Activision are the publisher, in the most stereotypical sense of the word; creatively-stifling, and quick to shake you for change.TAGM said:I seriously worry if we need to explain this to top-end game developers.Logan Westbrook said:Activision should have nurtured Guitar Hero, says the series' original publisher, rather than trying to make a quick buck.
Did they seriously need to be Told this? Really? Because if they did... Well.
"Reap the rewards of their labor" which would be the money they received right? So why not go to a bigger company if their goal is to get money doing what they love? Their problem was that they went to Activision who genuinely like to butt-rape everyone under them.Monshroud said:Maybe next time the developer won't sell out to a bigger company and reap the rewards of their labor. Imagine what could have been had they not sold the company over to them.
I wasn't really making an argument for accountants, I was saying that in my opinion rhythm games were doomed to burn out on their own accord no matter who was behind the wheel.Fronzel said:No one is saying this was a mistake or that it didn't make Activison money, they're saying it was bad for the franchise and genre. The Escapist is a website for people who like video games, not accountants, so "it made money" isn't an argument-ending statement.Diligent said:OR Activision did exactly what they intended to do, and all the should have could have and would haves wouldn't change their decision one bit. Obviously they intended to just totally strip mine the guitar rhythm games while they were around, because they saw them for the fad that they were, and understood that they couldn't possibly last.
And you can't possibly blame the fact that people became tired of banging on a plastic toy guitar on Activision either.
Don't get me wrong, I have no love for Activision or their methods, and I don't even buy their products, but like it or not as a business strategy what they did is sound and Activision is very good at making money.
I dunno man, general consus is that rock band was the superior series, especially when you compare rock band 1 2 3 to Guitar Hero 4 5 6, the note charts on rockband were more accurate and didnt add extra notes (like GH has and frequently did) and it was alot more polished, had far more support and DLC, as well as lonjevity. On top of that Rock Band 3 added pro mode, wheras GH 6 added...man beast things, stupid amounts of power ups and potential stars, and become so much more arcady, wheras Rock Band always seemed to be more about the music.Madmanonfire said:The latter. Sorry for the confusion.Logan Westbrook said:I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that Rock Band was never as good as the original Guitar Hero, or that the Rock Band series was never as good as the Guitar Hero series?Madmanonfire said:And yet each release wasn't as good at Guitar Hero. Odd.Logan Westbrook said:Rock Band saw regular - almost yearly - releases, but far fewer of them and much better support for each release.
OT: This is just perfect. More fuel for mindless GH hatred. -_-
hahaha gee I wonder what else is new...and not common knowledgeActivision should have nurtured Guitar Hero, says the series' original publisher, rather than trying to make a quick buck.