Activision is the new EA: Brutal Legend, Ghostbusters, 50 Cent canned?

randombattle · July 2008

Monger wrote: »

Really? I got the impression that everyone avoided it at release due to being a movie tie-in. No one talked about it, and I don't really remember anyone recommending it until almost a year later. It seemed like the best recent example of a sleeper outside Psychonauts.

Sold well enough to get a directors cut version and a pc port.

warder808 · July 2008

After just reading the first couple of posts I disapprove. Massive Entertainment made a very entertaining RTS game in World in Conflict. They made a decent story that I actually cared about. It made me want to finish the game to see what happens.

I think WiC has a better chance of translating well on console than lots of the other RTS games that have been ported over.

The controls are radically different on the PC, very much like an FPS which may make controls work on the console. It also doesn't have buildings to manage, just points to requisition more units. The menu is very elegant and it would work well on console too.

The_Scarab · July 2008

warder808 wrote: »

After just reading the first couple of posts I disapprove. Massive Entertainment made a very entertaining RTS game in World in Conflict. They made a decent story that I actually cared about. It made me want to finish the game to see what happens.

I think WiC has a better chance of translating well on console than lots of the other RTS games that have been ported over.

The controls are radically different on the PC, very much like an FPS which may make controls work on the console. It also doesn't have buildings to manage, just points to requisition more units. The menu is very elegant and it would work well on console too.

WiC has a huge professional following.

Kind of like Painkiller in a way, but for RTS.

BahamutZERO · July 2008

stryker116 wrote: »

Zilla360 wrote: »

mrsnackroad wrote: »

B:L wrote: »

Activision killing:
Ghostbusters: The Video Game

Nobody can convince me this world is worth living in any more.

If 50 cent's game survives this, and Ghostbusters doesn't....then there are no words left for me to say....D:

They'll be combined into one game where 50 cent blows up ghosts in the Middle East while Bill Murray provides recon support.

You know... that would actually be pretty rad.

DeMoN · July 2008

GOdamnit! Getting pushed back is exactly what happened to psychonauts and it sold less copies because of it.

If the same happens to Brutal Legend I will be pissed because Schafer deserves better.

The_Scarab · July 2008

This reminds me I fucking need that psychic camp tee shirt from the Double Fine store.

plufim · July 2008

I love how no-one in the press is asking if 50 cent is canned. I imagine the project lead in his office, waiting by his phone, and it's not ringing.

MinionOfCthulhu · July 2008

plufim wrote: »

I love how no-one in the press is asking if 50 cent is canned. I imagine the project lead in his office, waiting by his phone, and it's not ringing.

I for one am hoping it gets released because it looks like an impressive game with a poignant story and ahahaha I can't even finish typing this sentence.

Aoi · July 2008

plufim wrote: »

I love how no-one in the press is asking if 50 cent is canned. I imagine the project lead in his office, waiting by his phone, and it's not ringing.

Are you kidding? As bad as the first game apparently was, it sold a lot. That game is probably/oddly/sadly the second safest of the bunch.

Gyral · July 2008

Aoi wrote: »

plufim wrote: »

I love how no-one in the press is asking if 50 cent is canned. I imagine the project lead in his office, waiting by his phone, and it's not ringing.

Are you kidding? As bad as the first game apparently was, it sold a lot. That game is probably/oddly/sadly the second safest of the bunch.

Yeah, I keep wanting to bring it up as a joke and then I realize that no matter how much we hated the first game, it sold a lot, meaning that Activision would be Super Retarded to scrap the sequel.

Shadowfire · July 2008

Sheep wrote: »

I don't see how Ghostbuster's would be picked up by one of the other big players.

Within 30 seconds of an official announcement, no less. I see a pimply guy in an EA polo, with his finger hovering over the "Place Bid" button in true sniper fashion...

In reality, though, I see no reason Activision would decide against Ghostbusters. It has become too big a deal in the gaming press for them to cancel it altogether. Unfortunately for Brutal Legend, that game has gotten no press whatsoever lately, so who knows.

My main question is, why the fuck did Activision buy Sierra? If they were going to do this, why not just buy Blizzard, and leave the rest of Sierra alone, since they're shitcanning most of the big titles. Sure they get Spyro/Crash out of it, but will those really make enough money to compensate for the cost of buying the whole company?

Rotam · July 2008

Surely this is a retarded decision.

Brutal legend and Ghostbusters look awesome. I hope someone good picks them up and they do well.

Aoi · July 2008

Shadowfire wrote: »

Sheep wrote: »

I don't see how Ghostbuster's would be picked up by one of the other big players.

Within 30 seconds of an official announcement, no less. I see a pimply guy in an EA polo, with his finger hovering over the "Place Bid" button in true sniper fashion...

In reality, though, I see no reason Activision would decide against Ghostbusters. It has become too big a deal in the gaming press for them to cancel it altogether. Unfortunately for Brutal Legend, that game has gotten no press whatsoever lately, so who knows.

My main question is, why the fuck did Activision buy Sierra? If they were going to do this, why not just buy Blizzard, and leave the rest of Sierra alone, since they're shitcanning most of the big titles. Sure they get Spyro/Crash out of it, but will those really make enough money to compensate for the cost of buying the whole company?

They didn't buy Sierra. They merged with Vivendi, which is a pretty big media company, that also owns Sierra.

Couscous · July 2008

I never realized how huge Vivendi was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivendi_Universal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Vivendi

Aoi · July 2008

Yeah, as a music game fan, it's actually a worry. Activision locking down their music library could potentially hurt Rock Band pretty bad.

Shadowfire · July 2008

Aoi wrote: »

Shadowfire wrote: »

Sheep wrote: »

I don't see how Ghostbuster's would be picked up by one of the other big players.

Within 30 seconds of an official announcement, no less. I see a pimply guy in an EA polo, with his finger hovering over the "Place Bid" button in true sniper fashion...

In reality, though, I see no reason Activision would decide against Ghostbusters. It has become too big a deal in the gaming press for them to cancel it altogether. Unfortunately for Brutal Legend, that game has gotten no press whatsoever lately, so who knows.

My main question is, why the fuck did Activision buy Sierra? If they were going to do this, why not just buy Blizzard, and leave the rest of Sierra alone, since they're shitcanning most of the big titles. Sure they get Spyro/Crash out of it, but will those really make enough money to compensate for the cost of buying the whole company?

They didn't buy Sierra. They merged with Vivendi, which is a pretty big media company, that also owns Sierra.

Fair enough... in essence, however, they have bought Vivendi's entertainment division. And are gutting it. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

cloudeagle · July 2008

Well, I can understand the desire to cut overhead by trimming employees and game development, but you'd think they'd do it after almost-guaranteed blockbusters like Ghostbusters and 50 Cent come out.

It's a wacky decision that sounds like it was driven by higher-ups that let weird personal biases/whims overcome logic. Happens all the time in the business world.

Aoi · July 2008

cloudeagle wrote: »

Well, I can understand the desire to cut overhead by trimming employees and game development, but you'd think they'd do it after almost-guaranteed blockbusters like Ghostbusters and 50 Cent come out.

It's a wacky decision that sounds like it was driven by higher-ups that let weird personal biases/whims overcome logic. Happens all the time in the business world.

Honestly? My guess is they wanted Blizzard, and pretty much didn't/don't care about the rest. Sierra (or the husk that goes by the name) isn't exactly a great big wonderful company anymore. It's been closed more times than SNK. I'm guessing Activision wanted Blizzard, took the package, and is just kind of shaking it, wondering what all those ants are doing hanging on.

cloudeagle · July 2008

Aoi wrote: »

cloudeagle wrote: »

Well, I can understand the desire to cut overhead by trimming employees and game development, but you'd think they'd do it after almost-guaranteed blockbusters like Ghostbusters and 50 Cent come out.

It's a wacky decision that sounds like it was driven by higher-ups that let weird personal biases/whims overcome logic. Happens all the time in the business world.

Honestly? My guess is they wanted Blizzard, and pretty much didn't/don't care about the rest. Sierra (or the husk that goes by the name) isn't exactly a great big wonderful company anymore. It's been closed more times than SNK. I'm guessing Activision wanted Blizzard, took the package, and is just kind of shaking it, wondering what all those ants are doing hanging on.

That's very likely. Maybe they looked at Sierra's lousy track record recently and ignored the fact that they actually have some awesome stuff in the pipeline.

Aoi · July 2008

cloudeagle wrote: »

Aoi wrote: »

cloudeagle wrote: »

Well, I can understand the desire to cut overhead by trimming employees and game development, but you'd think they'd do it after almost-guaranteed blockbusters like Ghostbusters and 50 Cent come out.

It's a wacky decision that sounds like it was driven by higher-ups that let weird personal biases/whims overcome logic. Happens all the time in the business world.

Honestly? My guess is they wanted Blizzard, and pretty much didn't/don't care about the rest. Sierra (or the husk that goes by the name) isn't exactly a great big wonderful company anymore. It's been closed more times than SNK. I'm guessing Activision wanted Blizzard, took the package, and is just kind of shaking it, wondering what all those ants are doing hanging on.

That's very likely. Maybe they looked at Sierra's lousy track record recently and ignored the fact that they actually have some awesome stuff in the pipeline.

I just don't even think they gave it even that much thought. They just bought it for Blizzard, and the rest is getting shrugged off. Blizzard's bottom line really gave them an insane boost to their bottom line. Instantly they had several of the most successful games ever, and an MMO that draws in just batshit insane amounts of cash every months. I'm amazed they didn't just set the other development houses on fire while pointing and laughing at the wreckage.

Dehumanized · July 2008

Aoi wrote: »

cloudeagle wrote: »

Aoi wrote: »

cloudeagle wrote: »

Well, I can understand the desire to cut overhead by trimming employees and game development, but you'd think they'd do it after almost-guaranteed blockbusters like Ghostbusters and 50 Cent come out.

It's a wacky decision that sounds like it was driven by higher-ups that let weird personal biases/whims overcome logic. Happens all the time in the business world.

Honestly? My guess is they wanted Blizzard, and pretty much didn't/don't care about the rest. Sierra (or the husk that goes by the name) isn't exactly a great big wonderful company anymore. It's been closed more times than SNK. I'm guessing Activision wanted Blizzard, took the package, and is just kind of shaking it, wondering what all those ants are doing hanging on.

That's very likely. Maybe they looked at Sierra's lousy track record recently and ignored the fact that they actually have some awesome stuff in the pipeline.

I just don't even think they gave it even that much thought. They just bought it for Blizzard, and the rest is getting shrugged off. Blizzard's bottom line really gave them an insane boost to their bottom line. Instantly they had several of the most successful games ever, and an MMO that draws in just batshit insane amounts of cash every months. I'm amazed they didn't just set the other development houses on fire while pointing and laughing at the wreckage.

I'm getting the image of a kid buying a box of cereal, then opening it up and quickly ripping through it for the prize, then just throwing away all the delicious cereal.

Error · July 2008

They just sold the rights (or gave them back I don't know) to The Bourne series games to Ludlum Entertainment

http://kotaku.com/5031046/vivendi-gives-bourne-back-to-ludlum

Couscous · July 2008

Some of the developers they are probably getting rid of make successful if not huge games. I don't see why they should get rid of them for not being as successful as Blizzard.

Aoi · July 2008

Because they weren't the point of the merger. Activision already has a bunch of developers under their umbrella, they probably just don't care to have that many more. It's not that uncommon in this kind of thing. Get rid of redundant divisions, sell off parts that you really don't care about, and redistribute worthwhile employees to already existing teams. It's pretty normal.

randombattle · July 2008

Does anyone know just why the fuck Blizzard merged with them anyway?

I mean it clearly wasn't for the money.

cloudeagle · July 2008

randombattle wrote: »

Does anyone know just why the fuck Blizzard merged with them anyway?

I mean it clearly wasn't for the money.

I'm not sure, but I don't think it was their call. Vivendi, their parent company, made the decision.

Daedalus · July 2008

randombattle wrote: »

Does anyone know just why the fuck Blizzard merged with them anyway?

I mean it clearly wasn't for the money.

It was a reverse merger. Vivendi's stockholders ended up with majority control over the board of Activision Blizzard, not the other way around.

edit: if you're wondering why Vivendi wanted to own Activision, well, they'd already beaten EA before the merger.

Shadowfire · July 2008

Noticed this over at 1up.

Ludlum Reacquires Bourne Book Rights

Future Bourne games a possibility, along with other literary adaptations.
By Andrew Hayward, 07/30/2008
Ludlum Entertainment, which manages the works the late author Robert Ludlum, announced Wednesday that it has reacquired the rights to create videogame adaptations of Ludlum's novels from Sierra, including those based on the Jason Bourne character. The announcement comes just one month after the release of The Bourne Conspiracy for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, which garnered above-average reviews but failed to reach the Top 10 in the June NPD sales report.

Specific projects were not announced by Ludlum Entertainment, though the author penned more than two dozen thriller novels, with several subsequent works from other writers released under the Ludlum banner. Jeffrey Weiner, chairman and CEO of Ludlum Entertainment, mentioned seeking partners and new investors for upcoming projects, so the company may not be planning to release future Ludlum titles on its own.

"Robert Ludlum's thrilling stories hold vast international appeal and with their successful translation to both the big screen and the game console, they represent the backbone of one of the leading multimedia entertainment franchises in existence today," said Weiner. "Ludlum's works are an ideal vehicle for realizing the promise of multiplatform gaming and capitalizing on the accelerated migration from personal computers and game consoles to a wide variety of mobile devices, online multiplayer games and social media applications."

Certainly the timing of the announcement is peculiar, just one day after Activision Blizzard announced that many of Sierra/Vivendi's projects would not be published by the recently merged new company. Whether Ludlum Entertainment initiated the deal to reacquire the rights or if Activision Blizzard simply did not want the license is unclear, but a bankable asset like Bourne is unlikely to be without a publishing partner for long.

Couscous · July 2008

http://kotaku.com/5031323/variety-says-brutal-legend-announcement-soon

Brutal Legend was one of the Sierra titles Activision Blizzard kicked to the curb. Bummer! The good news is that developer Double Fine actually owns the rights to the Jack Black staring heavy metal hack and slash and thus actually can make something happen itself. Word is that Double Fine is on the verge of inking a publishing deal for the game. Variety has the scoop, writing:

I don't know who it will be, but I understand that it may not be a traditional publisher. It could be a more "unique" arrangement. (Sorry to be vague, but even getting this much info was quite a chore.)

Hmmm.

One Thousand Dicks · July 2008

I'm putting $5 on MTV Games. Of course, that's mostly due to my hope that we'll see music in Brutal Legend make an appearance in Rock Band.

cloudeagle · October 2008

Activision let Ghostbusters go to Atari and 50 Cent go to THQ. But to Brutal Legend, they're being a bunch of cocks.

As noted in my previous post, it seems almost every near complete Sierra game that Activision Blizzard decided not to publish has a new home. Except one: Brutal Legend.

While doing my reporting on "Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena" and "Ghostbusters" (info here), I checked in on everyone's favorite heavy metal action game starring Jack Black and, well, the news isn't great.

Sources close to the process confirmed that "Brutal Legend" hasn't been set up at a new publisher since, as I reported back in August, negotiations with MTV fell through.

BrutallegendWhatever the exact reasons, it seems that tensions are running high between Double Fine and Activision Blizzard as they try to make a deal with a new publisher.

I spoke to some sources on the Double Fine side and they said the problem isn't that other publishers aren't interested. They say it's that Activision Blizzard has been "an impediment" and that they're "blocking the process."

Now of course everyone has their own agenda in a negotiation and I'm sure Activision Blizzard, which declined to comment, has a very different perspective. But when one side is willing to bad mouth the other, you can be certain of at least one thing: talks are not going well and people are pissed. If they were close to a deal, everyone would keep their mouths shut to keep the process going smoothly.

So, whatever the exact details, it seems that the Double Fine side feels that Activision Blizzard is intentiontally trying to make setting up "Brutal Legend" at a new publisher difficult, if not impossible. Which means things won't be sorted out anytime soon and we probably won't be hearing an announcement about the game's fate, let alone playing it, for a while.

http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/2008/10/brutal-legend-s.html

Oh goddammit.

darleysam · October 2008

In other news though, provided the touch of Atari doesn't cock it up completely, Chronicles of Riddick sounds awesome. It's apparently a completely new campaign now, rather than new bits tacked on to the old.

But that sucks colossal donkey balls about Brutal Legend.

gtrmp · November 2008

Dammit, Brutal Legend was the only one of these games that I was actually looking forward to.

FyreWulff · November 2008

darleysam wrote: »

In other news though, provided the touch of Atari doesn't cock it up completely, Chronicles of Riddick sounds awesome. It's apparently a completely new campaign now, rather than new bits tacked on to the old.

But that sucks colossal donkey balls about Brutal Legend.

Well in theory, Atari is not being involved in development at all, they're just picking up the publishing rights.

Inglorious Coyote · November 2008

gtrmp wrote: »

Dammit, Brutal Legend was the only one of these games that I was actually looking forward to.

Same here.

I say we send Jack Black over to Activision with an axe. Let him do a little 'negotiating'.

DeMoN · November 2008

Son of a bitch.

Looks like Brutal Legend is having the same problems as Psychonauts. I was praying this wouldn't happen.

MinionOfCthulhu · November 2008

Motherfucker. Brutal Legend better not be canned or whatever. It looks too awesome to have it simply fade away.

Shorn Scrotum Man · November 2008

eelektrik wrote: »

If they close down Massive Entertainment though, someone needs to shove a guitar controller up the CEOs ass.

Amen to that shit. World in Conflict may not run on my machine anymore (god damn their shitty code not working on 64-bit Vista!), but I still love WiC and would hate to see it end.

darleysam · November 2008

FyreWulff wrote: »

darleysam wrote: »

In other news though, provided the touch of Atari doesn't cock it up completely, Chronicles of Riddick sounds awesome. It's apparently a completely new campaign now, rather than new bits tacked on to the old.

But that sucks colossal donkey balls about Brutal Legend.

Well in theory, Atari is not being involved in development at all, they're just picking up the publishing rights.

Exactly, it should be safe from harm, and I even believe that Phil Harrison is at least going to haul them above laughing-stock, but damnit, if someone cocks it up, they're getting shanked.

Viscountalpha · November 2008

I kinda wish double fine would just do their own indie publishing thing and be done with it. I'm certain its not that easy but dammit, I want brutal legend.

Penny Arcade

Activision is the new EA: Brutal Legend, Ghostbusters, 50 Cent canned?

Posts