Activision CEO: "EA's anti-COD talk harms the gaming industry" - Polidicks

[QUOTE=MR-X;31832662]Both are fucking stupid. One is creating COD which isn't terrible, it just does not bring anything new to the table. Nothing wrong with that necessarily if you're looking for a similar experience and isn't overly-new in terms of new game play. But if you're looking for innovation and something vastly different look the other direction. Its a FPS with the action of a overly budgeted movie. The company that supports it are not that great, overpriced DLC and various other content. They also have a strong history of milking franchises, the best example would be Guitar Hero. As for BF3, from what I've seen and heard it is nothing but BC 2.5. And to play the game it is overly difficult and has an awkward UI. On top of that they're forcing origin and screwing customers over who don't want to be a part of the whole origin vs all other digital platform services war. Along with that EA has a nice history of doing good things and gaining a bit of respect back then doing something stupid to loose all that respect. They both want money and shares, one wants to say at the top and the other one will do anything to get to the top. Both companies are losing sight of what is important. Both are shit companies and act just as worse as the other. They're acting like they're doing it for the ART or being "innovative" when in reality they're both just reusing the same shit that has been going on for years and polishing it up. Both are just as bad as the other.[/QUOTE] Hell. Bad company 2 reused all the world war 2 weapons except the Japanese guns from Medal of honor airborne.

[QUOTE]If we as an industry act like there are a finite number of games in the world, then there will be.[/QUOTE] I laugh because this is mostly true. I haven't seen that much innovation over the years, companies just stick to their formulas and reap the rewards.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WoScHG0Mug[/media]

EA talks a big game saying BF3 will topple cod franchise. Then they go and say something like this: [url]http://www.computerandvideogames.com/316188/battlefield-3-doesnt-have-to-outsell-modern-warfare-3-to-be-a-success-moore/[/url] So basically they're saying it doesn't have to outsell MW3. They only say that now because they know they wont. Don't get me wrong, i pre-ordered BF3 and will not buy MW3, but EA needs to shut the fuck up. They have been doing nothing but running their mouth, putting unneeded pressure on dice to succeed. Some might say that EA is only doing the 'mudslinging' as to do cheap marketing, almost subliminally, to those who stay current with the articles. I would say that this notion isn't very far off the mark. As much as Activision is playing the victim and underdog in thi, saying they want the industry as a whole to do well, thats only from the point of view of the most successful publisher in the industry that has nothing to prove.(Or so they think) In reality, what they have to prove is that they can get IW to make a game other than cod before we can truly call them a great studio. Just my opinion on the matter.

I remember when Call of Duty was pretty good. Hell, I still love COD4, but the series turned to shit.

[QUOTE=MR-X;31832662]Both are fucking stupid. One is creating COD which isn't terrible, it just does not bring anything new to the table. Nothing wrong with that necessarily if you're looking for a similar experience and isn't overly-new in terms of new game play. But if you're looking for innovation and something vastly different look the other direction. Its a FPS with the action of a overly budgeted movie. The company that supports it are not that great, overpriced DLC and various other content. They also have a strong history of milking franchises, the best example would be Guitar Hero. As for BF3, from what I've seen and heard it is nothing but BC 2.5. And to play the game it is overly difficult and has an awkward UI. On top of that they're forcing origin and screwing customers over who don't want to be a part of the whole origin vs all other digital platform services war. Along with that EA has a nice history of doing good things and gaining a bit of respect back then doing something stupid to loose all that respect. They both want money and shares, one wants to say at the top and the other one will do anything to get to the top. Both companies are losing sight of what is important. Both are shit companies and act just as worse as the other. They're acting like they're doing it for the ART or being "innovative" when in reality they're both just reusing the same shit that has been going on for years and polishing it up. Both are just as bad as the other.[/QUOTE] *clapclap* Finally someone who isnt "hurr cod/BF3 is dumb" and actually says how it is.

Sigh I wish more game companys were their own publisher (Valve for instance) these big name publishing companys are killing the industry quicker than anything else.

"Harming the industry" is a little dramatic, but it certainly makes the folks over at EA sound like complete assholes. Though I find it absolutely hilarious that the bigwigs over at EA are basically saying things Kotick said a couple years ago but nobody is bashing them as hard as Kotick gets hit for the things he says. Frankly, as a longtime Battlefield fan, I find it incredibly disconcerting that these babies keep talking about things like market share and pricing strategy, though at the same time not unexpected. But I guess I am the only one that remembers them doing this all the time before Activision became everyones whipping boy. :rolleyes: [editline]20th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Nikota;31832810]Hell. Bad company 2 reused all the world war 2 weapons except the Japanese guns from Medal of honor airborne.[/QUOTE] As well as all the vehicles, weapons, and animations from Bad Company 1. Battlefield fans, of all people, should not be complaining about Call of Duty when it comes to radically changing every release.

i'd buy BF3 just to see cod fall

BF3 will not be the CoD killer, just like all the other games that tried. CoD4 was such a good game that people are still hoping that MW3 will be as good. I'm 99% sure that BF3 will be better than MW3 but trying to convince the die hard CoD fans, of which there are millions, to switch to BF3 is like talking to a brick wall with less personality and more insults.

More like it hurts their profit margins.

I like both games...

[QUOTE=jaykray;31841477]BF3 will not be the CoD killer, just like all the other games that tried[/QUOTE] This pretty much. EA is just trash talking. They can try but CoD has successfully and successively sold more and more games each year. There's humongous momentum in CoD, and every day more people are trying it out. Unless there are successively-viewed bad games coming out, CoD is going to hold top for awhile.

[QUOTE=Strike 86;31830252][quote]We shouldn't be tearing each other apart, fighting for a larger slice of the pie. [B]We should all be focused on trying to grow a bigger pie.[/B][/quote][/QUOTE] Can someone remind me how exactly you grow a pie

[QUOTE=jaykray;31841477]BF3 will not be the CoD killer, just like all the other games that tried. CoD4 was such a good game that people are still hoping that MW3 will be as good. I'm 99% sure that BF3 will be better than MW3 but trying to convince the die hard CoD fans, of which there are millions, to switch to BF3 is like talking to a brick wall with less personality and more insults.[/QUOTE] Trying to convince other people to play games is generally met with resistance because people are really bad at convincing.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;31831949]cod invented the perk system and the fpsrpg xp system that basically every online fps uses today[/QUOTE] There was a Rainbow Six game that did it long before CoD did it.

[QUOTE=Lyoko774;31832091]so, what happened to games being made for the sake of making games? all it's about anymore is getting the biggest market share. :sigh:[/QUOTE] That's because gaming is now a lucrative business. And as businesses tend to do, they make them to make money, preferably loads of it. [QUOTE=SuppliesAttack;31832839]I laugh because this is mostly true. I haven't seen that much innovation over the years, companies just stick to their formulas and reap the rewards.[/QUOTE] That's because new IPs are pretty much never doing well any more. Why risk something like that when a sequel is a much safer source of income? Who knows, they might let you make that innovative new game after that.

EA could easily hurt COD more if BF3 came to steam.

The Activision dude has a point. People should stop treating it like only one of the two games can exist.

[QUOTE=Mr.T;31830574]Only on Facepunch...[/QUOTE] No, Only on TES Nexus!

[QUOTE=Raidyr;31841319] As well as all the vehicles, weapons, and animations from Bad Company 1. Battlefield fans, of all people, should not be complaining about Call of Duty when it comes to radically changing every release.[/QUOTE] but BC1 and 2 were a bit shit.. EA are cunts though, we know that. My hopes & prayers are all with DICE.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;31842715]tell me where rpg elements like that were introduced in an online fps in that specific way because they werent[/QUOTE] The post 3 above yours. [QUOTE=rinoaff33;31841991]There was a Rainbow Six game that did it long before CoD did it.[/QUOTE]

Besides, I said that it was CoD that brought them into FPS' in that way. They're still only tiny features that don't actually affect gameplay. I'm tired of CoD fans using them to say CoD is innovative. [editline]20th August 2011[/editline] Damn.. Broke my automerge. Just because it's a different iteration of the same concept doesn't make it new.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;31844276]rpg games all have stats but they all have the concept in a different way, ie mass effect 1 has direct upgrading, while dungeons and dragons has just stat upgrades but heavier armor is a downgrade as well as the dice rolling system similar concepts are still innovation[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=CrumbleShake;31843818]They're still only tiny features that don't actually affect gameplay. I'm tired of CoD fans using them to say CoD is innovative.[/QUOTE] Don't ignore bits of what say. It's very frustrating. Besides, you said that they were brand new features before.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;31844533]how i never said it was brand new, but they changed the current system, and made the one that basically every game uses (perks that turn the tide of a battle, 100 xp per kill, more for a headshot, etc, shit that wasn't in lockdown) and they do change gameplay, what with the killstreak unlocking and other things (medal of honor)[/QUOTE] Inventing is creating something new. That's what devising is.

COD has a massive fanbase which has been built up since COD 4. EA will not get the whole community to switch and destroy COD in one game, instead of showing that they are assholes and trying to take over COD they should take a peaceful approach and have more content for the game out to impress people into buying it. I love both BF and COD but COD is still the king of the hill and it's going to be a while before they get knocked off. Anyways, Skyrim all the way. :dance:

It's like they're more concerned with making someone else fail then making themselves succeed.

[QUOTE=Gekkosan;31831138]Bullshit. He doesn't give a shit about innovation or the art form. Call of Duty right now in gameplay is really repetitive, flawed and cheap. But somehow they managed to give it something that people appreciated, guess it's the dubstep enhanced thrill of killing, but how things are looking right now they don't have a lot to offer because the CoD Core is the same, and it's gonna rot. I can see it, or rather feel it, because I have played the recent CODs.[/QUOTE] please explain why it's flawed, repetitive, and cheap

[QUOTE=Atlascore;31846461]BF3 has tanks, jets, and massive explosions, all with infantry combat using a class system. MW3 just has infantry combat that hasn't changed for five years. Which do you think is going to look more entertaining to the masses?[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand, it's not about which looks more entertaining. CoD already has the majority under its spell (for want of a better word) and there is almost nothing that BF3 could do to change that. BF becoming bigger than CoD will not happen instantly.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;31846712]You don't understand how the average person works when it comes to video games. They don't give a shit about video game brands, they just look at something and if it looks entertaining to them they buy it, it's not like sports where people worship sports teams like gods or something. COD isn't going to die instantly, but it's time is coming, not this year, and maybe not next year, but it isn't staying #1 forever, BF3 has way more content, it's coming out sooner, and it's been generating a fuck ton of hype world wide, it's going to at least put a dent in COD's sales. The same thing is happening with smart phones, the Android phones came out with better stuff than the iPhone and now everyone's shifting over to Android, it's popularity exploded over a few months. tl;dr MW1 was an evolution of the FPS genre, BF3 is another evolution.[/QUOTE] We'll see when MW3 once again becomes the biggest selling game of all time. I don't think it's a good thing, I will not be buying it, but it will most likely happen whether BF3 does well or not. BF3 is also too hard for CoD kiddies, I have friends who love CoD because "it takes less bullets to kill someone". People complained about MW2 like it was going out of fashion because of commando, noob tubes etc. Why then did Black Ops go on to become the biggest selling videogame just a year later?