|
Pages: [1] 2
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Activision & Toys for Bob (Read 3718 times)
|
Draxas
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1044
|
I figure I may as well crosspost this here for anyone who doesn't frequent the SCDB.
I recently stumbled across this chronology thanks to TVTropes:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmes ... _id=128252
The whole affair is deeply disturbing to me, especially since TFB is basically a wholly owned subsidiary of Activision at this point. Policies like the ones discussed are really making me despair of ever seeing our sequel (or if we do, the sort of "revenue enhancing" nonsnse and sequelitis it might generate), especially considering Activision's focus on rapidly exploiting the hell out of a successful franchise until the quality and interest drop low enough that the returns diminish, and then sacking the teams responsible without a second thought.
What are you guys' thoughts on the subject?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve-O
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 127
|
The link isn't working for me, however considering it's been what -- 15 years? -- since the last official StarCon game was made I don't think there's much danger of an officially produced sequel being made at this point. The absolute best I would hope for is a remake of the franchise that ignores or subdues its ties to the older games. And no, I doubt such a game would have the charm and enthralling gameplay of SC2.
If you want sequels, you'd be better served watching the fan projects being made around here and at SCDB. Those will most certainly be more faithful to the game we love, and even with the risk of of not being finished due to author delinquincy (an ever-present threat in the fan-made community) I still think there's an infinitely greater chance of seeing these sequels come to pass than anything "official" out of Activision.
In short, I wouldn't worry about this. =P
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
Thanks Dabir. Not sure why it did that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alvarin
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 798
|
Star Control fan projects are far from safe. In fact, they are doomed from the get go. This is why they are called "UQM", "TimeWarp" and other names.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
onpon4
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 709
Sharing is good.
|
Attention, loyal customers.
I am an officer of the Crimson Corporation.
We have learned that Activision has stolen our business philosophies, and we have taken action against this atrocity already, by sending them a formal cease and desist letter. I thank you for making us aware of these wicked pirates.
Please stop by at our trade world at We would be delighted to sell our mystical and ancient artifacts.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve-O
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 127
|
I didn't read most of the "short history" (most of which I didn't get because though I like history but I don't even really know what StarCraft, World of Warcraft....whatever... is) but as I read 65 percent of each post I noticed the one in February 28, 2010. I then went to the link and saw the developer's message. It made me feel really angry at Activision...Activision should've said "I don't care, it has nothing to do with us and as long as you're not selling it..." so why did Activision tell them to "cease and desist"? I still feel relatively safe in the Star Control fan made projects...I think...
When you're a big coporate entity, it's generally considered more important to protect your copyrights than to make people happy. This is the same reason White Wolf sued Underworld, GW goes after any kind of unauthorized use of their games and images, etc. Even if Activision has no intention of ever using the Star Control name again, they will take whatever measures necessary to protect their right to the name. It may seem harsh, and really, it is, but it's the way businesses work. It's territorial.
As long as fan projects don't use the name "Star Control" they should be bulletproof, though. I didn't see the SC reference in the link above, was the fan project in question calling itself "Star Control?"
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
tingkagol
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 50
|
In the end, I guess business is business.
The comments made by Activision's Kotick and Tippl were unfiltered and upsetting to read, yes, (and for the record, I think they're assholes) but it does kind of prove their claim that they'd rather spend money on the development of games over spending for the company- like hiring a PR consultant for themselves. If you think about it, it does make sense seeing the success of their franchises.
(EDIT: Come to think of it, for a company who's making millions of dollars from games like Call of Duty you'd think they can at least compensate the development teams properly. More money for the higher ups perhaps?)
In the end, consumers vote with their wallets. If activision continues to go down that road treating its developers unfairly or milking its titles to the point where gamers get extremely fed up (Guitar Hero), it will cost them dearly in the long run.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 05, 2010, 11:01:58 am by tingkagol »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Alvarin
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 798
|
The problem now, with monopoly in gaming industry, what alternative the gamers have?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2
|
|
|
|
|
