The xbl price hike might have been because of Activision.

Scary.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=413950

Fuck. Bobby kotick. Fuck him hard in the ass with a freshly sharpened steel mace dipped in a vat of lemon juice that was just freshly squeezed from a bunch of lemons

When my xbox live runs out, I quit gold membership >.< I might get gold later on but seriously. That's fucking stupid. That means i'm paying a subscription to play CoD. A year I don't even play it that often anyway =/

i bought up early for 43$ on amazon, i aint paying 60 though

oh boy.....

It's funny that if they actually offered a subscription service for CoD they could actually apply updates/cool shit on their own schedule and run servers, yet everyone has an issue with giving Activision money when they have no issue buying the same re-skinned CoD game every year.

Player-to-player is so unbelievably dated and the game would seriously get some meat on its bones. What's the argument against? You're content playing the same shit every year in a different time period? ok

Seriously, Blizzard is a pretty awesome service yet somehow it's the 'cool thing' to hate Bobby Kotick yet everyone who does essentially sucks his dick by only-play Activision games.

We have dedicated servers on BF without a subscription fee.....

JDM_Jev wrote:It's funny that if they actually offered a subscription service for CoD they could actually apply updates/cool shit on their own schedule and run servers, yet everyone has an issue with giving Activision money when they have no issue buying the same re-skinned CoD game every year.

Player-to-player is so unbelievably dated and the game would seriously get some meat on its bones. What's the argument against? You're content playing the same shit every year in a different time period? ok

Seriously, Blizzard is a pretty awesome service yet somehow it's the 'cool thing' to hate Bobby Kotick yet everyone who does essentially sucks his dick by only-play Activision games.

But we get updates almost every day right now....

They still have to go through Microsoft to apply patches, unless you're referring to that slight bypass

And sure, we get free servers on BF but you aren't entitled to them, it's just a service done for free by Dice. Valve runs its own servers, updates and content packages on the PC for free, because that's their business model.

Obviously if World of Warcraft is the most-played game in the world there must be millions of customers satisfied or impressed with the Blizzard service. Hell, millions of people have no problem having Treyarch/IW shit down their throat every year with the same CoD game, yet the potential of improving the service is automatically shot down because it involves spending money.

Updates could mean anything. Content packages, mod tools anything really. And no fucking broken player-to-player hosting, so the game would be improved massively for everyone instead of giving too much advantage to the host and anyone sack-riding 4 bars as a result. A level playing field for a change >_>

I don't hate on kotick cause its cool. I hate on him cause he fully deserves it. His company thrives on three different game series. One is a constantly updated and constantly changing game, with a huge amazing open world game that he had nothing at all to do with. Another is a series that he has already run into the ground both hurting the name of the series and the genre it is a part of. And the third is a series that he is slowly doing the exact same thing as the previous series.

Add in the fact that he believes new and fresh game IPs and series or whatever are q complete waste of time and money therefore keeping his company from making anything new and fresh.
Activision is basically the Capcom from 2004-2006, not letting revs work on any new games and making them constantly release sequels and remakes cause they believed it was the only way to make money.

Also add in the fact that his company also owns the rights to countless, and I mean countless game series that I know that many of you have played and would love to play a new game or version of, but refuses to allow any of his devolpment teams do anything with because he feels that the only games that he can make money off of are constant sequels released every single years from the same series.

THAT is why I hate bobby kotick

Wait, that doesn't apply to any other publisher in the world?

EA had that phase, then Capcom did, now somehow it's wrong for Activision to have it when gamings at an all-time low because of stagnant development more than anything, which could easily be remedied if people had interest in games that didn't have 'Call of Duty' in the title.

60% of LIVE users only play Call of Duty. That's sad, there are much better games to play.

All 'new' game ideas are usually sand-bagged in reviews and end up as cult-classics because of the current gaming mentality that prevents them from attempting anything new. You don't think its a poor business model to intentionally stifle creativity because it doesn't have the same pay-off in the end?

Gaming is a business first, obviously they're more interested in making money than anything.

its economics and psychology. it sucks though because if you refuse to play a cod game, you still pay them for live.

personally i dont mind paying activision after black ops didnt suck as much as mw2.

it sucks, but if you look into anything you buy, a similar bullshit happens

people are allowed to hate. dont hate on the haters

If you're going to hate the only game you're willing to play something is seriously wrong with you.

Hate with reason, hate where hate deserves.

You shouldn't forgive people for doing bad stuff just because someone else did it too and got away with it. You should bitch them out until they give in and give you free stuff. Then you get free stuff. The alternate option of spreading your cheeks and taking it doesn't get you anything.

More developers need to be like Valve. They give people free shit, people play their games for decades. It works and both parties are happy.

I'm not forgiving anyone, no one had an issue with it back then, suddenly it's an issue when Activision does it now but instead of protesting that by not-purchasing games under that publisher everyone buys the same Call of Duty game ever year.

Its very counter-productive, you're basically proving Activision right by doing so.

And Valve's business model is pretty much built around keeping 'happy' customers, but the issue with free stuff is that people always end up bitching about it in the end - 'it doesn't come fast enough, I don't like it, other stuff was better, no effort' etc.

Just look at VIP and every developer-made add-on campaign in Left 4 Dead. People start getting really whiny and entitled for some reason.

That's another reason why gaming sucks ._.

Bob Kotick song (draft):

They see me trollin',
they hatin'
Cuz they know I just fightin' dirtay!

Gonna catchu havin' fun,
Gonna slit yo throat fo fun,
Not gonna stop at one.

JDM_Jev wrote:I'm not forgiving anyone, no one had an issue with it back then, suddenly it's an issue when Activision does it now but instead of protesting that by not-purchasing games under that publisher everyone buys the same Call of Duty game ever year.

Its very counter-productive, you're basically proving Activision right by doing so.

And Valve's business model is pretty much built around keeping 'happy' customers, but the issue with free stuff is that people always end up bitching about it in the end - 'it doesn't come fast enough, I don't like it, other stuff was better, no effort' etc.

Just look at VIP and every developer-made add-on campaign in Left 4 Dead. People start getting really whiny and entitled for some reason.

That's another reason why gaming sucks ._.

The thing is not buying as a form of protest isn't exactly effective when done by an individual. There needs to be widespread complaints first in order to start a boycott. I mean yeah you could not buy it, but they're not going to hear that at this point.

Yeah people are going to bitch no matter what, you got me there. But all bitching aside, Valve's model has been working for them. You could say that Activision's is too, but I'm just saying there's a business method that is ethically sound and profitable.

But mostly what I'm trying to say here though is that this bitching is a wonderful thing for us consumers. It gets us stuff we wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

It's an interesting point, but people still boycott L4D2 like Valve is evil now or something.

The MW2 PC boycott could have gotten results if they actually stuck with it. IW took heed, considered it but all of the boycott members/leaders ended up buying it first-day so they didn't bother.

And whenever someone bitches there's always somebody to counter-bitch. Try to complain about the broken knife + assault rifles/player-to-player in CoD, just as many people hop on Treyarch's dick to defend those things as 'balanced'.

Complain about lacking content (and thus incentive driving a purchase), just as many people start justifying that purchase somehow. You'd need some sort of unified goal in mind for it to actually be effective, even then there would still be people content with the same old shit.

Well it's the bitching that makes the changes though, even if the developers are mostly listening to the praising.

People definitely did over-react to L4D2, which is funny because it's actually because it came too quick, where-as the most common complaint against Valve is about how they take forever on their games.

It's kind of like politics, with only a few people that take the time to research and find out what's actually going on, but with even fewer people willing to take action. Gaming is going to keep going downhill until people start to realize that they don't have to accept the same shit every year.

More and more people are starting to realize this but it still isn't enough. We can get more balance patches than the virtually unnoticeable knife nerf. All it would take is for people to realize that we as consumers don't have to buy a game if it's not good enough.