Activision Hate Understandable, But Unfair, Says Social Media Guru

[Fallen-Angel Risen-Demon]

Well, I don't know about others but most of my 'hate' comes from when their CEO said he wanted to take the fun out of making games. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/94711-Bobby-Kotick-Wants-to-Take-the-Fun-Out-of-Making-Games]
Read that and tell me Kotick isn't some form of stupid-evil.

 

[flaming_squirrel]

But all those things are inter-related and can't be neatly compartmentalized. Activision got big and successful by repeatedly and mercilessly screwing over their customers and Kotick's an arrogant dick because he's sittin' on top of a big, successful company.

Chicken or egg, it don't matter. If the egg's a Fabergé, haters gonna hate.

So wait, what? Are you trying to justify them being bastards due to their wealth?
There's lots of gaming companies who have become successful through making good games and supporting the community without the need to sink to Kotick's level.

Does having a large company makes you elligible to be an uncriticisable arsehole? That would partially explain the rampant Steve Jobs fanboyism at least..

 

[Ldude893]

I disliked them for their behavior in running down franchises. I completely disowned after they cancelled True Crime: Hong Kong.

 

[PhiMed]

But if the theory that the bigger you get, the more haters come crawling outta the woodwork is valid, ain't nobody gonna hate on Valve. They ain't big. Not in the Apple, Google, Microsoft, Sony sense of big. Let 'em get that big and watch the haters hate. Haters gonna hate. That's what haters do: they hate.

No they aren't Microsoft big, but I guess I was giving an example in a specific field.
In cell phones though, I haven't seen any rage towards Nokia, even though they were running away with the cellphone market. I do see a fair bit for Apple though.

You might as well compare my money to Warren Buffet's money.

Apple ended its most recent quarter with nearly $66 billion in cash, increasing its war chest by an astounding $6.1 billion in just three months. Their cash pile is worth more than the combined market capitalization of Nokia, Research In Motion and Motorola Mobility.

Sixty-six billion in cash -- and that's just counting the cash -- buys a lotta hate. Haters gonna hate. That's what haters do: they hate.

I think we're on different pages, I was going by market share, with you going by net worth. Either way, you're right, haters gunna hate, regardless of who does what.

Market share may be irrelevant. Honda's share of the market for automobiles probably surpasses that of Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Bugatti combined. But no one's gonna hate on you for driving a Civic.

What an absurd statement. Are you suggesting that Lamborghini, Ferrari, or Bugatti make more money than Honda? Or are you suggesting that only rich people buy Activision products? Do you have a point, or are you just continuing your "haters gonna hate" troll theme?

If you read the entire discussion between Braedan and I, hopefully you'll see where there was at one point in the discussion a disconnect between us in that he was relating company size to market share while I was relating company size to net worth. The post that you quote me on was intended to illustrate my position that market share isn't as relevant as net worth because it is possible for a company to gain substantial market share yet not have the kind of net worth that would cause haters to hate on the company. The comparison of Honda to Lamborghini, Ferrari, or Bugatti was a rhetorical device intended to reinforce the notion that notwithstanding Honda's substantial share of the market for automobiles, it is unlikely that driving a thirty thousand dollar Honda Civic will breed hate. But driving a three million dollar Bugatti will certainly breed hate. Why? Because haters gonna hate. That's what haters do: they hate.

But your analogy still doesn't make sense. We're not talking about hating the customers. We're talking about hating the company. Honda Motor Company's net worth is greater than Ferrari's, Bugatti's, etc. Honda is a $143 billion company, and that's just its book value. Honda could afford to buy either of those companies. Nobody cares about the net worth of people who own Activision products. We're talking about the company itself. Are you suggesting that Activision's products are the video game equivalent of a Testarossa? I can think of zero people who would agree with you.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Activision's entire business model revolves around chewing up old material like a giant masticating Cash Cow until there's nothing left but bland garbage and shit.

Though to be fair, every major publisher has done that at some point or another. It's just that Activision does it to the exclusion of everything else.

Besides, what other publisher can claim that they sent armed goons into a blue collar office complex? That sort of thing doesn't paint them in the best light.

 

[JDKJ]

Does having a large company makes you elligible to be an uncriticisable arsehole?

No, but it can't hurt.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

I actually was about to listen to him until I saw this.

Dan Amrich, a former videogame journalist and Activision's go-to guy for all things to do with social media

I think I'll just put it aside along with [a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/106177-Activision-Hate-Not-Based-in-Reality-Says-Activision]everything[/a] [a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.266044-Activision-Co-Founder-Says-Anti-Activision-Sentiment-is-A-Little-Bit-Strong]else[/a]

 

[snfonseka]

We can totally depend on his comments, because we know that he is not biased towards Activision.

 

[Wargamer]

If you need to be told why Activision is a shit-stain on gaming's underpants, you need only look at the competition.

Take Valve. Valve were onto a winner with Half Life. Did they cash in on it? No! Instead, they patiently built a truly EPIC sequel, one so grand in scope it technically isn't finished yet, despite having been released in three parts. As much as we would all like Half Life 2: Episode 3 (Manchester City nil) to come out tomorrow, I suspect we would all be very disappointed if every six months Valve released another "episode", charged as if it were a full game yet delivering 1/4 of a full game's new content.

Ubisoft and Assassin's Creed are next in line for my example. AC1 was full of promise, but didn't really deliver. AC2 was a wonderful improvement. Brotherhood was just all about polishing the mechanics to a mirror sheen. Activision would have stopped there, but Ubisoft clearly felt that charging £50 for a graphics tweak and one new map to the loss of half a dozen old ones wasn't very fair... so they went and bolted on one of the best Multiplayer experiences I have ever seen. Then they give us not one, but TWO free "patches" with new maps and game modes, and their third expansion blew the roof of the whole affair by somehow making the multiplayer even more of a paranoia factory!

Honestly, what do we all think of when you hear Activision? We think "yet more Call of fucking Duty and Guitar fucking Hero." We're sick to the back teeth of them selling us the same game over and over, but just to add insult to injury we then add the plethora of news stories, which someone is bound to have linked by now, that prove Activision really doesn't give a crap (trying to stop Brutal Legend is my favourite example of Trolldivision's business model).

Remind me; why is this hate unjustifed again?

 

[Rack]

And if you think 'precious' indie developers - or, to umbrella term it - anyone that you think are the opposite of what Activison represents, do not create certain things in order to make money, then that is laughable.

Funny because it's true? Setting up an indie games studio is a huge gamble and not generally a good one. If they wanted to make money there are much much better ways of doing so. For all the chance of making it big you'd be better off getting a decent job and buying a bunch of lottery tickets. Small startups generally do it for the love because the money will come late or most likely not at all. When they become big fish THAT's when it makes sense for people doing it for the money to step in.

 

[Mr Maniacal]

No. Our hate is not ill informed. thanks for thinking we are some sort of idiots. First off the entire Corporate Management of Activision is not of a company started by game developers. it's the former heads of Oil Olay. they know nothing of a gamers pride and love. only that it's a business teeming with profits. and as almost every company they are concerned with profits. How can we make more money than before. Mindsets like that are the central focus of Hackers attacks like the PSN fiasco today, and Anonymous's DDOS attacks against various corporate institutions. {even though i believe they are doing illegal crimes}. They ONLY care about money and not the individual. DLC is the newest nightmare scenario created by greed. We've made over the years a balance between developers, business heads, and consumers. Business makes the console, developers make the games, and we buy them based on both of their merits. if we like it we buy it and everybody's happy. Now success depended on certain factors. Story, gameplay, fun all depended on developers giving us the best experience for our money. there was no rushing a game just to meet a yearly deadline because it always proved to be disastrous. Squaresoft used to understand this, Activision used to as well. But corporate greed has taken hold and doesn't look to be going anytime soon. But in that greed they have shown their true colors and those who have seen it will never forgive nor forget. Sony's only problem is they wish to protect what's theirs. Activision only wishes to rape until they can make no more. there is a define difference between protecting what's yours and trying to protect your ability to make more money. Activision made that mistake and it cost them dearly. their reputation, respect, and soon all things COD once the courts exact justice. I will Never forgive senseless Greed, Nor Forget it. EVER