I’m not buying any AAA game that has microtransactions, that includes NBA2k and FIFA... originally I wanted COD on the Switch, but if it’s riddled with loot boxes they can go to hell. I’d rather spend my money on Indie games and last gen ports.
Well Activision put out less games, everything they do put out are very safe online multiplayer sequels or licensed games, and they employ less than half the people that EA does so, yeah, they're probably worse unless there is some great disparity between how employees are treated from one place to the other. If EA lays off studio of <100 people they're still employing some 4000 more people than Activision who are almost definitely more profitable, lol.
What big RPGs does Activision publish? World of Warcraft? Lol, that's one game since 2005.
Where is there A Way Out? What are they doing to help the medium? They're just sucking money away from normies and people caught in the World of Warcraft flytrap.
I honestly think it was World of Warcraft that showed other companies what they could get away with and that a popular game could survive as a 'service'. That game makes far more than necessary to 'maintain servers' and the fans still pay. Heck ActivisionBlizzard even went one further to put in an eshop so you could buy exclusive polygons...in a subscription based game...in a full priced retail game! Next in diablo, they experimented with real money auction houses. Next step is naturally repeatedly spending money on something you aren't 100% guaranteed to get.
I never drive faster than I can see. Besides, it's all in the reflexes.
Blizzard charges you $25 to change servers or to re-customize your character. It really is extortion, and no one in the larger gaming space gets all outraged at it like they do with Star Wars.
@Spoony_Tech I wouldn't be surprised if other practices like that are already implemented in online games, without us knowing about them. It's no secret that single player games are made more tedious and grind-y on purpose to encourage the player to buy micro-transactions instead. I can only imagine a fraction of the incentives you can implement in multiplayer games if you want encourage the sales of micro-transactions.
Like it or not, we've reached a point where you simply can't ''ignore'' them anymore. If they're in the game, they will have an effect on the gameplay. And that's not even considering the effect they have on the yearly output of games as a whole and the entire state of the industry.
Whether that patent makes Activision worse than EA? For coming up with that patent? We don't know how EA handles their matchmaking. And from what I've seen so far, EA is still at the very bottom of it all. Battlefront II, FIFA, Need for Speed., the closure of Visceral, the acquisition of Respawn, etc. Activision is probably not for behind though.
@Octane News came out a couple of hours ago claiming that the George Fan (of Plants vs. Zombies fame) was fired from EA along with other staff for opposing pay-to-win and microtransactions in PvZ2. So yeah, still at the bottom.
How can Activision be worse than EA, especially for this?
By patenting those ideas they warned us about them so that we know to be very careful before considering to buy their games (or simply start avoiding them right away) while other companies can't use those tricks freely anymore.
They are definitely not the worst, this is almost an heroic sacrifice! ...even if I'm not sure that was the intention XD;;;
Forums
Topic: Is Activision worse then EA?!
Posts 1 to 11 of 11
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.