want to type it again, but I'll be civil.

You could've saved yourself the civility and the repetition had you noted that half of my response to you was a sarcastic reversal of the way you had implied that the people who think the point isn't to get as many kills as possible are the wrong ones. It can just as easily be portrayed in the opposite light, which is what I did, the point being that it is a matter of perspective. I also don't recall using the word "wrong" in association with what Activision is doing, so I am completely oblivious to why you felt the need to explain to my why it isn't wrong. If you mistook my use of the term "griefing" as analogous to "wrong-doing", then I apologize. I may not like Activision for their behavior, but I certainly am not proclaiming it to be "wrong" in any universal manner.

Are you under some sort of impression that any and all times where someone quotes you, their intent is to contradict you 100%? Geez...

The Rockerfly:

Yeah the drummer was crap on thre but if you look on 2, the entire crowd was sycronised and band members just looked like crap. The hammer on engine was easy, it was luck in 2, all you have to do in 3 was hold the note and not rely on odd timing.
You didn't find thr covers bad? You have got to be joking, "Killing In The Name Of", "Beast and The Harlot", "Freebird" sound like crap and thats off the top of my head. The guitars are right but the singers sound awful on them.
So? Battle mode is still fun, if a little unbalanced but thats the point of a game is to have fun, if I want to just play through the song I have co-op or campaign mode.
Yeah but guitar hero 2 barely advanced the series, rock band was a stupidly easy conclusion and so what if a good idea is copied, is that such a bad thing.
Activision made battle mode, online rankings, decent drum kits and vocal parts which meant you actually had to sing the song and wireless guitars
Yeah okay what about rock band expansion packs? Rock band acdc? They're just as guilty as activision and since Rock band 2 didn't advance the series in any way or form, why wasn't that released as dlc?
You have to rebuy dlc because the engine changes, it's made better and thus the old versions are not compatable.
Guitar hero has better sales than Rock band because the instruments don't feel so cheap and are more accurate on the game so if Guitar hero is going to fail, it has got a long way.

I think you're looking at Guitar Hero through rose-colored glasses.

Guitar Hero has better sales than Rock Band due to the name that Harmonix built up for Activision before they took over. Just because they have higher sales doesn't make them better.

Most of your "arguements" are baseless opinion so I'm not going to argue them with you as there will be no convincing on either end. All I need to say that with Harmonix, they have released GH, GH2, GH80s, RB and RB2 - 5 games. 4 of which improve upon the previous versions. In 2 years, they came out with the first 3 (2005 to 2007).

Neversoft has come out with GH3, GH Aerosmith, GHWT, GH Metallica and GH Smash Hits - 5 games, none of which improve the series as they just copy what has already been done! As well, those 5 games have been released within 2 years (2007 to 2009) and there is still another one to follow (GH Van Halen)! If you can't see the disparity between the two companies, and why people consider Activision to be milking the series, well, I can't help you...

Lord_Jaroh:

The Rockerfly:

Yeah the drummer was crap on thre but if you look on 2, the entire crowd was sycronised and band members just looked like crap. The hammer on engine was easy, it was luck in 2, all you have to do in 3 was hold the note and not rely on odd timing.
You didn't find thr covers bad? You have got to be joking, "Killing In The Name Of", "Beast and The Harlot", "Freebird" sound like crap and thats off the top of my head. The guitars are right but the singers sound awful on them.
So? Battle mode is still fun, if a little unbalanced but thats the point of a game is to have fun, if I want to just play through the song I have co-op or campaign mode.
Yeah but guitar hero 2 barely advanced the series, rock band was a stupidly easy conclusion and so what if a good idea is copied, is that such a bad thing.
Activision made battle mode, online rankings, decent drum kits and vocal parts which meant you actually had to sing the song and wireless guitars
Yeah okay what about rock band expansion packs? Rock band acdc? They're just as guilty as activision and since Rock band 2 didn't advance the series in any way or form, why wasn't that released as dlc?
You have to rebuy dlc because the engine changes, it's made better and thus the old versions are not compatable.
Guitar hero has better sales than Rock band because the instruments don't feel so cheap and are more accurate on the game so if Guitar hero is going to fail, it has got a long way.

I think you're looking at Guitar Hero through rose-colored glasses.

Guitar Hero has better sales than Rock Band due to the name that Harmonix built up for Activision before they took over. Just because they have higher sales doesn't make them better.

Most of your "arguements" are baseless opinion so I'm not going to argue them with you as there will be no convincing on either end. All I need to say that with Harmonix, they have released GH, GH2, GH80s, RB and RB2 - 5 games. 4 of which improve upon the previous versions. In 2 years, they came out with the first 3 (2005 to 2007).

Neversoft has come out with GH3, GH Aerosmith, GHWT, GH Metallica and GH Smash Hits - 5 games, none of which improve the series as they just copy what has already been done! As well, those 5 games have been released within 2 years (2007 to 2009) and there is still another one to follow (GH Van Halen)! If you can't see the disparity between the two companies, and why people consider Activision to be milking the series, well, I can't help you...

You don't think that it's because guitar hero 3 was better, critics gave guitar hero 3 much better reviews then guitar hero 2 or 1. This is because it's better and it advanced the series. I'm sorry but you are saying mine are baseless opinions? Yeah but when critics, the majority of guitar hero players and guitar hero tournements use guitar hero 3 over 2 and 1 because it's better. Your view is opinionated.
GH and GH2 were on the same engine and so was 80's, Rock abnd and Rock band 2 were also identical. Gh3 improved hugely, much more than previous Guitar Hero games, guitar hero world tour also improved massively on the rock band drums and engine.
Does it mtter that they release the games quickly? DLC is released ridiculously quickly and no one complains, you're not being forced to buy games or dlc so whats the problem?
They are giving people what they want and you're at a unpopular view point and as a supply and demand view point you are wrong too

L.B. Jeffries:
And yet, when they have milked all their current IP into the absolute ground, as they are already doing, and when they have driven away all their creative talent, as they are already doing, they will cease to make any money off the derivative crap they continue to publish.

Carpetbagging is a bad way to do business if you intend to stick around as company. People forgive, they do not forget.

This.

EA is at least trying new things here and there.

Contrary to popular belief, people WILL some day stop buying Madden, CoD and all of the other milked franchises out there. When that happens, that's when it's great to be able to turn to a new, budding franchise that you've been selling.

Brutal Legend could've easily been made into a franchise...

Knight Templar:
I am tired of this " they are a company, they are suppost to shit all over you" line. No thats not how it works, they make the stuff, and I buy the stuff with my money, charging me twice as much for the same stuff is just being a greedy arse.

An arsehole is an arsehole, the fact they are making money by screwing you over doesn't strike me as a good excuse.

I was basically going to say this.

People rise to the bar you set for them, if you tell them putting a dick in babies is ok they'll do it. This article just seemed to me to be basically saying that :P. "Hey guys they are a business of course they should be assholes."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here