EPTOh, is this article just the same one from back then?
More horrific Activision allegations - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Craton
United States17254 Posts
Oh, is this article just the same one from back then? | ||
|
Number41
United States130 Posts
I didn't think so. | ||
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
On July 11 2010 15:21 Number41 wrote: Obama appointed a pay czar that took bonus pay away from many thousands, does your hostility apply to him? I didn't think so. Dis is relevint to my prejudisse. And jus as samrt. | ||
|
AttackZerg
United States7454 Posts
In the quest for greatness in leadership a lot of strong men rise and become crooked or evil. Just be thankful he didn't run for office. | ||
|
stellarvector
United States32 Posts
Most people use Facebook, it sucks ass, but most people use it: so maybe they actually thought that was something that we would be excited about. I mean it can't be too hard to imagine that Facebook came up in an idea meeting, they put it on the list of things they could put in, and it stayed on the list. Easy to code- easy to implement- no reason not to really if you think about it. LAN - lan parties are pretty rare, they happen- but the normal way to play with your friends these days is over the internet. Cutting it out is a pretty cheap way to put in some sort of copy protection [I mean come on- if you don't give something for the pirates to do, what else are they going to do? make a new virus?] Chat Rooms- they got a lot of complaints about spammers and trolls. A LOT of complaints. Did anyone ever write them an email saying "Man Blizzard chat rooms are SO AWESOME! Thank you SO MUCH!" -not until they thought it would be a good idea to keep them out. Maybe they honestly thought the new stuff they had in would be enough to not need chat? Maybe they planned on increasing the size of their "party" system? And maybe Activision had some ideas as well, and they put them in a memo; and the blizzard team read them over reluctantly but then thought many of them were actually decent ideas. It makes sense to want to make a little extra money here and there if it's feasable. Maybe they saw the financial data for guitar hero/rock band (whatever activision publishes) and thought "well- it's possible map purchases could work, and we can give back to the community by giving them a percentage, and we can use the extra money for something else to help the community." I don't know- I see the name Activision - Blizzard, and I think; they're partners, on even ground, no one more in charge than the other. Blizzard is probably in charge of every aspect of how to make the game, and Activison is probably in charge of every aspect of how to sell the game. It makes sense doesn't it? I guess we'll see though, if we never see the protoss episode because Blizzard's too busy suing activision for withholding royalties, then we'll know what's going down. Honestly though, I'm not sure activision would really f- with Blizzard, because Blizzard isn't really a small development team. They're as big as Pixar is in my opinion. Just short of untouchable. | ||
|
np.Resuscitate
United States60 Posts
On July 11 2010 09:00 NicolBolas wrote: Man, I just love the rhetoric in this. Employees had to "submit" to "secret interrogations". No, I'm sorry; "secret interrogations" are what happen at Gitmo, when some people in army fatigues or grey suits strap you down and try to drown you. Unless you're being threatened with jail time or physical harm, it's not an "interrogation." No. Consult with webster. An interrogation is a conversation where one party poses interrogatives (questions) to another party. What you are referring to is "harsh interrogation tactics", or torture, or whatever you want to call it. Either way, it's still an interrogation. By definition. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On July 11 2010 01:23 Saturnize wrote: This is so sick. When is someone going to stop this madman? You can stop him. By not giving him your money. | ||
|
udgnim
United States8024 Posts
| ||
|
T0fuuu
Australia2275 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On July 11 2010 16:14 np.Resuscitate wrote: No. Consult with webster. An interrogation is a conversation where one party poses interrogatives (questions) to another party. What you are referring to is "harsh interrogation tactics", or torture, or whatever you want to call it. Either way, it's still an interrogation. By definition. The words we use have connotations that are not found in the dictionary. By your definition, an "interview" is the same thing as an "interrogation". However, when you read the word "interview", you think of two individuals in suits calmly discussing things. When you read the word "interrogation", this is not the mental image you get. Instead, you get the image of one guy in a room under harsh lights while a pair of cops grill him about some subject. The words we use say something about the way we think of things and the ideas we want to communicate. Understanding this is vital to understanding PR, which this legal document is being used as. They don't call it an "interview" because calling it that doesn't make good headlines. It doesn't make for good copy. Take this line: "Activision forced Infinity Ward employees to submit to secret interrogations and told the employees not to tell anyone about them." It could have read: "Activision interviewed Infinity Ward and told them not to tell anyone about the interviews". According to the dictionary definition of the words, these mean the same. But don't tell me that they don't have two completely different tones. The latter sounds calm and reasonable; something a company might do legitimately. The former sounds much more aggressive and dangerous; it is clearly language that suggests Activision is acting outside the bounds of a normal company. If this were just a PR statement, I wouldn't mind. But this is a legal document; one shouldn't abuse such documents like this. | ||
|
aznspartan94
1 Post
On July 11 2010 01:25 holy_war wrote: I almost forgot about those days with Activision and EA ruining every single thing they touch. Blizzard is seeing the results of Activision's grip and only Valve is staying true to gamers. e.g. The Command and Conquer series. | ||
|
bjwithbraces
United States549 Posts
On July 11 2010 08:51 Tabbris wrote: I Really believe blizzard is a good company. Its a Shame they merged with Activision This quote honestly and 100% sums up my feelings. I wish I could add more to my post but there's nothing else worth the time to type it. | ||
|
Prophecy3
Canada223 Posts
On July 11 2010 01:12 ExoCorsair wrote: I just hope that other publishers don't follow suit... More reason to find and buy indie games instead, I guess? I honestly wish that Activision would get some major backlash for this, but it all seems so mild. Maybe if they screwed around with Blizzard, but I don't think that they're that dumb. You must have missed THIS THREAD. | ||
|
thehitman
1105 Posts
| ||
|
Saturnize
United States2473 Posts
On July 11 2010 16:57 a_flayer wrote: You can stop him. By not giving him your money. Well of course. Wouldn't it be silly if I talked like this about Activision and Kotick and still paid for the games they publish ^^ | ||
|
Bluestar-
13 Posts
On July 11 2010 18:11 bjwithbraces wrote: This quote honestly and 100% sums up my feelings. I wish I could add more to my post but there's nothing else worth the time to type it. They're just playing good cop bad cop with u guys. | ||
|
SoL[9]
Portugal1370 Posts
| ||
|
USn
United States376 Posts
On July 12 2010 02:39 Bluestar- wrote: They're just playing good cop bad cop with u guys. Interesting point, but I'm inclined to say people are suckering themselves into good cop bad cop without any help from blizzard/activision. Blizzard's good rep is for making awesome games... it was never for caring about the community or refusing to rip them for cash, and suddenly people think they've been like their beloved kindergarten teacher for the last 10 years. | ||
|
keV.
United States3214 Posts
On July 11 2010 17:17 NicolBolas wrote: The words we use have connotations that are not found in the dictionary. By your definition, an "interview" is the same thing as an "interrogation". However, when you read the word "interview", you think of two individuals in suits calmly discussing things. When you read the word "interrogation", this is not the mental image you get. Instead, you get the image of one guy in a room under harsh lights while a pair of cops grill him about some subject. The words we use say something about the way we think of things and the ideas we want to communicate. Understanding this is vital to understanding PR, which this legal document is being used as. They don't call it an "interview" because calling it that doesn't make good headlines. It doesn't make for good copy. Take this line: "Activision forced Infinity Ward employees to submit to secret interrogations and told the employees not to tell anyone about them." It could have read: "Activision interviewed Infinity Ward and told them not to tell anyone about the interviews". According to the dictionary definition of the words, these mean the same. But don't tell me that they don't have two completely different tones. The latter sounds calm and reasonable; something a company might do legitimately. The former sounds much more aggressive and dangerous; it is clearly language that suggests Activision is acting outside the bounds of a normal company. If this were just a PR statement, I wouldn't mind. But this is a legal document; one shouldn't abuse such documents like this. Typically, the allegations are taken from the claim. Law suits like this are won by embellishment. The whole argument is that Activision went overboard, hence the purple prose. How far do you think IW would get if they they said things like: "Activision interviewed Infinity Ward and told them not to tell anyone about the interviews". On a side note, I want you to know that - But the hyperbolic rhetoric here is completely unnecessary. is my favorite sentence read on TL. | ||
|
JonnyLaw
United States3482 Posts
Let me ask you, as a consumer, how you are affected by and what will be the possible repercussions of a STANDARD work environment within the gaming community? This is not Grandma's Boy people. | ||
| ||
