http://www.gamespot.com/news/6298567...es%3Btitle%3B1
I can't rememeber if 2K is part of Take Two or not. Reading this article, would this finally mean that Activision would finally own the Civilization series? I remember over 10 years ago when Activision accquired Microprose, they thought they had the liscence for Civilization, and we all know how that worked out.
Would this fianlly mean that Civ VI will have the Activision name on it this time?
Yes, 2k is a part of Take-Two. However, these are only talks and no serious business has taken place. Besides, 2K already denied EA's VERY generous offer for a merger. Activsion-Blizzard won't likely front that kind of money for them, so its doubtful that 2k would suddenly change their mind.
But no, that would not be good news. Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision-Blizzard, is only interested in games that he can exploit for millions of dollars. If Civ isn't up to his standards, then we can pretty much forget about a Civ VI, or even much support for Civ V. If it DOES happen, then we can expect a Civ XVI a la Call of Duty, where the series has been hopelessly run into the ground. Either way, Activision-Blizzard needs to keep their hands off of this one.
Last edited by mwallyn; 02-11-2011 at 08:55 PM.
2K is indeed a part of Take Two... And I can see an Activision-owned Firaxis going nowhere but south.
That is what I am afraid off. Then again, 2K has done a great job in selling over a million copies of Civ V, so I can see Activison wanting Civ again. The only thing I am worried about is $15 dollar DLC for a map pack. The CEO already things gamers are idiots and suckers enough to be exploited.
I am afraid to have a new copy of Civ every year just like what they did to Guitar Hero. Yes I know I talk negative about 2K sometimes, but at least they gave Civ V some time to develope. I wish they would have given it more time, but I am afraid, that Activision would have released it way sooner, by a year and give 2 patches and then Abandon Civ V for the next version.
I really hope this doesn't happen. Then agian, I rather have Activision, have Take Two instead of EA. They are both evil. Just the CEO of Activision is... well we are not allowed to call people names now are we? So best to leave that out, but you get the picture.
If Take Two is bought out, I would hope that Firaxis, or would is still be called 2K, still be given leaway of it's games just like Blizzard is. All I can see is Activision ruining the Civ Series.
Oh my god that would be absolutely horrible. A new civ churned out every year, buggier than the next, bugs never fixed and you start your cities with an M16. Activision is the worst game company out there. I really hope this doesn't happen.
NO... just NO.
Well there is one good thing about this though. I bet we would get a Civ game for the 360 and PS3.
See what happens when you say No to a Civ game. Karma comes back and bites you.. Now only if you said it was ok for 2K to make a Civ game for the consoles. Ok Kidding here.
I can't see this happening, but then again, If Blizzard can be bought/merged then I guess anything can happen then.
Frankly, if it came down to it and Activision gained Take Two, I would cease purchasing Civilization games. Much as it would pain me to do so.
I grew up playing Starcraft, and loved the game, but will never, ever purchase Starcraft 2; Not as long as the company is run by that man.
Or more likely a Civ game developed for the 360, leaving the PC/PS3 with a halfarsed port. And the 360 will get all DLC and expansions before the PC/PS3. Nothing good can come from Activision acquiring Take-Two....nothing goodOriginally Posted by Davor
Um. CivRev is for the 360. I thought it was fun, which was surprising because I find TBS/RTS to be cumbersome on consoles.
Yes, but CivRev, ported to the PC, would be received even more disastrously than Civ5. For a console strategy game, it's not bad.
Emphasis on console. PC gamers expect far more depth than the console can support, given the necessary interface differences. Hell, even compared to Civ5, CivRev is seriously lacking in depth.
Actually Starcraft II is a very good game after all.
I refuse to purchase any product which has Kotick's name on it. That would include Civ.
As would I, unless it's better then civ4. But with Kotick running Activision (and I doubt they would view 2K as they do Blizzard), that would never happen.
If Kotick takes over Civilization absolutely, absolute barbarity will take over.
I absolutely refuse to purchase anything associated with Activision, InfinityWard, Blizzard, and Kotick. Buying something from those companies is like making a soul contract with a demon.
Does not matter. I will never purchase it. Nor will I purchase Diablo 3, or any other Blizzard game, despite enjoying them all.
I will not support that man.
And that, quite simply, is what it comes down to. Not even a Call to Power 3 would make me purchase a game from a company that has Kotick as it's head. I would also quite being a Firaxis tester as well. There is no conceivable situation where I want to be associated with that man.
I put Activision in my "don't like list" when they abandoned Call to Power franchise.
Whatever Activision puts its hands on, it breaks, it cheats, it only thinks about getting more and more money. They destroyed the company I used to love and that put me into PC gaming - Blizzard -, they destroyed the creators of one of the most refreshing series for a usually non-inovative genre - Infinity Ward, Call of Duty and FPS -, and they made them do their products full of anti-customer features or with little care for the fans.
That graphical remake named SC2 is profiting from loyal people who just don't have willpower enough to put the glory days behind them and criticize the game or the ridiculous nickel-hunter decision of separating 1 game into 3 for maximum profit, like they would do to any normal company. And that's what they want: make crappy games and squeeze every single penny from loyal fans.
Suddenly I don't feel bad about giving 2K money for a broken game anymore, if I'm helping to prevent such unfortunate event.
Business is just that..business. Don't make it personal. Shafer didn't. Well, I'm sure he didn't. But now we are starting to see why this game seemed to lack a lot of the things the fans had come to expect.
Careful, jac. The 2k-spinners will interject and blame your "user-error" as [the most probable] cause of your Civ V specific gaming misfortune.
I welcome Activision for no particular reason other than to witness the power of money begetting money.
-.-
!
-.-
.......
Yes, even Civ. Civ is just a game. Kotick is a disease bringing down the entire gaming industry. He is single-handedly responsible for the destruction of games as art and instead converting them into high-priced iterative consumables.
If it ever happened, I would hope for a mass-exodus of Firaxian employees to some other company.
I know the stories about Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision-Blizzard. But how would that be worse than the current situation? Civ5 was all eye-candy and no heart. In my opinion an indie developer/producer could easily do a better job at a turn-based game.
Next time get the basics down for a fun and balanced game, and then apply graphics through a 3rd party graphics engine. I can't see how any of us customers are enjoying the "in house" made graphics engine over quality gaming experience. Its a complete waste of time and money unless they choose to use it again for civ6.
Another thing about Activision-Blizzard versus 2K, I dont mind paying more money for a REAL game so just bring on that Bobby guy. I'll shower him in money if he can do what 2K cant do.
Bottom-line: It can only get better from now on (I hope).
I really feel the need to interject something here.
Star Craft 2 while not in any way revolutionary was an amazing evolution of the original game. I watch pro sc2 games daily, im constantly amazed and excited by the high level execution and strategy. It says something that SC2 was immediatley adopted by the Star Craft community both accepts and approves of the game as it is NOW, and thats one HUGE international community.
I loathe Bobby Kotick, but to insinuate that Blizzard neither listens to or responds to their community and releases bad games is quite fallacious. I may not like their business practices but Blizzard still routinely releases some of the very best games around, focusing more on stability, playability across a wide range of systems with highly stylized graphics.
There is a lot to hate with Activision but SC2 isnt one of them. Please leave SC2 out of "it".
Then a distinction needs to be made with this. Blizzard IS given a lot of autonomy within Activision; Kotick allows them a lot of freedom to do their own thing, and by and large, it has worked out. I will admit that games like WoW, SC, and Diablo are all wildly successful, and to be honest, I kind of like Diablo II. However, the Activision branch is responsible for the spam of CoD, Tony Hawk, and *insert instrument here* Hero games. Its VERY doubtful that Activision will give 2k Blizzard's kind of autonomy, which means games like Civilization will be given similar treatment. Game-spam is not where I want to see this series go, and its not good for any game, as Guitar Hero can attest. You are right mrmunkles; Blizzard is a great game studio, and so for future reference, should be left out of this kind of argument. They have no part in the games Activision is directly responsible for.
I think even Kotick would realise that, if they were to do a TBS, game-spam isn't the way to be successful with it. Game-spam works with so many games because it doesn't take players long to get all they will out of it; a good TBS is very replayable, more than any FPS is in single player. With the X Hero games, they get to use different instruments and add new songs; practically speaking they are expansions, but marketed as new games.
More likely, if they did do Civ, would be a very modular base game (probably with no modding capability) they can easily develop new content for; standalone-expansions a la CivIV:Col; DLC up the wazoo. Not saying that's a good thing, just more realistic than a replacement Civ each year or two.
Yet Activision's management can and will exert influence over Blizzard.
Exhibit A - Blizzard slowly but surely allowing players to purchase more and more fluff (from renames/server transfers, to changing the race of a character, to buying ridiculously overpriced mounts).
Exhibit B - Starcraft 2 being split into multiple games. Ostensibly to "better realize the individual story arcs", but realistically, to get people to purchase the game three times. Keep in mind, the main point of the game is MP, and given that MP is largely complete for all races, these extra games amount to little more than DLC story arcs, for the price of a full game. Unless, of course, MP is rebalanced... Meaning everyone has to update, to continue to play. Reminiscent of certain map packs for a certain other game... No?
Exhibit C - Kotick, and senior Blizzard staff, have stated they wish to "monetize" Battle.net.
So no, IMO they should not be left out. They are wholly owned by Activision, even if allowed some autonomy, and are only allowed that autonomy while they continue to generate profit; IE, they can only spend years developing games because of the gold mine that is WoW.
Oh yes, make no mistake: as soon as the third SC2 game is out, somehow it will be a MUST to have the 3 games to play decent online games. Don't ask me how, just wait and watch as Activision gives you an answer.
Starcraft 2 survives cos of a huge hardcore fan community that accepts everything that Blizzard throw at them. They are no different from pop star fans that are capable to kill someone who offends their idol.
Analized in cold blood with the appropriate distance that a true review demands, Starcraft 2 is no more than a graphical remake of the original game with a few new units that presents nothing new to the genre, as they can be perfectly labeled as copycats of other units from games that came between SC and SC2, from Command & Conquer series to the Warhammer 40k series.
Now, you can only contest this if you trully know the genre as a whole. If you only kept playing the original SC or other Blizzard games, as most of the hardcore fan community did, then you really won't have a clue about what am I talking about.
To call SC2 an "amazing evolution" after 12 years is a joke. After 5 years? Yes, I would agree and would be satisfied with the game if it was launched the way it is at 2003. But after 12 years? Evolution? You must have stoped in time or simply didn't play any other games at all.
Activision probably convinced Blizzard to put together that graphical remake with a cliche story (another bad influence of Activision, Blizzard's games always had such deep, well thought and cool stories with no fear from keeping it real with no happy endings, if there wasn't space for one - but now we do have impossible cliched predictible happy endings) ASAP to milk the huge money they've made with it.
It's painful to see someone defending such action.
Last edited by jacypr; 02-12-2011 at 09:07 PM.
Activision are the ones who screwed up the old Civilization: Call to Power series and then abandoned it after one tiny patch. I wouldn't buy anything from them just like I won't buy anything from EA. Honestly, if they want the Civ series to actually do well and not get run into the ground then they need to figure out a way to get Blizzard involved.
Ah, this has already happened. One month before Civ V was released.
No they did not screw it up. Funny nobody would accept a Civ Type game if it did not have the name Sid Mier on it 10 years ago. CTP was great. It just wasn't given enough time by Activision to work on it. Also the Civ community is to blame because they so many talked trash and didn't even play the game.
So it was not worth it for Activision to keep going at it, because there was no money to be made. Yes it is sad what happened to it. So if 2K is still working on Civ V, then there is still money to be made from it. If Activision has Civ V in thier fold, patches will still be worked on, because, there is money to be made still.
For Activision, once it stops, money to be made stops that is, patches stop and the next verion is worked on, or the series is scrapped.
The only good thing I can see this, is that we would get a new version of Civ every 2 years instead of waiting 5 years for a new version. This can be a very very good thing.
I thought this was a horrible idea until I stared reading the posts. All the bad things being said about Activision, can also releate to 2K. Didn't 2K stop making patches for Bio Shock 2? Just like how Activision stopped making patches for their games, 2K has done the exact thing. They both releash crappy games. They both release great games. They both release games that are not ready. They both think they can trim down thier games, and then sell it piece meal at a time.
They both have the same philosophy as to how to make a game in todays market. So there is no difference between 2K and Activision. They are both the Devil in trying to fleece us where we have to pay more for later. As alot of 2K fans or Civ V fans say, it's buisness, so get over it. How ironic nobody can say anything bad about 2K or Take-Two, but they can really bad mouth Activision.
Last edited by Davor; 02-12-2011 at 09:34 PM.
True. Note I also do not buy 2K games for similar reasons (technically I didn't buy Civ4 or 5, the were part of the testing deal.).
@ Jacypr
Its sad to me how you dismiss the 5 million + SC2 fans asYour disdain for activision truly poisons your own objectivity. Im not sure what exactly you expected, the C&C series has continued on a downward spiral for the better part of the last decade you could probably even argue even longer than that. War Hammer is a very different beast altogether, but its not a game I myself enjoy playing, nor do I enjoy the "lore". I can understand that many do I just am not one of them. Age of Empires series which was once one of the greatest PC RTS series alive is effectively dead and I dont see that new release MS is working on as a real successor in anything other than name.
You say you want better units, what exactly did you expect? Blizzard had to design units that would work in concert with others in game to not create a totally imbalanced mess. Again say what you will about the game but honestly youre wrong, reviewers support this claim, the community supports this claim, the continual patches to "fix" slight gameplay imbalances support this. In your eyes it may be "just a graphical remake" but honestly the original SC was far far ahead of its time, and honestly the updates the game needed it got.
I know you feel so superior to all SC fans being that youre not some lap dog for an evil big business. Ive played almost every successful rts since Dune 2, and it exists as my favorite game genre to date. Ill freely admit im not amazing at them but I would put forth that, this qualifies me to speak as to whether or not SC2 is indeed a good game.
In my eyes SC2 does not surpass Age of Kings as my favorite RTS of all time but its damn close, the only reason that it doesnt is because playing deffensively is never an actual option, however the game is superbly balanced and the skill of an individual player is always the deciding factor there is not some supreme unit combo that > all else.
I can see that your a very bitter guy, but honestly its very transparent, and as such your opinion of the game holds very little weight.
Basically the long and short of your post was "I dont care what reviewers, 5 million fans, or the MLG scene says, I know better than all of you". GG.
***editted in***
I forgot to add that I too thought to myself "ill never buy sc2" after hearing that they planned to "split" sc2 into 3 seperate games. A friend gave me a trial pass and after playingthrough the 7 hours of the guest pass I couldnt resist picking up the game as it was simply THAT GOOD. There is an incredible depth to sc2 gameplay which at the end of the day is why the game is so successful.
It's been..., emotional for a few people apparently.
-.-
I think it doesn't matter, Take Two and Activision are the same kind of companies, subject to the same economic forces and incentives... I suspect actually that Activision would just kill the Civilization franchise, or else reinvent it as an RTS e-sport game. How else to keep up seasonal interest and sales?
I think the Civ game many of us want to play depends on better game-creation tools coming to market, so that independent people can bring their ideas to life without a massive budget or decades of programming experience.
I gotta say that I own SC2 but honestly I can't get into it. That being said, I don't typically like RTS games but given its heritage I thought I'd give it a chance. That's not so say SC2's not a great game but I personally will leave it on my bookshelf.
I don't think Activision would Kill Civ franchise at all. They know millions is to be made from Civ. They wouldn't give it up at all. I don't think they will make it an RTS game either. We already had that with Brian Reynolds version of his Civ game, Rise of Nations. Since we don't have any sequals for those type games, I don't think we will see this again.
What I am afraid of is having a new version of Civ every year. Then again, waiting almost 5 years for what, Civ V, then this could be a good thing. Maybe having a yearly update is what Civ needs. Right now waiting every 5 years is not working, so having Activision having Civ can be a good thing. All I know the Civ series is almost dead now. Civ V? Don't really care for. Facebook Civ? OMG, give me a break please. At least with Facebook Civ, nobody will be wasting $50 for it.
I just don't want to see anyone loosing their jobs if this happens. I know if EA took over, almost everyone would have lost their jobs. Lets hope it will not happen if Activision does it.
Will Kotick still be the head in ~5-6 years when CtP 3 comes out? I don't really care either way, my money is in the bucket if it happens.
I have spent far more than $50 on far worse things than a bungled video game.
Source: http://www.mcvuk.com/news/43015/Take...ccept-Acti-bidAnalyst says $20-$22 per share bid would be sufficient; Says interest might spark rival bid from EA
One US analyst has predicted that publisher Take-Two would accept a takeover bid of around $20-$22 per share from rival company Activision.
MCV exclusively revealed last Friday that there's increasing noise about a possible move amongst some of the industry's highest level execs.
And now speaking on Twitter, US analyst service First Adopter reckons that the cancellation of the Guitar Hero IP means Activision must look to increase its stable of successful IP.
"The market caps Activision at $13bn, EA at $6.1bn and Take-Two at $1.3bn. More consolidation is a no brainer in my opinion, especially after Activision shut down Guitar Hero, True Crime, Tony Hawk," it explained.
"If you're Bobby Kotick with a $13bn market cap, buying Take Two for $1.5-2bn is a no brainer, especially since you have nothing now outside of Call of Duty and Blizzard. With Take-Two Kotick picks up IPs like Grand Theft Auto, Bioshock, Red Dead and the NBA 2K series for tiny fraction of his market cap.
Article continues below
Advertisement
"If I was CEO, I would do it."
Take-Two famously rejected a $26 per share bid from EA back in 2008, but in this new financially less certain world that situation could well of changed – particularly with key shareholders like Carl Icahn believed to be pushing for a buyout.
First Adopter thinks the company would now accept a lower offer some two years later.
"I think Take-Two management would take a $20-22 bid because they looked like fools for saying no to EA's $25 bid last time," the service added. "It's not often you get another chance.
"Activision said on a conference call they shutting down True Crime because it wouldn't be near the top in the 'open world' genre. Maybe that was a hint."
Furthermore, First Adopter believes that any move for Take-Two from Activision could be the catalyst for a rival bid from EA.
"Kicker is you might get EA to bid too because EA would be worried about stronger resourced sports competitor from an Activision/Take-Two combo."
You make a lot of conclusions about myself that I have dismissed in previous posts.
I'm a big original SC fan, I'm a big old Blizzard fan, I was even a big Activision fan for what they did to the industry of video games way back in the later 80's, something that depending on your age you won't even know what I'm talking about.
Yet you think I'm just a hater that post crap without knowing what I'm talking about, thus my judgement have no value. You think I'm what? A 10 year old kid?
I don't care if you like the game, I don't care if I don't like the game. I care about unbiased judgement. You clearly can't give me one, I offered several objective points to you and yet you didn't refute any of them cos you simply can't. You just repeat the mantra of Blizzard's fans "we are 5 million, 5 million can't be wrong, blablabla".
Honestly? I'm tired of this. Since you can't properly provide the discussion with any reasonable argument whatsoever, I'm done talking to you.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote