Activision has responded to VGC’s report highlighting the new Call of Duty trailer’snear-complete omission of reference to the company, amid ongoing allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination.
Call of Duty: Vanguardpremiered this week witha three-minute trailer. The video opens with “Call of Duty presents” instead of ‘Activisionpresents’ and does not include Activision’s logo at all, breaking from usual protocol.
In the entire video, the only mention of Activision is in the legally required copyright small print.
The trailer elements were perceived as an attempt to distanceActivision Blizzard’s biggest brand from the numerous allegations of wrongdoing aimed at the company. As noted by a social media user, Activision has also omitted its logo fromCall of Duty Vanguard’s pre-order page.
Now, responding to a request for comment from journalistStephen Totilo, a company spokesperson has claimed the decision was “a creative choice”.
“Call of Duty has continued to expand into an incredible universe of experiences. This was a creative choice that reflects how Vanguard represents the next major installment in the franchise.”
Activision Blizzard’s reputation has been severely tarnished in recent weeks, following the filing of a lawsuit by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), whichaccuses the company of failing to handle sexual harassment and discrimination complaints.
The lawsuit, and Activision Blizzard’s subsequent response, led to a staff walkout accompanied byan open lettersigned by thousands of current and former employees.
further reading
Activision Blizzard CEOBobby Kotickclaimed during an earnings call this month thatthe company will “set the example”on how to handle sexual harassment and discrimination in the games industry, but itsown shareholdershave called this response “inadequate”.
SOC Investment Group, which owns shares in Activision Blizzard,sent a letterto the company’s lead independent director stating that CEO Bobby Kotick‘s response to the lawsuit and its subsequent employee backlash does “not go nearly far enough” to address the issues involved.
