What the hell kind of whisleblower gives them ideas like that. Then again, if the map pack sells well, they'll probably think they can get away with a scheme like that.
Poe's Law, paraphrased: "It is utterly impossible to parody Activision in such a way that will not have even a passing resemblance to a genuine article."
So sad.
Little Duck: So it's gone from EA being the bad guy company to Activision. Great.
Remember, people at EA are actively fixing their reputation now. They really do want to switch their image from "faceless corporation that is the enemy of everything holy" to "just another faceless corporation".
Hurr Durr Derp: Activision has gone evil, Ubisoft has gone evil...
I still can't get over the fact that EA aren't the bad guys anymore. Up is down, left is right, black is white! I don't know what to think anymore!
CODwhistleblower is horribily misinformed. StarCraft II is not an Activision product. Blizzard has the financial mallet known as WoW, so Kotick cannot touch them (no matter how much he would like to). :P
I laughed whilst reading this article, that alone gives it the thumbs-up from me.
I also liked the way Marion exaggerated Activision's past exploits and behaviours to induce humour, yet maintain an undercurrent of seriousness that portrays a very scarily possible future; that is, Activision's continuous price-hiking and increasing control.
Tom Phoenix: CODwhistleblower is horribily misinformed. StarCraft II is not an Activision product. Blizzard has the financial mallet known as WoW, so Kotick cannot touch them (no matter how much he would like to). :P
Yes but if memory serves Blizzard is a subsidiary of Activision, though I may be wrong.
Tom Phoenix: CODwhistleblower is horribily misinformed. StarCraft II is not an Activision product. Blizzard has the financial mallet known as WoW, so Kotick cannot touch them (no matter how much he would like to). :P
Yes but if memory serves Blizzard is a subsidiary of Activision, though I may be wrong.
Tom Phoenix: CODwhistleblower is horribily misinformed. StarCraft II is not an Activision product. Blizzard has the financial mallet known as WoW, so Kotick cannot touch them (no matter how much he would like to). :P
Yes but if memory serves Blizzard is a subsidiary of Activision, though I may be wrong.
Sorry, not even close.
Well this is taken from wikipedia which also lists them as a subsidiary.
Blizzard has changed hands several times since then: Davidson was acquired along with Sierra On-Line by a company called CUC International in 1996; CUC then merged with a hotel, real-estate, and car-rental franchiser called HFS Corporation to form Cendant in 1997. In 1998 it became apparent that CUC had engaged in accounting fraud for years before the merger; Cendant's stock lost 80% of its value over the next six months in the ensuing widely discussed accounting scandal. The company sold its consumer software operations, Sierra On-line which included Blizzard, to French publisher Havas in 1998, the same year Havas was purchased by Vivendi. Blizzard was part of the Vivendi Games group of Vivendi. In July 2008 Vivendi Games merged with Activision, using Blizzard's name in the resulting company, Activision Blizzard.
Rohobok: I laughed whilst reading this article, that alone gives it the thumbs-up from me.
I also liked the way Marion exaggerated Activision's past exploits and behaviours to induce humour, yet maintain an undercurrent of seriousness that portrays a very scarily possible future; that is, Activision's continuous price-hiking and increasing control.
First welcome, no one gave me nor taught me the welcome speech so I can't give it to you, terribly sorry. There's something about a basement. I think all the cool kids hang there. Yeah, that's it. The basement is the place to be!
On topic, this is why we love Marion. He's awesome. I really hope the games industry sort of "collapses" with these big corporations and we end up with a lot of interesting independent studios. Then they can do what they want and we get better games.
Finally, I love how no one refers to Marion as Cox like one normally would for fear of sexual innuendo.
Tom Phoenix: CODwhistleblower is horribily misinformed. StarCraft II is not an Activision product. Blizzard has the financial mallet known as WoW, so Kotick cannot touch them (no matter how much he would like to). :P
Yes but if memory serves Blizzard is a subsidiary of Activision, though I may be wrong.
Sorry, not even close.
Well this is taken from wikipedia which also lists them as a subsidiary.
Blizzard has changed hands several times since then: Davidson was acquired along with Sierra On-Line by a company called CUC International in 1996; CUC then merged with a hotel, real-estate, and car-rental franchiser called HFS Corporation to form Cendant in 1997. In 1998 it became apparent that CUC had engaged in accounting fraud for years before the merger; Cendant's stock lost 80% of its value over the next six months in the ensuing widely discussed accounting scandal. The company sold its consumer software operations, Sierra On-line which included Blizzard, to French publisher Havas in 1998, the same year Havas was purchased by Vivendi. Blizzard was part of the Vivendi Games group of Vivendi. In July 2008 Vivendi Games merged with Activision, using Blizzard's name in the resulting company, Activision Blizzard.
Yes, Blizzard is a subsidiary of Activision-Blizzard, but not Activision. Infact, looking from that point of view, Activision is also a subsidiary of Activision-Blizzard.
I was more addressing how you said Kotick couldn't touch them, because he is CEO of Activision Blizzard which Blizzard and Activision are subsidiaries of.
I was more addressing how you said Kotick couldn't touch them, because he is CEO of Activision Blizzard which Blizzard and Activision are subsidiaries of.
I know and I still think that is the case. WoW alone brings almost half of the profits made by Activision-Blizzard. If Kotick jeopardises Blizzard and Blizzard decides to do a "scorched earth" policy, it would be a disaster of massive proportions.
Overall, Blizzard has a formula that works. That is why Vivendi has not touched them for all these years and that is why Kotick cannot touch them either. Why do you think Blizzard is almost the only developer to retain it's autonomy and brand, whereas almost all others were merged into Activision (like Sierra Entertainment)?
I was more addressing how you said Kotick couldn't touch them, because he is CEO of Activision Blizzard which Blizzard and Activision are subsidiaries of.
I know and I still think that is the case. WoW alone brings almost half of the profits made by Activision-Blizzard. If Kotick jeopardises Blizzard and Blizzard decides to do a "scorched earth" policy, it would be a disaster of massive proportions.
Overall, Blizzard has a formula that works. That is why Vivendi has not touched them for all these years and that is why Kotick cannot touch them either. Why do you think Blizzard is almost the only developer to retain it's autonomy and brand, whereas almost all others were merged into Activision (like Sierra Entertainment)?
Alright, now I get what your saying your original post seemed like you menat that Kotick had nothing to do with Blizzard and I was just pointing out that he could affect them but as you pointed out it would be a horrible idea, and now that we both understand each other I guess we can stop arguing.
I was more addressing how you said Kotick couldn't touch them, because he is CEO of Activision Blizzard which Blizzard and Activision are subsidiaries of.
I know and I still think that is the case. WoW alone brings almost half of the profits made by Activision-Blizzard. If Kotick jeopardises Blizzard and Blizzard decides to do a "scorched earth" policy, it would be a disaster of massive proportions.
Overall, Blizzard has a formula that works. That is why Vivendi has not touched them for all these years and that is why Kotick cannot touch them either. Why do you think Blizzard is almost the only developer to retain it's autonomy and brand, whereas almost all others were merged into Activision (like Sierra Entertainment)?
Alright, now I get what your saying your original post seemed like you menat that Kotick had nothing to do with Blizzard and I was just pointing out that he could affect them but as you pointed out it would be a horrible idea, and now that we both understand each other I guess we can stop arguing.
lol reminds me of the Guy who was a "Gaming Journalist" and was talking about info he got on MGS4 and how they were coming out with a 360 version that was better then the PS3 one....Then it didn't happen and everyone i know that believed him had to put up with me laughing at them.
Kollega: Poe's Law, paraphrased: "It is utterly impossible to parody Activision in such a way that will not have even a passing resemblance to a genuine article."
The sad fact is if I wasn't 100% sure that Bungie would not make Call of Duty, (Unless their IP fails) I would have believed this article in its entirety.
Thing is, Kotick can jack up prices all he likes. But people will, sooner or later, vote with their wallets and tell him to fuck off. MW2, while selling millions doesn't seem to have the online following of BF:BC2, either (but do prove me wrong), so maybe that's losing its shine. To be honest I have no interest in MW, much prefer Treyarchs offerings when pushed, and GH died with 5. And I'd never buy an Acti. game on release. Apart from the new Transformers game, but I was here first!!! And I'll check the reviews first!
oh boy...Bungie better start putting the finishing on their giant catapult before Kotick launches his siege on them
but great article hahaa things are gonna be interesting (scary?) these next few years... again, I say, someone better throw Kotick down a reactor shaft (preferably whilst wearing a Darth Vader suit) before he takes over the entire galaxy
