Why Activision does not care

In this post I will be talking about and showing you why and how Activision does not care about their games or consumers.

Before I continue I would like to point out this is more of rant and it based on me and my friends experiences so therefore please keep an open mind when reading this and what you think afterwards is up to you.

Over the past couple of years me and a small group of friends contact Activision support with ideas or general questions about Call of Duty and how they could improve the game play or other things.

The first thing I would like to point out for a company who are famous for the FPS Call of Duty they really have no idea about guns for example; (this is taken from my chat records from Activision support.)

Me: "I don't know how much you know about weapons, but I would like to report a problem about the P90"
Activision support: "Okay what seems to be the problem on P90?"
Me: "The P90 holds 50 bullets and the magazine is specially made for the shape of the P90, so I would like to know how it is possible to have an extended magazine on the P90"
Activision support: "Is this for Black Ops 2?"
Me:Activision support: "Or MW3?"
Me: "MW3"
Activision support: "Let me check it"
Me: "ok"
Activision support: "Thank you for holding; you can have an extended magazine on level 24"
Me: "I know that but I what I want to know, why did Activision or IW decide to put extended magazines on p90 when it not possible since the magazine is specially made for that gun"
Activision support: "I am sorry bit we have no information why it was put on that weapon"

This is proof that they only don't know about weapons it also proves that they don't know what game you’re talking about (I didn't know the P90 was in Black Ops 2.

You would think a big company like Activision would actually get people in how know there games inside out and know more about weapons.

My second point about Activision support is that they don't listen, (I will try to explain this bit part best as I can) When you go onto support they ask you for your gamer tag and chat console and afterwards you explained your problem etc. you get a summary of your log. I always say Xbox 360 because that what me and my friends play on a lot of times they my console down as PS3 when this is simply incorrect and I often have to reply back to them just to get it changed.

My next point in this blog is that even if you point out a problem with one of the games they quickly change the issue to resolve even when the problem has not been fixed. This proves that Activision are lazy and just care about money.

My next point in this article is that Activision support lie to their customers just read this if you think I am lying;

Me: "I would to know why after a while you let your cod games get run over with hackers"
Activision support: "We are looking in to that matter as of this moment we are tracking the hackers and having some resolutions for this hacking problem we also ask gamer's to report hackers to us so we can check it".
Activision support: "May I know what type of console you are using?"
Me: "like I said earlier Xbox 360 and with mw2 and earlier it not possible to report hackers though".
Activision support: "Yes but now gamers can report hackers in game for Black Ops 2."
Me: "I know that but why isn’t anything be done about it on cod 4 or mw2 since there no way to report them"
Activision support: "If ever gamers can contact us to report cheaters so we can investigate it"
Me: "You know how long that would take have you actually checked cod 4 lately 9 out of 10 servers have hackers on it and it makes the game unplayable"
Activision support: "We are already aware of this one and we are currently working on these hackers".

Please not they said there working on the hackers, yet you still see plenty out there how about adding an anti-cheat system, that would least improve COD even if COD was improved a little bit it would be better than no improvement at all.

My last point on this blog is that they keep growing more successful (mostly because of COD fan boys) yet Activision won't splash out the money for some better servers that will reduce the lag and support a wider bandwidth yet instead on the support page they tell you to disable your firewall, (who in their right mind would do that!).

My final thoughts for this article is, if Activision was not so successful would they actually start listening to their consumers and would they actually be willing to fix their games or would they continue to be lazy.

I am willing to hear your thoughts on this blog and weather you had any similar experiences with Activision support or any other company.

[JonahNL]

You're expecting some random guy behind a desk in the middle of nowhere to solve all of your problems by simply pressing a button. That's what I'm getting from your article.

If there's one thing I've learned over the years it's that customer support, of any company, is simply a messenger and not a tool. These people don't have the power to do what most people are expecting them to do.

I will agree that there's plenty of customer support out there with an average IQ of a fence, but be realistic about what they can do.

[Matt666]

I was not trying to say that I expect them to sole all my problems but they could at least try to help in some point but instead they just don't care they just let the game be a copy & paste job every year

[oscarmike]

wait so you mean the rep didn't know that answer? I thought the reps in addition to answering rude calls also wrote the codes for the game and worked on the weapon balancing. how dare they not know. the madness

and if it's a copy and paste game then why do you play it. I don't get this at all. no one is forcing you people to buy these games.

[AtomicGerbil]

Like most companies Activision will have any random Joe sat in front of a computer screen that can follow on screen prompts. That being said my personal opinion is that Activision will suddenly start paying attention when their sales numbers stop breaking records and dramatically decline.

[Valenka]

So...because an Activision support technician does not know why the developers of Modern Warfare 3 allowed an extended magazine on a machine gun where in real-life, it is impossible...and that somehow outlines that Activision doesn't care.

Excuse me while I set myself on fire and leap out of a window.

[Matt666]

well it pose to be a war game yet it full of unrealistic crap either make a war game with a bit more realism or let it get run over by qs and ns fags who spray and pray, going off topic but this is why I prefer games like ARMA 2, Operation flash point etc

[matgrowcott]

Since when was Call of Duty supposed to be a war game? It's an arcade game at best. If you want simulation, keep playing ARMA. I'm sure the 30 million people that buy CoD each year are happy with what they've got.

[s45gr32]

I agree because we are talking about a customer service agent not the developer. The game developer is the person to ask about why the p90 has a larger magazine than in real life. The customer service representative is only responsible to help you out if you run into basic problems like unable to connect online, unable to log in to your account, etc. That's why this blog threw me off as to why would you ask the customer service representative in regards to the weapons of say game when he/she is not the developer.

[pixelsword]

As the "artist's advocate" I must ask, why should they care?

If games are art, then the artist accepts the piece as it is and not what others want it to be.

George Lucas used to be an artist when he made the first three star wars movies and it showed: he didn't care if people had to read the dialogue to give the authentic effect of an alien language, but when you sell out, you get aliens sounding like Jamaicans breathing Helium or an alien race that sounds like a Transylvanian in the first one and a half movies and Surfer Dudes in the other half because you don't really care about the accents anymore.

Lucas sold out his artistic sensibilities because he knows the mainstream will bring their kids so therefore he put a character to fit-into an perfectly well-tuned universe; Jar-Jar was the Poochie of Itchy and Scratchy.

In respect to the new Lucas, Even though Disney pumps-out garbage cartoons now, I'm glad they have the new Star Wars for only one reason: Even though their cartoons are crap, their attention to detail is an industry-standard and in the end that could help the franchise after what Lucas did to it.

[Matt666]

what? The 6 star wars where amazing and I just see Disney making a worse job on star wars my self and they should care because eventually people will get bored and sales will decrease as they have started to

[coolbeans]

"Lucas sold out his artistic sensibilities because he knows the mainstream will bring their kids so therefore he put a character to fit-into an perfectly well-tuned universe; Jar-Jar was the Poochie of Itchy and Scratchy."

I just felt like informing you in regards to this: Binks fits in perfectly in the Fool/Trickster role since Lucas' aim for the prequels was Greek Tragedy. It really wasn't some case of "getting the kiddies" marketing as first on his mind, but artistic vision. The QUALITY/EXECUTION of said vision is something else entirely to critique.

[pixelsword]

That was loosely a Greek Tragedy and can be laughably be called so; it was as much Shakespearean as Greek, which made the later three films seem patched together.

That's why the role of Binks was diminished in the other two, because he fit perfectly.

http://insidemovies.ew.com/...

[coolbeans]

@pixelsword

"That was loosely a Greek Tragedy and can be laughably be called so; it was as much Shakespearean as Greek, which made the later three films seem patched together."

That's...sort of the reason why I made the "QUALITY/EXECUTION" part of my last comment. I was just challenging your myopic notion that Lucas just plopped him randomly in there for the kiddies.

Edit: "...it was as much Shakespearean as Greek, which made the later three films seem patched together."

Beyond Anakin's story arc in Revenge, I can't really see much beyond inklings of that scattered throughout the prequels, causing me to question if you can properly analyze movies.

[pixelsword]

Firstly, when I said:

"That's why the role of Binks was diminished in the other two, because he fit perfectly."

That was sarcasm, because Jar-Jar didn't fit at all.

Secondly, you stated:

"I can't really see much beyond inklings of that scattered throughout the prequels, causing me to question if you can properly analyze movies."

If you can't see beyond inklings of it, I don't think I'm the one that cannot properly analyze movies; as that's the whole reason why the movies seemed patched-together, which is the reason behind that particular comment.

To keep it plain, and amongst other things, Greek tragedies focus on the main character making more or less cerebral discoveries about his situation, and Shakespearean ones are emotional, Lucas attempted to put a Shakespearean spin on the main character and a Greek spin on Obi-Wan and the whole endeavor was sloppily executed. He have to give it Greek overtones because of the religious significance he tried to put on Anakin, but Anakin was never a person with high moral standards according to the code he professed to follow, which is why Windu never truly trusted him because form the beginning he was a fearful boy, and that fear resonated throughout his life, He feared losing his mother, and later on he feared losing his wife. He tried to hide his emotions, but he was full of anger when he should not have had any, he had a desire for power, wanting to be the greatest jedi, and the kid was always selfish, putting his mother's freedom over being a good servant to fulfilling his lusty desires by getting married and hiding that, ruining one of the core principles of a Greek Tragedy.

Obi Wan was the one who was more Greek in terms of finding out about who was behind the Sith, tracking down the clone world, uncovering the truth behind the slaughtered jedi children.

If you didn't see that, I seriously suggest you look into what each means instead of trying to give backhanded insults to people.

[coolbeans]

"That was sarcasm, because Jar-Jar didn't fit at all."

Caught that it was, which is why I didn't bother quoting it. I've already made my point, you made yours so there's no need bringing that back up.

"Greek tragedies focus on the main character making more or less cerebral discoveries about his situation, and Shakespearean ones are emotional..."

Okay, perfect. Just like I mentioned in regards to Anakin's arc in Revenge. But that's all you've brought up in regards to "loosely based on a Greek tragedy" part of your earlier comment. Look at the components for one:

-Plot, character, setting, are all intertwined and related
-Events occur within a short period of time (for each episode)
-Theme involves relationship between a person's fate and their free will
-The Tragic Hero (which has been admitted by both of us to be more Shakespearean later on--how that makes it patchwork is beyond me)

"...but Anakin was never a person with high moral standards according to the code he professed to follow"

You're stretching it there. A slave with a yearning to help people, having such high esteem as to be trained by a respected Jedi Knight, higher social order. Just because he played "jedi cowboy" and married someone doesn't mean he never had high moral standards.

"...Windu never truly trusted him because form the beginning he was a fearful boy, and that fear resonated throughout his life..."

This goes right back to Hamartia in Greek tragedies.

"He tried to hide his emotions, but he was full of anger when he should not have had any, he had a desire for power, wanting to be the greatest jedi, and the kid was always selfish, putting his mother's freedom over being a good servant to fulfilling his lusty desires by getting married and hiding that, ruining one of the core principles of a Greek Tragedy."

Most of this can actually resonate with the idea of fate vs. free will. When we look at the outcomes of some of these (marriage, being powerful) are in it of itself challenging that notion which feed from his own character flaw. And I think you're stretching thing really far if Anakin securing his mother's freedom is now "selfish."

"If you didn't see that, I seriously suggest you look into what each means instead of trying to give backhanded insults to people."

Backhanded insults? That was just an honest remark that I'm going to have to stand by.

[pixelsword]

"Caught that it was, which is why I didn't bother quoting it. I've already made my point, you made yours so there's no need bringing that back up."

Actually there is: that was my whole purpose of posting what I posted, and everything else is just off topic that Jar-Jar was not needed, and I posted a link stating so. Everything else after that is pointless, because it doesn't negate the website I posted.

So that's where the conversation ends on my part: Jar-Jar was not needed, and it was confirmed by the person who played Jar-Jar.

[coolbeans]

"Actually there is: that was my whole purpose of posting what I posted, and everything else is just off topic that Jar-Jar was not needed, and I posted a link stating so. Everything else after that is pointless, because it doesn't negate the website I posted."

But what you posted was in regards to Best's remarks to his lack of a role in Ep. II and III, not the main point regarding Lucas' selling-out to mainstream when there actually was an artistic purpose for his role at the beginning. In fact, that link can actually provide another wrinkle if fan input restrained his initial artistic vision for the whole trilogy.

"So that's where the conversation ends on my part: Jar-Jar was not needed, and it was confirmed by the person who played Jar-Jar."

Did you even read his quote provided in the link?

[pixelsword]

Wow, still quoting on this.

Okay.

"Did you even read his quote provided in the link?"

No, I actually read the whole article, in it he said:

[However, Best does share some behind-the-scenes intel about a deleted scene involving Jar Jar filmed for Revenge of the Sith that would have expanded upon what happened to Binks after he infamously got the senate to unknowingly grant a Sith lord emergency powers in Attack of the Clones. “In Revenge of the Sith, there was a scene that was cut where I’m walking down a long pathway with Ian McDiarmid before he is turned into the Emperor,” Best explains. “And Palpatine kind of thanks Jar Jar for putting him in power. It’s a really interesting scene, and it shows the evolution of Jar Jar from this fun-loving kid’s character into this manipulated politician. And it was an interesting arc for the character that I thought could have been explored, because the scene is really dark. But it just didn’t fit in the movie, which I understand. But yeah, George’s take on it is Jar Jar is now just a politician.”]

Two things right quick from an excerpt:

"...it shows the evolution of Jar Jar from this fun-loving kid’s character into this manipulated politician..."

1. The fool remains the outsider, Jar-Jar turned to a politician; so even IF he was dubbed the fool for the story, he turned into a politician, which meant that Lucas never intended for him to be a fool.

2. He was a kids character, which was said by Best himself, an actor with actual access to Lucas. This isn't some cheap philosophy or guesswork, it's an actual professional actor who knows what Binks was put in there for, and the terminology to label who is or isn't a fool in a production and he even calls it a character for kids.

I'm sure irregardless of the truth pimp-slapping you, you'll still make some tragic point to justify your obviously incorrect statement.

It's over.

It was over before when you first started to type otherwise.

You can add more, but since this is my last bubble, I really don't care anymore.

[coolbeans]

-"1. The fool remains the outsider, Jar-Jar turned to a politician; so even IF he was dubbed the fool for the story, he turned into a politician, which meant that Lucas never intended for him to be a fool."

That's a...very bad way of determining what a writer's original intentions for a character must have been. This actually fits perfectly back into what I suggested earlier regarding Binks' later roles being diminished. You can probably find some stuff on Lucas regarding Jar Jar in which he was penned on being an integral character throughout the trilogy. With what archeytpe, you may ask? The fool.

But...due to silencing the mainstream's complaints about him, the character was obviously used from then on out to appease the audience--which ironically shows a stronger case of "selling out" than what you brought up in beginning.

-"2. He was a kids character, which was said by Best himself, an actor with actual access to Lucas. This isn't some cheap philosophy or guesswork, it's an actual professional actor who knows what Binks was put in there for, and the terminology to label who is or isn't a fool in a production and he even calls it a character for kids."

"...and the terminology to label who is or isn't a fool..."

So now because Best doesn't disclose the philosophical sensibilities of his character it now disregards any possible examinations like that?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N...

-"It was over before when you first started to type otherwise.

You can add more, but since this is my last bubble, I really don't care anymore."

If you say so. Nevermind ruminating on what other possible intentions could be the framework for a character, I've been "pimp-slapped" by the truth of an actor saying he was a kid's character...which somehow disregards everything else opined by me.

And seeing as how you've bothered 3-4 days later to regurgitate your points despite "So that's where the conversation ends on my part" stated already, I'm not going to hold my breath on that.

Edit:

" 'Did you even read his quote provided in the link?'

No, I actually read the whole article..."

Off topic but this part got to me. Stating to have not read his quote in the article...by stating you read the whole article?

[Matt666]

@ matgrowcott it set during a event where Russia has started war with the US (or which ever countries but you get the point) so therefore a war game, so they could at least make it a tad more realistic its got boring years ago keeping the same formula yet people are still idiots and will go out and buy it because got like one different weapon in

[matgrowcott]

It is a game within which there's a war.

That doesn't make it a war game. Not unless Grand Theft Auto is a dance simulator.

[Oschino1907]

This Blog and the writers reponses in the comments leads to massive face palming as you wonder what high horse this jackass fell from when he bashed his head and came up with the bright idea to write this.

Honestly this is the kind of talk I would expect from someone trolling, new to games or totally delusional. I find it hard to believe I live in the same dimension as this clown if he is serious at all.

I bet he is the kind of person who spends more time complaining about COD (which he clearly barely knows the franchise) while playing ARMA then actually playing ARMA and providing useful chatter.

[Matt666]

I have played all the CODS the last decent COD was COD4:MW after that it become over the top BS full of QS and NS fags who don't help the team in anyway and people wonder why (mostly the younger generation then me) I hate call of duty