Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
EA vs Activision
PokemonTrainerRed
Member UncommonPosts: 375
Who thinks that these guys need to stop flirting with each other during gaming expos and just sleep with each other already?
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/06/02/activision-thanks-ea.aspx
Comments
Can't deny they're both behind some very good games, and EA have at least being trying to be original, if only because they're being overtaken as the biggest publisher in the world by Activision.
They're both alright, although I prefer EA and Activision dropping several titles because they couldn't make yearly updates out of them was truly the most twat-worthy thing I have ever heard.
EA is also the reason why we never got our UO 2.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
Neither company is really all that amazing as publishers. EA churns out a lot of garbage and Activision suffer from morally ambiguous business practices...and they churn out a lot of garbage.
It's tricky to take sides on this but I'm going to say that I like EA more because they've given me far better games (Battlefield, Burnout, Crysis, Dead Space, Mass Effect, etc).
EA has once again jumped ahead in my mind as the top publisher around today.
I think that their heavy new emphasis on DLC might be changing the face of the games industry as we know it. We might be witnessing the death of the expansion pack.
I'm very miffed about their tacking on repetitive DLC packs for their big games like Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age. There are some story arcs that should be followed up on in later games.
Dragon Age: Origins: Awakening would have been much better had it been vastly expanded and filled a role like Mass Effect 2. Instead it was a shoddy semi-sequel that felt like a big DLC pack. A larger worlld, premise, and story would have made it a worthy successor to Origins.
Also, a new DLC pack was introduced for Mass Effect 2 called "Lair of the Shadow Broker", which ties in events of Mass Effect 2 with the immediate graphic novel prequel. This in my opinion was a bad move, as Liara's feud with the Shadow Broker is a major plot line for the series, and shouldn't be furthered by paying for DLC. Also, with the rumors floating around that Liara will return as a major character in Mass Effect 3, it would have been better for the "Lair of the Shadow Broker" content to be included in the final chapter of the trilogy.
In other words, down with DLC! Expansion packs allow for more time and room for growth! I'm abdolutely convinced that EA is behind the push for DLC, and not the individual developers.
ALT SPORTS:
EA: With the recently released skate, EA has provided Tony Hawk its biggest competition in, well, ever. So far, the reception has been slightly positive, though not at the level of Tony's top titles. SSX has had its moments, but it's been going downhill as of late.
ACTIVISION: While Tony Hawk may be a bit long in the tooth, it's still the top dog in the industry. Project 8 infused some much-needed life into the series, and Proving Ground looks to follow that trend.
Edge: Activision. skate is a good start, but it'll take a few sequels before it has a real shot at dethroning Tony.
FIRST-PERSON SHOOTERS:
EA: EA develops two of the genre's most well-known series in Battlefield, which continues to impress, and Medal of Honor, which hasn't been quite the same since several of its developers left to form Infinity Ward. EA also has a few key publishing deals in place, publishing two of the year's most anticipated shooters in Half-Life: The Orange Box and Crysis, thanks to deals with Valve and Crytek, respectively.
ACTIVISION: EA may own the holiday season, but Activision's strong history in the FPS genre is difficult to dismiss. With Infinity Ward in its stable, Activision has consistently delivered with the Call of Duty series, which has yet to see a significant misstep. Activision also publishes the majority of id Software's FPS franchises, which include Quake, Doom and Wolfenstein.
Edge: Activision. EA may be publishing some heavy hitters this year, but Activision has stronger ties to the genre, which will serve the company better in the long run.
ACTION:
Army of Two
EA: Up until recently, EA's presence in this category was average at best, with various licensed titles like Bond, Lord of the Rings, and The Godfather performing decently. The company has really kicked it up a notch with the development of Army of Two, and the acquisition of Pandemic, developers of such titles as Mercenaries, Saboteur and Destroy All Humans.
ACTIVISION: Activision hasn't quite taken the action-gaming market by storm. Titles like GUN, Spider-Man and True Crime, though certainly worth merit, aren't among the upper-echelon of the genre. We don't really see the company making great strides to the effect of EA. Better open those purse-strings!
Edge: EA Besides the uncontested categories, this is one where Activision just can't match up to EA, particularly in the face of the Pandemic acquisition.
Though, I've never once consider Dragon Age or Mass Effect as being EA.
It's Bioware.
Well, you can think that, but Bioware is 100% EA.
The fact is, Activision and EA are the two greatest multi-platofrm game companies out there and, because they are so dominant, they get a lot of people hating them. They have great games as well as some craptastic ones.
But they are both great companies and I buy their great games, and don't buy their crap games.
These companies are comprised of human beings, many very passionate about what they do.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
Bobby Kotick is passionate about what he does?
Really?
So THIS never happened?
Both companies can be real jerks at times. EA definitely did over the years. But in the last couple years after MW1's rise to dominance, Activision has really gone out of its way to be crowned Lord King Douchebag of Video Gaming.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
It certainly doesn't and considering Activision and EA's past is littered with talented developers being closed and some rather questionable games even less so. I've played all of the previous CoD's and a few of the Battlefield's and quite frankly not even previous pedigree matters this time around. Battlefield 3 simply looks better in almost every way and this is not from a fanboy of either franchise but a hardcore gamer from the ZX Spectrum days. The aesthetics, sound and characters feel like the closest approximation to actual modern war seen in a video game thus far not then like CoD's Michael Bay esque non stop explosive globe trotting macho shooting gallery with extra whirly effects.
To be honest, i'm sick of hearing about both of them. There's many other games coming out that personally, look like they offer much, much more. The thing about both of these games is that the main focus is on the multiplayer side. I'd rather invest in a game like Deus Ex or Uncharted 3 that offer a beefy single player.
Not at all.
I can tell 90% of the time whether I'm going to like a game without even playing it. If I'm truly unsure then I'll try a demo and if it there isn't one I'll watch as many gameplay trailers as I can find and use reviews as a guideline as to whether I'm getting value for money. In this day and age, with the internet, there are very few good reasons to not even be the slightest bit clued up before buying a game now and even if you don't have the internet there are still magazines to help you out.
As for the mudslinging, it's just harmless banter and it doesn't hurt the industry (if anything it can only help as it will force the developers of both games to raise the bar to prove who's the best), it's also something BOTH SIDES have participated in before the usual EA hating sycophants flood the thread with their pathetic online petitions (you know who you are) and laughably empty boycott threats.
Now CVG, put the mudslinging stories on hold and bring me more stories on Uncharted 3, Gears 3, Skyrim etc.
There is more to gaming than BF3 and MW3.
EA has once again jumped ahead in my mind as the losing publisher around today. I think that their heavy new emphasis on DLC might be changing the face of the games industry as we know it. We might be witnessing the death of the expansion pack. I'm very miffed about their tacking on repetitive DLC packs for their big games like Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age. There are some story arcs that should be followed up on in later games. Dragon Age: Origins: Awakening would have been much better had it been vastly expanded and filled a role like Mass Effect 2. Instead it was a shoddy semi-sequel that felt like a big DLC pack. A larger worlld, premise, and story would have made it a worthy successor to Origins. Also, a new DLC pack was introduced for Mass Effect 2 called "Lair of the Shadow Broker", which ties in events of Mass Effect 2 with the immediate graphic novel prequel. This in my opinion was a bad move, as Liara's feud with the Shadow Broker is a major plot line for the series, and shouldn't be furthered by paying for DLC. Also, with the rumors floating around that Liara will return as a major character in Mass Effect 3, it would have been better for the "Lair of the Shadow Broker" content to be included in the final chapter of the trilogy. In other words, down with DLC! Expansion packs allow for more time and room for growth! I'm abdolutely convinced that EA is behind the push for DLC, and not the individual developers.
I miss seeing competition.
Acclaim games every other week. Capcom trying something other than a vs Street Fighter title. THQ... Well, they're THQ. I think there's some other big names out there. Ubi always seems to manage with a single finger grasp to do something amazing every once and awhile.
Too bad between EA and Activision Nintendo stomps them both.
If stocks mean anything it seems EA is managing pretty good. Wish I had 10k to drop into the market right now on them. I see it going from 21 to 30+ in a hurry after TOR. Then I'd give it 3 to 4 months and see if they can push up from there.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44594756?__source=yahoo|headline|quote|text|&par=yahoo If you look at this year's data Activision has a better return of investment from their titles. They pick big sellers and they put them out often. EA keeps their prices up because they're not afraid of casual gaming markets. A lot of Facebook games are owned by them now, and you can't forget about Pop Cap being EA now.
Still. I'd like to see some competition in the publisher market.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
Yeah, there are great games outside the two correct. However, Mass effect, Battlefield, & Dragon age are also really great games. I buy games based on what I like. Even Madden x can be fun with friends.
We all know that EA isn't very good at making friends among other gaming publishers. It's been a messy year for the publishing giant, spending most of 2011 trying to dismantle Valve and take down Activision in the process.
Well, a messy battle between EA and Activision just got a whole lot messier.
While many of us will be waiting for the Skyrims, the Uncharted 3s and the Assassin's Creeds, the real battle this fall will be between the two major first-person franchises, Call of Duty and Battlefield. Modern Warfare 3 hits stores shelves on November 8, 2011, two weeks after Battlefield 3 on October 25, but the battle is already raging, before either game hits any of the respective companies servers.
After spending the last couple of months defaming Valve's Steam service, EA has turned their attention back to Activision, in a battle that's included insults, lawsuits, defections, and tons of drama during Gamescom, Activision's second-in-command to Bobby Kotick, Eric Hirshberg, claimed that the way EA does business bad for industry.
Well, BF3 will be sell more to PC than CoD when you watch whole sale percents. The fact is that BF3 is made for pc and CoD not. After CoD4, Activion get "brainfart" to make games, easyli approach to all players and pc-gamers suffer that.
)
CoD series is now days Activisions milking machine from console gamers and in my opinion, keep it that way. Activision can focus make money with crap game, pc-gamers will play game which is made for them.
So, lets hope that BF3 will become next big game for pc
EA was the market leader in third party publishers for many many years, because they had no real competition they only released average games as people would buy them regardless. Activision then challenged EA, with Call of Duty to answer to Medal of Honour, EA released Rock band to counter Guitar Hero. Both company's are trying to one up each other, creating new franchises and vastly improving old ones... Can't deny they're both behind some very good games, and EA have at least being trying to be original, if only because they're being overtaken as the biggest publisher in the world by Activision. They're both alright, although I prefer EA and Activision dropping several titles because they couldn't make yearly updates out of them was truly the most twat-worthy thing I have ever heard.
It is mentioned the talent departure from MoH to Infinity Ward, but then fail to take that one step further in their analysis. Infinity Ward no longer has the same talent and Treyarch has only been responsible of warming over the work of IW with its CoD releases. The true talent at IW was forced out after MW2. MoH will most likely have some momentum from the Battlefield series since DICE is doing the multiplayer. FPS gamers are more sophisticated about who is developing the games than the average console gamer. I'd love to see what the dropoff in sales is from say CoD2 to CoD3, MW1 to World @ War. I bet it is not insignficant.
I've looked over both offerings. I know for a fact I enjoy the Battlefield series more than CoD. Deeper, better experience overall...and thats on console. To make matters worse, its nearly as though the IW team REFUSES to acknowledge any of he successes Treyarch makes. Instead of making good strides forward FROM Black Ops, and what it added, we have a three steps back mentality in what, in effect, becomes a MW2 map pack that costs twice as much.
On the flip side, BF keeps adding more. Hell, even if all they did was ensure all maps could utilize all game modes they'd have made more forward motion than CoD. This ignores the fact they could add nothing at all and still possess more content and more balance than CoD games. Killstreaks always bothered me. If a player is capable of getting 11 kills without dying, he probably doesn't need attack dogs to win the game for his team...ALONE. The BF series has strategic points you can take, and weapons or vehicles you can utilize, with any class, to help counter things which are being used to defeat you.
Long story short, I like options. BF has options. You don't HAVE to be the best twitch gamer to play it. You just have to use the options available to level the playing field. CoD is all twitch gaming. Thats good for some. Not for me. Gimme a tank any day.
Call of Duty has got the momentum that Medal of Honor lacks. However, Black Ops has even more pre-orders than Modern Warfare 2 leading to speculation that it will beat the Modern Warfare 2 numbers. This is due to Treyarch studios, the developer of World at War, picking up the torch for a decimated Infinity Ward. Modern Warfare sold at least 12 million units. World at Ward at least 13 million. Modern Warfare 2 over 20 million and still counting. EA's Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has sold around 5 million units. It's a solid well received game, but it does not have the momentum of the Call of Duty series. Medal of Honor will do well, unless it's a bad product, but nothing like a Call of Duty game. I spend way too much time on video games. At least it's cheaper and less time consuming than golf.
To be frank, I think Activision will win this, there's considerable evidence against EA and West and Zampella. You can't demonise a company just because they're suing another, which any company is entitled to do so if they have a sufficient case against the other company. Clearly Activision do, so you can't assume EA is completely innocent as well as everyone non-Activision.
Doing open beta on BF3 today kind of disappointed me on the options bit.
I'm hoping it's suppressed for the sake of beta, but to "level" and reach new weapons and gear you had to level it. You did so by using the items and that added to a whole total. So even if you just sprinted all the time and used assult rifles; your engineer or sniping skills won't be so far behind if you want / need to switch.
The pvp map was also terribly small compared to what I usually think of in terms of Battlefield ya know? I'm sure there will be huge / war 32 v 32 style maps. But that wasn't testable just yet.
I do think they borrowed some features from the Killzone series more than other FPS I've played. That's a good thing, best I can tell from the next big launch of shooters no one else is following in their shoes.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
I've started playing the Beta today, and I'm enjoying it loads!
There's only two maps at the moment, but each one is pretty large.
The maps have been tweaked to be tight enough to keep the fighting intense, though large enough to do some sneaky ninja commando style play.
Both of those companies are really bad ones. They run their business with greedy bastardly way, DLC'ing and monetarizing everything , releasing cookie cutter , easy mode ,streamlined games.
I know from business perspective it makes sense , but I think they ruin game market with their greed ( MW3 and Pepsi anyone? Cash shop into most profitable game ever(WoW)? Rham in D3?) .
I hope both of those companies crash and burn and badly.
Yes Blizzard as well since it is actually Activision now ,and Acti might be even worse than EA , which is really hard to accomplish.