c'mon activision.........

^ its activision...!!! get em!!!

this is what i think of activision

ooo noo they for got to add the B(billion) to the 150

this is what i think of activision

ooo noo they for got to add the B(billion) to the 150

k2theswiss

[QUOTE="k2theswiss"]

this is what i think of activision

ooo noo they for got to add the B(billion) to the 150

chaoscougar1

[QUOTE="k2theswiss"]

this is what i think of activision

ooo noo they for got to add the B(billion) to the 150

chaoscougar1

future monopoly... really that hard

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]

[QUOTE="k2theswiss"]

this is what i think of activision

ooo noo they for got to add the B(billion) to the 150

k2theswiss

future monopoly... really that hard

[QUOTE="k2theswiss"]

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] so....what do you think of activision? i seriously didnt understand the analogy there (if there even was one :|)

chaoscougar1

future monopoly... really that hard

monopolies are illegal in the US champ

there is alot of things are illegal but do the government/ business/ people follow them?

~Government not following the constitution. Example judges are allowed to void the constitution in courtrooms.

~Banks are allowed to rip off the government by loop-holes. Example Goldman sacks receives 12Billion bailout and in 2010 the ceo's ect racked in 13Billion in profit and still haven't paid a cent back to the government.

~People steal things do i really need have a example for that?

Yes, that's our government for you, but they do stop monopolies because when there is a monopoly, there is no compitition, no compitition means our economic system crashes because that is what it is pretty much based on.

[QUOTE="k2theswiss"]

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] so....what do you think of activision? i seriously didnt understand the analogy there (if there even was one :|)

chaoscougar1

future monopoly... really that hard

Thank you, Dear Lord and you don't even live here in the US and you knew that lol

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]

[QUOTE="k2theswiss"]

future monopoly... really that hard

k2theswiss

monopolies are illegal in the US champ

there is alot of things are illegal but do the government/ business/ people follow them?

~Government not following the constitution. Example judges are allowed to void the constitution in courtrooms.

~Banks are allowed to rip off the government by loop-holes. Example Goldman sacks receives 12Billion bailout and in 2010 the ceo's ect racked in 13Billion in profit and still haven't paid a cent back to the government.

~People steal things do i really need have a example for that?

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]

[QUOTE="k2theswiss"]

future monopoly... really that hard

Jaysonguy

Thank you, Dear Lord and you don't even live here in the US and you knew that lol

Well I was very curious about this because I remember hearing of legal monopolies in school so I had to look it up just to make sure for myself and there are legal monopolies....in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_monopoly

Not trying to start any arguments, nor am I cutting down your remarks. He never specifically said the U.S. even though Activision's main headquarters is in California, but they do hold operations all over the world.

If I'm still wrong correct me with as little insults as possible :D

While Activision have always published many great games, I really don't want them to take over everything. I just hope they don't get ahold of Ubisoft titles such as Splinter Cell and Assassin's Creed. They would get old, very fast (although, Ubisoft, to be honest, aren't exactly helping themselves with a rumoured Assassin's Creed title yet again for the consoles this year).Ashley_wwe

Ha yeah no kiddin, I definitely agree, that would be horrible.

Really? I didn't know there was another planned out AC game for this year, do you know more about it?

I really hope Take 2 doesn't agree to this.

iv'e been hearing rumors of activision starting to plan on making people pay a subscription to play online?? the games already 60 bucks! just venting, gaming publishers make me angry.squiggles_pro

I think the online-subscription thing is maybe another ploy to get more money out of you, like DLC is. It makes me wonder if, eventually, advertisements for games might read "Starting at 59.99" instead of just "59.99."

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]

[QUOTE="k2theswiss"]

future monopoly... really that hard

k2theswiss

monopolies are illegal in the US champ

there is alot of things are illegal but do the government/ business/ people follow them?

~Government not following the constitution. Example judges are allowed to void the constitution in courtrooms.

~Banks are allowed to rip off the government by loop-holes. Example Goldman sacks receives 12Billion bailout and in 2010 the ceo's ect racked in 13Billion in profit and still haven't paid a cent back to the government.

~People steal things do i really need have a example for that?

They do not 'void' the constitution, they can make ammendments to it. They do not just simply say, "Everything in the constitution is useless, hence I wont use any of it today" Even then, there have only been about 30 amendments made, the first ten are the bill of rights and the last amendmant made was somewhere in the early 90s.

Technically banks are allowed to rip-off government loop holes, hence why they are called "loop holes" and are hence legal. Its Goldman Sach firstly, and after looking at both their financial statement and statement of financial condition (two different documents) they did not have a $13billion profit (wasnt even in the billions) and even with the profit they still have hundreds of millions in liabilities which include debt and fines from the SEC and attorney generals

Yeah, people steal things, doesnt make it legal champ... :|

I have done Business Law and Ethics, and yes there are many laws against unscrupulous business behaviour, companies still do them, but it doesnt make it any more legal

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] monopolies are illegal in the US champ

XCNormX

Thank you, Dear Lord and you don't even live here in the US and you knew that lol

Well I was very curious about this because I remember hearing of legal monopolies in school so I had to look it up just to make sure for myself and there are legal monopolies....in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_monopoly

Not trying to start any arguments, nor am I cutting down your remarks. He never specifically said the U.S. even though Activision's main headquarters is in California, but they do hold operations all over the world.

If I'm still wrong correct me with as little insults as possible :D

um oh well to bad is all we can say,

just like how ms ruined rare,

its part of the gaming life

and i still havent recieved my proper top gear sequal so join the club

What makes you think they'd change take-2 interactive if hey acquired them? They bought blizzard and nothing has changed. Of course they wouldn't dare touch Blizzard but still. Just because you buy a company doesn't mean you impose your will upon it and change what they do. That's only when broke companies with ideas are acquired for the intellectual property.

What makes you think they'd change take-2 interactive if hey acquired them? They bought blizzard and nothing has changed. Of course they wouldn't dare touch Blizzard but still. Just because you buy a company doesn't mean you impose your will upon it and change what they do. That's only when broke companies with ideas are acquired for the intellectual property.

firefox59

[QUOTE="firefox59"]

What makes you think they'd change take-2 interactive if hey acquired them? They bought blizzard and nothing has changed. Of course they wouldn't dare touch Blizzard but still. Just because you buy a company doesn't mean you impose your will upon it and change what they do. That's only when broke companies with ideas are acquired for the intellectual property.

squiggles_pro

I'm truly amazed with such ground-breaking logic. Next time you have a thought, do us all a favor and let it go...

Topics like these are fast becoming redundant, if they haven't reached that point already. Activision is a business and like any business the sole purpose is to make a profit by providing a service, so as to continue providing said service. As with any business, buying various intellectual properties in an attempt to maximize profitability is going to happen. Likewise, selling properties that are not profitable will happen as well. No one here has access to information at the highest level between Activision and Take Two, therefor making such ignorantly biased speculations is ridiculous and pointless.

[QUOTE="XCNormX"]

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

Thank you, Dear Lord and you don't even live here in the US and you knew that lol

chaoscougar1

Well I was very curious about this because I remember hearing of legal monopolies in school so I had to look it up just to make sure for myself and there are legal monopolies....in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_monopoly

Not trying to start any arguments, nor am I cutting down your remarks. He never specifically said the U.S. even though Activision's main headquarters is in California, but they do hold operations all over the world.

If I'm still wrong correct me with as little insults as possible :D

Ha oh ok yeah I got what you're saying.

I'm truly amazed with such ground-breaking logic. Next time you have a thought, do us all a favor and let it go...

Topics like these are fast becoming redundant, if they haven't reached that point already. Activision is a business and like any business the sole purpose is to make a profit by providing a service, so as to continue providing said service. As with any business, buying various intellectual properties in an attempt to maximize profitability is going to happen. Likewise, selling properties that are not profitable will happen as well. No one here has access to information at the highest level between Activision and Take Two, therefor making such ignorantly biased speculations is ridiculous and pointless.

Prophylactixx

Not that you're wrong, what you said was perfect business economy 101, but there is a trend between Activision and greed. We aren't saying Activision is greedy because they seek revenue. Everyone knows that revenue and proft keep the company alive. But, seeking to create revenue on stupid things, like the rumored Pay to Play subscriptions is definitely Greed.I know they made a statement that said there will never be pay to play services will their popular franchise, Call of Duty, but even mentioning it is somewhat rediculuos. Couldn't you agree?

There is a line between creating revenue to keep the business afloat and unmeritted greed. Activision does a greedy trend about them, so the other comment was not entirely false.

i hope it does not happenpls activision stop takeing all the good devs

[QUOTE="Prophylactixx"]

I'm truly amazed with such ground-breaking logic. Next time you have a thought, do us all a favor and let it go...

Topics like these are fast becoming redundant, if they haven't reached that point already. Activision is a business and like any business the sole purpose is to make a profit by providing a service, so as to continue providing said service. As with any business, buying various intellectual properties in an attempt to maximize profitability is going to happen. Likewise, selling properties that are not profitable will happen as well. No one here has access to information at the highest level between Activision and Take Two, therefor making such ignorantly biased speculations is ridiculous and pointless.

B1GFreakN

Not that you're wrong, what you said was perfect business economy 101, but there is a trend between Activision and greed. We aren't saying Activision is greedy because they seek revenue. Everyone knows that revenue and proft keep the company alive. But, seeking to create revenue on stupid things, like the rumored Pay to Play subscriptions is definitely Greed.I know they made a statement that said there will never be pay to play services will their popular franchise, Call of Duty, but even mentioning it is somewhat rediculuos. Couldn't you agree?

There is a line between creating revenue to keep the business afloat and unmeritted greed. Activision does a greedy trend about them, so the other comment was not entirely false.

Let me then ask you this. Is Microsoft also greedy? As they charge a hefty price for various items i.e. console, games, accessories, AND they also charge a regulatory fee for using their online service XBL. This rumored "pay to play" is just that, a rumor, and a less than credible one at that. The rumor came from pure speculation of various articles that neither directly nor indirectly point towards such a concept. It's not greedy to make an effort to expand your companies profile in an attempt to reach more customers, thusly creating a higher profit margin; it's good business. The simple fact is that it's become "trendy" to call Activision an "evil" company that is set out to destroy the world.

[QUOTE="B1GFreakN"]

[QUOTE="Prophylactixx"]

I'm truly amazed with such ground-breaking logic. Next time you have a thought, do us all a favor and let it go...

Topics like these are fast becoming redundant, if they haven't reached that point already. Activision is a business and like any business the sole purpose is to make a profit by providing a service, so as to continue providing said service. As with any business, buying various intellectual properties in an attempt to maximize profitability is going to happen. Likewise, selling properties that are not profitable will happen as well. No one here has access to information at the highest level between Activision and Take Two, therefor making such ignorantly biased speculations is ridiculous and pointless.

Prophylactixx

Not that you're wrong, what you said was perfect business economy 101, but there is a trend between Activision and greed. We aren't saying Activision is greedy because they seek revenue. Everyone knows that revenue and proft keep the company alive. But, seeking to create revenue on stupid things, like the rumored Pay to Play subscriptions is definitely Greed. I know they made a statement that said there will never be pay to play services will their popular franchise, Call of Duty, but even mentioning it is somewhat rediculuos. Couldn't you agree?

There is a line between creating revenue to keep the business afloat and unmeritted greed. Activision does a greedy trend about them, so the other comment was not entirely false.

Let me then ask you this. Is Microsoft also greedy? As they charge a hefty price for various items i.e. console, games, accessories, AND they also charge a regulatory fee for using their online service XBL. This rumored "pay to play" is just that, a rumor, and a less than credible one at that. The rumor came from pure speculation of various articles that neither directly nor indirectly point towards such a concept. It's not greedy to make an effort to expand your companies profile in an attempt to reach more customers, thusly creating a higher profit margin; it's good business. The simple fact is that it's become "trendy" to call Activision an "evil" company that is set out to destroy the world.

Well, a lot of people argue that Microsoft is greedy, and I can see your point. I don't really know how I feel about Microsoft's level of greed. I do know one thing though, I don't mind paying for Xbox Live, and when I buy Xbox accessories, I always buy the Microsoft ones because no other brand, in my own personal experiences, can match the quality of their controllers and such. But, also note, I don't buy these things at retail prices. I buy Live subcriptions and accessories from other sources rather than micorosoft. I usually get a subscription to xbox live on the internet through ebay or Amazon. I get cheaper official accessories on these sites. So, while you can argue that Microsoft is greedy at times, theres the loop-hole that you can actually acquire them cheaper than retail, and it doesn't seem as bad.

You could probably argue the same about Activision's prducts also. I wasn't staking my claim that Activision is the greed capital of the world and they will monopolize the whole planet, but I can see both sides of the argument. And yes, I also see the trend that everyone whines about Activision - it's all over these boards. haha.

[QUOTE="B1GFreakN"]

[QUOTE="Prophylactixx"]

I'm truly amazed with such ground-breaking logic. Next time you have a thought, do us all a favor and let it go...

Topics like these are fast becoming redundant, if they haven't reached that point already. Activision is a business and like any business the sole purpose is to make a profit by providing a service, so as to continue providing said service. As with any business, buying various intellectual properties in an attempt to maximize profitability is going to happen. Likewise, selling properties that are not profitable will happen as well. No one here has access to information at the highest level between Activision and Take Two, therefor making such ignorantly biased speculations is ridiculous and pointless.

Prophylactixx

Not that you're wrong, what you said was perfect business economy 101, but there is a trend between Activision and greed. We aren't saying Activision is greedy because they seek revenue. Everyone knows that revenue and proft keep the company alive. But, seeking to create revenue on stupid things, like the rumored Pay to Play subscriptions is definitely Greed.I know they made a statement that said there will never be pay to play services will their popular franchise, Call of Duty, but even mentioning it is somewhat rediculuos. Couldn't you agree?

There is a line between creating revenue to keep the business afloat and unmeritted greed. Activision does a greedy trend about them, so the other comment was not entirely false.

Let me then ask you this. Is Microsoft also greedy? As they charge a hefty price for various items i.e. console, games, accessories, AND they also charge a regulatory fee for using their online service XBL. This rumored "pay to play" is just that, a rumor, and a less than credible one at that. The rumor came from pure speculation of various articles that neither directly nor indirectly point towards such a concept. It's not greedy to make an effort to expand your companies profile in an attempt to reach more customers, thusly creating a higher profit margin; it's good business. The simple fact is that it's become "trendy" to call Activision an "evil" company that is set out to destroy the world.

stfu dude everyones entitled to his or her own opinion dont tell me im wrong, and if they do start charging the people who buy a cod every year more money to play multiplayer on top of live, then you sir may smd.

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]

[QUOTE="k2theswiss"]

this is what i think of activision

ooo noo they for got to add the B(billion) to the 150

k2theswiss

future monopoly... really that hard

dont mind chaos he always has something smart to say about everything, i do belive he thinks his stuff doesnt stink