You get the whole wrong idea. What I'm trying to say is that if you think the game is good, whether it's Kotick or Gabe, just buy and play. If you hate a game just because the CEO is bad, isn't that sounds so stupid?

that's BS. if you don't know the negative influences of kotick in PC gaming industry, you are not a true gamer.
how you know the game is good before buy and play? by being a true fanboy?
that's not true gamer, that's idiot gamer.

This post has been edited by SpikeTwo: Jan 27 2011, 02:36 PM

So do you care to share what kind of negative influences that kotick had brought upon us on PC Gaming that really impact on us?

I dislike kotick as much as the next guy but being a true gamer is about experiencing a game with an open mind and not about letting other external influences effect your enjoyment of the game.

Hell, I would play a game developed by satan if it was good.

Not this shit again.

Game = Good = Play it.
Game = Bad = Avoid.

You guys are giving Kotick way more credit than he is due.

Thinking the game is good, won't make it a good game if it's a fundamentally crap game. If I'm playing games, I expect to see innovations, nit the same shit I played a few years ago with new coating.

A CEO has a lot of influence in games because they control the creative freedom, funding and development time. Look at EA at early 2000, before Richetello took over and compare it to their present games, after Richetello took over EA. I find the current EA games like Hot Pursuit 2010, Mass Effect or Bad Company 2 are far more better than say Carbon, C&C 3 or BF2142. It is because EA isn't that concern of just making multibillion dollars out of each game. At the same time strive to innovate the game. The more recent EA games are not just rehash of old games. They are new game with fresh new features, which I think why games like Mass Effect 2 has gained so many fans. Even though it's a brand new series.

Same goes with THQ on 2007 to 2008, where they were greedy like present Activision. The games released then was horrible like Soulstorm and Tales of Valour, compared to Dark Crusade.

Lastly, look at current recent Activision games like Black Ops, Starcraft 2 and Guitar Hero. Are they a proper sequel with fresh new ideas or they just add some half baked features because Kotick want a billion dollar sequel? IMO, Kotick just want to drive the successful franchise to the ground while making billions of dollars. I rather play Rock Band or Battlefield than another CoD or Guitar Hero, because I know Harmonix and DICE will improve their games from previous releases while Activision would just rerelease the same thing every year with barely anything new.

Also, consider studios like Bizzaere Studio of Forza,Blur and Blood Stone. Activision is shutting them down because they are not profitable. Same goes with other studios that Actvision used to have like Red Octane. Didn't that convince you that all they care is money? If you failed to make millions, Activision will shut you down. Have you seen Danger Close lay off employees because MoH is a failure? Or Relic did quite badly with ToV.

Lastly, how about the amount of lawyer's letters that is being sent by Activision? Even a non profit Starcraft mod need a C&D from them, to the point they sued ex IW employees. Im not saying EA is innocent in the IW scandal but sueing everyone who don't agree with you, isn't really a nice way to run a business.

---

Added on January 27, 2011, 5:33 pmSeriously, I'm not comfortable of buying games from a company that find million of way to rip you off, rather than making games with fresh new experience. 15Usd map packs? Ring a bell on that one, or you are buying those overpriced map packs willingly too?

I'm really not a fan of how Activision Is run by Kotick now.

This post has been edited by Cheesenium: Jan 27 2011, 05:33 PM

hey, i love satan. external influence? his decision directly reflects on the price of the game. look at SC2.
maybe for the rich out there RM250 for a game is nothing. and another 200 for each expansion packs. i can predict the direction where D3 leads to.
if it becomes a trend, who is the loser here? us. the legit gamers. who worked hard for the cold hard cash.
if daddy buys the game, then it means the so called "true gamer" can just experience the game without taking the costs into consideration, and without feeling ashamed too.

technical wise, iwnet does takes away the pure and simple dedicated server function in FPS world.
the impact might not be as major in battlenet2.0 for D3. but it is regarding the CEO influences in the outcome of a game.
D3 character name change might even cost you 10 dollars.
or maybe stat reset for 15USD. just for jokes, but could be true.

btw, I never said i would "hate" the game, which havent released, yet.
I am just unsure that i would be as loyal to blizzard as before.

SC2 pricing was so totally IAH trying to make a fast buck off us gamers, nothing to do with kotick, but yes i agree that that was pure profiteering.

I'm not rich but i can afford to buy pretty much any game that comes out but I am still careful with my game purchases, basically by reading reviews and making sure it's something that i might like to play. I don't play FPS games because they're not my cup of tea so i personally wouldn't be able to distinguish between BBFC and COD and i don't care. My decision on choosing rock band over guitar hero is basically personal preference, their humungous collection of DLC and the type of gameplay that i approve of - nothing to do with kotick whatsoever.

Anyway since we're in the diablo thread, I will probably vote with my wallet and get it because i enjoyed playing torchlight and titan quest last year and have been looking for a good action RPG for a while now. They do already charge for name changes, faction changes, server changes on world of warcraft but that is hardly the fault of kotick, it's more like the way the industry is moving towards micro transactions. Paying for sc2 part 2 is hardly an issue, they did the same with brood war more than 10 years ago, wc3 and expansion, it's hardly a new concept. So i'll probably get it because it will probably be highly polished. Sure it's still going to be the same old click click loot rpg, nothing new but blizzard is known for taking game concepts and really polishing them and i don't believe that they're going to change that philosophy just because kotick is the activision boss.

dont get me wrong. i have no qualm ppl getting the game, heck i would even get it when it comes out! i want to play the monk character and i like the idea they ditched the old stat system. hopefully the game is not as expensive.

i just voiced out my feelings towards the pc gaming industry. it means business, but it hurts to see the game you like getting tainted. especially games like Diablo series. lol... the game that would hurt my mouse very badly.

I wouldn't worry about the pc gaming industry.. it really is pushing innovation these days thanks to the number of top quality indie releases (and to an extent xbl arcade). It's not like we're not spoilt for choice these days. Why not play magicka while waiting for diablo III? Sounds like it has interesting gameplay style for an action rpg..

For every game that's created just for greed and profit, theres a humble indie charity bundle. For every kotick there's a <insert name of awesome indie developer here>

So to say that you would run a company with losses? It really explains a lot about how you bring over the "Money", "CEO" and "Games". I'm thinking about a kuli now so would you come over and help me? I pay you RM1 per day.

Joke aside - Just to clear it out that COD was never really a sequel. It's just a franchise games, just like how "DragonQuest" is, or Final-Fantasy series.

Yea, it's true that no one would run a company that make losses, but considering how Activision forcing Bizarre to make rubbish games like Blood Stone which is bound to be not profitable in the first. Blur is good, but the amount of marketing is pathetic, to the point of a lesser game like Split Second manage to beat Blur in sales. Maybe Blur isnt a big franchise like CoD, but Activision shouldnt just leave it there to rot without adequate marketing. Then, force them to make garbage games, then fire them because Activision thinks that they are useless. I doubt Bizarre is incompetent because they made PGR games on 360, instead, it's bad management from Activision. Bizzarre is just one example, as there are tonnes of other studios that had went through the same crap before.

I dont care CoD is a series or sequel, the thing is, the whole "thing" is just so damn stale these days. Every new game is just an old game with new skin.

I can see you dont mind with overpriced map packs or textures. Maybe you are rich, or you just dont care at all. It's up to you whether you want to buy from this blood sucking company that produce garbage game every year without fail. I wont, as im getting sick of spending over RM200 for a game that im gonna play it for less than 60 hours because it's the exact same thing i have played years before.

Except Diablo 3, because Jay Wilson is leading the team. He made Dawn of War 1 with low budget, and outdated tech. Then, made a revolutionary RTS, Company of Heroes after that, which still make SC2 looks like crap. Im confident that he can make a fantastic sequel to Diablo 2.

not sure if anyone posted this.. pvp.

OMG...have to wait one more year..

i doubt so...at least early next year i think..

dont worry, its expected.
gotta still hold onto blizzard's favourite quote - "When it's ready"
and you wont be disappointed when game/expansion gets delayed

lol im getting older... fast release it...

Diablo 3 Horadrapp for iPhone