• BlueScorpion91 - July 5, 2012 3:52 a.m.

    They was closed for a reason. Like Thedigitalg says, Activision are in this business to make money, not friends. Yes it's sad when people lose there jobs, but if the games aren't making enough money then they can't be that good. You've got to think that if these games take 12/18 month to make, but only make a small profit, then it isn't a viable biusness plan, as the next games that these companies make might not even make it to that.
  • CombatWombat101 - July 5, 2012 6:05 a.m.

    "if the games aren't making enough money then they can't be that good." You embody a large part of what's wrong with gaming nowadays.
  • BlueScorpion91 - July 5, 2012 6:57 a.m.

    Well it's not my problem if you can't handle honesty.
  • CombatWombat101 - July 5, 2012 8:15 a.m.

    It's got nothing to do with not handling honesty. You're just flat-out wrong. The reason why some games that are great don't sell is because it's not just developers that are scared of taking chances; gamers are just as guilty. We lap up the latest CoD because we know what it will offer: a mindless rollercoaster of explosions, shooting, and - in the case of the multiplayer - homophobic twelve-year-olds screaming at us. People see something like Okami and don't want to risk paying money for something that might not be so great, ignoring all the excellent reviews in the process. Whether it's because it's from a lesser-known developer, or the cel-shaded graphics, or what have you, something just turns them off, and they turn back to blessed explosive familiarity. To summarize: making money =/= good, not making money =/= bad. Oh, and Okami, that game which is *obviously terrible* because it didn't sell so well? Currently sitting at a 93 Metacritic rating. Hell, even the User Reviews put it at a 9.3, and users are usually morons.
  • ParagonT - July 8, 2012 8:07 p.m.

    "Yes it's sad when people lose there jobs, but if the games aren't making enough money then they can't be that good." I would agree with that people lose their jobs and its a pity but that is if the publisher/mother company was not the ones that wanted the damn thing published in the first place, which most times, they are the ones that do. Also, just because businesses works their ways on the back of monetary gain, does not mean that the consumer crowd should just accept that and go with the flow. We are the only thing that keeps these guys in check since there is very little policing of this industry. Companies do shady things, its true, but sometimes its our principles that keeps this world from flying off the rails.
  • Thedigitalg - July 5, 2012 3:33 a.m.

    Although, I can accept that some of the losses are a little odd. Did Prototype not sell well? I don't know, and google is too many keystrokes away.
  • Draconilla - July 5, 2012 2:50 a.m.

    Success > CoD = finding a broad commercial audience of course. Seriously sad, I liked Radical, and even worse that CoD underground game sounded like it could have been great! (Insert obligatory activision hate sentence) and rename themselves "WoW and CoD!"
  • john-a-tron3000 - July 5, 2012 2:45 a.m.

    Proof that Activision needs to be taken back and the managers kicked out to work in fast food! We have endured this atrocity for too long gamers!! We must march to the gates of Activision with flags, forks, and torches to kill the beast before more casualties happen! I feel blizzard are next on this list
  • Thedigitalg - July 5, 2012 3:31 a.m.

    Why would they get rid of Blizzard? Ever? With WoW, Starcraft and the fastest selling PC game of all time, Diablo, it would be incredibly moronic to shut down Blizzard. People seem to be forgetting that Activision is a company with a sole aim of making money. Not all game companies are mystical altruists who's only goal is spreading love and joy across the world...
  • Draconilla - July 5, 2012 3:46 a.m.

    Except Nintendo, they are just that, but with the occasional investor uprising to sate and occasional trip up.
  • Thedigitalg - July 5, 2012 3:53 a.m.

    I did say 'Not all...', and I agree! I get the impression that head staff at Nintendo are genuinly concerned with how much enjoyment people get from their products. Miyamoto in particular always looks incredibly happy.
  • Draconilla - July 5, 2012 4:15 a.m.

    Lol yeah I should have rephrased that, "Nintendo I would say is one of the top exceptions" sounds better lol. Miyamoto, Reggie, even Iwata always seem to care more about having fun, in other words they know what gaming is all about
  • BlueScorpion91 - July 5, 2012 5:02 a.m.

    The having fun part is for the consumer to do. The people who developer has fun making the game and getting it released, but is under constant stress, while the publisher has only eyes for money. And people need to rememeber that there is no difference between Activision and Take2, EA, Ubisoft, Konami, Capcom, SEGA, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Namco-Bandai, I could go on all day.
  • Hobogonigal - July 5, 2012 5:34 a.m.

    How many studios have Nintendo closed in the same time that Activision has in this article. Same with Sony for that matter. I wouldn't really consider them the same.
  • BlueScorpion91 - July 5, 2012 6:41 a.m.

    They are the same. And the main reason platform holders don't close down studios is the fact that if they did, they be shutting a dev that could make more first-party games, and the more games a console has then the more people will buy that console. If Sony didn't make consoles anymore, you would hear of them closing or "merging" a lot of studios, same goes for Nintendo and Microsoft.
  • taokaka - July 5, 2012 6:51 a.m.

    What about zipper and bigbig studios, they were closed this year by sony.
  • Mooshon - July 5, 2012 5:11 a.m.

    Nintendo do indeed have a beautiful, altruistic outlook on things. However, their sole intention is in reality simply to create the next gaming cash cow to fleece the masses. Ongoing milking of loyal fans with first party IP's, expensive proprietary game formats to retain huge royalties, continual targeting of casual audience over core fans... Only difference from Activision is Nintendo just smile sweetly before bending you over ;)
  • BlueScorpion91 - July 5, 2012 5:17 a.m.

    This man is both wise and good at SFxT. Lol.
  • Draconilla - July 5, 2012 5:53 a.m.

    Funny I just beat sfxt arcade on very hard. (Internets out using my phone) Nintendo's only real cash grabbing is their consoles, their first party games launch at lower prices than others, they don't stick you with DLC, they at least continue to support their new peripherals (I honestly have not heard of a single new ps move game besides sorcery, whereas I think all first party Nintendo peripherals have had a new entry coming or in the past year, correct me if I'm wrong) and I'm totally sick of people saying Nintendo just whores out their big franchises, lets see Mario, in the past 5 years we have had.. A new third person platformer that revolutionizes the 3d platformer (a bit of an overstatement, but planet hopping is a big deal) a sequel to that (ONE SEQUEL mind you) a new 3d mario that tries to combine 2d and 3d entries, one that adds 4 player co-op, and two on the way both with new social features for the series, that is, total 6 in 5 years, that is a lot for Nintendo, but each entry features something new, and its split over two totally different consoles. Zelda, one game, two if you count TP, and Ss had a totally new control scheme. Pokemon, 2 generations, I personally believe pokemon is whored out sometimes. Metroid, 2 games, prime 3 and other M. Both play totally different. Kirby, two games, again they play totally different outside of being 2d platformers. Lets see activision. Let's just do CoD because thats easiest. Mw, revolutionized online multiplayer WaW, refined that, era change Mw2 super refinements to perks and killstreaks Black Ops basically Mw2 laggy assault rifle edition Mw3, big refinements to killstreaks, not much else. CoD evolves too, but not very much, all the descriptions of the CoD games are relative to each other.
  • CombatWombat101 - July 5, 2012 6:34 a.m.

    "their first party games launch at lower prices than others" Strange, working at an EB Games at the time of TP's launch, I can specifically remember it retailing for $10 more than third-party Wii games. But I'm sure you know more than I do. *snicker* "they at least continue to support their new peripherals" Which peripherals do you even mean? The circle pad pro? No shit they're going to support it, it gives the 3DS a better control scheme for certain game types. The Wii Zapper? I remember a crappy game that came bundled with that. Obviously the Zapper is an optional peripheral, but if we're taking that route then the PS Move has a much higher number of supported games than you might think (not that I'm supporting the PS Move, I'm just using it as an example to break down your flawed - and in all probability biased - argument). What else do we have? The Wii Motion Plus? Again, no shit: it made the Wii's motion controls what they should have been from the start. They don't earn points for "supporting their peripherals" when the peripheral in question is just an improvement to the existing control scheme. Also, 6 Mario games in 5 years is actually more games than CoD has put out in the same time-frame. The fact that one involves planet hopping doesn't make it a revolution, nor does it mean we don't have to include it in the list. Not to seem like I'm saying CoD isn't beaten into the ground, because it obviously is. Activision is milking that franchise HARD. But to say that and then come out and admit that Nintendo has put out even *more* Mario games but try and make it okay by claiming that "planet hopping is srsly a big deal you guys" just reeks of fanboyism. Oh and for the record: having a new control scheme isn't that big of a deal. Nobody but you is looking at the Zelda games released and saying "Well, they've released two Zeldas, but one has the buttons mapped a different way, so it's like a completely different game now."
  • Sinosaur - July 5, 2012 8:49 a.m.

    Actually, Activision has put out at least 8 Call of Duty games in the last 5 years. If portable Mario games count, then so do portable CoD games, of which there have been three in the last 5 years.
  • PhantasyPopStar - July 5, 2012 4:08 a.m.

    yes! ...or we could post pointless comments like this and continue eating our cheeseburger, then in a few months buy black ops 2 and play it to death! secretly of course because you've gotta hate on a company pretty much everyone here, INCLUDING THE GR EDITORS will continue to support regardless.

Showing 61-80 of 80 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.