Beta
×

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!

Spike VGAs Confuse, Gamecock Apologizes

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the just-don't-look-just-don't-look dept.

Television 105

Another year, another horrifying SpikeTV Video Game Awards show done and over with. BioShock grabbed the 'Game of the Year' nod, but both the title and designer Ken Levine were denied their moment in the sun. When the winner was announced some folks from Gamecock rushed the stage and basically said 'it sucks'. They're now apologizing: "Gamecock co-founder Mike Wilson apologized for the disruption on behalf of his team. 'I'd personally like to sincerely apologize to the BioShock team and Ken Levine in particular for GameCock infringing on their spotlight at this weekend's VGA Awards show ... The award acceptance they interrupted was the LAST one we would've wanted to interrupt , ('most addictive game fueled by mountain dew' would have been a wonderful choice) as we have the utmost respect and love for Bioshock.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Gamecock can suck it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21662827)

Mycock, that is.

That headline confuses (4, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#21662839)

Who shot who with the what now?

Re:That headline confuses (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663293)

I read both articles from 1up and I still had no clue wtf Gamecock is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamecock_Media_Group [wikipedia.org]
All I can tell from the wiki is that they're a video game publisher.

Re:That headline confuses (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666217)

According to that Wiki article, they published Fury which judging by the rest of their list is their only claim to fame.

I intend on looking for this on YouTube tonight as Australia does not get SpikeTV.
It sounds like despite causing contraversy (and people taking it seriously) it sounds like it may have been quite funny.

Re:That headline confuses (2, Funny)

6Yankee (597075) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663463)

Han, first.

Re:That headline confuses (1)

psychicsword (1036852) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665381)

Colonel Mustard in the Study with the Revolver

Re:That headline confuses (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668863)

I think some prick is sorry for spiking your video graphics adaptor.
 

OMG!!! (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 6 years ago | (#21662885)

My hopes that the video game industry was finally maturing into a respectable field was dashed by a bunch of game cocks. Could it get any worst than is?

Re:OMG!!! (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#21662967)

Two words Soy Bomb [wikipedia.org]

Re:OMG!!! (4, Insightful)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663245)

Could it get any worst than is?

Yes, in fact the rest of the VGAs show exactly how much worse it can get. Scrawling the names of winners on naked women in bodypaint? Sammy L. Jackson putting in a half-assed effort and cracking insulting, needlessly misogynistic jokes? I'm no feminist, and even I was offended.

That awards show alone erased whatever sliver of mainstream respect good game developers have earned the industry over the years. Thanks a lot, Spike.

For that piece of turd I'm now boycotting Spike as a channel indefinitely.

Re:OMG!!! (1)

achilles777033 (1090811) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663791)

The women aren't naked. They are scantily clad. They have panties and pasties on, to be exact.

You can see it if you watch closely here: http://www.ifilm.com/video/2920222/show/23733/ [ifilm.com]

I admit they are supposed to 'look' naked, but they're not.

Re:OMG!!! (1)

Brother Dysk (939885) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664721)

Pasties? [wikipedia.org] What?

Re:OMG!!! (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666973)

Yes, Pasties [wikipedia.org] .

Re:OMG!!! (2, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669413)

The women aren't naked. They are scantily clad. They have panties and pasties on, to be exact.

That's not the point.

I admit they are supposed to 'look' naked

That is.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm no prude and see nothing wrong with nudity in the right context (or pornography, for that matter), but this was not it. In fact, if you ask me it's just as demeaning to the males it was supposed to titillate as it is to the women; do they really think that we games-playing males are that juvenile? (Don't bother answering that, I play online games too...)

Re:OMG!!! (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 6 years ago | (#21672671)

It works for sports fans, what makes you think gamers are a higher crowd?

Re:OMG!!! (2, Funny)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663863)

Spike has a lot of crap, but come on they're the only ones who still air Star Trek in syndication. During the summer when they've got 2 episodes of DS9 after an episode of TNG.. on vacation no way I'm going outside during the afternoon. And Voyager has made about half my TV viewing lately, also on Spike.

Re:OMG!!! (0, Offtopic)

CFTM (513264) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670541)

There's also these things called "books", they're just like TV but a little bit lower tech...and there are no images rendered for you, you have to use (another scary word coming up) your "imagination"! BUT, because you use your "imagination" the story can look and feel however you want!

Try it sometime.

Re:OMG!!! (1)

kcornia (152859) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663923)

What's even worse is that the UFC tied in with the VGA for some lame announcement. Please UFC, do not get any more associated with the ridiculousness that is the VGA. You're better than that.

Re:OMG!!! (1)

achilles777033 (1090811) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664183)

I personally think that the UFC is exactly the same kind of ridiculousness as the VGA.

both pander to the same sort of lowest common demoninator with gratitous violence, smack talk, and (pretend) nudity.
Personally, I'd rather the semi-naked women to the semi-naked men.

even if they're not in the same ballpark of lousy, they are both far below the threshold of entertaining necessary for me to want to watch either.

Re:OMG!!! (1)

kcornia (152859) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665079)

Sounds like you got your ass kicked a little too much back in grade school. MMA is turning into quite a technical sport, despite your short-sighted stereotypical knee-jerk reaction to it. It's ok though, the world needs people who watch Oprah too..

Re:OMG!!! (1)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665715)

Hey, if you like watching two mostly naked guys rolling around on the floor with their legs wrapped around each other to find out who passes out first, more power to ya.

Re:OMG!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21666629)

Seriously? Did you just make the 'you got your ass kicked in grade school' comment? That's YHBT Rule #3. Shame on you, sir.

That said, maybe one of the things that turns people off to UFC and all of that 'MMA' is the fact that most of its fans are rabid fanboys or fangirls like yourself who blatantly and loudly oppose anyone who doesn't think your favorite sport is their favorite sport. Maybe people see YOUR attitude and determine they want to stay out of it because of that. If all (or at least a large majority) of the fans act like you, I can assume that I wouldn't like to meet any of them personally, nor would I like to be involved with any sort of behavior that attracted that type of people. Your behavior doesn't specifically make me want to watch UFC or 'MMA'.

That's not why I don't watch it, however. Personally, I don't watch it because I think it sucks. I have seen it, I know people who watch it, I've had zealots attempt to convert me. I've been 'exposed' to the 'greatness' that it is, and after hearing them all try? I still think it's abject trash. A bunch of idiots acting like idiots (and I use the term 'acting' loosely, because while they try .... they really all do just suck) in a ring, half-naked, grunting and panting, etc. It's not fighting. If it was fighting, they would actually _fight_ with each other. Instead, it really is a bunch of half-naked men throwing each other around a ring while grunting and panting. (You'll note I didn't say they were fighting. There's a specific reason for it. It's because they're not actually doing it.)

I'm not denying that some people like it, but -- unlike you -- I'm not verbally assaulting people who disagree with me. Which brings me back to my original point.

UFC and the like suck because you suck and you're one of its fans.

Re:OMG!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21667953)

Nah, as long as a guys called things like "The Truth" and "The Huntington Beach Bad Boy", and they're fighting in matches with names like "Nemesis" and "Rapid Fire"... UFC is turning into pro-wrestling, which makes it about as sad as the VGAs.

Re:OMG!!! (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669545)

For me it's about the fighting. Pure and simple. You don't like fighting? Ok, fine, but don't claim it's the same thing as something like the Video Game Awards.

Re:OMG!!! (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21672023)

You're better than that.


No, they aren't. They really, really aren't. UFC is Professional Wrestling for people for people who want to feel "with it" and "edgy".

Chris Mattern

Re:OMG!!! (1)

vranash (594439) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664621)

All I can say is: Somebody actually WATCHED that? I took one look at the ads, and commented to my friends on how much it sucked :)

OMG!!! They're showing videos! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21668969)

Spike is useful in one regard. They show video game content I wouldn't otherwise see. Talking about a game is one thing. Seeing videos was another. Playing is best.

Re:OMG!!! They're showing videos! (1)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669167)

Yeah, it sucks that nobody has invented a way to access video content over the internet.

Re:OMG!!! They're showing videos! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21669199)

Not as much as not having a broadband connection.

Re:OMG!!! (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 6 years ago | (#21671857)

Spike is only worth watching Star Trek: Voyager. They have the same odd duality to them that G4 does, where they kinda-sorta want to appeal to real geeks yet can't help but do everything in their power to be just like MTV and wrangle in all of the drunken frat boys who say "That's so gay!" when they get fragged in Halo on their wittle Xbox.

And on that subject, I really miss TechTV (or Hell, ZDTV). I thought it went downhill when Patrick Norton came onto the Screensavers... Boy, what I wouldn't give to have those disappointments back.

Re:OMG!!! (1)

Tailsfan (1200615) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669515)

The name is even bad. Makes them sound like chickens, or.... I'm not gonna say it.

Uh? (3, Funny)

koh (124962) | more than 6 years ago | (#21662901)

Headline No Sense, Editor Sleeps.

Re:Uh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21663371)

The editor probably passed out trying to sensationalize the headline and summary.

Showing my age (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21662917)

I thought it was referring to 256 color displays.

Re:Showing my age (1)

jizziknight (976750) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663005)

You're not the only one, and I'm not even very old. I thought it was talking about some sort of power spike in VGA monitors. I had even seen an advertisement for the Video Game Awards a few nights ago, and still was confused. Perhaps that's why "Confuse" is in the title?

Re:Showing my age (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#21667999)

I thought the same when I read Gamespot's "Bioshock zaps VGAs" headline except I considered VGA to be a shorthand for any kind of graphics hardware in that context.

Re:Showing my age (1)

Drooling Iguana (61479) | more than 6 years ago | (#21671051)

That's MCGA. VGA is a 640x480x16 display, however since nearly all VGA cards could also display MCGA graphics the two terms became confused.

What an informative summary and set of articles (4, Insightful)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 6 years ago | (#21662947)

What is Gamecock? What did they say? What sucked, the game or the award show? Who cares about anything that happens at the VGAs anyway?

Rob

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663345)

Evidently, they're some company that thinks that 640x480 isn't nearly enough for anyone.

- RG>

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663485)

They were a bunch of idiots dressed up in chicken suits that jumped up on stage. I thought they were supposed to be there. Part of the Bioshock entourage or something.

I don't buy the bullshit that nobody knew about it or they "rushed the stage". It's four or five guys in giant red chicken suits. How do you not see them from 800 feet away?! It's not like some guy in a suit follows everyone up on stage and you mistake him for possibly being a level designer or something with the company winning the award.

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663635)

They seem to be some little "indy" publisher [wikipedia.org] . Their list of titles is really stand out. I think I might have actually heard of one!

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21663973)

And I think that's what this might have been about, though I'm willing to accept the notion that they're just a bunch of jackasses...publicity.

I mean, the VGA's are pretty much blatantly long commercials, as I'm sure anyone who's watched one to the end will attest to. I think this was the way for Gamecock (:>) to try and get their names out; a publicity stunt. Have the best game of the year announced and then haul these guys out on stage to do their bit. To me when I watched it, it seemed as if they were either a) expecting to be recognized by the gaming community (they weren't) or b) believed that they were actually being funny (they definitely weren't :>). And so the whole stunt fell out from under them like a straw house.

Like I said, the simplest explanation (and probably the correct one) is that they really are a bunch of pricks...but there's all kinds of angles to things like this; e.g. Janet Jackson's...ugh, never mind.

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664849)

I think they did something during this year's E3. I don't remember what it was. They protested or held their own E3 or something. Other than that, I have no idea. Never heard of them before that and this.

But seriously, Ken Levine just sat there and let them rant and then walked off the stage without ever saying a word. So I call bullshit on the whole thing. If it was real, he would have taken time to talk (why would game of the year get less time than every other award?). And even if he didn't shove them out of the way or grab the mic, surely the award show would have shoved the cocks off and allowed Levine time to speak. I mean, c'mon.

And now they ALL get lots of publicity all over the net. Spike, VGA, Game Cocks and 2K.

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (2, Informative)

badasscat (563442) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665493)

This is a semi-serious, only partially rhetorical question: HOW THE HELL CAN YOU PEOPLE NOT KNOW WHO GAMECOCK IS?

I can understand if you're not gamers; it's not exactly a household name among the general population. But this is a gaming thread, for god's sake, and you'd think at least some of you would be PC gamers.

Gamecock is the second iteration of the original Gathering of Developers. Ring a bell?

Run by the same guys in the same town (Austin?), I *think* even in the same offices as the old Gathering. I know a girl who used to work at Gathering and is now doing design work for Gamecock, and apparently it's a *lot* of the same old Gathering people - not just the guys at the top.

Gathering used to be famous for pulling crap like this too, so this shouldn't have been unexpected. It honestly was one of the reasons they were forced to sell out; they spent too much money and effort on stupid stunts and parties and not enough on making good games. Seems like history is repeating itself.

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (4, Funny)

UltraAyla (828879) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666517)

This is a semi-serious, only partially rhetorical question: HOW THE HELL CAN YOU PEOPLE NOT KNOW WHO GAMECOCK IS?

Gamecock is the second iteration of the original Gathering of Developers. Ring a bell?

You've only opened up new questions. Such as: What is the Gathering of Developers?

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (1)

MidVicious (1045984) | more than 6 years ago | (#21671687)

What indeed.

I've been a gamer for decades. Why the hell what I take a group calling themseleves GameCock's seriously?

And then why would I listen to some well prounounced dickhead berate me for not knowing who a bunch of GameCock's are?

You know what the only deduction I have after reading the article? Fuck GameCock. I wish I could "unknow" them now.

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (1)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 6 years ago | (#21674595)

LMAO. I totally Agree.

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (4, Insightful)

brkello (642429) | more than 6 years ago | (#21667615)

I have been a PC/console/handheld gamer and a long time reader of Slashdot and I have never heard either of those names until now. And if that is all they are, it is no wonder they are forgettable. I'd rather not know who they were.

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670165)

I've been around a long time & have heard of GoD (Gathering of Developers), but they've been gone for years... 5 or so if I remember correctly... I still hadn't heard of 'GameCock' though... A fact I'm quite happy to admit to... Who think sup these names...?

I hate to say bad things... (1)

PhoenixOne (674466) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668187)

I hate to say bad things about fellow developers but, maybe nobody knows who Gamecock is because the sort of amateur bad-boy marking stunts they do don't work.

If they are doing this for fun, more power to them. But, as a PR stunt, it doesn't work. They need to hire whoever Paris Hilton used.

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (1)

Gulthek (12570) | more than 6 years ago | (#21671287)

Huh. I can name more than a couple of the 'implementors' of Infocom. I remember when Origin was making kickass games (Autoduel, FTW), when Lucasarts made clever games, when Apogee and iD brought us awesomeness via shareware, but I've never heard of Gamecock or this 'Gathering of Developers'.

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21671837)

OK, who are these "Gathering of Developers" dudes? Nope, never heard of them, either.

Chris Mattern

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (1)

JPotter227 (1194753) | more than 6 years ago | (#21673073)

Similar to brkello, I have been playing PC games, and some console games, for over 15 years. I've been reading PC Gamer, and even worked at Gamestop for two years, but I still have never heard of Gamecock or the Gathering of Developers. I think you must get your information from different sources than most gamers.

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 6 years ago | (#21673133)

I think it has something to do with me not thinking very highly of GoDs work in the first place. Assembling a supergroup of developers doesn't help when the best feathers in your hat are Max Payne and Railroad Tycoon II. I'll save my attention for people who produce. Love 'em or hate 'em, Valve, Bungie, Bioware, Blizzard, and the like don't need PR stunts. PC gaming is not an arena where a personal bad boy rep will get you anywhere. Case in point, John Romero wanted to make me his bitch, too bad the game was humiliating. He doesn't do this kind of work anymore. Rockstar is getting that reputation with the controversy over Manhunt 2 and the GTA games, the difference is they let their products speak for them, not some loud mouth programmer.

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (1)

Rakarra (112805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21667475)

I don't buy the bullshit that nobody knew about it or they "rushed the stage". It's four or five guys in giant red chicken suits. How do you not see them from 800 feet away?!

It's the VGAs. Five guys in chicken suits isn't that unusual. You said yourself you assumed they were part of an entourage!

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668079)

Yeah, but if you're winning the award, you surely know who is part of your group and who isn't. And if you're running the show, you certainly know who is and is not supposed to be on that stage, right?

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (2)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663777)

What is Gamecock?
Good question. I went to their website and I still can't figure it out. They seem pretty lame to me.

Re:What an informative summary and set of articles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21666213)

The VGAs were bullshit. Bioshock didn't deserve GotY. Any one of the other games it was up against deserved it, but not Bioshock. That's the /real/ WTF.

Apologize (1)

Craig Maloney (1104) | more than 6 years ago | (#21662989)

I'm sure they're planning to apologize to the viewers of the Spike VGAs as well... all two of them.

Re:Apologize (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663027)

I'm sure they're planning to apologize to the viewers of the Spike VGAs as well... all two of them.

Well, I'm sure Zonk and kdawson will appreciate it.

Re:Apologize (1)

Trent Hawkins (1093109) | more than 6 years ago | (#21675713)

no, seriously. Was this award show actually shown on TV? This is the first time I've heard about it.

Disingenuous apology (4, Insightful)

Scutter (18425) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663055)

You know, it sure sounds like they were thinking "It's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission". I'm not impressed by their apology. It was a douchebag thing to do and a simple apology is insufficient.

FTFA:

it totally sucks that Ken Levine didn't get to speak after making such a fantastic game

Yes. It does totally suck, so don't you think some act of contrition, other than empty words, would be appropriate?

Re:Disingenuous apology (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663737)

They should allow Ken Levine to cut off one of their horses heads and place it in bed next to them on a random night of the week. Oh wait... not THAT kind of act of contrition.

Re:Disingenuous apology (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664223)

Yes. It does totally suck, so don't you think some act of contrition, other than empty words, would be appropriate?

To be fair, it saves Ken a lifetime of humiliation at family reunions of being known someone who gave a speech on a Spike TV event.

Re:Disingenuous apology (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665397)

Exactly. They were jerks before this, and nothing has changed. They are desperate to get their names out... Desperate enough for rubber red chicken costumes and crashing an awards show so they can guarantee not to be invited back or to others. Way to go, dumbasses.

Oh, and I -still- have no idea what they're about, and I hope nobody else learned because of this, either.

Re:Disingenuous apology (1)

LrdDimwit (1133419) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666469)

Personlaly, what I would do is I'd give Mr. Levine "equal time" in one of my titles. Just put footage of him saying *anything he wants* for, say, two minutes into the game. Advertise his new game, mock my own products, mock me personally, whatever. Given the state of Spike TV and the VGA awards (and also Gamecock) he'll reach probably just as many people as he would have on the show :)

No, scratch that. That's not quite right. Want to know what I would have done? I wouldn't have done that in the first place. But hey, that's just me, I don't go round calling myself GoD (sorry -- 'Gathering of Developers'). I go around calling myself LrdDimwit because nobody ever takes that name (funny that).

You know what? I hereby dub these Gamecock guys the new Acclaim. Acclaim went under so it's hard to find a good reference -- In case you can't remember, Acclaim decided to try to pay people for ad space on tombstones (really) and offered to pay IRL traffic tickets on the day they released an illegal street-racing title (also true).

Re:Disingenuous apology (1)

mink (266117) | more than 6 years ago | (#21674705)

I go around calling myself LrdDimwit because nobody ever takes that name (funny that)

You just don't hang with enough Zork [wikipedia.org] players.

Wow! (2, Funny)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663071)

MTV Networks called upon a bunch of its own talent like Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt from the Hills and A Shot at Love's Tila Tequila...

Star power like that and you dweebs are still complaining?!?

Why would chicken people be interested in this? (1)

jx100 (453615) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663157)

Seriously.. these [amazon.com] people don't have anything to do with videogames.

Well, they accomplished half of it... (1)

n0dna (939092) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663185)

They did get their name out to those of us that had not heard of them before.

However, they did also make sure that most of us over the age of 15 won't ever be buying games from them, fake apology or not.

Not like the name "gamecock" is going to be hard to remember. For better, or in this case, worse.

Oblig... (2, Funny)

netsavior (627338) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663351)

Not like the name "gamecock" is going to be hard to remember.
That's what she said.

missing a bold tag (1)

MarkGriz (520778) | more than 6 years ago | (#21671875)

Not like the name "gamecock" is going to be hard to remember.

Fixed it for you.

Well (1)

roadkill_cr (1155149) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663225)

This makes me never want to buy a game from Gamecock, apology or no.

If Zonk hadn't reported on it.... (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663279)

I would never have known they even happened. Somehow I think I would have been better off.

If nobody watches the Spike Video Game Awards, did they even happen?

But... it does suck. (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663313)

Not the game itself, but the massive copy protection it's wrapped in for PCs.

You not only have a limited number of 'activations', that is, machines you can install it on and times you can install on the same machine, you ALSO need the origional disc, which has flakey software.

Last night, it failed on me again, even though I do in fact have the origional disc. So I had to download the cracked version to play.

Makes the retail version less and less desirable, who to I trust more not to screw up my machine, Sony brand DRM, or a random download? Why does a single player only game need online activation? I got it as an alternative to Steam games when the cable is out...

It's like getting a new puppy, encased in Lucite.

Re:But... it does suck. (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663629)

I recall reading that many of the reviews, and even sales, of Bioshock were for hte Xbox360. That's the one that most people seem to be acquainted with. Yes, the game is One Awesome Hurrah for PC Gaming (albeit chock-full of DRM), but I suspect many people that knew (and cared) about the DRM issues bought it for their 360, if they had one.

Re:But... it does suck. (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664373)

You've just communicated why I buy Xbox games and not PC games (whenever possible.) Sure, Xbox has all kinds of DRM, but it doesn't screw with me just putting in the game disk and pressing "Start" on the controller whenever I like.

Re:But... it does suck. (1)

codemachine (245871) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664513)

Pretty sad when random Warez downloads are safer than the real product. Kind of like how the music industry has become, with illegal MP3 downloads being safer than sticking the CD in your machine.

At one point, the major downside to downloading illegal software was that it may contain a virus and you couldn't trust the person who cracked or uploaded it. Now, we still don't know if we can trust a particular warez file, but we are certain we can't trust the publisher's CDs. So might as well take the chance on the free version as opposed to paying for the known damaged copy.

Re:But... it does suck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21664531)

My god, the ignorance.

You not only have a limited number of 'activations', that is, machines you can install it on and times you can install on the same machine,

And you get those 'activations' back when you uninstall the game. It shouldn't be a problem unless you just go around installing the game on multiple machines and never run the uninstaller.

you ALSO need the origional disc, which has flakey software.

No you don't. Ever heard of Steam?

Makes the retail version less and less desirable, who to I trust more not to screw up my machine, Sony brand DRM, or a random download?

"random download"? What? Steam is more reliable than physical media. Nothing to break, nothing to lose, you can install it on any computer that has an internet connection.

Why does a single player only game need online activation?

To curb piracy, which is one of the biggest problems in the PC game market.

I got it as an alternative to Steam games when the cable is out...

You know that Steam has an offline mode, right? Is your cable ever out for two weeks in a row?

Re:But... it does suck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21666863)

"What? Steam is more reliable than physical media"

BWAHAHAHAHA! That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks for the laugh!

Re:But... it does suck. (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 6 years ago | (#21667777)

You know that Steam has an offline mode, right? Is your cable ever out for two weeks in a row?

Yes, Comcast sucks, that and 70+ MPH windstorms.

Video of the event (4, Informative)

DaleGlass (1068434) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663535)

I never heard of this, so I searched around, and found this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=wIDDAtVLRZw [youtube.com]

WTF #1: Game awards are announced by writing the game's name in body paint on a naked woman
WTF #2: The gamecock people

I suddenly remembered why I don't watch TV anymore, sheesh.

That's it? (1)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663725)

This is what people are getting worked up over, up to the point where the summary blatantly lies about what they said? Seriously?

Rob

Re:That's it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665041)

This is why I don't browse Slashdot anymore. Or Digg for that matter. Or Reddit. Or.

Re:That's it? (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665335)

people where pissed off? Like who? Seriously i need to know, because they are the reason that reject of a network still exists... They dont even have the rights to quality Trek reruns anymore (well they have Voyager but I rest my case) so WHY are they even still around?

Re:Video of the event (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21667407)

Nobody cares about Spike's VGA. Nobody knows or cares about whatever happened. Nobody wants to watch the Youtube video of whatever happened.

Or at least they didn't, before your WTF #1.

-

This years awards... (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663653)

Show that one thing Spike do not know is games, one of the nominations for Wii game of the year was Zelda, a 2006 title, while BioShock getting GOTY they gave best shooter to COD.

What WAS their intention? (1)

bigbigbison (104532) | more than 6 years ago | (#21663857)

If they didn't intend to interupt the game of the year award, why did they? What was it they were trying to do? (Besides be attention whores) When they heard "And the game of the year is Bioshock" what did they think was going to happen when they got on stage and talked before the guys who made the game could talk?

What if we gave an awards show and... (3, Interesting)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664485)

I really wish next year game developers simply didn't show up. These awards aren't doing anything to further the industry. It's embarrassing, really. Unfortunately, the odds of that happening are slim to none.

And regarding GameCock's behavior? Well, with any luck, cosmic karma will pay them back for that little stunt of theirs. I'll be sure to boycott any of their products from now on.

Re:What if we gave an awards show and... (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665863)

And regarding GameCock's behavior? Well, with any luck, cosmic karma will pay them back for that little stunt of theirs. I'll be sure to boycott any of their products from now on.
I like what they did, I'm going to buy more of their products.

I hate BS apologies (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664505)

The award acceptance they interrupted was the LAST one we would've wanted to interrupt

Then why did you? Assholes.

No mention on Gamecock's site (1)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664925)

http://www.gamecockmedia.com/press.html [gamecockmedia.com]

If they really gave a shit about offering a sincere apology, they could at least mention it on their own website.

Gee, I hope nobody edits their wiki page in a similar manner....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamecock_Media_Group [wikipedia.org]

Video (1)

Odin_Tiger (585113) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665119)

Here's a video [youtube.com] of it, if anybody's curious. The guy with the accent actually got some time to talk (beyond the end of the video); it wasn't as bad as 1UP made it out to be, and everybody except Levine seemed to act like it was a planned thing, so I don't really know what to say about it.

President Bananas wants his PirateNinja's back (1)

Ojuice (638639) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665175)

Wow, Gamecocks portfolio includes games like 'Pirates Vs. Ninjas Dodgeball', 'Hail to the Chimp', and 'Dementium: The Ward', need I say more? @_@

Zonk you ass. (1)

Jartan (219704) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665581)

As the guy who handles the gaming stuff and someone who actually reads f13 you should know who Gamecock is and that they would never say Bioshock "sucks". They were doing some of their typical anti establishment speal and they screwed up by interrupting Bioshock's acceptance speech time. They screwed up and admitted it.

For those asking by the way Gamecock is G.O.D. games (or the people who ran it anyways).

So, by doing this they got lots of free TV time (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665625)

Sounds like a well thought out marketing strategy that slashdot helped make even more profitable.

Q. What is the purpose of an awards show for a gaming company?

A. Publicity.

Does anyone actually watch the VGA's? (2, Interesting)

FreeKill (1020271) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666329)

I consider myself a pretty big gamer, and that awards show has absolutely zero appeal to me. In fact, I would say it's an insult. The show basically groups us all into some kind of category where they think the only gamers are, I'm assuming, MTV watching, Pot smoking, ADD afflicted, crack heads judging by the content of the show I've seen in a few youtube videos... Well, maybe that's true, but that show looks terrible!

Please Tag Article: "cockblock" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21667419)

n/t

VGA is obsoleted by SVGA (2, Funny)

was kroepoek (1098895) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669031)

Am I the only one who got confused because VGA means "Video Graphics Array"? Never mind "gamecock", somehow I'm not inclined to learn what that is.

What a bunch of cocks... (1)

jhRisk (1055806) | more than 6 years ago | (#21672491)

...sorry couldn't resist.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?