Activision Wants Consoles to be Replaced by PCs

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]speedemon[/nom]It would only be able to work like that if the OS/drivers were able to be updated with the click of a mouse, This would otherwise be a big problem for all the kids that are used to the plug and play setup... maybe some kind of software that runs when windows starts... sort of like the xbox dashboard preventing the basic users from accessing the OS functions like control panel and task manager. Going to Nvidia/ATI.com and finding the correct drivers is too great a task for the Console users, what they need are POWER, RESET, EJECT, PLAY, AND UPDATE buttons. Making this kind of "PC" = WIN[/citation]


In place of a "Play" and "Update" button maybe it could come with a manual (What, like to READ!?) or a file on the desktop that explained how to do these severely complicated tasks to those that dont know how.

It would be horrible if kids actually had to LEARN how to use a PC...
That kind of thing could never benefit them later in life.

 
So he doesn't object to the notion of making people pay again for something they've already paid for (like Xbox-live does). He's just mad he doesn't get a percentage and now he's acting like he's the best friend of PC gamers. I say he should put his money where his mouth is: start making games for PC again and then port them to the consoles, not the other way around.
 
Activision can stay off my PS3!!! I don't want them on it anymore. I'll Be ok playing my GOWIII and GT5 when it comes out.
 
Wow...so let me get this right, MS (whether you like them or hate them) come up with a system of centralized servers for the online gaming platform, first developing a beta-type version of the system with the original Xbox and refined it to quite the user-friendly system we currently have...but you think because you game is "so big", that because you killed the developer and will never have as huge of a hit as you did, that you deserve a portion of the profits from online play???

Between this, EA's "DO NOT BUY USED" content removal system and UBI's draconic DRM it's really becoming a hassle to be a gamer nowadays. Instead of coming up with ideas to make people want to spend more for a game (like some halfway decent DLC...only game I've bought DLC for so far is Borderlands) they keep trying to figure out what they can remove to turn into "premium content" to force people people to spend more without going elsewhere. And now that EA has the NFL rights I imagine Madden will just keep geting stripped down year after year.
 
I can totally understand why game developers hate consoles. They are still running crap hardware from the moment they were first built in 2005. I had the best video card back then (7950GX2,) and now it is sitting in my work PC because it's so useless.
PC's can be upgraded at will, and when a game comes out that is better than the hardware that I have, they almost force me to go out and buy better hardware. It's a Win Win for the gaming community, hardware manufacturers and game developers when they release a game to the PC.
 
This already exists:
http://internetgames.about.com/library/weekly/aadiscovera.htm
discover1.jpg

Not sure if they are still around i heard HP bought them not sure though.
 
[citation][nom]domenic[/nom]As a CEO he should realize that when he speaks publicly, he should put the customer first, ahead of profits & the company's interest. If he is not able to install that perception, he and his company will never be successful. The customer does not care about his company and their profits. Tell them how exactly this will benefit their playing experience and budget. It amazes me how naive you are about this.[/citation]

First: If you'll re-read the article you'll find this CEO was talking to "Financial Times". Hardly his customer base. Second: You should speak for yourself about the profitability of the companies YOU do business with. Personally, I want companies I do business with to be profitable enough that they will remain in business for the next time I need them. Finally, it seams to me this guy is on my/our side of the console vs PC gaming issue. Why wouldn't I want to support him to run consoles off the face of the earth and let him earn an appropriate profit for doing so?
 
"We don't really participate financially in that income stream. We would really like to participate financially in that income stream."
 
I'm sorry, but obviously none of you can read, and are giving them a bad rap without actually reading what they were saying.

Yes, they mentioned that they were not receiving any of the funds for XBOX Live, but the only reason they said that, is because they don't believe Microsoft should be receiving money when you only need an internet connection to connect with other users on a PC.
Let me repeat. They NEVER said that they would be charging you instead, they just don't like the limitations that Microsoft has put on their online gaming, which is why they want you to switch to a PC.
 
60% subscribe just for COD? My ass... Halo 3 called and says to STFU.

I will not buy another COD game and currently BF is giving them the beatdown in terms of actually "having fun" with a game.

 
that has to be the most UN-EDUCATED statement someone in his position could make . Activision is using Microsoft / XBOX Live service FREE OF CHARGE. THose are paid for by the subscribers of the XBL Live service.

If he likes the free system that PSN has, Activision has to spend hundred of thousands to develop their own networ that meets the PSN network requirements, not to mention you have to pay for someone to maintain and service said network. This is such a stupid thing to say, I am completely baffled by it.

Also for that record the PS3 and the 360 ARE PC's in the living room. They are all the same and it's easier for developers to program for so you don't have to worry about a new user wanting ZORK to run on DIRECT X 11 or OPENGL 3.1. Pick your battles Activision...i don't recommend this one, because you are VASTLY un-informed.
 
wow, they mad cuz microsoft is making money and theyre just so greedy theyre willing to COMPLAIN about how they dont get any of that money? omg now they wanna charge pc gamers?!! we got online for free for so long no other companies will stat doing it if this goes through. I would maybe consider it if the PC version was any good, the completely ruined the thing that made PC gaming superior and ruined their chance. If this goes through i guarantee that there will be 5 players online maximum.
 
[citation][nom]sdgsdg[/nom]I'm sorry, but obviously none of you can read, and are giving them a bad rap without actually reading what they were saying.Yes, they mentioned that they were not receiving any of the funds for XBOX Live, but the only reason they said that, is because they don't believe Microsoft should be receiving money when you only need an internet connection to connect with other users on a PC.Let me repeat. They NEVER said that they would be charging you instead, they just don't like the limitations that Microsoft has put on their online gaming, which is why they want you to switch to a PC.[/citation]

OMG are you serious. Did you see what "they" did with MW2? They implemented "MASSIVE" limitations for online gaming. Yeah I read this article, I also read the last years worth where they slowly dug their own grave and denied PC gamers what is the norm as they wanted to focus on consoles.

What limitations did MS put on their online gaming? Fill me in here genius, how did MS limit Activisions online gaming?
 
Article said:
Kotick's solution to this is simply to turn to the PC, where it can set its own model for pricing – not unlike what Blizzard has done with World of Warcraft and Battle.net. He added that Activision would "very aggressively" support the likes of HP and Dell in any effort of making an easy 'plug-and-play' PC that would hook up directly to the TV.
Click to expand...

They do already, it's called XBOX 360 and PS3
 
[citation][nom]Antilycus[/nom]
Article said:
Kotick's solution to this is simply to turn to the PC, where it can set its own model for pricing – not unlike what Blizzard has done with World of Warcraft and Battle.net. He added that Activision would "very aggressively" support the likes of HP and Dell in any effort of making an easy 'plug-and-play' PC that would hook up directly to the TV.
Click to expand...
They do already, it's called XBOX 360 and PS3[/citation]

You cannot drop a pc game into those and expect it to work on the other hand the pc console that can exists on my post above.
 
As much as I hate the fact that they are obviously being greedy... I don't see how it would be bad for the PC community. If ore console gamers started using these "Plug and Play" PC boxes, more games would be developed for the PC platform. I think it would definitely benefit PC gaming as a whole, though I will always hate Activision.
 
[citation][nom]ram1009[/nom]First: If you'll re-read the article you'll find this CEO was talking to "Financial Times". Hardly his customer base. Second: You should speak for yourself about the profitability of the companies YOU do business with. Personally, I want companies I do business with to be profitable enough that they will remain in business for the next time I need them. Finally, it seams to me this guy is on my/our side of the console vs PC gaming issue. Why wouldn't I want to support him to run consoles off the face of the earth and let him earn an appropriate profit for doing so?[/citation]

You sound like a loyal Apple fan. If I want to support a company I buy shares, otherwise I’ll buy whatever is best for me. As for the “next time I need them”, maybe and hopefully there’ll be some other company with a better product/service. And why would I (or you) want to run consoles off the face of the earth? Similarly, Apple fans would love to run PCs off the face off the earth. In the end, the market decides so stop being emotional and enjoy your/our options.
 
how fast can they pump out games if all they have to do is make pc games? they wouldn't have to port over to the consoles anymore. it makes sense for their current "run everything into the ground" business model.
 
I would love to see more pc support but i don't trust him at all. Subscriptions to play a shooter online is idiotic. He should think to GFWL and how successful that was when it needed a subscription and how it ended up destroying any chance it had in the beginning to gain ground
 
I barely even comment on websites anymore but I just had to on this one...
Just look at the guy!!!!
He is a total Douche-dearest comrade i'm pretty sure anything that comes out of his pie-hole should be shady.
Its funny how sometimes you can tell the character of a person from a well timed photo shot. Pictures can speak a million words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom