The Games Industry And ATVI - Page 38

On March 27 2021 01:54 Tictock wrote:
I still think VR has potential even with all those issues, I just have a hard time seeing it moving outside a niche thing that only exists in specialized locations.

Sorry for getting off topic.

Multiple publishing sources told VGC this month that the event organiser had pitched plans to charge a fee for some of 2021’s planned content, such as on-demand game demos or a ‘premium’ package with extra access. One source suggested that the premium package had been pitched to publishers at $35.

However, in a statement issued after the publication of our story, The ESA provided additional comment denying it would charge for E3 content.

“I can confirm on behalf of the ESA that there will be no elements at E3 2021 that will be behind a paid-for pass or paywall,” as spokesperson told VGC.

In an earlier statement sent to VGC ahead of publication, The ESA said it would “deliver a free experience for everyone interested in E3 2021,” but didn’t specifically rule out paid-for features.

According to VGC’s sources, the ESA has discussed bundling some parts of its consumer offering as part of a paid access pass, which could be for the on-demand game demos or a ‘premium’ package with extra access.

However, at least one major games company VGC spoke to expressed criticism of the paywall plans and suggested that the ESA had indicated it was willing to back down on the proposal. If its recent statement is accurate, then that would appear to be the case.

As we reported in February, E3’s organiser is pushing forward with plans for a digital event this summer and is attempting to court the support of game publishers.

The event, which will rebrand as the “Electronic Entertainment Experience” (instead of “expo”), is planned to run for a week starting June 13, and incorporate three days of broadcast content, followed by a consumer experience powered by an official E3 app.

“E3 has always served as the gaming industry’s uniting force, a moment each year where the best and brightest gather to release the latest announcements and game demos in support of not only their individual objectives, but to evangelize the entire industry,” a pitch document sent to publishers reads.

“In 2021, E3 is much more…. Welcome to the Electronic Entertainment EXPERIENCE. International, Inclusive. Innovative, Irresistible and ‘in your hands’ wherever you live.

“E3 2021 is NOT an in-person event turned virtual,” the pitch adds.

“E3 2021 is a vanguard and culturally significant digital tent-pole for all corners of the industry and its consumers, from mobile and PC gaming to eSports to watershed console and AAA debuts, all of which will generate massive mainstream attention, offer unprecedented secure game demos while accelerating your B2B, B2M and B2C objectives.”

The ESA’s intention for the 2021 show is to hold multiple keynote sessions from games partners, broadcast from an LED-clad live stage built in Los Angeles, as well as an awards show, preview night and the ability for companies to schedule meetings with media and business users via the app.

However, the key feature of E3 2021’s digital plans could be on-demand game demos streamed via the cloud.

The ESA wants to partner with Nvidia to power the demos using its GeForce Now platform, VGC understands, and allow E3 exhibitors to make their playable experiences available either to the general public, or privately to press and business people via its app. VGC has requested comment from Nvidia.

Plans sent to publishers suggest the E3 app will include “virtual booths” containing content announced during the show, as well as merchandise stores and demos.

On April 03 2021 01:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-04-01-activision-dmcas-news-site-for-reporting-call-of-duty-leak

I'm in favour of ATVI going after news outlets like this. I want the surprises and plot twists I experience to be curated and managed by the publisher//developer. I want to be dumb founded and go "WOW Holy Cow that is amazing"

Its not like ATVI is hiding the cure for cancer. ATVI is protecting a marketing secret which will eventually be revealed. The guys revealing this stuff are not "investigative journalists" uncovering the real events that started the Vietnam War. These are click bait gossip mongers putting out this stuff about Call Of Duty.

Go Get 'em Bobby!

On April 03 2021 01:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-04-01-activision-dmcas-news-site-for-reporting-call-of-duty-leak

I'm in favour of ATVI going after news outlets like this. I want the surprises and plot twists I experience to be curated and managed by the publisher//developer. I want to be dumb founded and go "WOW Holy Cow that is amazing"

Its not like ATVI is hiding the cure for cancer. ATVI is protecting a marketing secret which will eventually be revealed. The guys revealing this stuff are not "investigative journalists" uncovering the real events that started the Vietnam War. These are click bait gossip mongers putting out this stuff about Call Of Duty.

Go Get 'em Bobby!

On April 04 2021 23:45 Archeon wrote:

I am starting to believe that everything you write on this thread is ironical.

Like we literally have a global giant misusing their law department and the US shitty law system to stop journalists (which are absolutely covered by freedom of the press in this case) from covering the companies' screw up.

There is nothing stopping you or anyone else from not clicking on "clickbait" titles saying that there was a leak if you don't want to get "spoilered" regarding the "dumbfounding" twists of a leaked map for a pvp mode based on half a dozen currently popular pvp games.

You should be able to sue Atvi for even trying that shit. Copyright is there to stop people from selling other's intellectual property, not to silence reporters.

On April 05 2021 02:19 deacon.frost wrote:

Well, it's more on the platform side of things, that they "trust" with DMCA the companies more than the creators. I believe even TotalBiscuit was ranting about this.

On April 05 2021 02:34 Simberto wrote:


But that is built into the shitty law system by setting incentives. If a platform (like for example youtube) takes down a few too many videos, sure, the creators are a bit annoyed, but they don't really have a lot of choices anyways, and it doesn't really impact the bottom line.

If, on the other hand, that company doesn't take down something that in retrospective it should have, it may lose safe harbor status (which means it is fucked), or it may need to fight a costly legal battle.

It is clear on which side the platform logically errs here. And that is not because the platform is evil, but because the law is set up that one choice is safer for the company then the other.

On April 05 2021 05:17 deacon.frost wrote:

They should review what they're taking down and not side with one side automatically. The issue is in the review process, which is either missing, automated or being handled by people who don't understand it. (which wouldn't be surprising considering the reviewers are probably low payed people from non English speaking countries and who know nothing about the US law system(why would they))

Edit> Also there appears to not be any consequences when companies abuse this system, which is another issue. Why wouldn't you do it when you're not facing any consequences. They can always say - look, we haven't done anything , Youtube took the video down. We just asked them nicely, it's between you and Youtube to solve this out.

On April 04 2021 23:45 Archeon wrote:

I am starting to believe that everything you write on this thread is ironical.

Like we literally have a global giant misusing their law department and the US shitty law system to stop journalists (which are absolutely covered by freedom of the press in this case) from covering the companies' screw up.

There is nothing stopping you or anyone else from not clicking on "clickbait" titles saying that there was a leak if you don't want to get "spoilered" regarding the "dumbfounding" twists of a leaked map for a pvp mode based on half a dozen currently popular pvp games.

You should be able to sue Atvi for even trying that shit. Copyright is there to stop people from selling other's intellectual property, not to silence reporters.

On April 05 2021 07:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:


i also favour the UFC for crushing Ariel Helwani when he leaked the Brock Lesnar return. I would much prefer to have seen the UFC's epic surprise reveal in the middle of a PPV .. rather than reading a rumour on Ariel Helwani's twitter feed.

Again, Helwani and this outlet are not uncovering the cure for cancer or exposing monetary system manipulation by the elite rich. These gossipers are short-circuiting a MARKETING VENTURE. Stuff that was going to be revealed any way... but in a way that the UFC and ATVI deemed to provide the best experience for its customers.

I love the Borderlands franchise. The last thing I want is one of these gossip column idiots beaking off about the plot in the upcoming movie. And if someone does that.. i hope Gearbox and 2K Games crushes them. If that were to happen that is not an example of "investigative journalism". It is leaking important facts that can impact the movie watching experience.

On April 05 2021 07:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:


i also favour the UFC for crushing Ariel Helwani when he leaked the Brock Lesnar return. I would much prefer to have seen the UFC's epic surprise reveal in the middle of a PPV .. rather than reading a rumour on Ariel Helwani's twitter feed.

Again, Helwani and this outlet are not uncovering the cure for cancer or exposing monetary system manipulation by the elite rich. These gossipers are short-circuiting a MARKETING VENTURE. Stuff that was going to be revealed any way... but in a way that the UFC and ATVI deemed to provide the best experience for its customers.

I love the Borderlands franchise. The last thing I want is one of these gossip column idiots beaking off about the plot in the upcoming movie. And if someone does that.. i hope Gearbox and 2K Games crushes them. If that were to happen that is not an example of "investigative journalism". It is leaking important facts that can impact the movie watching experience.

On April 05 2021 07:30 Simberto wrote:


I disagree that we should just let corporations have complete control over their marketing. Firstly, they don't do what they deem provides the best experience for their customers, they do what they deem makes them the largest amount of money.

On April 05 2021 20:33 Manit0u wrote:
If you want to take punitive action for revealing the leak then you should take it against the source of the leak (I assume potential breach of NDA or other contract) and not people further down the line who are just spreading it (AFAIK there's no law against gossip) since the cat's out of the bag at this point anyway.