-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Who ended up better today? EA buying BioWare or Activison merging with Blizzard?
- Thread starter DR3AM
- Start date
LQX
Member
How so, when we have the Mass Effect and the COD series which are amazing?
Ventilaator
Banned
Seriously. This thread isn't even a contest. Diablo III isn't even out yet after two billion years and that's "yearly sequels without fail" Activision we are talking about here, while EA told everyone that they are announcing a new Bioware game, which turned out to be a new game from some random studio they renamed to Bioware.
Seriously now. I don't see how this can even be argued.
This guy gets it.
Pandas have been in since WC3 (2002).
OT: Blizzard still seems to be holding to most of their values.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
So did Bioware.
Sportbilly
Member
*oof*
Couldn't have said it any better.
hubuwhat???
Sportbilly
Member
Um, PC?
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
So basically, you don't really care about quality. You just want more games. Gotcha.
Did you not play video games before 2005?
No.
Exactly.
Blizzard managed to stay basically the same, but they're taking some decisions they'd never take before Activision happened. Bioware, on the other hand... Haha.
I would guess Activision by a large margin. I'm pretty sure TOR isn't doing nearly as well as EA hoped it would. I could be wrong, but I already unsubbed due to boredom and my server was pretty barren even in early February.
Oh and Dragon Age 2.
Blizzard on the other hand has three massive franchises and a sure to be smash next gen MMO in the works.
Oh and Dragon Age 2.
Blizzard on the other hand has three massive franchises and a sure to be smash next gen MMO in the works.
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
I wouldn't call Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 mediocrity. Starcraft 2 is pretty stellar, gameplay-wise, and Diablo 3, if the beta is to be judged, is shaping up to be pretty amazing as well.
I was thinking mainly about WoW and being unfair by forgetting their other titles, so I edited my post. You are right.
No matter how good the games are, (and Starcraft II story is very debatable), Battle.net 2.0 on the other hand is still a mess.
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/4079626942
http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/...ce-Visibility-and-Community-may-Kill-Diablo-3
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=308482
And if they continue to use that with Diablo 3, this doesn't bode well. It certainly has made me and my friends caused to stop playing Starcraft II.
Tallshortman
Member
Activision didn't "acquire" Blizzard, they were purchased, majority shares, by the owner of Blizzard, Vivendi though I suppose that's more of a technicality. Anyways, Blizzard has always made better selling games than BW and is a complete cash cow with WoW so from a business perspective it's not even a contest.
Jibbajabbawockky
Member
Didn't EA spend close to 1 billion in acquiring BioWare? And yet, BioWare still hasn't had one of their games sell 10 million copies?
I'm a little curious as to why. I'm sure that Bnet2 isn't perfect, but SC2 matchmaking is the best in any game I have ever played. I guess interface issues with Bnet2 isn't enough to make me quit playing such an awesome game.
crimsonheadGCN
Banned
Vivendi made out better. They actually got someone who could run their video game business without losing tons of money.
So? Do you know how many non-developer support people you need supporting an MMO that large? WoW is on the down-slope from its peak. Of course they're going to need to start scaling some of that personal down. It's still larger and more profitable that any game out there. And it's how old?
This is true. There was a large chunk of years where they were totally inept and begging to be sold to anyone.
Gunmonkey36
Member
This so many times over.
As for the actual answer I would say Activision.
World of Warcraft was already established before the merger so none of the initial development cost, and constant money flowing in from subs. WoW and Call of Duty could keep a small country afloat financially.
EA had to fund the development of SW:TOR. That clearly was not cheap. It will almost certainly make up for the cost, and be profitable. It will also never see the profits that WoW has.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Activision. EA buying BioWare has honestly yet to be seen.
And seriously, how did EA corrupt BioWare? Did they make them arrogant? This is where BioWare has always wanted to be. EA is not responsible for BioWare's employees going on Metacritic and mouthing off on Twitter. EA didn't tell David Gaider to call people idiots on the forums.
And seriously, how did EA corrupt BioWare? Did they make them arrogant? This is where BioWare has always wanted to be. EA is not responsible for BioWare's employees going on Metacritic and mouthing off on Twitter. EA didn't tell David Gaider to call people idiots on the forums.
As others in those threads I linked have said: it feels like you are playing alone. When I enter SCII I press "search for game" and that's it. The only interaction with another human being I have is the glhf with ma opponent. Sure there are chatrooms but they are cumbersome and not well thought out.
When I entered Starcraft 1 I entered my local screen filling chatroom, the first screen you see when starting b.net play, with maybe 5-6 people from my region. We weren't talking much but it was something.
Not being able to warch replays together, the AT/Random Team fuckup and the custom game disaster is what killed the game for me and my friends playing together.
I do believe from an actual game perspective Bioware got to where they are now on their own. All of the bad design choices, all of the horrible writing...it's all from them.
But EA is definitely there. ME2 and 3 didn't have 50 billion launch DLCs with some of it on the disc, project $10 with the Dragon Age series and ME2, and project pay 10 more dollars with ME3 because that's just what Bioware does.
Two posts stipulating that Vivendi are the controlling interest in the Activision merger, one from a mod who has a great repertoire in Gaming GAF, and the thread continues to plod along as if those posts never happened.
C'mon GAF, you're better than this.
C'mon GAF, you're better than this.
Of course Activision.
Blizzard prints so much money that they can work on multiple AAA titles at the same time of which every single one will sell a ton again.
And personally, Blizzard offers more quality than BioWare.
Biggest loser Is the gamer. But much of the problem comes with his wallet.
Blizzard prints so much money that they can work on multiple AAA titles at the same time of which every single one will sell a ton again.
And personally, Blizzard offers more quality than BioWare.
Biggest loser Is the gamer. But much of the problem comes with his wallet.
LQX
Member
Its not like other games stopped getting made.
I think this perception comes from the fact that people have not been overwhelmingly happy with Blizzard since Activision was acquired. It seems like something did change with Blizzard or it is just that Blizzard had these ideas all along and this was just the natural progression.
Activision didn't merge with Blizzard, Blizzard was merged with Activision (that's why Vivendi Universal is the majority owner of Activision Blizzard, Blizzard was worth more than Activision). So you have to compare Vivendi and EA. And then of course Vivendi is the winner, no doubt about that.
Activision doesn't make Blizzard do anything, Blizzard has total creative and financial freedom.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
I know this sounds all cool and all to say, but really.. the Vivendi/Activision merger hasn't turned out bad for gamers at all.
If you're mad about studios closing? Well, people didn't buy enough of their games.. that's how it works.
Also, BioWare was already moving in the direction they were moving EA or not.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I still blame Activision for no LAN mode on Starcraft 2 which is one of the biggest injustices of gaming ever, but at least Starcraft 2 is still an RTS.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
And certainly not the games.
As someone who loves SC2 I can back this up. BNET 2.0 is horrible. It's certainly not enough to make me stop playing a very excellent game. If I want a community fix I go to teamliquid or reddit. I can see it affecting the more casual players though.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Okay. so we're not talking about corruption, but more-so business decisions. It's EA's plan to push DLC. Corruption has nothing to do with it, since BioWare has to comply. Sure, they could have made a compromise in the way that 38 Studios did, but they didn't.
Corruption implies that simply by being an EA label, BioWare somehow changed internally, and when you say that, you are being a dreaded BioDrone.
Business practice = /= corruption. Business practice =/= "selling out". Towing the company line =/= corruption. It's really, really sad that some people think this.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
This should be duly noticed and noted by people, but it won't be.
Fixed.
Activision/Blizzard (no matter who purchased who) is the obvious winner here. A single publisher that has CoD, WoW/regular Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo is a huge powerhouse, and nothing EA has can touch that.