2012: Gaming Apocolypse

[More Fun To Compute]

Or try thinking for yourself... so Bobby paid 7 billion $ in a deal or a "merger" and was made boss of the game division, a company called "Activision Blizzard", upon which he closed one of the "game branches" Vivendi had (SIERRA) and letting most of the games under that brand fall.
He just kept the name cause it is a too powerful marketing tool/brand to let go xD
And of course Blizzard has leeway and can make decisions as long as they rake in cash (kinda the same with Bioware and EA) but just wait till something goes wrong

Aside of that, I think noone in his right mind can argue that the Blizzard after WoW and the Activision "merger" is the same Blizzard from before those events and will make the same games and decisions it would have before...

Blizzard were owned by Vivendi for quite a while before. Now they are owned by Vivendi with a different corporate structure.

I'm sure that Bobby Kotick owns a lot of shares in Activision-Blizzard and he would like to have bought them cheaper. I'm sure he is proud that Blizzard are under his management but by all accounts they are run as a separate business and the board is controlled by Vivendi. Bobby Kotick runs Activision-Blizzard but it does not follow to say that he directly runs Blizzard or that he "controls" Activision-Blizzard.

 

[jtr477]

If only a handful of developer's remain it's that much better for the quality of the games that ARE released. I remember a time where there were not many developers around and the best pearls in gaming history were released.

Just saying.

By the way, i do think nintendo is CAPABLE of saving gaming. But probably doesn't have the will.

As right now they are too busy sucking the balls of the gimmick crowd.

Nintendo has already saved gaming for itself and for a lot of people who like traditional Nintendo games. Expecting them to save the whole of the games industry from its own hubris and excesses would not be sensible. Not enough room in the bunker buddy, sorry about that. How about people start ranting at people like EA and Microsoft for failing to save their own part of the industry instead of complaining about Nintendo's successes.

I wouldn't want to say that quantity is more important than quality but from a consumer perspective the most important thing is which sort of developers fail and what selection of games we have left. Traditionally the shrinking profit margins and survival of games with larger budgets and larger markets has not been pretty in terms of seeing who fails. To be honest though the mega publishers that we have are so bad at developing games that I want myself that I would not be too sad if they failed. But history tells me that they will survive and the people I like will go out of business.

Well that's just the diff isn't it.

Nintendo is a big corporate machine now too, but at least they've shown they can make GAMES. Not the bloody filthy excrement of mediocrity that EA and Microsoft shit out these days.

Then again, ranting on EA and Microsoft would have no point. At some point you just have to wait for them to tip over from they're own weight.

By the way i wasn't really saying that nintendo SHOULD help the entire industry, but they could.

Though i honestly believe that nintendo of all is capable of surviving a gaming apocalypse.

On the other parts of the ring, we have microsoft, who no one really likes, much like the americans.

And EA "games" which has the habit of buying a good game studio, squeezing out a few million bucks from they're better franchises and then moving on.

So i think it would be better to gaming as a whole if microsoft GS and EA piss off and die and nintendo takes over as a maker of video games again and not the maker of stupid time wasters for old people bloody like wii sports or remaking the same game over and over and coming with Even More New Super Mario Brothers and Sisters superduperdeluxe 5 v2.3.