This just in: the sun is fucking bright.

wow Activision doing something completely retarded! Stop the presses!!

Wow. That's a real dick move.

DragonLord Seth:
First, no. MW3 shattered BlOps' record. Second, no to BlOps 2. Unless it's all revolving around the Zombies mode, in which case would be the best thing since sliced bread.

MW3 beat the sales records for speed (most sold in X time), but Black Ops was still the 3rd or 4th best selling title of the holiday season AND was 1st the year before that, so they've sold a lot more copies than MW3 has in the short time it's been out.

I wish people would start realizing they can't censor the internet. Even if all of the big sites had taken down the news, someone would find it in the cache and post it somewhere else. They'll never fully eradicate it, once it's up it's up.

Let's not give this any attention, buy it if you want, but if you don't want it, let's not clog the Escapist forums up with COD again. We just ended the Skyrim kick for crying out loud.

So a company tried to control what a site was able to publish? Call me crazy, but doesn't this sound kinda fishy to you? They DEMANDED the article be removed because it...what? Reported that Amazon had a page for Blops 2? Doesn't the media and news sites live on this? Why has no one called Activision out for this?

This from a company of an industry that cries free speech and whatnot when they are attacked by ignorant politicians that want to censor games. The press is free, and even private companies should atleast seem to respect that. I dont care if they are allowed to do whatever they want with their advertisement money. They dont have the right to pursue presscontrol.

The message is clear, do as Activision says or else..

Some_weirdGuy:
I know it's really cool to hate on Activision and everything, but honestly i'm on their side.

They wanted to keep it quiet, they asked the site nicely to take the news down, the site refused. Lets be honest, uninviting them to a preview and taking down the ads on their site... so what?

Hardly what i consider 'bullying the little guy'. If the site even actually cares about these 'punishments', then one saying i think definitely applies would be 'don't bite the hand that feeds you'.
If you want Activision to be your pal, then don't go giving them finger when they ask you for a favour XD.

Threatening to pull ads because they reported what another site did is bullying. I'm not sure what your idea of bullying it is, but it seems really far from what's correct.

And that's the problem with journalism, they aren't allowed to actually report things anymore, lest it upsets someone who helps keep their site/network running with ad revenue.

Lets say gas prices go up again. The news reports this. Oil companies threaten to pull ad revenue if the news doesn't stop reporting that gas prices are going up. It's the same thing.

this is activision, what do you guys expect?

Gunner 51:
I agree that Activision is over-reacting. But what gets me is why they're even mad to start with - everyone knows that a sequel to Black Ops has been likely looking for a while.

But what I'd love to see Activision trying something brave and giving CoD a rest just for two or three years. Perhaps given a few years CoD fatigue will finally take it's toll and it's sales will wane - I can only hope so.

But as an interesting sidenote, if CoD isn't THE biggest selling game in a few years - what will take it's place?

i would say battlefield but i cant but feel the moment COD sales start falling the market(gamers) will(hopefully) be sick and tired of shooters. With that being said MMOs seem to be doing pretty well with guild wars 2, fire fall, and Terra online. Then again i doubt the PC market is bigger than the console market so any best selling game will most likely be on consoles. As for the whole sick of shooters. Well lets be honest if i had a nickel for every shooter mad since COD4 i would be rich enough to pay of the national US debt. I) honestly hope RPGs make a come back because the list major RPGs (on consoles)is rather to name a few Deux Ex(lets not play dumb THERE will be a another one soon) Dragon Age, Mass effect, Elder Scrolls,and Final Fanestey (Yes i'm aware i missed few these are the ones i can think up off the top of my head the point still stands though) don't get me wrong i like all of those RPGs(except Final Fanesty) but lets not kid are selves the list of shooters well out numbers RPGs, Oh well i guess we'll find out in oh say 5 years.

sunburst:
Just once, I'd like to see a report about Activision doing something positive or making a good impression. Is that too much to ask?

considering this is Activision apparently so.

This years Call of Duty game revealed to have a title! Activision presumably angry about gamers everywhere now knowing what acronym to refer to this latest installment by.

I mean, does the name even matter? It's all the same military shooter anyway. Why not just call it "Call of Duty: Another One" or "Call of Duty: Our Yearly Allowance".

(Is anyone else waiting for EA to do something super assholish now? It seems to be a running theme that they refuse to be out-jerked by Activision.)

Pulling ad revenues is probably more of a punishment than being denied access to a transformers game. I can only imagine will be subjected to another film in the foreseeable future.

Fr]anc[is:
I can't decide which is stupider: Activision thinking we really are that thick, or that not being able to go to a Transformers game preview is some form of punishment.

Hey, lets be fair here; War for Cybertron, which Fall of Cybertron is a sequel to, was actually a pretty good and fun game.

Why not just get it over with and replace the title with the year it comes out? CoD 2012 is more appropriate, cause like Madden, nothing changes from one to the next.

Fr]anc[is:
I can't decide which is stupider: Activision thinking we really are that thick, or that not being able to go to a Transformers game preview is some form of punishment.

from a business stand point it is a punishment, if they don't get access to these events they can't write about them until all their competitors have losing them site visitors who go looking else where.

On topic:

whoopty do, a leak about a yearly release title that will be the same as the previous except from a subtitle. grow up activision.

Well done, Activision. Well done. Way to alienate gamers even further. *begins slow clap

Unless Black Ops will involve more stealth-based operations like one would expect from something titled "Black Ops" then I can only imagine that it will be no more interesting than anything else that has been released under the Call of Duty name (which is not at all). At the rate that Actionvision is going though, I wouldn't be surprised if they become the next EA (if they weren't getting that label already).

Unfortunately, I can no longer badmouth Bobby Kotick and Activision... because Bobby Kotick is on the board of directors for my place of employment.

http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/dynamic/press_center/2012/02/board-elects-robert-a-kotick-as-director.html

I'm not sure what there is to discuss here.
Hugely popular money-making cash cow gets another sequel. We just got the inevitable confirmation of this early. Absolutely nobody is surprised about this reveal.

There...really isn't anything else to it....so why does Activision care again? I guess they want to set an example.

Well, since this is an article about Call of Duty, I suppose this is the point where I'm supposed to break off and either profess my undying love for the franchise, or my endless seething hatred.

So..
"CoD is mediocre and it made a lot of money...so I hate it. Grrr. So mad.."
*yawn*

Wait, was I supposed to be discussing something else here?

Gosh, Golly, Gee what the world has been hoping and praying for another Call of Duty game.

vansau:

UPDATE: Activision has responded to inquiries from Kotaku about the situation. The publisher is claiming that it didn't blacklist Gameblog:

Activision doesn't blacklist journalists. We believe this was a misunderstanding and are working towards a resolution.

So....shouldn't Activision be talking to Gameblog...rather than Kotaku about this?

Unless they're blacklisting journalists of course. And they only believe it was a misunderstanding? They don't know? And even if it was, they're working towards a resoloution?

Here's how that should have sounded if you're innocent:

Activision are shocked to hear about this. We (Take responsibility) have not (Deny accusations) blacklisted Gameblog, and we'd like to invite Gameblog along to the next preview event (Offer renumeration). We will be resolving issues with Amazon. (Re-state original upset)

Why is this so difficult for companies to understand? Gabe would have made a speech to them over this instantly. Even Ricitello would have changed the EULA and passed it off as a "misunderstanding that they've resolved".

Why is it journalists are having to chase you? Your main PR should be done by journalists. That is what the PR department is for. Public Relations - PR.

What's so difficult to understand?

Sean Strife:
Unfortunately, I can no longer badmouth Bobby Kotick and Activision... because Bobby Kotick is on the board of directors for my place of employment.

http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/dynamic/press_center/2012/02/board-elects-robert-a-kotick-as-director.html

Get me some Pepsi shares, NAO!

Activision doesn't blacklist journalists.

Publicly.

Activision: Time to stop having a shitfit over something quite so unimportant (boohoo, someone stole your thunder did they? Awww, diddums!!) and get on with finishing the game. After all, people know what to expect now, right? And if you're really looking for people to blame, have a go at the Ffrench at amazon.fr. Bet you won't punish them by not supplying them with your games, like you're doing to Gameblog, hmm?

I'd love it if Gameblog actually published proof that Activision's throwing such a wobbler.

Gameblog:
Gameblog refuse de céder à ce genre pressions visant à l'empêcher d'exercer son métier en toute liberté.

Bien dit.

(Gameblog's side of the story (although it is in Ffrench: http://www.gameblog.fr/news/27499-activision-blackliste-gameblog)

Also: Pfft. Another CoD game I have bugger-all interest in. Call me when Activision releases something that isn't an FPS, a TV/Film tie-in, or a sports sim.

Ah, a "all just a misunderstanding"... why does that sound like Mafia talk.

Face it, they got caught strong arming the little guy now they are under scrutiny they sheepishly hide the baseball bats and knuckle-dusters and are like

"oh, noes officer, my friend here just fell down these stairs and we were helping hims ups, sees?"

Notice how Acti's reply didn't deny their anger regarding the leek. There obviously has been a misunderstanding, but the Acti' rep obviously didn't handle the situation as well as he could.

As a side note, I think I'll bother buying Blops 2, CoD has become too stale even for me.

Frostbite3789:
Threatening to pull ads because they reported what another site did is bullying. I'm not sure what your idea of bullying it is, but it seems really far from what's correct.

And that's the problem with journalism, they aren't allowed to actually report things anymore, lest it upsets someone who helps keep their site/network running with ad revenue.

Lets say gas prices go up again. The news reports this. Oil companies threaten to pull ad revenue if the news doesn't stop reporting that gas prices are going up. It's the same thing.

I understand completely what you're trying to get at, but you're not looking at it reasonably.

Why are they obliged to continue giving money to someone they don't want to? They're choosing of their own free will to pay the site money to feature their ads. That site then does something they don't like, how is it unreasonable for them to part ways?

Any more than if activision started doing something the site didn't approve of. The site is then perfectly within it's rights to refuse displaying activision's ads on their site.

They lose out on publicity from that site, the site loses out on revenue from those ads, obviously they felt strongly enough that these weren't a big issue for them. Activision can host their ads elsewhere, the Website can get ad revenue from other ads(and probably already were any way, since thats usually how ad supported sites work, they don't just pull it in from a single company).

Imagine you're paying some guy to mow your lawn, and every time he comes around he starts cursing out you and your family.
By your logic i'm being a 'bully' if I stop getting him to mow my lawn.

Or if I buy a game, and my brother then acts like a dick towards me, i'm 'bullying' him if I then say I'm not going to let him play it.

Sorry, that's not how life works. You're not just entitled to things(be they ad revenue, employment, or borrowing games), you earn them in one way or another.

The idea of the blacklist is not unbelivable in my mind. Seems stupid but possible.

As to the update, well It made me think of a video.

PR at its best. Now we know who is running their PR a least.

Activision isnt really known for making good judgement calls on small things.

I dont understand how anyone could honestly be surprised or think they would surprise anyone when they unveiled their giant
"Black Ops 2!!!!!" poster or teaser trailer. Anyone with a brain that's been following the series saw it coming

Lemme guess, it comes out in November of this year?

Er, yeah. I'm glad I've quit the whole CoD franchise now.