Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

This is why I don't pay for Activision games anymore.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 43 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 4, 2013 4:42:37 PM PST
Zetirix says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 4:45:38 PM PST
Carlito says:
Cool...story...bro....

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 4:46:15 PM PST
Soulshine says:
Title...implies...theft!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 4:47:07 PM PST
Hey says:
"It's just too bad some people will buy this on just the brand. "

That's the key. Activision doesn't need to advertise it because their market for this game will stumble upon it and buy it without a second look. No need to waste advertising dollars on it.

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 4:48:15 PM PST
Movie Monkey says:
They were probably like "yikes, our game isn't close to what TellTale did...let's just bury this and hope people get confused..."

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 4:49:19 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 4, 2013 4:54:31 PM PST
Zetirix says:
I just steer clear, but I was wanting a great zombie title since L4D is stale to me (console player) and this universe is well put together, should be a grand slam. The choices for developer and publisher means that any hope of a good survival/shooter in this world are (most likely) lost.

Edit: Grammar Nazi.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 4:51:56 PM PST
Pretty much this. Activision bought the license and dumped the game on a cheap developer. Some people will get it confused with the *other* Walking Dead game and buy this one instead. Other people might think it is a sequel to the *other* Walking Dead game and buy it without looking it up. No need to use up precious advertising dollars on a crappy game when people will buy it without looking into it.

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 5:15:25 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 5:18:47 PM PST
Hey says:
If you want it, then it has to be terrible.

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 5:20:17 PM PST
I haven't followed this game much. Just did some research on it. It looks horrible.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 5:20:32 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 4, 2013 5:22:36 PM PST
Zetirix says:
I'm not going to debate peoples' day-one buying habits, if you want to say one hyped game over another, that doesn't take away from my point that they chose a terrible day to release on.

And I actually enjoyed Brink...

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 5:29:40 PM PST
I had fun with brink :(

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 5:36:09 PM PST
Zetirix says:
Brink was developed by a company that has a good track record with FPSs, while this Walking Dead game is made by a game developer known for Flight Sims...

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 5:36:50 PM PST
Well, sometimes when I disapprove of a company or one of its practices as concerns a game, but still want to play it, I will make a conscious decision to buy the game pre-owned so that the publisher does not profit from this transaction.

So, for example, I consciously decided to buy Prototype used.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 5:41:50 PM PST
Gameresq says:
By creating a secondary market, you are lowering the effective cost on the primary market and increasing the quantity sold to the level of demand commensurate with the new effective price, thus indirectly supporting the publisher still

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 5:53:23 PM PST
"I will make a conscious decision to buy the game pre-owned so that the publisher does not profit from this transaction."

But that also hurts the dev :(

Screw the publisher, support the talent.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 6:16:15 PM PST
Zetirix says:
Terminal Reality is not an FPS talent.

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 6:28:59 PM PST
Activision, get your act together. Stop releasing CoD each year, every other year is fine, but try to launch a new IP.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 6:30:51 PM PST
They had a pretty big hit just a year and a half ago with Skylanders. How often do they need to launch a new IP to appease you?

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 6:33:57 PM PST
Zak Iarih says:
Ghostbusters was ok so I'm trying to stay optimistic Ill certainly be waiting for reviews though

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 6:34:24 PM PST
Hey says:
I'm so happy Toys for Bob finally had a hit game.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 6:40:30 PM PST
It's sort of miraculous that they still exist, to be honest.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 6:41:10 PM PST
I did not know that Skylanders was from Activision, so that's why you have to buy the action figure IRL in order to get a character in it.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 6:43:00 PM PST
Hey says:
Right? Being relegated to budget trash usually doesn't do a studio well. Fred Ford and Paul Reiche have always been totally legit dudes though and I don't doubt they still are.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 6:43:28 PM PST
I think that the "it's a physical toy as well as a video game" is the core appeal of Skylanders. It makes Activision a whole pile of money, but I don't think the game would be anywhere near as popular if it wasn't for the "collecting the actual figurines" aspect.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  16
Total posts:  43
Initial post:  Mar 4, 2013
Latest post:  Mar 5, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions