Activision digital revenue up to $1.7 billion thanks to over 23 million units of Black Ops, over 18 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=garychencool;32062479]The point is, Activision can make the shittiest games in the world, and still make millions, even in this economy.[/QUOTE] the games are only the way they are because that is what appeals to people. you'd only have to blame people if you somehow find that disturbing but i think it's childish and shallow to blame people for enjoying something as utterly insignificant as that.

People in this thread are really bad at reading and comprehending words stringed together in a sentence, so I will break it down for the slower folks out there. No where did I imply that any Call of Duty game was a great game. I did, however, say that the games are good products because they sold well. Simply by virtue of their success they are vindicated as such.

Activison hit the fucking gold mine with the Call of Duty series. :dance:

[QUOTE=AMD 32;32062552]If you're looking at games from an artistic perspective, yes. But not everybody wants a game that's considered artistically brilliant, or innovative. They just want a game they enjoy, and they don't care if the storyline's comparative to a Michael Bay film.[/QUOTE] Then doesn't that make it not great but just fun?

lol

[QUOTE=SoaringScout;32062583]Then doesn't that make it not great but just fun?[/QUOTE] I added some more onto my post after that. Great is completely subjective and totally depends on what qualities you're measuring. Many COD players would consider it great because it appeals to them in the ways that they desire.

[QUOTE=SoaringScout;32062583]Then doesn't that make it not great but just fun?[/QUOTE] great would refer to large in scale and call of duty is certainly large in scale.

I think its also worth mentioning the prefect timing of the start of another CoD sale on steam. [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1121944[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1121959[/url]

[QUOTE=thisispain;32062559]the games are only the way they are because that is what appeals to people. you'd only have to blame people if you somehow find that disturbing but i think it's childish and shallow to blame people for enjoying something as utterly insignificant as that.[/QUOTE] No, it's reasonable to say fuck Activision because as far as being the top dop in video games they have horrible business practices, repetitive terrible games and top dogs ALWAYS set the standards that many want to follow. It's absolutely reasonable to not like people shelling out massive amounts of cash for this repetitive shit, it's the start of something that could be terrible for the gaming industry, as far as actual games, and gameplay go.

[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;32062655]No, it's reasonable to say fuck Activision because as far as being the top dop in video games they have horrible business practices, repetetive terrible games and top dogs ALWAYS set the standards that many want to follow. It's absolutely reasonable to not like people shelling out massive amounts of cash for this repetitive shit, it's the start of something that could be terrible for the gaming industry, as far as actual games, and gameplay go.[/QUOTE] most people like the standards as set forth by activision as is obvious by the sales of their games. i don't believe the many should be terrorized by the few as traitors of the gaming industry as you obviously suggest they should be. i think just like EA and Activision itself did years ago, this will lead to an expansion of the gaming industry and allow the media to grow.

[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;32062655]No, it's reasonable to say fuck Activision because as far as being the top dop in video games they have horrible business practices, repetitive terrible games and top dogs ALWAYS set the standards that many want to follow. It's absolutely reasonable to not like people shelling out massive amounts of cash for this repetitive shit, it's the start of something that could be terrible for the gaming industry, as far as actual games, and gameplay go.[/QUOTE] He didn't say anything about Activision as a company, he stated that the games are the way they are because there's a market for them and that's what people want. Bad business practices are another topic. And it's not reasonable, it's pretentious snobbery. I don't see why there isn't room in the industry for more than one type of player. If they want to play COD because that's what they like then who the fuck am I to say that they're retards for doing so. If you don't like the games, don't play them, and play the games that cater to your own desires instead. That's the joy of such a wide market. Personally, I like to play both games you'd consider "quality" as well as play COD in a casual manner. I don't see anything wrong with games targeting different players with different desires in games.

[QUOTE=AMD 32;32062494]It's up to them if they want to buy it. The formula has proved to be successful. If the market starts to get bored with them, that's going to be reflected in sales. Why is it so abhorrent that people buy the games they want to play?[/QUOTE] Trendsetting DLCs like this drives up the price of getting a complete game. If you want a good example of profit motive not leading to a cheaper product then look no further.

[QUOTE=thisispain;32062717]most people like the standards as set forth by activision as is obvious by the sales of their games. i don't believe the many should be terrorized by the few as traitors of the gaming industry as you obviously suggest they should be. i think just like EA and Activision itself did years ago, this will lead to an expansion of the gaming industry and allow the media to grow.[/QUOTE] Yeah, because it would be nice to see more game makers trend toward activisions policy of making the initial release being 15% of the games total content and 25% of the total price by the time all this DLC horseshit is done.

[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;32062774]Yeah, because it would be nice to see more games trend toward activisions policy of making the initial release being 15% of of the game's content and 10% of the price.[/QUOTE] rather an unlettered post why don't you try respond to what i said instead of mouthing crowd-pleasing jabs.

[QUOTE=thisispain;32062717]most people like the standards as set forth by activision as is obvious by the sales of their games. i don't believe the many should be terrorized by the few as traitors of the gaming industry as you obviously suggest they should be. i think just like EA and Activision itself did years ago, this will lead to an expansion of the gaming industry and allow the media to grow.[/QUOTE] It's the same kind of fear mongering you saw with Halo when it was top dog. The only thing that has changed is the pop star references.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;32061969]In b4 shocked posts about a business making money and being incredibly successful at it.[/QUOTE] Really like how you are defending activision and cod in general when you have a bf avatar...

[QUOTE=Billiam;32062770]Trendsetting DLCs like this drives up the price of getting a complete game.[/QUOTE] games are becoming more expensive and more difficult to place in the main market. the days of low upstart and DIY game release is over, we're done with that. there are still plenty of cheaper indie games but you can't expect extremely expensive games that operate on a grand and global scale to be the same price, it isn't feasible.

[QUOTE=thisispain;32062823]rather an unlettered post why don't you try respond to what i said instead of mouthing crowd-pleasing jabs.[/QUOTE] Crowd pleasing jabs? You honestly believe Activision is going to use their money to make more innovative games? No their going to use it shit out more MW clones. And you're right about it being "good" business practice in terms of POOLS OF MONEY. But in terms of originality and setting positive standards for future games, they're raping the industry with no lube, just for some quick cash. You have very good points, but Activision as a whole makes me want to hit shit.

[QUOTE=Adarrek;32062848]Really like how you are defending activision and cod in general when you have a bf avatar...[/QUOTE] they aren't mutually exclusive

[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;32062879] You honestly believe Activision is going to use their money to make more innovative games?[/QUOTE] other companies and people who view the success of call of duty will be more willing to put their money behind games. only games like call of duty can create the condition for an expensive masterpiece such as say red dead redemption to exist. you can't have it both ways. and it would be naive to pretend that call of duty hasn't innovated gaming on a multiplayer front.

I don't have much to say. Activision is entitled to make as much money as they want, but they're fucking evil.

[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;32062879]Crowd pleasing jabs? You honestly believe Activision is going to use their money to make more innovative games? No their going to use it shit out more MW clones. And you're right about it being "good" business practice in terms of POOLS OF MONEY. But in terms of originality and setting positive standards for future games, they're raping the industry with no lube, just for some quick cash. You have very good points, but Activision as a whole makes me want to hit shit.[/QUOTE] When people don't want more COD, they will stop buying it. People vote with their money. There's a lot I don't like about Activision, don't get me wrong, but I certainly don't believe that it's wrong for people to want COD games. Not every company needs to be releasing innovative games, the gaming industry is huge and just because COD is about doesn't mean that the entire industry is left without innovation. If anything, innovation from other companies may be what knocks COD off its perch, we'll have to see.

[QUOTE=thisispain;32062937]other companies and people who view the success of call of duty will be more willing to put their money behind games. only games like call of duty can create the condition for an expensive masterpiece such as say red dead redemption to exist. you can't have it both ways. and it would be naive to pretend that call of duty hasn't innovated gaming on a multiplayer front.[/QUOTE] Yes, it was quite innovative in 2007 when Modern Warfare came out. And it has stayed the same through 3 games since.

I don't care much for the whole opinion aspect of black ops as a game, but as a product it was shocking. on release it ran like crap for most of the PC community, was laggy, final killcam etc just didn't work, and they barely fixed it.

[QUOTE=thisispain;32062937]other companies and people who view the success of call of duty will be more willing to put their money behind games. only games like call of duty can create the condition for an expensive masterpiece such as say red dead redemption to exist. you can't have it both ways. and it would be naive to pretend that call of duty hasn't innovated gaming on a multiplayer front.[/QUOTE] You're telling me no one would have thought to spend LOTS of money on a game if it wasn't for the revolutionary brilliance of Activision? Get Koticks balls out of your mouth already. And again, you're right on your second point there, but the only innovation in ANY of their games was Modern Warfare. 3 games ago, come on now.

[QUOTE=Chrille;32062961]Yes, it was quite innovative in 2007 when Modern Warfare came out. And it has stayed the same through 3 games since.[/QUOTE] MW1 and MW2's multiplayer are very different. MW2 has been as innovative in console multiplayer gaming as Halo was before it. MW2 removed it from being simply a bad emulation of PC server gaming and established it on its own footing.

[QUOTE=thisispain;32062937]other companies and people who view the success of call of duty will be more willing to put their money behind games. only games like call of duty can create the condition for an expensive masterpiece such as say red dead redemption to exist. you can't have it both ways. and it would be naive to pretend that call of duty hasn't innovated gaming on a multiplayer front.[/QUOTE] Medium to fast paced objective based gameplay, slightly cinematic first person custscenes, and killstreak rewards. I'm pretty sure that's basically it.

[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;32062984]You're telling me no one would have thought to spend LOTS of money on a game if it wasn't for the revolutionary brilliance of Activision? Get Koticks balls out of your mouth already.[/QUOTE] don't tell me you want to pretend that having successful games that earn a lot of money don't result in more investment and capital pumped into gaming? to suggest i'm somehow putting kotick's balls in my mouth is a dumb personal attack that makes it appear i'm speaking to a 13 year old who thinks gay sex is funny.

[QUOTE=thisispain;32062876]games are becoming more expensive and more difficult to place in the main market. the days of low upstart and DIY game release is over, we're done with that. there are still plenty of cheaper indie games but you can't expect extremely expensive games that operate on a grand and global scale to be the same price, it isn't feasible.[/QUOTE] It's true that games are becoming more expensive to produce and market, but to say that it isn't feasible is ridiculous. Production is still vastly less expensive than something along the lines of a Hollywood Movie and major titles often leave movies in the dust in terms of revenue. It's dishonest to say that there isn't enough room for both growth and the content publishers leave out within that profit margin.

Here's an idea: How about we blame the development studios pumping out shitty CoD clones, instead of getting mad at a company who's only crime is releasing a successful product to a large market of hungry fans.