EA’s anti-Modern Warfare campaign “bad for our industry” – Activision

4.4
While EA have been ramping up the Battlefield 3 vs Modern Warfare 3 talk throughout their marketing campaign for DICE’s shooter, Activision have remained hush-hush on the subject.

This week at Gamescom Activision exec Eric Hirshberg spoke up (via Eurogamer) about that rivalry, and his view might surprise you a little. ”Competition is of course a good thing,” Hirshberg told the crowd at a keynote speech. ”It keeps us all on our toes and ultimately makes the games better. It’s healthy. But it’s one thing to want your game to succeed and another thing to actively, publicly say you want other games to fail.”

“Recently a competitor of ours was quoted as saying that he wants to see Call of Duty ‘rot from the core’ [referencing EA CEO John Riccitiello's comments]. I’ve been asked countless times to respond to this comment and I’ve generally chosen not to. My job is to help our incredibly talented, passionate teams to make the best games they can, not to throw insults around at others. But I actually feel this kind of rhetoric is bad for our industry.

“Can you imagine the head of Dreamworks animation coming out with a new movie and going to the press and saying that he wants Toy Story to ‘rot from the core’. It’s kind of hard to imagine, right?

“As someone who runs one of the biggest publishers in this business I can tell you that I want as many games as possible to succeed, whether we created them or not,” he continued, “because I want this industry to keep growing and bringing in new people.

“I believe when someone in this industry does something great, whether they work in California, or Sweden, or North Carolina, or the United Kingdom, it doesn’t just benefit their company. It benefits us all.”

Hirshberg stops short of asking all publishers to join hands and sing Kumbaya, but does continue: ”I believe that as many great games as this industry can make, that’s how many people will buy. I say that not only as the CEO of Activision but also as a gamer.

“This isn’t politics. In order for one to win, the other doesn’t have to lose. This is an entertainment industry, it’s an innovation industry and, at best, it’s an art form. But we’re still a young art form. If we were the movie industry the movies wouldn’t even be talking yet.

“We all still have a lot to prove in our position in the pop cultural landscape. We still need to stand the test of time. We need to show we can withstand the kind of disruptive change and new competition that we’re facing now.

“The only way to do that is to continue to make great games. We shouldn’t be tearing each other apart fighting for a bigger piece of the pie – we should all be focused on trying to grow a bigger pie. If we as an industry act like there’s a finite number of games in the world, then there will be.”

A lot of words there, but we certainly like this idea of some sort of pie. Will EA respond to Activision’s ‘bigger man’ approach? Come November the war will be brought upon gamers as we decide which shooter deserves the crown. Who will win? WHO WILL WIN!?

http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2011/08/18/eas-anti-modern-warfare-campaign-bad-for-our-industry-activision/

Posted:

Comments

"EA’s anti-Modern Warfare campaign “bad for our industry” – Activision" :: Login/Create an Account :: 37 comments

If you would like to post a comment please signin to your account or register for an account.

isoblueguyPosted:

XtReeM1337n355 Do you know why Activision doesn't have a comeback on EA?

Simple. They know Battlefield 3 is going to be a much better game and there is nothing they can do about it. As from my perspective, I may say the same when I compared the Modern Warfare 3 gameplays towards the Battlefield 3 ones where a very large distinction is present between both.

After seeing Modern warfare 3's E3 gameplay of Navy Seals storming a submarine to help save New York, I am at the least to say bored. Why? Modern warfare 3 presented itself with the same graphics in Modern Warfare 2 and Black ops, leading me to be turned down. The gameplay itself however presented the same lackadaisical run and gun technique except a different environment while perspire the same mundane flashy explosion effects. Not only that, the sound quality of gunshots and soldiers shouting was pretty much the exact same and brought me chills of the unbalanced predecessor; MW2. Furthermore many people will call this a "MW2 DLC" and I have joined this group.

Battlefield 3 however brought jaw dropping everything from the varied gameplay to the amazing graphical improvements and the awe-shocking crisp sound quality; immersing myself deeper and deeper into feeling as if I was there. After seeing Battlefield's Fault line, Caspian Border, and Thunder Run gameplay, I am shocked and amazed at how this is only in the Alpha build. Varied gameplay is definitively present by providing a variety of vehicles and destructible surrounding. Graphics are beautiful in every way with sharp details and impeccable lighting. To put it short everything is amazing.

Overall I approve of ea's right to insult Activision. For Activision still proceeds with their same attempt to milk consumers of their money on this "MW2 DLC", where as EA has worked very hard to bring something new to the table of gaming.

Btw I bet only like 2% of people read this whole thing.


LMAO. He did not comment back because he is above that. He knows that it is very unprofessional for someone in his position to take part in toddler-ish name-calling. Saying that there is any other reason is simply dumb of you.

Your entire comment is extremely biased. lmao.
Graphics. Jaw-dropping graphical improvements ? haha. MW3's graphics are every bit as good as BF3's on consoles. Sure, BF3's gameplay demos on PC are truly impressive - there's no denying that. However, that is on PC. There is a huge difference between their PC and PS3 gameplay videos. BF3's PS3 gameplay looks graphically identical to BF:BC2. Plus, MW2's graphics were amazing. They still are better than the majority of shooters, and are better than BF:BC2's. BO's graphics were actually very different from W@W's or MW2. Not better at all than MW2 imo, but not at all "the same."

Varied gameplay. Personally I like BF3's objective modes, and how much strategy goes behind the destruction factor and etc. But seriously, modern warfare has plenty of variety in their game modes and game play as well. Just because you like one's better doesnt mean the other has none. Personally, like many others, i prefer the arcade-styled generally fast paced gameplay of MW3, but can still enjoy the slower-paced strategic fun of BF3, because I am a gamer rather than a biased little fan boy. Both share many fun elements.

Sound. CoD's sound is very good. Calling it anything different is unreasonable. No doubt here though, BF has always been known for its superior sound. Kudos to them.

MW2 DLC. haha. its as much different from mw2 as BF:BC 2 was from BC1, or how BF3 will be from BF:BC2, or how BF2 was from BF1. a) If it isnt broken, dont fix it. b) all series are similiar.. just like battlefield. Why would they make MW3 into a game like Brink and fail? or make it some "different" by making it into a platforming game? Your case, along with the many on your boat, is stupid.

EA's Right to insult Activision IW etc.
LOL. Like barrack Obama publicly calling McCain and all Republicans spoiled selfish b****es. It's very unprofessional and immature. He might as well be climbing on a tree and flinging poop at Activision, its very silly of him.

marcusmonsoonPosted:

XtReeM1337n355 Do you know why Activision doesn't have a comeback on EA?

Simple. They know Battlefield 3 is going to be a much better game and there is nothing they can do about it. As from my perspective, I may say the same when I compared the Modern Warfare 3 gameplays towards the Battlefield 3 ones where a very large distinction is present between both.

After seeing Modern warfare 3's E3 gameplay of Navy Seals storming a submarine to help save New York, I am at the least to say bored. Why? Modern warfare 3 presented itself with the same graphics in Modern Warfare 2 and Black ops, leading me to be turned down. The gameplay itself however presented the same lackadaisical run and gun technique except a different environment while perspire the same mundane flashy explosion effects. Not only that, the sound quality of gunshots and soldiers shouting was pretty much the exact same and brought me chills of the unbalanced predecessor; MW2. Furthermore many people will call this a "MW2 DLC" and I have joined this group.

Battlefield 3 however brought jaw dropping everything from the varied gameplay to the amazing graphical improvements and the awe-shocking crisp sound quality; immersing myself deeper and deeper into feeling as if I was there. After seeing Battlefield's Fault line, Caspian Border, and Thunder Run gameplay, I am shocked and amazed at how this is only in the Alpha build. Varied gameplay is definitively present by providing a variety of vehicles and destructible surrounding. Graphics are beautiful in every way with sharp details and impeccable lighting. To put it short everything is amazing.

Overall I approve of ea's right to insult Activision. For Activision still proceeds with their same attempt to milk consumers of their money on this "MW2 DLC", where as EA has worked very hard to bring something new to the table of gaming.

Btw I bet only like 2% of people read this whole thing.
And I am glad to say that I am a part of that 2%. You gave a valid point there. My perspective of Call of Duty is very similar to that of yours.

XtReeM1337n355Posted:

Do you know why Activision doesn't have a comeback on EA?

Simple. They know Battlefield 3 is going to be a much better game and there is nothing they can do about it. As from my perspective, I may say the same when I compared the Modern Warfare 3 gameplays towards the Battlefield 3 ones where a very large distinction is present between both.

After seeing Modern warfare 3's E3 gameplay of Navy Seals storming a submarine to help save New York, I am at the least to say bored. Why? Modern warfare 3 presented itself with the same graphics in Modern Warfare 2 and Black ops, leading me to be turned down. The gameplay itself however presented the same lackadaisical run and gun technique except a different environment while perspire the same mundane flashy explosion effects. Not only that, the sound quality of gunshots and soldiers shouting was pretty much the exact same and brought me chills of the unbalanced predecessor; MW2. Furthermore many people will call this a "MW2 DLC" and I have joined this group.

Battlefield 3 however brought jaw dropping everything from the varied gameplay to the amazing graphical improvements and the awe-shocking crisp sound quality; immersing myself deeper and deeper into feeling as if I was there. After seeing Battlefield's Fault line, Caspian Border, and Thunder Run gameplay, I am shocked and amazed at how this is only in the Alpha build. Varied gameplay is definitively present by providing a variety of vehicles and destructible surrounding. Graphics are beautiful in every way with sharp details and impeccable lighting. To put it short everything is amazing.

Overall I approve of ea's right to insult Activision. For Activision still proceeds with their same attempt to milk consumers of their money on this "MW2 DLC", where as EA has worked very hard to bring something new to the table of gaming.

Btw I bet only like 2% of people read this whole thing.

7errukoPosted:

I love how people say all the "little kids" are going to buy MW3. What are you? 25? This site is full of 14 year olds, so please don't even go there.

ScreamPosted:

Just goes to show Activision is a better company.

I mean come on, everyone is an adult here. Resulting to childish insults and name calling. Really EA?
Pathetic showing.

ChicanosCanHopPosted:

agentmrp the only good thing ea can do is fifa!! stick to that.

True, sucks that there won't be Fifa Street 4. Fifa Street 3 didn't count as a sequel to me.

agentmrpPosted:

the only good thing ea can do is fifa!! stick to that.

HartsuPosted:

Please! Whoever wrote this please. Line them! This is very hard to read. Even harder than New York Times! Got damn! Lines please!

ImmortalTechniquePosted:

TTG-emmanuel Battle field 3, in my view is probably gonna be the best...

why? every call of duty has been a fail since cod 5... cod 4 and cod 5 were the only 2 that didnt FAIL...


I agree with that post

ScratchedPosted:

TTG-emmanuel Battle field 3, in my view is probably gonna be the best...

why? every call of duty has been a fail since cod 5... cod 4 and cod 5 were the only 2 that didnt FAIL...

Same thoughts there man. Black ops had some decient graphics and pretty cool stuff but nothing really new. and the prestige line was just pure bullshit. In MW2 you couldn't pilot anything you just gunned it...I doubt that's changing in MW3. BF3 You're doing everything.