pokoko said:
Shadow1980 said:

Trusting EA to be the sole publisher of SW games was a pretty boneheaded move, though.

Who would could bid on something as big as Star Wars?  Who else would bid?  I'd rather EA than Activision, to be honest.  

I agree. You have EA/Activision/Ubisoft/TakeTwo and the first parties which are big enough to pay for the liscense. Out of those Ubisoft take pride in the fact they wholly own the IP they work on, and TakeTwo probably couldnt care less, they're content with their cash cows (GTA/RDR/NBA).

Activision on the other hand, have a huge history with lisecensed games. Though it's generally been hit or miss (mostly miss in the later years), with a few gems scattered throughout, but nothing too special. In recent years they have completely abandoned making liscensed games, and insist on revitalizing the Crash/Spyro IP's.

Lowkey, Activision's team hold a lot of talent, but they fail to utiliize it properly. I think Activision's non-cod teams show promise (Vicarious Visions, Toys for Bob, Beenox), with their remakes of Crash/Spyro games. They also own Raven (developers of the old Jedi Knight games), which probably will be stuck as COD support, but could still serve as guidance (or if we're lucky, make their own game)

To be clear, I dislike Activision as a whole myself, and dont want the license to be handed to a single publisher, but rather a game by game basis like Marvel games is doing.

It's just that I think compared to EA, Activision would a better choice (though on the whole I think neither should get it).



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.