Jump to content

Talk:Activision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bobby Kotick

[edit]

This article reads like an investor advertisement sheet. It really needs a criticism section, or at least a section on Bobby Kotick, especially in light of a large series of articles like this http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/09/actiblizzard-ceo-kotick-policy-rewards-profits-removes-fun.ars and http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/94711-Bobby-Kotick-Wants-to-Take-the-Fun-Out-of-Making-Games —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.100.90 (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOBs Review

[edit]

So this user: 68.205.39.116 goes through pages and adds links to (presumeably) their own reviews. There's a link to one of his reviews on the Activision main page now. Are these links of significant importance that they should be added? Should this user really be adding things solely to build themself up? TheMaster42 19:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone

[edit]

The paragraph from the article:

Activision changed its name to Mediagenic in 1988, in an attempt to capture the business software market. To this end, Mediagenic released Cornerstone (developed by Infocom). The effort was a commercial failure, and in 1992 Mediagenic filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This resulted in a reorganization and merger with The Disc Company.

Can't be correct. Infocom released Cornerstone before being acquired (or merging with) Activision. Its failire is why Infocom had to merge with them. See History of Infocom for details. Any ideas on how to fix it? — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:37, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

How about removing the wrong information?  :) Pfalstad 18:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darn that Cornerstone game still gives me the chills.

Notable published titles

[edit]

Is it just me, or is the list in "Notable published titles" getting too long? How about we create a "List of Activision games" (or something similar—what is the precedent on this?) and just link to it in a "See also" section? We could slap all the games in there and then trim this section to just very prominent titles, such as Quake. What say ye? — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Apparently every game we do (I work there) is "notable." There are already lists for some of these series in template form, though, which would at least make it less unwieldy for the time being. --Stellmach 21:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I see X-Men Legends and X-Men Legends II recently added back to this list. I like these games. I wish them success. They put bread and butter on my table and everything. But why are they notable in the context of Activision's entire existence across all of time and space? I couldn't really tell you. I think this section really needs a synopsis, for each listed item, of what makes that item notable, and "got pretty darn good reviews" shouldn't make the cut. I would suggest criterea might include:
  • Outstanding critical success (e.g. Metacritic aggregate score in the "Universal acclaim" range).
  • Industry awards (e.g. Game Developers Choice Awards).
  • Identifiable innovations or historical significance (e.g. Dragster, Fishing Derby, Checkers, and Boxing ... Activision's first games, I believe)
  • Newsworthy cultural impact (hard to set a critereon, as many games bother somebody somewhere).
That said, I recuse myself from making the actual changes, being as I say an employee of the company. --Stellmach 16:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they should be removed. I saw that they were added, but didn't know anything about the games, so I didn't feel qualified to remove them. So please remove. As for the synopsis, I think it's a good idea. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if someone can provide some reasoning that's even better than removing items. My not knowing why a game is notable doesn't mean it isn't. But the list certainly doesn't seem very useful in its current form without some kind of context provided. --Stellmach 18:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my first pass at the synopsis. My personal comments are in red. Some I don't know enough about. Looks like just a couple of games would survive if I had my way. Like them or not, Electronic Arts really published way more influential titles. Please add synopsis or change mine so we can come up with something to put in the article:
  • Barnstorming (for the Atari 2600) First published game. Of course it's notable for that very reason
I'm seeing several sources citing Dragster, Fishing Derby, Checkers and Boxing (maybe released simultaneously?) as the first Activision games. --Stellmach 23:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battlezone:Not very notable. Nothing like the original Battlezone
  • Call of Duty I don't know why this is here except that the series is very successful. Did it redefine WW2 games in some way?
  • Civilization: Call to Power Civilization rip-off, but otherwise not very notable
  • Doom 3 Notable because it was the re-emergence of one of the most successful computer game franchises of all time
  • GUN (2005) Don't think this belongs here. From what I hear, it's a good game, but not anything genre-defining.
  • HackerDon't think this belongs here. It got some press and did pretty well, but not genre-defining or a hallmark of game design
  • MechWarrior 2: 31st Century CombatDon't know this game--there are tons of MechWarrior games. Don't know why this one in particular should be on the list.
  • The MoviesGood game, from what I hear. Kind of a Sims rip-off. Got some good press, but not a hallmark game.
  • Pitfall! (for the Atari 2600) Considered a hallmark game in terms of game design. Very popular, one of Activision's most successful franchises Per synopsis
  • Quake One of the most successful computer game franchsises. Considered a hallmark of FPS games. Followed by Quake II, Quake III Arena and Quake 4
  • Return to Castle Wolfenstein Fine game, but not really genre defining. Not really even part of the Wolfenstein 3D cannon.
  • Rome: Total War Same as most of above. Fine game, probably pretty popular, but not incredibly notable,
  • Star Trek: Armada Same as above
  • Tony Hawk's Pro Skater Don't know enough about this franchise to comment
  • Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines Another not incredibly notable games
Don't know offhand if there are arguments for the others, but Call of Duty, Rome: Total War, and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater all would meet my hypothetical "Outstanding" critical success mark. For context, that seems to be the ... let's see ... about the 98th percentile of Metacritic's database at the moment.
Award-winning games would include Call of Duty (a pair of Game Developers Choice awards) and MechWarrior 2 (and 3) with Origins Awards. --Stellmach 20:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stellmach, according to AtariAge.com, Dragster has the model # as AG-001, which would be the first game in my book. Rricci428 (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Hawk's is very notable, I'd say, because it basically started the entire "extreme sports" genre. It was so successful, Activision started an entire brand of "O2 Games" that were all extreme sports games. Although the brand ultimately failed, Tony Hawk continues to sell multi-million units per title. Nowadays, games like SSX Tricky and a ton of budget titles continue the genre, along with Tony Hawk.
The Call of Duty franchise is currently Activision's highest selling title each year. Although Medal of Honor really started the resurgence of World War II games, Call of Duty is currently the genre leader. Not sure that makes it survive the cut, but this info's there for you guys to use.
I remember MechWarrior 2 being a "huge, hallmark" game when I was playing it back in the day. From what I understand its success kept the struggling "old" Activision alive for a while. I don't have anything really concrete to back that up; I'll try doing some research later on. I agree with your appraisals of all the other titles. TheMaster42 02:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This list really needs more Atari 2600 games. Activision was the top of the market during those days and released some of the best games for that system. Some suggestions would be
Andrzejbanas 08:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What made those games significant? --Frodet 21:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to be sure what good examples from the Atari 2600 catalog would be (aside from Dragster, as their first game). It'd be good to have a source on sales numbers. I'd have thought Pitfall was bigger than any of those. Stellmach 13:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Laser Blast was their first game. I was thinking that we might want to add Spider-Man as a notable game. To me, it was the first superhero video game that didn't suck. It actually got everything right, for the first time. It was the first superhero videogame where I actually felt like a superhero, instead of some lame wannabe. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument for Spider-Man being notable, while valid for you, are very much subjective. For instance, have you played every superhero game ever? And there will be plenty of other games who will disagree with any reasoning based on adverbs like suck and feel. Personally, I have a hard time finding any notable games from any publisher the last ten years, but that might just be me. :)
The titles in the notable list must have some objective arguments for being there. I like the criteria as given by Stellmach above. Maybe it's time for a separate List of Activision games?
BTW: Activision's first games were Dragster, Fishing Derby, Checkers and Boxing, all released in July 1980.
--Frodet 23:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more digging on that. Those four games had catalog numbers AG-001 through AG-004, of which Dragster was AG-001[1]. So if one has to pick one to be first, it's in some sense technically that one. Laser Blast, by the way, wasn't released until the next calendar year, and was AG-008.[2] -Stellmach 00:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, this is what we currently have that can so far be substantiated in some authoritative way, plus Pitfall, whose claims (both here and on its own page) seem well-founded but still look shakily sourced. Note the shower of citations in the hopes of preventing future list bloat that would distract from the truly notable titles.

Yes, the Tony Hawk list is huge, and I admit I'm biased, but then I can't guess another series to sustain 90+ Metacritics through four sequels. -Stellmach 23:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose some "first" and "last" titles (in addition to Dragster):
(From memory - need to dig out some references). Thoughts? --Frodet 00:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doom was first published as shareware and that's where it got most of it's exposure. Activision only took over as publisher when they started publishing Doom 2 (which was never shareware). I don't think it should be on the list unless it is changed to Doom 2. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SelectSoft

[edit]

The the line, "In 2005, the company was bought by and later merged into SelectSoft Publishing." seems really suspect. I couldn't find any 2005 press announcement from ATVI having anything to do with SelectSoft or MPS (http://investor.activision.com/releases.cfm?year=2005&startpage=all). Additionally SelectSoft's website doesn't mention anything about owning Activision (although they do publish some of Activision's older titles). Did they really buy them? I'm going to delete this in a few days unless someone posts better information than I have about this topic. - TheMaster42 03:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talked with some ATVI employees - they said the above information was not correct and I can find no other sources to say that it is correct. I have removed it. - TheMaster42 08:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expert Software?

[edit]

why does "expert software" redirect to this page ?? ~~ wikipedia at domn dot net

I have no idea. Perhaps an enthuisiastic fan? — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Activision to Pay for Expert Software Acquisition With Stock" (April 2, 1999) --Mrwojo 02:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should put that in the article then. I was wondering the same thing. 69.236.83.191 16:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Head Games Publishing also redirects to this page. These two redirects should redirect to Activision Value or become separate articles in themselves. WinterSpw 17:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Activision the first independent game publisher?

[edit]

According to the article, "Prior to the formation of Activision, video games were published exclusively by the makers of the systems for which the games were designed." What about Softape and Programma International? I'm pretty sure they were publishing games for the Apple II before Activision was formed in October 1979. Applegamer 19:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, personally, I've never heard of Softape nor Programma International, and I was in the thick of the home computer boom of the late '70s and early '80s. But they are widely recognized as the first independent game publisher, though that claim could use a source. They most certainly are the first independant game publisher for game consoles, but may have been beaten to the punch for home computers, since anyone could produce programs for those systems (not true for consoles). I suppose this could use some clarification in the article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "video game" is clearly meant in its sense as distinct from "computer game" here, i.e. software for dedicated game consoles specifically. -Stellmach 21:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, specifying "video game" addresses the issue I raised. Never heard of Softape or Programma International, eh? Well, that prompted me to create an article on Programma International. I'll do one on Softape next.

Activision always claimed to be the first independent third party cartridge developer, but Gamevision (MB) released cartridges for the TI-99/4 (not 4a) in 1979 (http://www.ti994.com/), so this makes Activisions claim invalid.

Well, someone better tell the IGDA: "David Crane, Larry Kaplan, Jim Levy, Alan Miller and Bob Whitehead were honored for establishing the first third-party developer of video game software."[14] Unlike the other companies mentioned, Activision is still in business. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the claim in the article is that they were the first third-party game publisher on a game console. The TI-99/4 was not a game console, but a home computer. - -Stellmach 18:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Best to change your second sentence though, as it says COMPUTER and Video Games. Also, Pitfall! (1982) is not considered by many to be the first platform game, many think Donkey Kong (1981) is. In truth, Space Panic (1980) was the first ever platformer >>Me 0000<<
You know, you don't actually have to tell other people what to change. You can just do it. That's kind of the idea. -Stellmach 03:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable games revisted

[edit]

Where are we with this list? We were making some good progress, but we seemed to lose steam somewhere. What's the current list? I don't think what's in the article is current, as it includes a lot of titles we already said were non-notable. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started the List of Electronic Arts games and still am not done with it. I propose we go ahead and start a List of Activision games so we can start removing non-notable stuff from the "Notable" list (plus, a full list like this is always desirable). I don't want to start another project, however, before finishing the EA list. Anyone else want to start it? An easy way is to get a listing from MobyGames or another favorite website, copy & paste and format it for Wikipedia. Lists can't be copyrighted, so it's not violating anyone's rights. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Would add THPS 2,3,4 Tony Hawk's UNDERGROUND 1,2 Tony Hawks AMERICAN WASTELAND. SPIDERMAN 2,3 Kelly Slaters pro surfer,Shaun Palmers pro snowboarder,the pro wakeboarder game Matt Hoffmanns pro BMX 1,2 DOOM ,DOOM 2

Location

[edit]

Some anon user keeps changing the company's location. Their website says they are in Santa Monica, CA (from their website: "Activision's headquarters is located at 3100 Ocean Park Boulevard, Santa Monica, California 90405"). The anon user keeps changing it to Los Angeles, CA. Santa Monica is adjacent to LA, so I can see how it's mistaken for being there (and it is in LA county), but one quick hop over to their website[15] shows they are headquartered in Santa Monica. While they do have at least one satellite office in LA, what we should list is their headquarter's location. I'd change it again, but I'm afraid another user would just revert it back. Can we please resolve this? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We must resolve this. WinterSpw 17:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that Frecklefoot did just resolve it, with a citation. Their HQ is in fact in Santa Monica, and repeatedly changing it without grounds to do so is vandalism. -Stellmach 21:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note, by the way, that the same user made a similar change on the Stop & Shop page which is equally easily debunked by checking their corporate web page (e.g. the press release here. -Stellmach 21:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for changing it back. I added the cite as a ref to remove any question. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ARGH! Mark Redekas did it again! He didn't provide any rational or a ref or anything, he just changed it back to LA (and screwed up the template in the process). He just said "Changed correct company location because Activision, Inc. is in Los Angeles, CA not Santa Monica, CA. That true." as if somehow that is proof that they're really in LA. The ref clearly states that they are HQ'ed in Santa Monica. Can't he be banned or something? I'm not changing it because of the three revert rule. Please, this is getting ridiculous. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a process for these things. I've added a second notice about the right way to go about these things to his talk page. If he keeps it up without citations or dicussing his changes here, then yes, he can be blocked. -Stellmach 20:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Paragraph

[edit]

Though the quote about Mr. Moore may or may not be true, it does not belong in the first paragraph -- it is a text of opinion, and looks unprofessional in an encyclopedia. User:MsgrCloche 23:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it the case that the statement "may or may not be true," because it's patent nonsense. Moore's move from Microsoft to EA was only announced a few days ago, so unless he affected both EA and Activision's profits retroactively with his magic bad luck powers, I don't see what he could have had to do with it. -Stellmach 02:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The List

[edit]

I created the List of Activision games. Please visit it if you're bored and disambiguate/fix some of the wikilinks. Hopefully this list will help cut down on some of the spam in the in-article list. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Activision to merge with Vivendi Games.

[edit]

If anyone would care to update this, the link is here. · AndonicO Talk 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It should be noted that an acquisition is not really a "merger", as is continuous throughout this article. The French bought the company as nearly all large companies do. A merger is technically the combination of 2 or more companies with equal standing. This was a combination of a smaller company with a larger company, of which only the larger entity survives and is by all technical definitions an acquisition, regardless of the publicity (see Public Relations) that may have accompanied the consolidation. Yes, if I buy your company in its entirety, that would be an acquisition - but you may call it a merger if you would like to not offend and alienate the fans of your company.... 10:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No cite/NPOV?

[edit]

"Davis was against the merger from the start and was heavy-handed in management of them. He also forced marketing changes on Infocom which caused sales of their games to plummet." This phrase seems very 'point of view' and is unsubstantiated? (for all I know, could be true but I would think a statement this negative needs some support/reference?) 124.191.2.144 (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The videogame business is notoriously bad at predicting what will sell, so making uncited claims about why Infocom sales plummeted seems very dubious. -Stellmach 18:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that. Sorry, that was back in my "I don't know how to ref, so I'm not going to do it" days. I just added the ref for that. The "opinion" is that of the paper's author. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 things im tired of:infinity ward and activision saying they were the only companies making the call of duty series (treyarch and activision for 2 big red one) activision and neversoft saying they made the entire guitar hero series (no just 3 and upcoming 4) and how annoying typing is on PsP Dude867 (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable titles - Final stage ;)

[edit]

Well, I've put {{POV}} into the section. It strictly breaks WP:POV and WP:VER. Section should be cited somehow (refs. to game portals, 80s, 90s computer magazines etc.). Until then, it's still our individual judgment and POV-ed, Lothar25 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is. Some research is in order, as you mention. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Activision 02

[edit]

Activision 02 should be added into the article. They made Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 for some proof of existance —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonX83 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 article says that Neversoft developed it. MobyGames says the same thing. But MobyGames does have this list, which makes it look like a label. Assuming "O2" stands for Oxygen, it would actually be O2. It should be mentioned in a labels section. Do they have any other publishing labels? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing needed

[edit]

The first paragraphs are an absolute mess. I am not informed as to this subject so I am not a good person to edit, but how can Activision "so far be the leading publisher in 2007" ? Just little things like that need to be changed throughout to make the article read better. 75.143.109.72 (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Development teams

[edit]

I'm a little unhappy with the new section called "Development teams". It only talks about one division, Software Conversions Ltd, that doesn't even exist anymore, and hasn't for like, what, 23 years? Do we really need this section? It's ref'ed, but doesn't really seem all that important. And, as it is, is really just one development team. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Tony Hawk Games Wiki

[edit]

Help is needed at the Tony Hawk Games Wiki, which can be found here. It is very lonely. There are only about 3 users on there. If anyone of you join, and have questions, please see this user page. --98.148.171.15 (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the word sans

[edit]

I changed the word sans because 80% of the population has no idea what that word means... using technical out-dated words in a wikipedia article that is to be understood by 50% of the population is stupid, if you do use such a stupid term, at least link to a page explaining its meaning, damnit. /endrant (Yes I know what sans means, but I hate being messaged at 3am to be asked what it means)

Gabliaven (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Gabliaven[reply]

What the fuck. Aardark (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section?

[edit]

EA has quite a lengthly criticism section, and with recent events Activision has been copping alot of flack. Some possible points; Kotick's refusal to release new IP's that don't have $100M dollar potential, Calling for a PS3 price cut then a couple of months later be calling for game prices to be raised etc etc. Could something like this be done for Activision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.254.18 (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, give me an hour to pull some stuff together.--125.236.135.149 (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually after looking over most of my material, it isn't as such criticism of Activision, more criticism of Kotick. All of which are detailed on his page. Not sure whether or not it needs to be practically copied from there.--125.236.135.149 (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's people who make jokes about how bad activision is and i went to this page to find out why some people think this company is so bad. Why do people use this company as a derogatory thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add the Criticism section right now Lopey273 (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Info On Sierra Entertainment

[edit]

Can someone supplement this article with information on Sierra Entertainment which were currently in control of Naughty Dog's Crash Bandicoot & Insomniac's Spyro The Dragon Series? Gaogier How can I help? 11:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sledgehammer Games

[edit]

Why does Sledgehammer Games have a lengthy discussion in this article while none of their other studios do? They all have their own articles. Why doesn't Sledgehammer have its own article as well, instead of cluttering up this article? It has more than enough refs to justify its own page. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this AfD in which consensus was to merge to this page. It was decided that notability was not established as of yet. When it is (a month or two, I'd guess), then the article can be recreated and the section here can be shortened. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt the most hated gaming company in the world...

[edit]

Does anyone else find it strange that a corporation that is such a magnet for bad press doesn't have a criticisms/controversy section? It seems like any time Activision is brought up on any video game message board an endless flurry of hate and calls for a boycott ensue. Xizer (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

[edit]

The NPOV tag was added recently. It's not appropriate in this circumstance. What people seem to want is the restoration of the Criticism section, most of which is now in the article on Robert Kotick, where it belongs, since the criticism is mostly of his business decisions since the formation of Activision Blizzard. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not appropriate, considering the coverage with the Infinity Ward / Activision fight, multiple news sources criticizing the exploitation of franchises such as Guitar Hero, the removal of Marvel: Ultimate Alliance DLC and along with it's sequel from Xbox Live/PSN... Just because a criticism section has not been started does not mean the article is neutral. --Teancum (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the article needs to mention the lawsuits former and present Infinity Ward employees have filed against Activision. Whether or not these lawsuits should go in a Criticism section right now is something that should be discussed until a court ruling on the lawsuits is presented. A small criticism section is probably warranted given the immense amount of attention Activision's decisions receive, but as Jtalledo pointed out, much of that is a result of Robert Kotick, so perhaps briefly mentioning those criticisms and then linking this article to his would be a good idea. If we add a criticism section, it should be built upon criticism of Activision that comes primarily from sources within the gaming industry, the EA Games criticism section seems like a good example of the content we should try to find. Most of the content is derived from comments made by people inside the gaming industry, from lawsuits, or metacritic data. I'll see if there are any good sources we can use to build a criticism section later today or tomorrow sometime. -- Yo Soy Dan Halen (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits

[edit]

As I'm not terribly interested in this article, I won't be writing the controversy section. However here are some things to consider regarding what can go in:

West And Zampella v. Activision

Infinity Ward Employee Group v. Activision

Guitar Hero 5 - Controversy over Kurt Cobain

Band Hero - No Doubt v. Activision

Marvel: Ultimate Alliance & Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 DLC removed without prior notice (angered gamers)

Those five separate instances constitute enough for a Criticism section, although there are probably other, less publicized controversies as well. As far as whether this goes in Activision or Activision Blizzard I can't exactly say, however since they are both plausible in searches the one that doesn't receive the full section should have a wikilink to the other. --Teancum (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism about individual games belongs in the articles about those individual games. Recent criticism of Activison deserves a mention, but doesn't warrant an entire section. Just because articles on other companies have Criticism sections doesn't mean that this article needs one too. Criticism should really be integrated into the appropriate sections. I think that most of criticism of the company should be mentioned in the articles on Robert Kotick and Activision Blizzard, since the combined company and Kotick himself are at the center of this criticism.
As for the NPOV tag, this is not a neutral point of view issue. If the article said something like "Activision is a horrible company..." or "Activision is just making smart business decisions", that would be a POV issue. The issue is about whether or not to include an entire section dedicate to recent criticism of Activision. I don't think so - Activision had a long history before Kotick came into the picture, and even after he was hired, so adding one would be biased towards recent events. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree: adding the lawsuits to a criticism section (though perhaps a Lawsuits section is a better fit) would improve this page's accurate depiction of Activision. There is no bias towards recent events here: Activision has a lot of lawsuits, and while it may be true that Kotick is at the center of it all it's lawsuits with Activision. Lawsuits involving Kotick personally can go on his page, lawsuits involving Activision belong on this page.
Lawsuits with Activision are included in the articles of the other parties (Infinity Ward and Valve both have their respective Activision lawsuits), making this page inconsistent with linked pages.
Not only that, but it is misleading by omission. Maybe some of these lawsuits aren't notable, maybe they are and maybe they aren't, but look at the number of them! Activision and lawsuits go hand-in-hand.
Now can someone who cares please update this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.14.4 (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

discography

[edit]

The discography thing should distinguish between games that they actually developed, and games that they just acquired the rights to / published. Activision doesn't actually make good games, they just buy smaller studios with existing franchises and run those franchises into the ground.

Iron Man 2

[edit]

Small complaint, but if I recall the demo right, isn't the Iron Man 2 game being done by Sega, not Activision? ProjectPlatinum 23:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProjectPlatinum (talk • contribs)

When is Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 DLC coming back to playstion network and xbox live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackVenomHulk (talk • contribs) 16:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Bandicoot Overhaul

[edit]

What is Crash Bandicoot Overhaul?--Gianchio (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection proposal

[edit]

This article has been a recent target of a large amount of vandalism... it should probably become semi-protected. --114.241.31.176 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like to to support this proposal, as despite my reasoning that can be viewed on the history page, several (or the same one, I can't tell) unregistered users keep re-adding Call of Duty Black Ops to the notable games list. KP-TheSpectre (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Crash bandicoot Title in 2011 section

[edit]

Please delete that title anyone because its not even rumored or official yet "Crash Bandicoot title (PS3, Xbox 360, Wii)" -Motwera 174.91.74.208 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Details on patent suit?

[edit]

The article indicates they were majorly harmed by losing a patent infringement lawsuit during their time as Mediagenic, but does not say who sued them over what products. This is a glaring omission as it seems an important part of their company history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.88.174 (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Phillips sued Activision over Ralph Baer's videogame patents filed during the creation of the system that became the Magnavox Odyssey (Phillips bought Magnavox in the mid-1970s). Activision was one of many companies sued over those patents. Indrian (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Activision Blizzard and Activision Publishing

[edit]

I would assume that this article now refers to Activision Publishing, which is a subsidiary of Activision Blizzard. Bobby Kotick is 'not' the CEO of Activision Publishing; currently, Eric Hrishberg is (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/07/13/activision-publishing-names-eric-hirshberg-as-new-ceo/), so that and probably a lot of other parts of the article need to be changed. Velociostrich (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Where is the proof for the upcoming Crash Bandicoot game?

[edit]

No really where the fuck is the proof?

Vivendi

[edit]

It should be added that French multi-national media conglomerate Vivendi is 80% owned by American multi-national conglomerate General Electric. A single line which adds a lot more context as to who holds purse strings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.41.34 (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lulzsec?

[edit]

"On May 2, 2012, hacktivist group LulzSec shared CEO Eric Hirshberg's private data through facebook after the release of the Call of Duty Black Ops II trailer. The Trailer included subliminal flashes of Guy Fawkes masks allegedly portrayed as the enemy. [12]"

What the hell is that about? Delete it post-haste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.103.24 (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generator Rex Metacritic scores

[edit]

The end of the Post-merger developments section mentions Activision's release of that Generator Rex game and how there are no Metacritic scores as of February 2012. Since it's semi-protected, I can't update that to June 2012. Nazumu (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: merge Activision Publishing Minneapolis, Inc. into this article

[edit]

I stand to be corrected, but isn't Activision Publishing Minneapolis, Inc. and Activision about the same company? If so, then I suggest Activision Publishing Minneapolis, Inc. be merged into this article. Singularity42 (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the company, the two are distinct with Santa Montica, California being Activision Publishing Inc, and Eden Prairie/Bloomington, Minnesota being Activision Publishing Minneapolis, Inc. --Jundis (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Different Incorporation. If your idea is what should be enforced, then I'd propose NBCUniversal merging with Comcast. Both entities have their own histories and identity and that is why I say you should not merge these two articles --De132Wiki (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Activision Publishing used to be Expert Software and Head Games Publishing, it's not an interally created division. Normally when a company has it's own history, it's kept separate here. Disagree with the merger. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect word usage!

[edit]

The "Post-merger developments" section reads "On February 9, 2011, Activision announced that it was shuttering its once profitable Guitar Hero franchise....", which is incorrect usage of the word "shuttering". It should read "ON February 9, 2011, Activision announced that it was ending its once profitable Guitar Hero franchise...".

Please change "shuttering", which means to close the shutters on a building, to "ending" or "closing".

Also, I believe they have confirmed the Guiter Hero series will return sometime in the future.

PMierdaP (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No reason to oppose. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 28 December 2012- correct link to proper page for video game "Enduro"

[edit]

Jamrhein71 (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Link corrected to Enduro (video game). —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS3 Breakages

[edit]

Activsions also Broke 1000 upon 1000s off PS3's with there badly ported version of Black ops 2 and still denies it. Grow a pair and admit blame for all these Breakage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.39.181 (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 18 July 2013

[edit]

Activision will be bringing Angry Birds Star Wars to the PS3, Vita, 360, Wii, Wii U and 3DS. Here's the link: http://www.cultofmac.com/236175/angry-birds-star-wars-flies-away-from-mobile-and-into-gaming-consoles-october-29th/ 76.69.126.133 (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: The source you provided looks like a promotional press release, not a reliable source. If you can find an independent, third-party source describing the release, I'd be happy to add it to the article. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 15:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: the CEO is Eric Hirshberg

[edit]

The article says the CEO is Bobby Kotick but he is the CEO of Activision's parent company Activision Blizzard. The Activision CEO is Eric Hirshberg. See Activision's own site: http://www.activisionblizzard.com/senior-corporate-management I don't know how to do references or I would do it myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camerajohn (talk • contribs) 15:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Activision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Activision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holding company category

[edit]

This would probably be the category for Activision Blizzard and not Publishing since the Infobox has it listed as subsidiary. --CharlesDeMint (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlesDeMint: You are correct. Activision is not a holding company, Activision Blizzard is. -- ferret (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matchmaking patent

[edit]

Is it worth mentioning their matchmaking patent? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a statement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Treasures of Infocom had 20, not 50 games

[edit]

This edit from an IP changed the quantity of games in The Lost Treasures of Infocom from 20 to 50, which is incorrect. Samboy (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and Greed

[edit]

Activision have been purchasing over 10 companies for the past 18 years time, The criticism is that people say that Activision are very greedy and they are the king of franchise milking, in 2007 they annocuned that they will merge with Vivdeni Games and they were a lot of Eyebrows shown at the annocument, after the merging Activision gained the rights to Crash Bandicoot and Spyro the Dragon and they been hated ever since. Lopey273 (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Activision Publishing, Inc.

[edit]

@Masem: I think this edit not factually correct. Already prior the Activision–Vivendi Games merger, Activision Publishing had formally been in charge of publishing activities as a subsidiary of Activision, Inc., which was in turn publicly listed. Their California registration history (per SOS CA) paints the following picture:

The 'original' Activision, Inc. (registered in California on 1979-10-01; Cal entity number C0962542; legal name "Mediagenic" held from 1988-08-17 to 1992-08-03) was merged with an entity of the same name, though incorporated in Delaware (C1867531), on 1993-08-04; this Delaware corporation was renamed "Activision Publishing, Inc." on 2000-06-19. On the same day as the renaming, a company under the name "Activision Holdings, Inc." (incorporated 2000-05-25; C2235977) changed its name to "Activision, Inc." This third Activision, Inc. is also the one that merged with Vivendi Games as is now renamed as "Activision Blizzard, Inc."

The body already mentions the creation of the holding company in June 2000, but I'll have to see whether there is a source on the renaming part somewhere. However, the mentioned sentence, as it stands, is most likely incorrect. Lordtobi (✉) 17:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's fuzziness here. I'll still trying to work through sources. --Masem (t) 18:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lordtobi: I haven't started digging but it sounds like at the point of merge, all the subisidaries of "Activision Holdings" fell into "Activision Publishing"? Is that your take? --Masem (t) 19:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, which subsidiaries do you mean? There are no corporate mergers on file for either Activision Holdings or Activision Publishing. What I can see that several mergers were filed for the original Activision/Mediagenic, though: Infocom on 1988-09-03, ten corporations for regional operations on 1989-01-13, two further on 1989-04-27, and Disc Company, Inc. on 1992-03-31. If there were asset mergers we'd need to check with their corporate entries. Lordtobi (✉) 19:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the question is, taking Infinity Ward as an example: was it acquired as a Holdings or Publishing company? If it was a Holdings company, then at the point of the Vivendi merger, it technically would be handing off the merged orgs, but it seems that it now falls under Publishing. It's fully possible to do that of course, but just trying to make sure that we should be covering the studios in this article, rather than A-B. --Masem (t) 19:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Asset deals usually go thrpugh the top company (cf. the Warhorse Studios situation from tomorrow morning), so the acquisition itself went through Atvi Holdings. For Infinity Ward specifically, in the press release, Atvi Publishing's CEO gets to have a word, suggesting that, by management, Infinity Ward became part of Atvi Publishing. If you find a source saying "X will now report to Y", you can take that as statement of managerial organization. Lordtobi (✉) 20:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, trying to confirm the initial headquarters when the four founded it. I'm getting Mountain View from sites that aren't best for confirming, but can't find anything else earlier. --Masem (t) 19:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Their 1980 box arts list Sunnyvale (same loc as Atari at the time), Mountain View started appearing in 1981. This mag (p19) from Sep 1980 backs up the Sunnyvale location. I cannot tell whether this was the very first, but it might well be the first known (less than a year after founding). Lordtobi (✉) 20:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lay-off of 800 employees

[edit]

Hi. Looking through the article I'm surprised to find that there's been zero mention of Activision, despite having record profits, laying off 800 employees this month. The event has been one of the most notable in the company's history and one that has been widely criticized across the board. I presume this information can be included in the article? I'm just wondering why no one has done so already. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masem Has been working on a large rewrite of these articles. But however note that it's Activision Blizzard, the parent, who made the layoffs, and that article DOES mention the layoffs already. This article is for Activision, the subsidiary publisher (sister to Blizzard, not parent of). -- ferret (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry, my mistake. I should have looked there instead. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and at this point, I haven't seen anything that says any Activision Publishing companies are affected (in contrast to the 2010 layoffs which did force A. Publishing to close studios). --Masem (t) 14:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We know of some redundancies to Activision Publishing, High Moon and Vicarious Visions for jobs related to the Destiny series,[16] but there are no precise numbers we could use. Lordtobi (✉) 15:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barring outright closure or a massive rescaling, I wouldn't think that necessary here. I know I added the layoffs on the A-B page. --Masem (t) 15:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profit shifting and tax

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians. Full disclosure, I work for TaxWatch UK.

In August 2019, we published a report explaining how activision shifted €5bn to companies in Bermuda and Barbados between 2013-2017. This shifting of profits using royalty payments to tax haven companies is the same scheme used by Google, which has been heavily criticised by MPs.

This report was picked up by multiple outlets, including GamesIndustry and The Sunday Times,

I would like for a small section to be included on the Activision Wikipedia page. However, given the conflict of interest, I believe that someone else should make that edit.

Happy to answer any questions on the report.

Thanks,

Alex Alex0190 (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The dot eaters allegedly not reliable

[edit]

My edit was reverted for not using a reliable source. The Dot Eaters has been cited in several published books. cc User:IceWelder

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C36&q=%22the+dot+eaters%22&btnG=

Anonymous-232 (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, I found a clear reliable source to establish the same info (as well as work out a few more things) from Game Informer.
But as for those other sources that use the Dot Eaters, those mostly look like student thesises, which we cannot use as evidence of reliability. If they were peer-reviewed published papers, that may be different. --Masem (t) 21:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft is buying Activision.

[edit]

Cheers. https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/18/22889258/microsoft-activision-blizzard-xbox-acquisition-call-of-duty-overwatch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.148.117 (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, they are buying the parent company Activision Blizzard. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For those coming to change this page to reflect this, When the deal does go through, yes technically Microsoft will own Activision, however, they won't directly own Activision, and instead will own it through the parent company Activision Blizzard which, at this point in time will continue to be the parent company of Activision unless something changes. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2022

[edit]

Add informatiom about Microsoft acquisition of Activision, announced yesterday. 179.181.83.108 (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nickc4734 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Activision&oldid=1223095800"