×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Activision Blizzard Announces Guitar Hero 5, New Call of Duty

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the axes-and-guns dept.

Games 85

MTV's Multiplayer Blog reports on recent announcements from Activision Blizzard which confirm that sequels to several popular franchises are on the way. The games include a new Guitar Hero, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, and a new Tony Hawk, which will use some kind of non-standard controller. "At the meeting, Activision Blizzard showcased new games that would make sense for in-game ads, including the vaguely titled "Guitar Hero 5," which included a screen shot of gameplay with a Burger King ad to the right of the note highway."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

85 comments

I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (1)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#26018565)

I realise they've merged but isn't it diluting the brand by associating stuff that is largely, out of their hands? Still, I guess the lure of cashing in on Blizzard's good name was too much.

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26018585)

I fucking hate guitar hero. Who the fuck likes mashing buttons on some plastics shit guitar for fun? Might as well learn the real guitar. Dumbasses.

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (4, Funny)

sunami (751539) | more than 5 years ago | (#26018593)

I fucking hate slashdot. Who the fuck likes mashing buttons on some plastics shit keyboard for fun? Might as well learn the real world. Dumbasses.

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (5, Funny)

Gunslinger47 (654093) | more than 5 years ago | (#26018643)

Would you mock someone for playing Tomb Raider in lieu of earning a doctorate in archeology and physically raiding lost tombs themselves?

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26018699)

A better analogy would be mocking someone for playing Tomb Raider instead of going out to a strip club and staring at the stripper's ass.

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (1)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#26018803)

No, but it's difficult to be excited in the pants earning a doctorate in archeology. (Unless, you're a necrosexual).

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26026481)

You obviously underestimate the thrill of excavating the trenches of impressionable undergraduates.

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26019099)

I fucking hate guitar hero. Who the fuck likes mashing buttons on some plastics shit guitar for fun? Might as well learn the real guitar. Dumbasses.

Pussy.

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (1)

Daravon (848487) | more than 5 years ago | (#26032717)

I fucking hate playing guitar. Who the fuck likes strumming strings on some wooden shit guitar for fun? Might as well play guitar hero. Dumbasses.

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (1)

yyr (1289270) | more than 5 years ago | (#26032997)

Yeah, it's so bizarre and really not too many people are interested... it's probably only about 10 million people, as far as I can tell. Certainly not enough to make any money for the publisher, right?

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (1)

sunami (751539) | more than 5 years ago | (#26018587)

That's the first thing I noticed from this headline, while Blizzard is in the name and mentioned several times in the story, they have nothing to do with the development of the mentioned games...

Curiously, the lineup included absolutely no Blizzard Entertainment games.

I hope Blizzard will be able to keep themselves above all the stuff they have no control over, as their name along with Valve are the only two games studios that I feel deserve all the praise in the world. If Blizzard becomes synonymous with a chain-shitty-sequel-churner I'll be annoyed to sad.

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (1)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 5 years ago | (#26018879)

I held Blizz up as the best of game development until WOW. There is so much frustrating and annoying about that game, and they just don't give a shit, and they're too scared to do anything major lest it upset the customer base too much. Their huge success is also their biggest failing.

Then they said "Starcraft 2 will see 3 different games, but we're not milking you, honest!" Like they won't include multiplayer content exclusive to each one to leverage the additional releases. Anyone who thinks Blizz are doing gamers a favour by giving us a "trilogy" and won't make it damn near mandatory to buy all 3 is deluding themselves.

As for the advertising... If it saw a discount in the cost, then fine (within limits), but it doesn't. The games will still cost the same. In other words, we're being fleeced. And before someone comes back with TV, ads are in a very rigid place on TV and you can easily avoid them if you so desire. In video games they are becoming so entangled with the core of the games that it's impossible to avoid them. Which is of course EXACTLY what advertisers want. To force you to stare at their stupid commercials now missing them on TV is so easy, and the software industry will just count their ill gotten gains without passing ANY of the financial benefits onto the customer.

As far as I'm concerned, having advertising rammed down your throats in a game that retails for $60 is adequate grounds for piracy. After all they're still going to make money off of you.

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (4, Insightful)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 5 years ago | (#26019045)

As far as I'm concerned, having advertising rammed down your throats in a game that retails for $60 is adequate grounds for piracy.

No, it's adequate grounds for not playing that game.

If the games have ads in, they will know how many people play them. If lots of people play them, they will make more games with ads in. If fewer people play them, they will abandon the idea.

After all they're still going to make money off of you.

That's all the more reason not to play the games! If they make money out of pirates, then an ad-infested game might end up being more profitable than one that respects its players. Then everyone would start putting ads in their games. Is that really the outcome you want?

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (1)

antirelic (1030688) | more than 5 years ago | (#26031113)

The number 1 reason not to play CoDX (everything after CoD4) is because all you are getting is a mocked up recycled version of CoD4. CoDWW is a giant piece of shit, like CoD4 turned out to be. Since I'm not all that old, this isnt a get off my lawn type of rant, but for the love of cheeseburgers, wtf is up with non stop explosions just killing everything all game long... its like watching a Pink Floyd video, but instead of random colors, its just random explosions.

The appeal of the old CoD games was that you actually had to work together with other players (CoD multiplayer) in order to win. Now you just get a few kills and call in SPAM X to add more kills so you can keep calling in more SPAM X to kill and then you have 10 more minutes of nothing but explosions. And that is considered a game?

So CoDX is just going to be the same engine as CoD4 with advertisements, but you get to pay another $60 so you can see adds. Oh, maybe they will change the name of the same weapon, or add a new skin or two. But it will be the same 4 stupid kits, with teh same useless buffs or add ons... same ole same ole. Why not just change it from Call of Duty to Call of Madden and get it over with.

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (1)

qlayer2 (1122663) | more than 5 years ago | (#26052491)

You and I are playing a very different version of the same game. I play in a couple of realism leagues in both CoD4 and CoD:WaW, and believe me, teamwork is critical. We use the open warfare mod http://www.openwarfaremod.com/ [openwarfaremod.com] to make the game far more realistic, and remove the hardpoints and perks that make the game cartoonish and silly. You can also check out our realism league: http://www.realism1.com/ [realism1.com] for our rules and gameplay. Basically if you can't do it real life, wearing an 80lb pack on your back, you can't do it. That includes jumping from the second story, shooting from the hip accurately, getting shot without it hurting your character, bunny hopping or dolphin diving, etc. Check it out, there are a ton of gamers and clans out there who only play realism style- I'm one of them.

Excuses - a rant (4, Insightful)

Joe Jay Bee (1151309) | more than 5 years ago | (#26019299)

As far as I'm concerned, having advertising rammed down your throats in a game that retails for $60 is adequate grounds for piracy. After all they're still going to make money off of you.

You know, I swear half of Slashdot keeps its fingers crossed for someone to do something objectionable with something they'd like to buy, just so they've got an "excuse" to pirate it. Every time someone does something that goes against the Slashdot groupthink - DRM, advertising, supporting the RIAA, saying they don't want people warezing their stuff, reporting statistics saying whatever they make has a high piracy rate - there's always a load of people who come out with "Well I guess that means I have to pirate it."

It's like a little kid faced with a huge cake, which he really, really wants, then he sees it has an expiration date of today. And he sees the date and sorta says, out loud, so nobody is in any doubt as to that he really doesn't want to, "Oh well, I guess I'll just HAVE to eat this delicious cake all by myself, because the cake-maker's actions have FORCED ME TO." Of course, we all know what the kid's original intention was, and the expiration date was just as convenient an excuse as possible. Same with this.

Examples:
"Ads? In my game?! NO THANKS! I'll pirate instead!"
"SecuROM? Really? I guess The Pirate Bay will be getting MY business!"
"Guitar Hero Eleventybillion doesn't have CCR's Fortunate Son? Warez time!"
"They're not releasing for Linux?! To Mininova?"
"They won't produce downloads in the obscure format and insanely high bitrate which I demand?! Well, I'll just download the MP3 instead! They should listen to their customers, i.e. me."
"RIAA doesn't care about quality! So I'm gonna download this album because it's probably going to be crap anyway." (Real argument - my response is that if you know it's shitty, why are you downloading it?!)

Urgh. You fool nobody. While I don't like piracy in general, I have more of a respect for people who come right out and say they just want the Hot New Shinies for free, rather than trying to look like Gandhi with some shitty little protest - a protest which conveniently allows them to get Hot New Shinies for free.

Rant over.

Re:Excuses - a rant (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 5 years ago | (#26030065)

You also forget to mention that pirates are, in effect, no better than the RIAA or DRM anyway.

Whether or not piracy affects music/movie/game sales is irrelevant here but the fact is that the pirates give the manufacturers the excuse that they need to foist DRM on everyone enen though, ultimately, DRM is more about enforcing a rental model through media expiration rather than copy protection.

In other words, if pirates didn't copy the stuff, there could be no DRM in the first place because there could be no justification to deploy it.

Re:Excuses - a rant (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26030697)

I want Hot New Shinies for free.

But HNSes are typically Hotter, Newer and Shinier if the people who make them get paid to make them. So someone has to pay if I get my need for Hot New Shiny satisfied.

For software, Google pays Firefox. Support contracts with Red Hat pays for my kernel. For brevity, I omit the rest ;)

For music, someone pays more for the concert tickets (or I do, if I find the time for concerts again). I get to download the promo material (i.e. the songs) for free. Or: I pay for my user account jonaskoelker@artist-union-$i.org and get unrestricted downloads while I have it (and time-unlimited licenses).

For wii games, I shell out my money according to the current model and pricing structure. For PC games, I play the free ones (Nexuiz, wesnoth, gtetrinet).

Re:Excuses - a rant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26033943)

An excellent rant. You are normalizing very nicely. The corporations must be proud.

The thing with ads it that they pay for content. Those of us who grew up without cable know this.
So I think it is a pretty easy thing to figure out, with things you have paid for, that someone else trying to benefit themselves at your expense is not right. They want to profit from the use of your life they should compensate you for the un-agreed upon theft of your life.
I like to look at how much of my life they stole without compensation and figure out how much they owe me. Take for example some of my most recent DVD purchases; Funimation has decided that putting unskippable extended ads or Dragonball at the beginning would be a profitable idea. Every time I want to watch one of my DVDs from them I will have to sit through this. So I multiply my billing rate as a PCI auditor x my minimum billable time x the number of times I am forced to view these ads = what they own me. Let me tell you Funimation has stolen plenty of my life with their greed and they owe me compensation. However I would prefer it in cash to illegal downloads. Currently the best I can do is not purchase their products.

Also consider that with the DMCA, that should you buy a DVD and find out that you have to sit through 2 hours of ads to view the content, you can not return the DVD for a refund. You have no recourse. You also can't get a refund for games that you find are trying to sell your life for an extra buck.

So if they offer to sell you one thing and instead sell you something else and you cannot get your money back.. what would you do?

Re:Excuses - a rant (2, Interesting)

VendingMenace (613279) | more than 5 years ago | (#26035749)

A very good post. I especially like your comparison at the end to Gandhi -- which raises a very interesting point. How would illegal downloading look more like civil disobedience than just trying to get stuff for free?

I think the answer lies largely in the actions of Gandhi himself (and that of his movement). In his movement, when laws were disobeyed they were done so out on the open, not all sneaky-like. He did not try to hide is actions or even to defend himself when arrested. Rather, he openly broke laws (sometimes even notifying authorities that he was going to ahead of time) and then when prosecuted, not only did he admit that he broke said laws, but requested that he be sentenced to the MAXIMUM penalty allowed by the law.

This then would provide the model for illegal downloading at civil disobedience. In such as case, one should

1) Download content illegally.
2) Notify the authorities that you are doing so (if only by advertising the fact in public forums such as newspapers etc.)
3) When put on trial, admit to the fact that you performed actions that were against the law.
4) Ask, during the sentencing phase, to be given the maximum punishment allowed by the law.

Only in such a case can the injustice (if it really an injustice) be brought out into the light. If the laws are really unjust, then a rash of people being unfairly sentenced will only outrage a moral public. This truly is the only way to change the laws effectively. I tell you the truth, the only way that these laws will be changed is for people to realize that they are absurd. This will only happen when people are confronted by the absurdity. And the fastest way to accomplish this will be by Gandhi-esque civil disobedience.

So, in conclusion, it seems to me that those people that claim that they are downloading files illegally in order to fight "the man" ought to consider doing so in the open. Those that try to hide their downloading, but think that they are performing civil disobedience are just fooling themselves.

Re:Excuses - a rant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26051643)

Thank you for this rant. I make no excuses for my piracy. I want free new shinies and epic films for free.

Re:Excuses - a rant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26111535)

Like many people, I want the Hot New Shinies. I can acquire the Hot New Shinies from one of two sources - the pirates or the producers. Here's the problem - if I get my shinies from the producers, I know that the actual creators get only a miniscule fraction of the money I paid, and my Hot New Shiny will be covered in shit which I am not legally allowed to remove. If I get my shinies from the pirates, it will be free, but creators will get NO money, and a I run a small risk of being sued. As a result, I haven't had any new shinies in quite awhile.

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (1)

Kneo24 (688412) | more than 5 years ago | (#26020783)

Then they said "Starcraft 2 will see 3 different games, but we're not milking you, honest!" Like they won't include multiplayer content exclusive to each one to leverage the additional releases. Anyone who thinks Blizz are doing gamers a favour by giving us a "trilogy" and won't make it damn near mandatory to buy all 3 is deluding themselves.

The size of each separate campaign is expected to be as big or bigger than SC1+broodwar. So what do you expect them to do? Give us three games for the price of one? Starcraft actually had a decent story going. If they'd rather not dilute the story by cutting out two thirds of it and cramming it into one disc, all the more power to them. I don't know about you, but I do enjoy my games having a solid story along with good gameplay.

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 5 years ago | (#26035151)

Indeed. Although I don't remember reading Tolkein claiming "The Lord of the Rings will see 3 different books, but I'm not milking you, honest!" he might as well have done.

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (1)

Werthless5 (1116649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26023349)

They're selling 3 single player campaigns. Each one is the length of a full game (30+ missions).

If you only want to play multiplayer, you only have to buy one of them to receive all of the multiplayer content.

I don't see a problem here. If anything, they're being gracious by NOT including unique multiplayer content in each one. If they had, it would practically be a requirement for a complete multiplayer experience.

In other words, they're only charging you for the first $50, for which you receive a complete campaign and full multiplayer. You don't need to buy the other two games if you're only interested in multiplayer.

If they had offered special multiplayer features for buying the others, you would have had a real argument for Blizzard 'milking' you. As it stands, you're retarded.

As for advertising... yeah, it sucks, and I won't buy those games. I'll tolerate the occasional billboard or ads in chat lobbies. I will not tolerate advertisements while a game loads, since this decreases the load time and is ripe for abuse. What happens when the advertisers start demanding longer load times so that the player receives more exposure? What about larger video ads? For now, ads in games have been pretty tame, but we have to be on the lookout for this type of abuse.

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (5, Insightful)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 5 years ago | (#26019027)

If Blizzard becomes synonymous with a chain-shitty-sequel-churner I'll be annoyed to sad.

Yes, how would the world survive if the team behind such original franchises as Warcraft II, Warcraft III, World of Warcraft, Diablo II, and the upcoming Diablo III and Starcraft 2.1, Starcraft 2.2 and Starcraft 2.3 was ever reduced to chain-sequel-churning?

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (1)

ink (4325) | more than 5 years ago | (#26025333)

You forgot Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne, Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal, Starcraft: Brood War, Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, WoW: The Burning Crusade, and WoW: The Wrath of the Lich King.

The 'team' behind Warcraft, Starcraft, & Diabl (1)

TPJ-Basin (763596) | more than 5 years ago | (#26026953)

I'm guessing you meant 'company', not 'team'. The people that created the Warcraft, Diablo, and Starcraft titles have all long since departed Blizzard.

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 5 years ago | (#26018675)

What? YOu mean like, Square Enix?

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26018739)

Except Squaresoft (the original SNES Breath of Fire and SNES Front Mission) and Enix (Actraiser) were both PUBLISHERS for a number of games outside of their flagship Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest/Warrior games for over a decade.

Blizzard was NEVER a publisher.

Re:I don't like this Activision Blizzard name (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033753)

Square Enix is just unoriginal when it comes to naming games. Each Final Fantasy game, for example, is an entirely different story with different characters and often different gameplay mechanics.

Awesome (4, Insightful)

skam240 (789197) | more than 5 years ago | (#26018567)

Awesome! Not only do I get crappy, mediocre sequels to successful franchises but I also get Burger King Ads!? Fuck! America is awesome!

Re:Awesome (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 5 years ago | (#26018621)

If that stays to the commercial release, I'll be buying rockband 3 instead.

Re:Awesome (1)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 5 years ago | (#26019041)

Why wouldn't it stay? Of course it'll be there. And the game will still have the inevitable DLC for it that costs more money, and the game will no doubt retail at or around the main price point.

Capitalism rocks!

Re:Awesome (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 5 years ago | (#26019415)

If it shows up in a way that it consumes screen real estate (as it sounds like), I agree that would be bad. They'd be better off to continue doing it in a product placement way as they are now (World Tour has one level where you see a bucket of KFC sitting on the table before the song starts).

Re:Awesome (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26030713)

Awesome! Not only do I get crappy, mediocre sequels

You owe me a new linguistic-semantic multimeter. The circuit detecting ironic contradictions in terms blew up ;)

Blizzard? Guitar Hero? (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 5 years ago | (#26018639)

What? The Blizzard that made Diablo, WarCraft, WarCraft II and StarCraft? Is it related to Guitar Hero and Call of Duty now? Nooo, how can this be, what did I miss? Where is the small company that made brilliant games, gone? *sobs*

Re:Blizzard? Guitar Hero? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26018861)

Blizzard hasn't existed as an independent company since 1994. They have existed as a subdivision of other companies; being bought out, sold, or merged six times. See wikipedia for the full series of transfers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_Entertainment . Most recently Vivendi (which they were under) merged with Activision. The name of this new company is Activision Blizzard.

In short its a naming thing; the small company exists as it always has. The large company (which now happens to have 'Blizzard' in its name exists as *it* always has). I would not worry too much about the quality of either of their offerings much until I am given a reason.

Re:Blizzard? Guitar Hero? (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 5 years ago | (#26019363)

Activision Blizzard (or as we like to call it here, Blizzactivision, or Tough Actin' Blizzactin) is the company who owns Blizzard, not Blizzard themselves.

Blizzard was bought out in 1994, and bounced around as their parent companies themselves were bought out or merged. Eventually they ended up owned by Vivendi Games, so they've had seven different owners in total, not including the original self-ownership.

Anyhow, Activision merged with Vivendi Games. Vivendi's biggest studio was Blizzard, so Activision decided to rename themselves Activision Blizzard. They could do that since they now owned the Blizzard name.

Activision Blizzard is an independent company from Blizzard, although it does own Blizzard. So the relation is really in name only. Blizzard themselves have absolutely nothing to do with any of those games.

Re:Blizzard? Guitar Hero? (1)

Walpurgiss (723989) | more than 5 years ago | (#26021891)

Yeah, but that doesn't matter much. The whole point of naming themselves Activision Blizzard is so they can try to whore out Blizzard's 'good' name. Smart people will know the difference you point out, and every one else who plays WoW will be duped. And that is the idea.

Re:Blizzard? Guitar Hero? (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 5 years ago | (#26031559)

Activision Blizzard (or as we like to call it here, Blizzactivision, or Tough Actin' Blizzactin) is the company who owns Blizzard, not Blizzard themselves.

They should change it to AB, much shorter.
Then we would have EA, AB, 2K, ID, UB, ...

Game pricing with ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26018649)

Are we going to be charged less for games that have ads in them, or are the publishers just going to get more profit?

Re:Game pricing with ads (2, Insightful)

Gunslinger47 (654093) | more than 5 years ago | (#26018681)

Did ticket prices drop with the introduction of in-theater ads?

Re:Game pricing with ads (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033787)

Well, at the AMC theatre near me, they have no ads, but tickets cost almost $10. At the local theatre in a nearby town, tickets cost half as much, but have plenty of ads before the trailers before the film. It's possible...

Making sense of in-game ads. (2, Interesting)

Toridas (742267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26018745)

A logo next to the note highway? How does that make sense at all? Making sense would be putting in-game ads where ads would be in real life. Such as billboards, posters in subway stations, etc.

Re:Making sense of in-game ads. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26018799)

they do that already in GHWT.

Re:Making sense of in-game ads. (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 5 years ago | (#26019429)

Yes, for those wondering, World Tour has one level where you see a bucket of KFC sitting on the table before the song starts. It's very obvious, but it doesn't take up screen space while the song is playing. It's just there during the introduction. It doesn't provide any inconvenience or annoyance (unless you are the type to get annoyed at the mere idea of product placement, even when done unobtrusively).

Re:Making sense of in-game ads. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26021091)

More than that. Play time square look at the logo on the front of the building. Also, one of the other venues has a billboard that was advertising subway mostly.

Re:Making sense of in-game ads. (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26019201)

I agree, because then I could ignore them just like years of seeing them in real life in such places has tuned me into ignoring them there too.

Re:Making sense of in-game ads. (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26019335)

Even then it would be iffy since the temptation would be to wallpaper the damned game with them instead of fitting them to the story. I don't mind seeing a Pepsi machine in the break room in a FPS instead of a "grape cola" machine, but can you imagine if EA, the kings of crappy in game ads, would have bought 2K before Bioshock came out? All those great ads that added such a feel to Rapture being replaced with modern Burger King and coke ads would have just sucked the big wet titty.

And the part that pisses me off is with all other forms of entertainment I can bypass the ads, but in games you pretty much have your nose rubbed in it. And then to add insult to injury they don't lower the price by a single cent, if anything they are going up, and then they ream us out with DLC or lame expansions that try to squeeze us for every last cent. I for one am glad there are still plenty of games released in the last 8 years I haven't played, because frankly with all the DRM bullshit, crappy beta quality code, and half baked console controls being passed off as PC game controls I'm about ready to just wash my hands of the whole thing for a few years and hopefully some of these crappy game manufacturers will just fucking die already.

Lets be honest here: If Activision and EA were to die out how many of us would really miss them? I know I certainly wouldn't miss the crappy EA sports games with the horrible collision detection and AI that hasn't improved since 1995 or Activision beating every franchise into the ground with 5 bazilion sequels. Would you?

Re:Making sense of in-game ads. (1)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 5 years ago | (#26026963)

Meh. I don't think they would have done that to bioshock. You're more likely to just see the full screen ads during loading screens.

Re:Making sense of in-game ads. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26033207)

My fiancee works for an in-game dynamic advertising company. Oftentimes, she and the team she works with are responsible for where the ads go in-game. One of the company's fundamental mantras is that they will only place in-game dynamic ads where appropriate. Movie ads can go on billboards, soda ads can go in soda machines, etc. If the publisher or developer wish to put ad spawn locations in random or inappropriate places, those locations are removed. And if the game is unsuitable for in-game ads--like an RPG set in a medieval world in the 1600s, for example--the company will not sign a contract for that game at all. I can guarantee you that they would not have touched Bioshock. Note that the ads that the company inserts are dynamic ads only. They have no control or influence over static ads, like the Axe ads in Guitar Hero III. If something is *always* there, they have nothing to do with it. Bottom line: at least some of the people behind in-game ads are doing it the right way. They do it to generate income for the advertiser IF AND ONLY IF the atmosphere and immersion of the game are untouched for the player. In fact, it sometimes enhances the experience. Real ads make sports stadiums look more realistic, right?

Re:Making sense of in-game ads. (1)

klausboop (322537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039011)

Agreed. I love the idea of the in-game advertising/product placement being dynamic and making sense in the environment, and consider the Obama billboard in Burnout to be a great implementation of the idea. Having billboards makes sense in an outdoor driving game, and if you have a console that's internet-connected, why not have them updated with fresh content? I mean, when I play Crazy Taxi on my Dreamcast the passengers still want to go to Tower Records, you know?

The only thing I'd ask of publishers is to also let us customize the content. I'd like to be able to upload my own goofy graphic for a billboard, or have an all Frank Zappa radio station. Even in Mario Kart they use your Miis collection in the ads that appear in the mall level; it'd be awesome to have control of some of that content on my local machine.

Shocking... (1)

Loibisch (964797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26019649)

New Guitar Hero?
New Call of Duty?
New Tony Hawk game?

SHOCKING, I say...who would have thought they are releasing sequels to their money-generating machines.

Re:Shocking... (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 5 years ago | (#26019937)

I read that as "Guitar Hero 5: New Call of Duty", where you were a rock star raising the morale of the Iraq troops. Star power gives them more ammo.

Re:Shocking... (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 5 years ago | (#26020553)

Just wait. The new Rock Band will have a USO mode where you can do old Bob Hope stand-up.

Activision Blizzard (2, Informative)

mqduck (232646) | more than 5 years ago | (#26019969)

I realize they changed their name to capitalize on Blizzard's reputation, but can't we just call them "Activision"?

How about... (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#26021779)

They get the current call of duty to work first? A massive portion of the player population still can't do minor things like adjusting the resolution, or playing at all because of issues with the bink video files. Check the Activision/Treyarch forums. Is it so hard to get something right before they move on to a new product? Sheesh.

This shit is depressing (2, Informative)

denton420 (1235028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26022503)

One my last hopes for the gaming world was blizzard. Now that they have whored out, its down to just Bioware and Bethesda...

If we are lucky EA will buy them out and siphon all of the edge and creativity right out of them.

Re:This shit is depressing (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26023023)

Your attitude makes almost no sense to me. Could you explain it a little further? I started off assuming it was the usual geek-bullshit "I don't like anything anyone else likes" but your examples don't really fit with that too well.

Re:This shit is depressing (1)

Werthless5 (1116649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26023459)

This isn't Blizzard, this is Activision. The core Blizzard team isn't involved with Guitar Hero, CoD, etc. at all.

When Vivendi acquired Activision, they decided to attach Blizzard (also owned by Vivendi) to the end of Activision's name.

Activision's expertise is with console titles. Blizzard's expertise is with PC games. Blizzard still acts like it has been acting for years, as a small developer for the PC that focuses on quality, not quantity.

Re:This shit is depressing (1)

Taken07 (1395851) | more than 5 years ago | (#26024441)

And this is why this company is on the top of the list... they care about quality. Go Warcraft III and Starcraft!

Re:This shit is depressing (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 5 years ago | (#26026281)

If we are lucky EA will buy them out and siphon all of the edge and creativity right out of them.

That can't happen. Activision Blizzard actually posts revenues HIGHER than Electronic Arts. If anything, AB will buy EA.

Re:This shit is depressing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26026915)

Didn't EA pick up BioWare

Re:This shit is depressing (1)

Kankraka (936176) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034209)

Actually, I think Bioware is already owned by EA. And since I cannot support EA, I won't be able to play the new star wars MMO :|

Re:This shit is depressing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26037861)

Ummm... EA bought out Bioware last year...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...