http://gamingtrend.com
August 28, 2014, 03:28:01 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 162
81  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 13, 2014, 05:28:10 PM

Quote from: Caine on August 13, 2014, 05:26:33 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on August 13, 2014, 05:24:58 PM

I still don't see a problem with it. Microsoft saw an opportunity to make money and they took that opportunity. They're a business, and they have a responsibility to their shareholders to make money.

Now if the circumstance upsets me, I agree then I have a right to vote with my wallet. And that's all well and good. But I'm not going to get upset at Microsoft for taking advantage of a way to make money. They don't owe me anything.

I mean, we're not talking about Microsoft taking food away from my kids or polluting the environment. They're making me wait a year to play a particular game I want to play (among dozens of other games). Boo hoo. I'm sure the starving kids in Ethiopia or the Iraq kids getting slaughtered by ISIS are just in tears over my terrible first world predicament.



Godwin would agree with you.  Nothing like a little perspective to destroy an argument's validity.

It's not often we see Godwin's Law in its full splendor at this particular forum, but here it is! Tongue (alright, no nazis invoked, but it's close)
82  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 13, 2014, 05:14:49 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on August 13, 2014, 05:11:19 PM

Quote
You do realize you're a consumer, right? You don't benefit in the slightest from taking the side of the corporations. Microsoft doesn't need your protection. They would laugh at the attempt.

I'm also a capitalist.

Of course, most of us are. But being a capitalist doesn't mean you have to accept letting corporations take things away from you for nothing but their own benefit. You have a PC, an Xbox One, and a PS4. Microsoft paid lots of money to take away 2 out of 3 choices for you. Why is this worth defending? Defending corporations isn't what capitalism is about. Being a true capitalist means you'd "vote with your wallet" (however much I hate that term) when the corporations act against your interests, as they have done here.
83  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 13, 2014, 05:01:03 PM
You do realize you're a consumer, right? You don't benefit in the slightest from taking the side of the corporations. Microsoft doesn't need your protection. They would laugh at the attempt.
84  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 13, 2014, 04:45:43 PM

Quote from: Soulchilde on August 13, 2014, 04:44:09 PM

Quote from: TiLT on August 13, 2014, 04:35:45 PM

Quote from: Soulchilde on August 13, 2014, 04:31:22 PM

Rumor seems to be that Square Enix has no desire to go up against Uncharted next holiday season, so they offered MS a deal.

That doesn't even deserve to be called a rumor. It's nothing but blind speculation by people (NeoGAFers) who have no idea what they're talking about. The idea that Tomb Raider and Uncharted 4 would actually compete against each other merely by being released within the same season makes little sense.

This is my biggest issue with NeoGAF: You've got a small group of people there who are really smart and really know what they're talking about, and then you've got a whole bunch of "me too's" who want to play with the big boys but don't realize that they can't. Both groups end up lumped together in one huge heap, making it really hard for casual observers to tell the difference.

I wasn't getting that from NeoGaf...  smile   I tend to stay away from there cause its hard to find the wheat amongst the chaff

Yeah, but rumors like that tend to begin at NeoGAF, and by the time they've spread enough, nobody knows where they came from. I read the NeoGAF thread where it first started, when it started.
85  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 13, 2014, 04:35:45 PM

Quote from: Soulchilde on August 13, 2014, 04:31:22 PM

Rumor seems to be that Square Enix has no desire to go up against Uncharted next holiday season, so they offered MS a deal.

That doesn't even deserve to be called a rumor. It's nothing but blind speculation by people (NeoGAFers) who have no idea what they're talking about. The idea that Tomb Raider and Uncharted 4 would actually compete against each other merely by being released within the same season makes little sense.

This is my biggest issue with NeoGAF: You've got a small group of people there who are really smart and really know what they're talking about, and then you've got a whole bunch of "me too's" who want to play with the big boys but don't realize that they can't. Both groups end up lumped together in one huge heap, making it really hard for casual observers to tell the difference.
86  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 13, 2014, 03:30:08 PM

Quote from: forgeforsaken on August 13, 2014, 03:21:45 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on August 13, 2014, 03:16:08 PM

Now Sony fans know how MS fans felt about the year long Destiny DLC exclusivity.

Microsoft has been playing the DLC timed exclusive game for years.  CoD map packs are always 3 months exclusive to Xbox.

That doesn't make it okay for Sony to do the same thing now, in my opinion.

But notice how Sony didn't pull the "exclusive DLC" card for their Gamescom conference? Maybe they're learning. Microsoft certainly didn't seem to have learned squat, and had another public statement explode in their face.
87  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 13, 2014, 03:27:31 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on August 13, 2014, 03:16:08 PM

Now Sony fans know how MS fans felt about the year long Destiny DLC exclusivity.

I dislike any kind of bought exclusivity (as in, a company paying to keep a game out of the hands of the people who play on their competitor's console, when that game would have been made with or without that deal anyway), and as such strongly dislike the deal you're talking about. Even so, it's hardly equivalent to the Tomb Raider situation. This isn't something we've seen in recent gaming history (because most people have good enough sense to recognize a rotten deal before making it, I'd like to think). A game series that was multiplatform has its creators bribed by one console manufacturer to keep a sequel on one platform only, at least for a considerable length of time. Destiny, on the other hand, is a new franchise, which actually does make a lot of difference. "Want to get the full experience? Then buy the game for Playstation" has a different ring to it than "want to play the sequel to that hit game from last year that you played on any one of a number of platforms? Then buy an Xbox One."

There really isn't much of anything we can compare this situation to that I can think of. Look at something like Sunset Overdrive being exclusive, a fact that nobody (in their right mind) considers poor form, and you'll see that this has nothing to do with which platform people support either.
88  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 13, 2014, 02:48:43 PM

Quote from: Soulchilde on August 13, 2014, 02:35:07 PM

Quote from: TiLT on August 13, 2014, 02:29:23 PM


It makes more sense now...   Still kinda crappy

It's not "kinda crappy" in my opinion. It's 100% crappy. Nobody benefits, and even Microsoft and Square Enix had this whole thing (which I'm sure at least Microsoft was excited about and thought would be the best part of their conference) backfire. You have to dig deep to find positive press about this exclusivity deal, and it's going to stay negative for a long time to come.
89  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 13, 2014, 02:29:23 PM
Microsoft confirms Rise of the Tomb Raider Xbox exclusivity deal "has a duration".

Won't make them any more popular though.
90  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Why all the hate toward Activision? on: August 13, 2014, 02:22:57 PM

Quote from: Alefroth on August 13, 2014, 04:47:18 AM

Quote from: Eco-Logic on August 12, 2014, 06:29:12 PM

Thanks for all the insight.  All good points made.  I still think the stock is an absolute steal set under $20.  

Should I buy a lot?

In its strive towards predictable, stable growth, I think Activision has made itself the most dangerous stock to buy in the publisher market today. All it takes for that beast to collapse is for one of their major franchises to get pushed aside by a contender. They've got their eggs in too few baskets.
91  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 13, 2014, 07:17:04 AM

Quote from: TiLT on August 12, 2014, 08:12:32 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on August 12, 2014, 08:09:22 PM

I'm not trying to bait anyone, just stating an opinion. But here goes:

P.T. - new developer - we know next to nothing about the title so hard to say whether this is AAA or indie. Assuming indie since it's a new dev.

Alieanation - Housemarque new game - indie developer

Wild - from Wild Sheep, new indie developer (his words, not mine)

Those were the exact same indie titles I could track down too (maybe apart from P.T. They're keeping this one's cards close to their chest). Wikipedia isn't up to date yet.

Turns out Wild and Alienation aren't indie either. They're both published by Sony, and are Playstation exclusive. And as mentioned above, P.T. is actually a teaser for Silent Hill, which is unlikely to be indie.
92  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: The Better Life Index Tool Tells You Which Country Is Best For You on: August 13, 2014, 04:49:12 AM

Quote from: farley2k on August 12, 2014, 07:38:57 PM

Too bad they are so cold!

Classic misconception. We have something between 1 and 3 months of snow per year, and even then it tends to be a mild cold most of the time. Our usual weather is simply wet and mild. We've had a long heat wave this summer, with temperatures that have been higher than in areas such as the Mediterranean.

Scandinavia notices the effects of the climate change easily though. We're having more and more extreme weather. When it's cold, it's really cold. When it's hot, it's really hot. The weather around here isn't at all the same as it was 20 years ago.
93  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 08:56:17 PM

Quote from: Caine on August 12, 2014, 08:53:36 PM

or just admit that it's a glorified PS4 remote controller with the occasional PSN cross-buy release.

I think they did just that recently. The Vita has become more of a companion device to the Playstation family right now, with a focus on making your games portable instead of making portable games, if that makes any sense.
94  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 08:52:01 PM
It appears that I didn't actually finish P.T. There's more to it. I'm going to have to fire this up again tomorrow.

This press conference reminded me that I've forgotten to play Tearaway, so my Vita is officially out of the drawer at the moment.
95  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 08:48:12 PM
Here's some more info about Until Dawn. A promising snippet about the graphics:

Quote
We’re also using an updated version of the Killzone Shadow Fall engine, leveraging its great visual power together with some amazing, cutting-edge facial animation, lighting and audio techniques to give compelling character performances in our creepy and realistic environments.
96  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 08:25:06 PM

Quote from: forgeforsaken on August 12, 2014, 08:21:22 PM

P.T. also seems AAA and seems like it's sort of a viral game and may be related to something else. 

Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing. Search for 7780s Studio on Google. I browsed through several pages of results, and the oldest article I found was from 15 hours ago. These guys came out of nothing. I'm thinking they might be a more well-known studio operating under a pseudonym or something.
97  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 08:18:20 PM

Quote from: ATB on August 12, 2014, 08:17:17 PM

PT is what?

I honestly have no idea. The teaser is a little horror game that'll take you 10 minutes to play through.
98  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 08:15:58 PM
Btw, I played the P.T. demo. It's short but effective. I didn't think it would scare me, but it ended up creeping me out really effectively near the end. The little video we saw was nothing but a teaser to make people try it on the PS4, and that demo itself is just another teaser. It's very hard to say what kind of game they're going to make out of this, or even if it will be at all similar. It sort of feels like a proof of concept.
99  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 08:12:32 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on August 12, 2014, 08:09:22 PM

I'm not trying to bait anyone, just stating an opinion. But here goes:

P.T. - new developer - we know next to nothing about the title so hard to say whether this is AAA or indie. Assuming indie since it's a new dev.

Alieanation - Housemarque new game - indie developer

Wild - from Wild Sheep, new indie developer (his words, not mine)

Those were the exact same indie titles I could track down too (maybe apart from P.T. They're keeping this one's cards close to their chest). Wikipedia isn't up to date yet.

Quote
Tearaway I thought was indie because it looked like one, but it's a Vita remake.

Until Dawn is a major title (missed because it was lumped near P.T. with the live blog I was looking at).

Both of those are published by SCE.

As an aside, Until Dawn looks like it can be really incredible. People are comparing it to Heavy Rain due to the way choices play out in the game. I'm also very fond of the idea of doing horror in the 80s/90s style instead of the more modern horror we're so used to. Not many games have tried that.
100  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 07:55:11 PM
Okay, I'll bite. YK, please name some of the indie titles you saw in Sony's press conference. I'll wait.

Edit: I'll be less of an asshole and save you the trouble. Very few of the games you saw were indie games. It's a bit hard to dig up information on some of them yet, but you should look at who the publishers are.

Regardless, there were plenty of AAA-level games being shown, games we had never heard about before and those who were reintroduced after long periods of silence.

You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that "this holiday season belongs to Microsoft."
101  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 07:51:29 PM
CBOAT of NeoGAF fame came out of the shadows today to say that the new Tomb Raider is only a timed exclusive though, but nobody is allowed to even mention that fact, apparently. Not that this will help stop the negativity in any way.
102  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 07:29:24 PM
I'm seeing the same reaction to the Tomb Raider thing in other places I've been looking too. This is an exclusivity deal that can come back to bite MS and Square Enix in the ass. It pisses off PC and PS4 owners, and doesn't give Xbox One owners anything they wouldn't have gotten anyway. It produces nothing but negativity, and can have hurt the Tomb Raider franchise, which was just rising from the grave, for a long time to come.

It just seems like they didn't quite think this through.
103  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 06:29:33 PM
I was really impressed with the Sony conference. I haven't followed any Gamescom conferences before today, and this went well beyond what I had expected. Tons and tons of games, lots of them completely unknown to me before now. Very few of them were games about shooting things with guns (which has caused a storm of "they only showed indies" comments from people who don't know how to identify neither indies nor AAA games), but offered an incredibly versatile selection of settings and gameplay styles.

They even had a "available right now" moment with the P.T. demo, which I had never heard about before. About to try it right now.

Quote from: Destructor on August 12, 2014, 06:19:50 PM

BTW, the PS4 hit 10 million units BOUGHT BY PEOPLE today (or was announced today anyhow). What is the XB1 at? Who knows, because they still use the outdated (because it looks better) 'sold to retailers'. But I do know it's nowhere near where the PS4 is at.

I think the PS4 is at roughly twice as many units sold to consumers at this point as the Xbox One, at least according to discussions I've seen between people who spend way more time looking up such numbers than I do.
104  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 06:14:10 PM

Quote from: naednek on August 12, 2014, 05:49:04 PM

Ok the Metal Gear Solid, and the card board box has to be the dumbest thing I've seen in video game history.

I was groaning at that video, especially when that swimsuit model showed up. On its own it's not so bad, but combined with some of the earlier controversy for this game, Hideo Kojima is coming off as increasingly misogynistic.

Btw, Wild looked absolutely incredible. That one came out of the blue.
105  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 12, 2014, 02:14:45 PM
Some more information about what Sierra will be doing.

It's hard to say what the exact deals behind the curtains is here, but based on this article and earlier speculation, it appears Sierra will indeed function as a sub-publisher under Activision's umbrella, focusing entirely on publishing games by independent developers (don't confuse this with making indie games, as anyone getting published by Sierra is no longer indie). The first two games that are part of this initiative are Geometry Wars 3 (developed by Lucid Games) and King's Quest (developed by The Odd Gentlemen), with more to follow.

I don't know what kind of responsibilities Sierra will have in this, but based on my arguments from earlier posts in this thread, it's probably not much. Still, it's nice to see Activision publicly supporting smaller games in this way. I hope this turns out well for them, and that this inspires Activision to step further outside of their comfort zone in the future.

This also confirms what I've been saying earlier: Sierra will not develop any games by itself. It's entirely a publishing label.
106  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 01:55:41 PM
This is just a stupid, transparent move from both of their companies. Taking a non-exclusive license and suddenly turning it exclusive won't end well for them, publicity-wise. That statement offering "insight into the decision" can only hurt, because it doesn't offer any insight at all, leaving everyone to reach the only natural conclusion: Money.

It wouldn't have mattered if this was Sony buying the exclusivity either (though it wouldn't have affected me personally). It would still have been an incredibly stupid move. This is going to color all talk about this game for the rest of its existence. They won't be able to have a preview or a press release without all talk degenerating into console wars or the more rational feeling of betrayal for them suddenly taking a generally available franchise and putting it out of the reach of the majority of their fans.
107  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Why all the hate toward Activision? on: August 11, 2014, 08:26:22 PM

Quote from: EngineNo9 on August 11, 2014, 07:32:04 PM

The hate has mostly died down to a mild simmer since they shut up Bobby Kotick.  He had a real penchant for making statements that made him (and Activision) come across like a greedy prick with no respect for gamers as consumers.

Yeah, that's a good point too.
108  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Why all the hate toward Activision? on: August 11, 2014, 05:28:07 PM

Quote from: Eco-Logic on August 11, 2014, 04:31:08 PM

I'm genuinely curious.

I bought a bit of their stock at just over $18 per share and stick by that purchase, but I was unaware of any discontent gamers have toward them.

I get the EA hate etc, and am sure there are valid reasons to dislike ATVI as well, I just want to know what they are!

I bought it because they have more major releases this year than any other year I'm aware of, and the fact that Hearthstone is like crack, and it knew it would be a money press for the the moment  it as released on iPad.  People spent thousands on candy crush for goodness sake...

You're a few years too late. There hasn't been any noteworthy Activision hate since EA became hated. EA pretty much got all the attention, and has kept it since. There used to be a lot of Activision hate before then, but they've become so predictable as to not really upset most people all that much any more. They got their most attention when it first became obvious that their entire business strategy relied on running popular licenses into the ground by pushing just enough buttons to not upset their fans too much, but not enough buttons to reach any form of excellence. The fear of licenses like Guitar Hero and Call of Duty being ruined by Activision's greed and over-saturation scared people to the point where it became hatred.

We're used to it now though. Activision never really surprises us. It's always the same thing, which doesn't really spark enough anger to mean much. EA, on the other hand, keeps coming up with new ways to inspire hatred, and there seems to be no end to what they'll do in that regard.
109  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: What are you buying this week? (08/11) on: August 11, 2014, 06:26:16 AM
I'm keeping an eye on Risen 3, but I'm highly skeptical.
110  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 09, 2014, 09:11:32 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 09, 2014, 09:09:19 PM

What kills me is that what's in the quoted post here is what I've been trying to say (ineffectively, apparently) all along, more or less.

Yeah, you were the one who clued me in on it to begin with. See my third post in the thread, where I start to see what's going on, only substituting Telltale for whoever is working on the license now. My initial confusion was over whether or not Sierra represented an actual development studio (it doesn't), and my later argumentation stands in its entirety.
111  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 09, 2014, 08:56:07 PM

Quote from: Destructor on August 09, 2014, 08:34:14 PM

and why there's no hope whatsoever for anything good out of what we're discussing.

Oh, I wouldn't quite say that. After all, it looks like this is going to open the doors for new games in beloved Sierra series of old. I'm only arguing that we won't be seeing Sierra as a developer, so this will only last as long as other, smaller developers are willing to pay the licensing fees and take all the risks involved, while giving Activision, under the guise of Sierra, a bunch of credit. At least one company seems to be doing so already, while Telltale apparently let their own license expire last year, for reasons unknown. I suspect it was too expensive compared to the other licenses they had available to them at the time.

This is actually better than my impression was at the beginning of the thread, where I thought Sierra was somehow going to be some kind of development house. It's good news for gamers, just not in the way a lot of people seem to think.
112  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 09, 2014, 06:33:19 PM
Geoff Keighley is reporting that credible reports claim The Odd Gentlemen is working on a new King's Quest. I guess that's good, all things considered.

Now, let's talk numbers for a little bit to add some weight to my earlier comments in this thread, just in case anyone thinks I'm just making these things up. As far as I'm aware, Broken Age is the most hyped and high-profile point and click adventure game we've had for quite some time (someone correct me if I'm wrong). One unique thing about that game is that we actually have some sales numbers to go on, as Double Fine talked about them in one of their documentaries. Apparently, Broken Age sold roughly 70,000 copies in a little over two months after release. Surprised? Shocked? I certainly was. Before seeing that documentary, I had no idea about the bad shape of the adventure game genre. I thought it was merely abandoned, but it turns out that it's actually dead in all kinds of ways, except for the smallest of companies that can survive with numbers at that level or below. Also keep in mind that Broken Age costs only $25, half (or less) of a full-priced game, and still sold so little.

Then we have Gone Home, an unusual kind of adventure game that received a lot of acclaim and awards, and quite a bit of media attention for an indie game. They sold roughly 50,000 copies in the first month, and have reached a little more than 250,000 total sales since then. A bigger number than Broken Age to be sure, but still incredibly low compared to most other genres, especially when we're talking about a real reviewer favorite (it has a Metascore of 86 at the moment).

Activision's games routinely sell 10+ million copies at full price, and often far, far more than that. These games are rarely parts of sales, and when they are, we're usually talking 10-25% off the regular price (which doesn't change for years after release, unlike other publishers that lower the regular price after a while), or 50% for older games in a series just before a new game is coming out, in order to hype the new one. Their games are almost never for sale at lower prices than that, unless they are really old.

Let's say Activision decided to spend money resurrecting Sierra as a sub-publisher that handles games that aren't AAA. That's the rose-red glasses ideal concept we're looking at right now, as I don't think anyone among us expects them to suddenly create AAA adventure games. Establishing Sierra as a smaller publisher owned by Activision lets them establish a clear separation between the two, which makes everything more predictable and easy to understand for both the press and the stockholders, who have been promised a stable company with risk-free investments and steady growth. With this scenario in mind, the question becomes: Why on earth would Activision do something like this? Even if they made a real hit adventure game, they'd be lucky to get anywhere close to a million sales, and they probably wouldn't be able to charge full price. They would have either have to shift people from the more rewarding AAA development to work on these smaller titles (which would end up as a net loss in their results, most likely), or hire new people or new development studios to work on such titles, which would cost quite a bit of up-front money and require management to expand and cover more projects at the same time, which adds risk and reduces profitability. I'm no expert on business (the only company I've run went bankrupt after 3 years), but I don't see how anyone within Activision would ever be able to convince the stockholders or Kotick himself that this is worth using money on. Remember that Kotick isn't a gamer and doesn't believe in this kind of sentimentality in the first place.

What's more likely, and which is pretty much what I mentioned earlier in this thread, is that another company is licensing old Sierra titles. This costs Activision very little but gives them a small flow of side income at little to no risk. They establish Sierra as a brand and assign a couple of people within Activision to administrate these properties and keep control over the licenses and the studios working on them. It adds a little cost, but the risk is still so low as to be no real danger to any budgets or results.

I still don't see why Activision would bother with this as even the second scenario will give them too little actual income to matter, but I guess it could be for publicity reasons and to strengthen / keep alive old brands, for reasons pointed out earlier. We can at least rule out the possibility of Activision itself handling development or creating internal projects under this brand name.

So let me be more specific about my "wet blanket": What you should not expect is a rebuilt Sierra producing new games in beloved game series. What you should expect is other companies licensing properties that used to belong to Sierra (and now belong to Activision), publishing them under the Sierra name.

But under no circumstance should you expect Sierra to develop games. It won't happen.

My 2 cents, anyway. I hope nobody thinks I'm posting this because I want to be a downer. I post this because I take a huge interest in this topic and love discussing it, and I like dissecting industry moves to understand what's going on behind the scenes. I get annoyed when these industry moves are designed in such a way as to trick consumers into thinking one thing while something else is happening, and try to do my part to inform of what I think is going on, with facts that I can back up. I'm not dictating what people should think. I'm informing. Make up your own minds, but don't tell me to shut up.
113  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 09, 2014, 03:10:47 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 09, 2014, 02:36:46 PM

Why not be positive about it?

I've made it pretty clear why I don't think there's anything to be positive about. I can't stop you from being enthusiastic, but that's your choice. Believing that this is going to amount to anything means you think Activision behaves like other companies.

Activision doesn't. Take. Risks.

It's as simple as that.
114  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 09:49:25 PM

Quote from: kronovan on August 08, 2014, 09:11:04 PM

Meh, it's ultimately Kold-tick and his company behind this. He'll manage somehow to suck the spirit out of anything potentially good from a Sierra brand resurrection. This will probably amount to our beloved heroes from those Sierra games being featured in some bland shooter. Oh, and you'll no doubt have to pay extra for everyone of those heroes, as they'll likely be DLC.  icon_twisted

You're confusing Activision with EA. Tongue
115  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 08:39:43 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 08, 2014, 08:08:52 PM

We don't know for sure that this is connected to Telltale, though, so keep that in mind.

Whatever it is, forgive me for getting (cautiously) excited about it and trying to share that.  But if it's important to toss a big, old soggy blanket over any hope of someone doing something decent with these titles, then keep at it, TiLT.  I hate Kotick and what Activision represents as much as the next guy, but I don't let that override talking about what should or even might be done with these classic franchises, so I guess I don't see how being a wet blanket is important.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't hate either Kotick or Activision, but I do know how they run their business, and I've read a long interview with the man himself about his career and his visions. A revival of adventure games through Sierra doesn't align at all with the company and image he has built up, and it's not the kind of thing he personally believes in, nor would he get much support from the company shareholders if he experimented with it.

These companies treasure their old trademarks, for they know that the time may one day be right to earn themselves quick goodwill by bringing them back. Nobody should allow themselves to believe that a revived trademark equals a revived company, however. How many times has that happened in the history of videogames? When did ever any big company pull an old brand name out of their archives (apart from game names themselves, that is) and actually revive what players remember about that brand? I don't know about you guys, but I'm drawing a blank here.

This isn't a wet blanket thrown onto enthusiasm. I'm trying to prevent the enthusiasm from ever happening, because I hate to see good people let themselves get carried away over things that clearly don't mean what they let themselves imagine in their minds. I'm wetting the grass to stop it from burning in the first place, because enthusiasm for this kind of thing will only end in disappointment, especially when it comes to the most risk-averse publisher in the business right now. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but it's better for it to happen now than to let you build up impossible expectations over time, for that would only be worse.

Edit to add: I'd love to be wrong about all this, I really would. Few things would be better than seeing Activision suddenly invest good money into a revival of Sierra's classics, not least because it would signal a change in how Activision does its business, to the betterment of the industry itself. I don't see that as anywhere near remotely realistic, however.
116  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 06:31:23 PM

Quote from: Rumpy on August 08, 2014, 06:08:34 PM

I thought Telltale decided to shelve King's Quest. Now I'm confused.

Bullwinkle's link above covers this:

Quote
Going over old reports, apparently when Telltale first announced that they just obtained the licensing to make Sierra games from Activision (which they announced at a press event in San Franscisco on Feb 17, 2011), their license included several of the games of Sierra's back catalogue. King's Quest is apparently is just the first game series they planned to work on.

Quote
Telltale has entered into an agreement with Activision, current owner of the rights to the classic Sierra On-Line adventure franchises, to create new episodic games based on these series. The first will be King’s Quest.

Seeing as it was only an initial anouncement made at the press event, they never gave a major press release on their website. They only made a single reference iin a blog post (on Feb 18, 2011) to how King's Quest was going to be one of the next IPs they were going to work on after they finished Walking Dead and Fables. No press releases nor websites were made for King's Quest or the Sierra license in general.

Since many of the games they announced got pushed back from their initial release dates, and this has affected their entire release schedule. This has probably affected any development on King's Quest as well.

In anycase I think its interesting that they apparently have the license to make other Sierra game franchise games. Perhaps this would if they continued to include, new games within the Police Quest, Space Quest, Gabriel Knight, Quest For Glory games, etc. If Adventure Gamer's account of that press event is accurate.

Obviously it would have never included Larry, as that was already sold to Codemasters. But the series I listed above are the major series that Activision has rereleased through GoG so far.

But it seems that the announcment at the event was apparently more of a general reference to them obtaining the Sierra family license.
117  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 05:30:38 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on August 08, 2014, 04:45:16 PM

As for the Activision skepticism, I'll throw out a $1 bet that they're thirsty for the adventure game money they're seeing come through Kickstarter and they do some kind of crowdfunding approach for old Sierra games.

You'd lose that $1. As I've mentioned above, Activision doesn't care about these small sums. They're just not worth the bother to them. Even the biggest Kickstarter campaigns (MAYBE with the exception of Star Citizen, which is far from an adventure game) are nothing but small change to this company. Someone like Ubisoft or even EA (maybe) might consider doing such things, as they like to spread out a bit. Activision doesn't. That's not the type of company Kotick has been building. He wants the big fish, and nothing but the big fish.
118  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 04:31:36 PM
But that's just Telltale licensing Sierra games. We've had Telltale for years. That's not the return of Sierra, that's the strengthening of Telltale, a completely different beast altogether.
119  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 03:57:23 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 08, 2014, 03:29:07 PM

It wouldn't surprise me to find that Activision made it a requirement that their branding be more forward than Telltale's.

You know, this whole thing confused me (see my "I'm surprised they're even bothering" comment above), but I think I'm starting to see what's going on now. Here's what I think happened:

Telltale approached Activision on their own initiative and asked for a license to create a King's Quest game. Activision shrugged and said, "sure, I guess that'll help keep our trademarks alive, but it'll cost you, and we won't pay you a dime for your effort". In an effort to have the collaboration bring Activision something meaningful beyond the pocket money it might provide them, they decided to resurrect the Sierra brand and put that front and center in the Telltale effort, hoping that it might regain some of its former value to the consumers. Activision has very few licenses worth a damn, so this might be their way of trying to strengthen one of the few they have left without having to spend any real money having to do so.

This is the only explanation that makes any sense to me right now.
120  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 03:46:47 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 08, 2014, 03:29:07 PM

While I agree that we should be careful, because it's Activision, it's a little too dismissive and cynical to just say it means nothing.  

Clearly some effort has been put together (and money spent) on doing something with the name.

Because it's Activision, we have every reason to say it means nothing. We have examples to point to, among other things. Here's a good one: Star Control. It's been 18 years since the last game in that series came out. A few years back, without warning, a Star Control flash game suddenly appeared online, clearly made in just a few days (if that) and with almost no resemblance to the original games apart from borrowing the most basic parts of the combat system. They did this to keep the trademark alive, not because they cared about it or wanted to earn money with it. It was strictly for legal reasons.

There's also this: Have a look at the games Activition has published over the last few years. Take their big franchises (Call of Duty, Skylanders, anything by Blizzard, Destiny) and put them in one imaginary pile. Take the rest of their games and put in another pile. Now look closely at the second pile. It contains nothing but quick cash-grabs and throwaway projects that barely received enough funding to reach market. There's only one exception (Transformers: Fall of Cybertron), and I think that has more to do with sheer grit and perseverance in the development studio than any real effort or interest from Activision. The company has grown notorious for pushing anything but their core games to the market with no regard for its quality (and even with the core games they often don't give a shit. Just look at Call of Duty for Vita, one of the crappiest big-profile games we've seen on any platform in the last decade) because they don't feel it's worth their time.

Make no mistake, a collaboration with Telltale is insignificant in Bobby Kotick's eyes. He'll put one little lump of money into that project, enough to be meaningful to Telltale, but not enough to disturb Activision's core projects or present anything that could be considered an actual risk to their investors. Even if the results of their collaboration are very successful, they will barely register as a blip on Activision's radar. They have nothing to lose and pretty much nothing to gain here. I'm surprised they're even bothering. If it's not an AAA blockbuster, Activision historically doesn't give a shit whether the game succeeds or fails.

This is not the Sierra you're looking for. It's doomed, as was the real one once Activision got its claws on it. Being an optimist about this development is merely setting yourself up for disappointment.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 162
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.175 seconds with 20 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.068s, 1q)