Vicarious Visions was developing Black Ops 2 for Vita

A PlayStation Vita version of Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 had been in development at handheld-specialist Vicarious Visions before being canned by Activision, a new report has claimed.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
porkChop2172d ago

Great idea. Let's cancel a "flawed" version of a good game game and give them a half-assed one instead.

Welshy2172d ago


Colour me surprised...

XB1_PS42172d ago (Edited 2172d ago )

I got the bundled Declassified game. Only because the assassin's creed one was out of stock.. I figured how bad could it REALLY be, as it turns out it's REALLY bad. As much as everyone likes to bag on COD, a good port of BLOPS2 on Vita would have been amazing. To top it off, they could have possibly worked out the cross play for it also.. I wish Activision didn't think of us as money bags. I want them to have some kind of self respect and only release good, entertaining products. That will most certainly not happen this gen at least. Fingers crossed for next gen. :)

Oh btw, this is the only article I've ever seen on N4G with NO disagrees.. That's liable to change by the time you've read this though.

HammadTheBeast2172d ago (Edited 2172d ago )

Get LittleBigPlanet Vita, people make better shooters than Declassified in it lol.

UltraVegito2172d ago

Makes me wonder what blacks ops 2 on vita would be like *-*
seriously though what were they smoking to decide to ditch a "flawed" product for the monstrosity that is CoDBoD

Yodagamer2172d ago

So instead of fixing the flawed version, they can it and give us a crappy one with more bugs than a woodland forest. This is the same crap that killed guitar hero and Tony hawk.

Marked2172d ago

Activision noticed the lack of pillow talk from microsoft.....remembering their vows "thow shalt not worship anyone above me" They quickly destroyed the golden vita and replaced it with a pile of shit.

SilentNegotiator2172d ago (Edited 2172d ago )

The way certain Xbox golden boys (the circle that MS pays a ridiculous amount to for early DLC and such, like $50M for DLC that will never make close to that back) snub anything playstation sometimes makes me paranoid about what's going on behind the curtains. Mostly because they usually snub in a way that makes little or no sense.

Just saying. I mean, they scrapped a "flawed" version of this year's inevitably most popular game and put it in the hands of a historically crap developer. Tell me how that makes the slightest bit of sense business-wise. Tell me how one of the biggest game publishers in the world goofed THAT HARD with such an easy concept.

Call me "paranoid", "fanboy", whatever. Corporations have done worse than get developers to make bad decisions with software regarding their competitors....especially certain corporations that started with a dream of monopolizing the computer industry and more or less achieved that goal.

MetalProxy2172d ago

Your not paranoid. MS has been known to do that very thing. I am curtain there is alot of shady stuff going on out there.

SilentNegotiator2172d ago (Edited 2172d ago )

I know I'm not really paranoid.

But there will always be fanatics to call others "paranoid" when they suggest that corporations are doing shady things. Kind of like a child with a lead-painted toy arguing with you that the corporation that made it is on the straight and narrow.

rpd1232172d ago

Not that paranoid. There was that one time that Bungie was developing Halo exclusively for Mac, and then Microsoft bought Bungie and took Halo. One of MS's greatest franchises, stolen out from under Apple.

Sheikh Yerbouti2172d ago


That's actually fair in business. What he's talking about is undermining a customer because he is in competition with another customer who pads your pockets. That's illegal or the very least very unethical.

I think there's a rational reason behind it...albeit disappointing none-the-less.

rpd1232172d ago (Edited 2172d ago )

@ Sheikh

Oh, yeah I know it's fair business. It's still a dick move, though. (I'm glad they did it though, Halo under Apple was a real time strategy game). I was just saying, it's not that big a leap from buying a competitors game out from under them and making a game bomb on a competitors device on purpose. Not sure if MS paying Activision to make crappy Vita game is illegal, but it is definitely an unethical thing to do.

Sheikh Yerbouti2172d ago (Edited 2172d ago )


I was thinking lemon laws or selling watered down gasoline. Same thing to me...watered down game.

It's a be a dick or get dicked world.

Knight_Crawler2171d ago (Edited 2171d ago )

@Silent - You must be about 17 years old.

Where were you when Sony personally killed the Dream Cast by keeping all the 3rd party developers on the PS2 and yes belive or not Sony paid those 3 party developers good money to keep certain games on the PS2 only - what MS is doing now is what Sony did in the PS2 era to the Dream Cast and Xbox 1.

A companies number one goal is to make a profit, you may think that your favorite console brand loves you but the truth is that they love your money.

Yes MS might be doing shady things but do not think that the other two are saints.

If MS had giving up after the first Xbox then I think Sony would still be acting arrogant and telling people to get two jobs to buy a PS3 and Next gen dos not start until we say so.

mcstorm2171d ago

@Knight_Crawler You are spot on there but this is still done by sony now. Look at EA some of there games Like Assassins creed have exclusive DLC on them.

Its just business and to give customers a reason to own there console.

Lvl_up_gamer2171d ago (Edited 2171d ago )

Oh no it's all a giant corporate conspiracy!!!

MS are not paying 3rd party developers to deliberately gimp the competitors version of a game.

Have you ever heard of "Occam's razor"?

It is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.

Why would a well known and respected developer put their reputation at risk and deliberately gimp a AAA title that cost millions of $$$ and time to develop so that the other platform would have an edge with performance? Money? Bethesda made more money on sales with the PS3 version then what MS would have paid. Assuming MS would have paid, it would have been much more beneficial and value to MS to have the money go towards exclusive content, NOT gimping the competitors version of the game which would still sell anyways.

No, the real reason is simple. The PS3 is extremely hard to program for and the split RAM makes it difficult to create such large open living worlds. It's no different then the 360 version not looking as good or not performing as well as the PC.

MS paid R* $50 million for timed exclusive content. You are out of your mind if you don't think MS got their money back ten fold from consumers who would have originally bought the GTA IV on the PS3 but instead bought it on the 360? Or how many 360's were sold so that consumers would be able to play the timed exclusive content? The deal worked out for both parties. R* got an additional $50 million in their pocket and MS sold consoles which helped establish a larger console dominance in the market.

So bottom line....Yes SilentNegotiator, you ARE Paranoid.

cee7732171d ago


No Dreamcast dug its own grave with its inferior CD drive = lack of space compared to DVD not to mention it lacked quite a few buttons on the controller including a right analog,L3,R3 and left and right bumpers on the controller how could devs port games to a console that lacks input that and disc space not to mention it was so easy to pirate a DC game you could burn on a blank CD lol

SilentNegotiator2171d ago (Edited 2171d ago )


I never said that it was exclusively a MS move. In fact, I made a point that it isn't unusual for corporations to do things like that.

And you must be 10, because there is MAJOR difference between buying developers and bribing developers to make crap software for other systems. Paying developers to do things exclusively for you is 110% fair game. Wink, wink, nudge nudging companies into making shoddy versions of software for other systems is illegal in most parts of the developed world.

Dreamcast killed itself, btw. SEGA didn't have any right trying to have a console at that point with how poorly they had managed themselves for years. Plus, they made MISERABLE design decisions - CD? One control stick? What an outdated system it was for its time. You would have to have a fishbowl for a head to think that Dreamcast had any chance of bringing SEGA above their mediocre position.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 2171d ago
Show all comments (49)
The story is too old to be commented.