Nice Guys Come in Last
- Thread starter Sean Sands
- Start date
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.Knight Templar said:
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.
In all of this debate, I think one key factor is missed.Sean Sands said:
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.
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.
Glad i read the second page, otherwise i would've wasted time just typing out this again, well apart from the EA part.Lord Krunk said:
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!
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 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.
Wow, Activision are definitely helping EA's reputation as they seem to be going the opposite direction somewhat in these days.
i thought nintendo were the ones marketing to the broadest possible market?Sean Sands said:
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.
funny, guitar hero is one of the reasons i do hate them.The Rockerfly said:
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.
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 consolescobra_ky said:
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.
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 bandcobra_ky said:
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.The Rockerfly said:
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.
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.Lord_Jaroh said:
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
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.
"Carla was the prom queen." - Ifyoudon'tknowthenshameonyou
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.L.B. Jeffries said:
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).randommaster said:
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?
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.Geoffrey42 said:
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.