Who would win in a fight?

[guffman]

the question is simple: EA or Square? both own a lot... and a lot of souls. Discuss.

[Bunny]

EA based purely on monetary value; they could probably buy Australia and any Risk player knows that Australia is the best strategic area in the game.

[Moon Rabbits]

EA. More variety, bigger market.

[Slothy]

they could probably buy Australia and any Risk player knows that Australia is the best strategic area in the game.

Ask my cousin how well Australia ever worked out for him.

Anyway, I say both of them should team up to take down Activision.

[Madame Adequate]

\Anyway, I say both of them should team up to take down Activision.

I also hate Blizzard!

[LunarWeaver]

I was hoping this would be a Bruce Willis versus Cloverfield monster thread.

I'll say EA because other people did.

[Slothy]

\Anyway, I say both of them should team up to take down Activision.

I also hate Blizzard!

I love Blizzard for their games (well, more like two games since I'm not a Diablo or WoW fan, which pretty much leaves regular old Warcraft and Starcraft), but I hate Activision's CEO and his business philosophy. A lot of people might not like to talk about the business side of games, but he is a shining example of how not to run a game company.

[guffman]

\Anyway, I say both of them should team up to take down Activision.

I also hate Blizzard!

I love Blizzard for their games (well, more like two games since I'm not a Diablo or WoW fan, which pretty much leaves regular old Warcraft and Starcraft), but I hate Activision's CEO and his business philosophy. A lot of people might not like to talk about the business side of games, but he is a shining example of how not to run a game company.

i need details if i am to consider a hatred for Activision.

[Slothy]

i need details if i am to consider a hatred for Activision.

The wikipedia page on the man covers things pretty well. Sadly from what I've seen and read about him from other sources, I really don't think any of the comments they quote there are taken out of context.

Robert Kotick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[black orb]

>>> Looks like all my life I have just played japanese videogames, I wasnt really aware of this after I looked at this thread.

[guffman]

i need details if i am to consider a hatred for Activision.

The wikipedia page on the man covers things pretty well. Sadly from what I've seen and read about him from other sources, I really don't think any of the comments they quote there are taken out of context.

Robert Kotick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million franchises" -Robert Kotick

now i do not necessarily like this guy by any means; but come on. it's not like he is the only one to think this way, just look at all the sequels that come out that are not by activision. and you have to admit, it is good business; why take risks on new titles that may not sell. look at square, they are about to release FINAL FANTASY 13! there is no reason that any of these games should be "FF" titles because only one of them is a true sequel, but the name itself sells. True?

hmmm I have a feeling this is going to get messy...

[Slothy]

"have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million franchises" -Robert Kotick

now i do not necessarily like this guy by any means; but come on. it's not like he is the only one to think this way, just look at all the sequels that come out that are not by activision. and you have to admit, it is good business; why take risks on new titles that may not sell. look at square, they are about to release FINAL FANTASY 13! there is no reason that any of these games should be "FF" titles because only one of them is a true sequel, but the name itself sells. True?

hmmm I have a feeling this is going to get messy...

That statement on it's own wasn't necessarily damning, but combined with the other ones this guy i pretty unlikeable.

And you could say that Square is no better with the FF series and others, but their series are also generally defined by doing something new with each entry. Even EA is starting to invest in new titles and ideas such as Dead Space and Brutal Legend (which Activision dropped and was pretty successful for EA). How many Activision series can you name that do anything really new from one game to another?

Hell, Activision wanted COD4 to be set in WWII and even did market research to prove to Infinity Ward that a modern warfare game wouldn't sell. Infinity Ward ignored them by not telling anyone when COD4 was set until it was too late for Activision to stop them. Worked out pretty well in the end, but Activision likely would have seen less success if they had their way and kept milking the WWII angle for all it was worth. Saying you want franchises you can continue with and make hundreds of millions on isn't necessarily bad, but Activisions releasing marginal upgrades with expensive peripherals every year like clock work (or even more frequently) is bad for the industry and their franchises.

[Vyk]

Also, Activision canned and turned away a lot of potential bread-winners and one-hit-wonders. Who the heck would say no to the Ghostbusters game? It was pretty much -done- when it was pitched to them! That guy is retarded and I hate him too :] And Blizzard is dumb and unfortunate for joining forces

And I'm gonna guess EA wins the fight. I used to hate them too. Still want to. Badly. But they've apparently changed their ways (thank God). So meh

[guffman]

And I'm gonna guess EA wins the fight. I used to hate them too. Still want to. Badly. But they've apparently changed their ways (thank God). So meh

How so? Last I heard they were trying to purchase Manhattan just so they could reshape it into the EA logo so that they could charge all Google Earth users extra for advertising. True story.

[G13]

I'd say Square but that's because I only play their games. I don't like Activision but that's only because their games aren't my cup of tea. I like Tony Hawk and others but they're generally not games I'd own. EA has some good games too but, as before, nothing I'd want to own.

So for me Square would win (in my imaginary-land fight) just because they're my favorite company. My Superman of gaming if you will.

... That sounds gay.