Rumor: Activision Hungrily Eying Take Two

[Baresark]

Normal jump the gun reporting here. There is no reason to assume that the guy ousting the other stockholders wants to sell. He could easily be doing it because they wanted to sell. The information in this article is not very well explained I think. Usually, profitable companies don't want to sell, it's the floundering companies that sell, so the share holders can get a large chunk of change for their poor business sense. Not to mention, EA (who is also freakin' huge) wasn't able to take it, why would Activision succeed where they failed?

I hope they don't get it, but they may. That'll suck hard I think. But I mean, how many Activision properties are worth anything these days really? Not a whole lot, anything that Blizzard makes and releases every 6 years are good. Otherwise, they just drive perfectly good IP's into the ground.

 

[Skratt]

I love this every time I see it. Company A that instead of innovating for themselves, they buy Successful Company B. Now, you would think that this would just be so they can reap the benefits of Company B success, but Company A starts to slowly replace parts of company B until very little of company B remains. Now company B's quality starts to slide, and everyone in company A sits around in board rooms and says "well, what the fuck happened?"

Yeah, I've seen this first hand and really you just have to look around to other acquisitions to wonder why the purchasing companies rarely figure this out.

 

[Rack]

So what would this mean? My guess is

Yearly GTA, Red Dead and Duke Nukem.

Bioshock Infinite canned.

Civilization filled to beyond bursting with DLC.

 

[mxfox408]

Theyd be better off merging with EA

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

Wait, True Crime Hong Kong was canceled? Seriously? That game looked really good. Activision needs to die, it is incredible how many dickish actions they take. That game was basically done, for fuck's sake.

And you're basing that comment on..... what, exactly? Clearly not data.

Speaking from first-hand knowledge, it wasn't 'basically done' - it was a long, long way from being done. It ran at about 2 frames per second, the missions were terrible, the story hadn't even been finalized (lots and lots AND LOTS of rewrites), the controls were horrible, all the VO actors had to be recast because they were hopeless, melee combat was tedious button-mashing, the animation was borderline comical, and so on. Driving was the only decent bit, really.

It got pushed back - again - to Septeber before it got canned and, trust me, had it come out you would have absolutely PANNED it. It was never going to be a good game, despite a lot of hard work from everyone involved - it was one of those misguided projects that had bad decisions made on the developer and the publisher side, over and over again. The blame does not solely lie on the shoulders of Activision, I'm afraid.

Canning it was the kindest thing to have done (and it should have been done a while ago) - do you really want to play a 60-rated very mediocre (at best) GTA-knockoff?

No, didn't think so.

Of course not. The game wasn't completely finished. But with the level of dedication put into it, and the solid looking PAX demo, it could've been a good game, and Activision's reasoning of it "not being able to reach the top of the free-roaming genre" is just a plain stupid reason. Activision said the same about Brutal Legend, and that game was pretty good.

No, it couldn't have been a good game. It really couldn't. I'm not trying to bash UFG, it's just that there were many, many missteps along the way across all disciplines and from both sides of the fence - technology, design, scripting, animation, story, and so on. Dedication has nothing to do with it - the guys and gals at UFG worked very hard (as did the production team from Activision), but they were on a course that would never result in success. The best to have hoped for True Crime was a mediocre 'me-too' GTA clone that would rank in the low 60s on Metacritic.

I have played True Crime: Hong Kong (a lot), and you clearly haven't. Activision's decision was not 'stupid' - trust me, had the game come out, you would have been on here discussing how terrible it was and why bother trying to rip off GTA if you're not going to do it better, etc. etc.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

Wait, True Crime Hong Kong was canceled? Seriously? That game looked really good. Activision needs to die, it is incredible how many dickish actions they take. That game was basically done, for fuck's sake.

And you're basing that comment on..... what, exactly? Clearly not data.

Speaking from first-hand knowledge, it wasn't 'basically done' - it was a long, long way from being done. It ran at about 2 frames per second, the missions were terrible, the story hadn't even been finalized (lots and lots AND LOTS of rewrites), the controls were horrible, all the VO actors had to be recast because they were hopeless, melee combat was tedious button-mashing, the animation was borderline comical, and so on. Driving was the only decent bit, really.

It got pushed back - again - to Septeber before it got canned and, trust me, had it come out you would have absolutely PANNED it. It was never going to be a good game, despite a lot of hard work from everyone involved - it was one of those misguided projects that had bad decisions made on the developer and the publisher side, over and over again. The blame does not solely lie on the shoulders of Activision, I'm afraid.

Canning it was the kindest thing to have done (and it should have been done a while ago) - do you really want to play a 60-rated very mediocre (at best) GTA-knockoff?

No, didn't think so.

LOOK at this demo. You telling me that doesn't look fun? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L6aniAU2iE

Are you really that gullible? That demo level took MONTHS of crunch just to get to that state - and this is not a state that is playable by the public. Didn't you wonder why a game that was allegedly coming out in Fall 2010 wasn't playable on the E3 2010 show floor? The reason is because if you step outside of that carefully rehearsed demo (the producer 'playing' the footage you see practiced for weeks to make sure the camera never pointed somewhere it shouldn't and that Wei always did exactly what was planned) then the frame rate drops like a stone to almost unplayable numbers (note the huge amount of screen tearing when the camera rotates... V sync has been turned off to try and eek out as much frame rate as possible and even then, most of the demo runs at sub-20 fps).

Do you honestly think you could have played that demo at E3? Of course not. If you were a journo, you got to be behind closed doors and watched a well rehearsed Activision producer play it. If you were just someone wandering round the show, you got a video on a big screen to entice suckers like you and generate buzz.

I make games for a living; you clearly don't. I've played this game (a lot); you clearly haven't. The game was bad. The controls were bad. The melee was button mashing. The targeting in gun play was bad. The story was bad. The VO acting was bad. The frame rate was bad. The missions were bad. A nice-looking video doesn't say anything about a game.

Had this game come out (and there's no way it would have been ready this year... realistically, you'd be looking at fall 2012) you would have come on this forum berating it for being a very mediocre GTA knock-off.

 

[Decabo]

Wait, True Crime Hong Kong was canceled? Seriously? That game looked really good. Activision needs to die, it is incredible how many dickish actions they take. That game was basically done, for fuck's sake.

And you're basing that comment on..... what, exactly? Clearly not data.

Speaking from first-hand knowledge, it wasn't 'basically done' - it was a long, long way from being done. It ran at about 2 frames per second, the missions were terrible, the story hadn't even been finalized (lots and lots AND LOTS of rewrites), the controls were horrible, all the VO actors had to be recast because they were hopeless, melee combat was tedious button-mashing, the animation was borderline comical, and so on. Driving was the only decent bit, really.

It got pushed back - again - to Septeber before it got canned and, trust me, had it come out you would have absolutely PANNED it. It was never going to be a good game, despite a lot of hard work from everyone involved - it was one of those misguided projects that had bad decisions made on the developer and the publisher side, over and over again. The blame does not solely lie on the shoulders of Activision, I'm afraid.

Canning it was the kindest thing to have done (and it should have been done a while ago) - do you really want to play a 60-rated very mediocre (at best) GTA-knockoff?

No, didn't think so.

Of course not. The game wasn't completely finished. But with the level of dedication put into it, and the solid looking PAX demo, it could've been a good game, and Activision's reasoning of it "not being able to reach the top of the free-roaming genre" is just a plain stupid reason. Activision said the same about Brutal Legend, and that game was pretty good.

No, it couldn't have been a good game. It really couldn't. I'm not trying to bash UFG, it's just that there were many, many missteps along the way across all disciplines and from both sides of the fence - technology, design, scripting, animation, story, and so on. Dedication has nothing to do with it - the guys and gals at UFG worked very hard (as did the production team from Activision), but they were on a course that would never result in success. The best to have hoped for True Crime was a mediocre 'me-too' GTA clone that would rank in the low 60s on Metacritic.

I have played True Crime: Hong Kong (a lot), and you clearly haven't. Activision's decision was not 'stupid' - trust me, had the game come out, you would have been on here discussing how terrible it was and why bother trying to rip off GTA if you're not going to do it better, etc. etc.

So, if you couldn't enjoy it, no one could? It amazes how much you speak of your own opinion as being that of everyone. You play an unfinished version of a game and think that makes you an expert. And just out of curiosity, why have you played it a lot? What kept you playing? How are you playing it? Whatever, I wouldn't want to impede your schedule of seeing the future.

 

[thenoblegaunt]

sigh... well, so long Bioshock franchise... hopefully this deal won't work out, plus it's only a rumor

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

Wait, True Crime Hong Kong was canceled? Seriously? That game looked really good. Activision needs to die, it is incredible how many dickish actions they take. That game was basically done, for fuck's sake.

And you're basing that comment on..... what, exactly? Clearly not data.

Speaking from first-hand knowledge, it wasn't 'basically done' - it was a long, long way from being done. It ran at about 2 frames per second, the missions were terrible, the story hadn't even been finalized (lots and lots AND LOTS of rewrites), the controls were horrible, all the VO actors had to be recast because they were hopeless, melee combat was tedious button-mashing, the animation was borderline comical, and so on. Driving was the only decent bit, really.

It got pushed back - again - to Septeber before it got canned and, trust me, had it come out you would have absolutely PANNED it. It was never going to be a good game, despite a lot of hard work from everyone involved - it was one of those misguided projects that had bad decisions made on the developer and the publisher side, over and over again. The blame does not solely lie on the shoulders of Activision, I'm afraid.

Canning it was the kindest thing to have done (and it should have been done a while ago) - do you really want to play a 60-rated very mediocre (at best) GTA-knockoff?

No, didn't think so.

Of course not. The game wasn't completely finished. But with the level of dedication put into it, and the solid looking PAX demo, it could've been a good game, and Activision's reasoning of it "not being able to reach the top of the free-roaming genre" is just a plain stupid reason. Activision said the same about Brutal Legend, and that game was pretty good.

No, it couldn't have been a good game. It really couldn't. I'm not trying to bash UFG, it's just that there were many, many missteps along the way across all disciplines and from both sides of the fence - technology, design, scripting, animation, story, and so on. Dedication has nothing to do with it - the guys and gals at UFG worked very hard (as did the production team from Activision), but they were on a course that would never result in success. The best to have hoped for True Crime was a mediocre 'me-too' GTA clone that would rank in the low 60s on Metacritic.

I have played True Crime: Hong Kong (a lot), and you clearly haven't. Activision's decision was not 'stupid' - trust me, had the game come out, you would have been on here discussing how terrible it was and why bother trying to rip off GTA if you're not going to do it better, etc. etc.

So, if you couldn't enjoy it, no one could? It amazes how much you speak of your own opinion as being that of everyone. You play an unfinished version of a game and think that makes you an expert. And just out of curiosity, why have you played it a lot? What kept you playing? How are you playing it? Whatever, I wouldn't want to impede your schedule of seeing the future.

Because I've been making games for a very, very long time. It's not a case of enjoying it or not, it's a case of the game being fundamentally broken in a lot of areas. The point I'm trying to make is that internet forums are currently full of people claiming 'it was basically finished' and that is blatantly not true. The game wasn't anywhere near finished, which is why it got canned. In fact, to finish it would have taken a fundamental reworking and rethinking across many areas of the game (all the way from story to tech) and would have taken years, and tens of millions more dollars that would never be recouped.

What kept me playing it a lot? My job did.

 

[Chicago Ted]

Wait, True Crime Hong Kong was canceled? Seriously? That game looked really good. Activision needs to die, it is incredible how many dickish actions they take. That game was basically done, for fuck's sake.

And you're basing that comment on..... what, exactly? Clearly not data.

Speaking from first-hand knowledge, it wasn't 'basically done' - it was a long, long way from being done. It ran at about 2 frames per second, the missions were terrible, the story hadn't even been finalized (lots and lots AND LOTS of rewrites), the controls were horrible, all the VO actors had to be recast because they were hopeless, melee combat was tedious button-mashing, the animation was borderline comical, and so on. Driving was the only decent bit, really.

It got pushed back - again - to Septeber before it got canned and, trust me, had it come out you would have absolutely PANNED it. It was never going to be a good game, despite a lot of hard work from everyone involved - it was one of those misguided projects that had bad decisions made on the developer and the publisher side, over and over again. The blame does not solely lie on the shoulders of Activision, I'm afraid.

Canning it was the kindest thing to have done (and it should have been done a while ago) - do you really want to play a 60-rated very mediocre (at best) GTA-knockoff?

No, didn't think so.

Of course not. The game wasn't completely finished. But with the level of dedication put into it, and the solid looking PAX demo, it could've been a good game, and Activision's reasoning of it "not being able to reach the top of the free-roaming genre" is just a plain stupid reason. Activision said the same about Brutal Legend, and that game was pretty good.

No, it couldn't have been a good game. It really couldn't. I'm not trying to bash UFG, it's just that there were many, many missteps along the way across all disciplines and from both sides of the fence - technology, design, scripting, animation, story, and so on. Dedication has nothing to do with it - the guys and gals at UFG worked very hard (as did the production team from Activision), but they were on a course that would never result in success. The best to have hoped for True Crime was a mediocre 'me-too' GTA clone that would rank in the low 60s on Metacritic.

I have played True Crime: Hong Kong (a lot), and you clearly haven't. Activision's decision was not 'stupid' - trust me, had the game come out, you would have been on here discussing how terrible it was and why bother trying to rip off GTA if you're not going to do it better, etc. etc.

So, if you couldn't enjoy it, no one could? It amazes how much you speak of your own opinion as being that of everyone. You play an unfinished version of a game and think that makes you an expert. And just out of curiosity, why have you played it a lot? What kept you playing? How are you playing it? Whatever, I wouldn't want to impede your schedule of seeing the future.

Because I've been making games for a very, very long time. It's not a case of enjoying it or not, it's a case of the game being fundamentally broken in a lot of areas. The point I'm trying to make is that internet forums are currently full of people claiming 'it was basically finished' and that is blatantly not true. The game wasn't anywhere near finished, which is why it got canned. In fact, to finish it would have taken a fundamental reworking and rethinking across many areas of the game (all the way from story to tech) and would have taken years, and tens of millions more dollars that would never be recouped.

What kept me playing it a lot? My job did.

No offence mate, but I'm questioning your credentials. Normally when some guy comes onto a forum, and states that he's an expert, or that it's his job, it's next to impossible to tell if they can back it up. I know this is a video game forum, but to just hear you mouth off like your opinion is far better than everyone else?s, and that you have knowledge on this that no one else has makes you questionable at best.

Look, you may very well be a professional or something, but realize what medium you're on here. You're on an internet forum with a profile with no information and only a few posts, claiming that you've been working in the industry for years and that you know so much more than everyone else. If you keep attempting to act on a reputation that you clearly don't have, and don't give many details on your experience with the product, or your accessibility to it that lead you to your knowledge, your claims seem questionable to say the least.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

Wait, True Crime Hong Kong was canceled? Seriously? That game looked really good. Activision needs to die, it is incredible how many dickish actions they take. That game was basically done, for fuck's sake.

And you're basing that comment on..... what, exactly? Clearly not data.

Speaking from first-hand knowledge, it wasn't 'basically done' - it was a long, long way from being done. It ran at about 2 frames per second, the missions were terrible, the story hadn't even been finalized (lots and lots AND LOTS of rewrites), the controls were horrible, all the VO actors had to be recast because they were hopeless, melee combat was tedious button-mashing, the animation was borderline comical, and so on. Driving was the only decent bit, really.

It got pushed back - again - to Septeber before it got canned and, trust me, had it come out you would have absolutely PANNED it. It was never going to be a good game, despite a lot of hard work from everyone involved - it was one of those misguided projects that had bad decisions made on the developer and the publisher side, over and over again. The blame does not solely lie on the shoulders of Activision, I'm afraid.

Canning it was the kindest thing to have done (and it should have been done a while ago) - do you really want to play a 60-rated very mediocre (at best) GTA-knockoff?

No, didn't think so.

Of course not. The game wasn't completely finished. But with the level of dedication put into it, and the solid looking PAX demo, it could've been a good game, and Activision's reasoning of it "not being able to reach the top of the free-roaming genre" is just a plain stupid reason. Activision said the same about Brutal Legend, and that game was pretty good.

No, it couldn't have been a good game. It really couldn't. I'm not trying to bash UFG, it's just that there were many, many missteps along the way across all disciplines and from both sides of the fence - technology, design, scripting, animation, story, and so on. Dedication has nothing to do with it - the guys and gals at UFG worked very hard (as did the production team from Activision), but they were on a course that would never result in success. The best to have hoped for True Crime was a mediocre 'me-too' GTA clone that would rank in the low 60s on Metacritic.

I have played True Crime: Hong Kong (a lot), and you clearly haven't. Activision's decision was not 'stupid' - trust me, had the game come out, you would have been on here discussing how terrible it was and why bother trying to rip off GTA if you're not going to do it better, etc. etc.

So, if you couldn't enjoy it, no one could? It amazes how much you speak of your own opinion as being that of everyone. You play an unfinished version of a game and think that makes you an expert. And just out of curiosity, why have you played it a lot? What kept you playing? How are you playing it? Whatever, I wouldn't want to impede your schedule of seeing the future.

Because I've been making games for a very, very long time. It's not a case of enjoying it or not, it's a case of the game being fundamentally broken in a lot of areas. The point I'm trying to make is that internet forums are currently full of people claiming 'it was basically finished' and that is blatantly not true. The game wasn't anywhere near finished, which is why it got canned. In fact, to finish it would have taken a fundamental reworking and rethinking across many areas of the game (all the way from story to tech) and would have taken years, and tens of millions more dollars that would never be recouped.

What kept me playing it a lot? My job did.

No offence mate, but I'm questioning your credentials. Normally when some guy comes onto a forum, and states that he's an expert, or that it's his job, it's next to impossible to tell if they can back it up. I know this is a video game forum, but to just hear you mouth off like your opinion is far better than everyone else?s, and that you have knowledge on this that no one else has makes you questionable at best.

Look, you may very well be a professional or something, but realize what medium you're on here. You're on an internet forum with a profile with no information and only a few posts, claiming that you've been working in the industry for years and that you know so much more than everyone else. If you keep attempting to act on a reputation that you clearly don't have, and don't give many details on your experience with the product, or your accessibility to it that lead you to your knowledge, your claims seem questionable to say the least.

That's fair enough. And, in fact, I applaud your skepticism; clearly I'm not about to reveal my identity, so the only thing you have to go on is my word. And, of course, on an anonymous internet forum, that doesn't count for shit. However, if you're genuinely curious, message me and I will prove my credentials to you privately.

Back to the point, though, I wish you'd use your acute sense of skepticism on PR materials sent out by the big, bad Activision. Comments like "That game looked really good. Activision needs to die, it is incredible how many dickish actions they take. That game was basically done, for fuck's sake" make you look extremely gullible, which clearly you're not. It's interesting... you'll happily take at face value what you're fed from a company that you seemingly despise, yet because I say I have your dream job you immediately think I'm lying.

 

[Ignatz_Zwakh]

I swear, Kotick's eyes are like terrible black holes, ready to devour anything and everything... ><

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

OMG this can be the end of Civilisation as we knew it and I belove so much.