That's fightin' talk

why dont they just get on with their job and talk after they have actually delivered what for now is just a fantasy?
this cheap talking is becoming very boring and childish.

talk talk - it is called publicity!

i would expect to see those empty statements in the publicity section then.

In complete contradiction to the comments above, I really want to buy this game now. Publicity stunt wins again.

everybody has the right to learn the hard way;)

They were fools to let it go! I watched it through it's development when I was an employee at Vivendi. The game is so witty and fun. The Wii version is especially fun. Go ATARI!

I think Harrison is right. I mean look at all the games dumped by the merger. Ghostbuster, riddick, brutal legend. All those game are not the kind of games which you can make year after year. Activision only kept games which will keep them makign money year after year. I mean how many new IPs Activision brought in the last year. At least EA brought two pretty damn good games this gen and they were not sequels.

x Hassan: given that companies dont have illimited funds they must allocate their money on the best horses. Given N games you can invest on surely games that can produce sequels are the ones that most likely will generate more profit, so to me that looks like the best decision to make. Atari has just fewer options to choose from and they can pick potential and smaller(but still big) profits that didnt fit in other companies strategies.So it's not about how playable the games is but how much money can potentially make and how this number relates to other games you can potentially invest on. In order to Activision to be wrong Ghostbuster would need to make more money than the other games they have chosen to invest in, this including all the possible sequels.Its about money and company strategy, it's not about a single game and but the broader context. So it's still possible to make money out of a game and Activision can still be damn right in the end.