Activision and Blizzard to merge in a $18.8 billion deal

[ceiling_fan]

Two of the largest game companies are merging. The new company will be called 'Activision Blizzard.' What do you think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7123582.stm

 

[Omnis]

Can't wait for World of Duty.

 

[ceiling_fan]

And let the jokes begin. 'Activision Blizzard' has to be one of the most uninspired merger names ever.

 

[Omnis]

Highest rank will be Tier 5 General.

 

[Legendary]

Man...why would they merge...blizzard makes mainly online games and activision makes platform...they will be a big mixture now.

 

[Omnis]

Man...why would they merge...blizzard makes mainly online games and activision makes platform...they will be a big mixture now.

Actually, Blizzard is a developer and Activision is a publisher. All this means for Blizzard is that they stop using Vivendi to publish their games. This goes to show how completely successful Blizzard has become in the last few years, however. Activision is probably the largest publisher in the industry.

 

[Danoff]

This will almost certainly water down Blizzard - which is a shame. Blizzard has been the cream of the crop in videogames for, what, a decade? I can't see why they'd want to merger with anyone, and I can't think that it'll be good for gamers.

 

[Omnis]

This will almost certainly water down Blizzard - which is a shame. Blizzard has been the cream of the crop in videogames for, what, a decade? I can't see why they'd want to merger with anyone, and I can't think that it'll be good for gamers.

Why not? Blizzard still has their development team. They (along with Vivendi) are just going to be getting a cut of Activision's publishing revenue.

It's kind of like how George Lucas got so rich with Star Wars and became Lucasfilm Ltd. to create the prequel trilogy independently instead of working with Fox studios.


... Oh, wait-- we're boned.

 

[DuckRacer]

This will almost certainly water down Blizzard - which is a shame. Blizzard has been the cream of the crop in videogames for, what, a decade? I can't see why they'd want to merger with anyone, and I can't think that it'll be good for gamers.

Blizzard isn't changing at all. We're not going to see the term "Activision Blizzard" in Activision, Sierra, or Blizzard games. Vivendi holds a 52% stake in this new company (and supposedly 68% when it's all said and done).

The only big things that'll change is that Vivendi Games' studios (Blizzard, Sierra) are going to have access to greater advertising resources and Activision's IPs (Guitar Hero, Call of Duty, James Bond, Tony Hawk, etc), and Activision will have access to Vivendi Games' IPs (Bourne, Spyro, Crash, StarCraft, Warcraft, etc). Granted, I doubt Blizzard isn't going to let anyone whore out their IPs so I'd be surprised to see Call of StarCraft next fall or anything.

Since Vivendi owns UMG, Activision will also be able to license their music for GH3 for free.

 

[Zrow]

I dunno, I think that it'll be alright - more advertising for Blizzard games, higher production values maybe, but I doubt anything major will change. Activision would have to be stupid to think they can change an established dev. house like Blizzard for the better.

 

[Danoff]

Activision would have to be stupid to think they can change an established dev. house like Blizzard for the better.

Which makes one wonder why blizzard agreed to the merger. They're already the best - by a long shot.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, lets look at it this way; They could have been gobbled up by EA, which would have sucked to the umpteenth percent.

I'd suspect good things to come of it, but you never know. The past few months with publishers and developers has been a bit odd, but as long as they keep making good games, I don't care.

 

[Formula1Driver]

Which makes one wonder why blizzard agreed to the merger. They're already the best - by a long shot.

The same reason anyone does anything business related? $$$$?

edit: Like someone said, at least it isn't EA behind this, then you can guarantee poor games.

 

[Danoff]

The same reason anyone does anything business related? $$$$?

Allow me to rephrase for clarity.

I don't see how blizzard plans to make more money from this merger. They already put out the highest quality product. Growing from within seems like a far better approach than merging with an inferior company.

 

[Omnis]

Wouldn't Blizzard be making money off of the publishing they do with Activision now like I've been saying? That's lucrative i nand of itself.

 

[Danoff]

Wouldn't Blizzard be making money off of the publishing they do with Activision now like I've been saying? That's lucrative i nand of itself.

That's what I'm trying to get a handle on here. What does activision do that blizzard can't? Publishing? How exactly is that difficult or expensive for blizzard? What's activision's advantage?

 

[DuckRacer]

Allow me to rephrase for clarity.

I don't see how blizzard plans to make more money from this merger. They already put out the highest quality product. Growing from within seems like a far better approach than merging with an inferior company.

Blizzard is owned by Vivendi Games, which is owned by Vivendi itself. Vivendi Games' console-centric division is Sierra Entertainment, which produces titles like Crash, Spyro, The Bourne Conspiracy, World in Conflict, etc, and publishes other titles like the new Ghostbusters game. Vivendi wanted to be far more dominant in the console gaming arena, and that's why they merged with Activision.

Blizzard gets to benefit from superior marketing resources, sales from games like Call of Duty and Guitar Hero, and console development resources if they choose to go down that path (which they probably won't).

The thread title is misleading – Activison and Blizzard aren't merging, it's Activision and Vivendi Games, who owns Blizzard, Sierra, etc. Vivendi (and Activision presumably) decided to put the name "Blizzard" into the new title since "Blizzard" is far more recognizable and reputable than "Vivendi. Hence "Activision Blizzard" and not "Activision Vivendi".

 

[CDailey]

Maybe we'll actually get that World of Warcraft console game they used an as April fools joke a while ago.

 

[Legendary]

I'm doubting that lol. It'd be pretty wicked if they did lol.

 

[Zrow]

Which makes one wonder why blizzard agreed to the merger. They're already the best - by a long shot.

Meh, only if you're into RTS's. I've never really sat down and played a Blizzard game myself.

 

[///M-Spec]

Meh, only if you're into RTS's. I've never really sat down and played a Blizzard game myself.

Blizzard also developed Diablo I and II, pretty much the most successful Action RPGs ever.


M

 

[Zrow]

You're right, I think I meant RPG's rather than RTS's. Or both, or something.

I was thinking he meant "best" as in "best games", which is what I was disagreeing with. I'll agree that they're possibly the most successful company, though.

 

[Kent]

Well, I wouldn't doubt a wow title on consoles after this... I mean really, do you think any company would skip an entire market like that?
"wow" has reached it's height in popularity (IMO) and spreading to the console market is one of the best ways to get new customers. Stress that, NEW, customers. PC people will always be a potential base of sales for wow and at this point it's a matter of keeping existing customers.

Basically, PC users who want to play WOW have already started playing, kept playing, and now, even taken breaks.
However, Console users have never had a chance to get their hands on wow and wouldn't mind playing. 👍

That's a huge market and I can't see them skipping out on that (even if they bring a different game with the same goal, which makes sense to me being that I think wow's popularity has leveled off if not begun to decline).

Beyond that... Asking why anyone would do this... Money!

Since, for what I know, no one here is on the blizzard or vivendi staffs, I'm going to go out on a limb and say "we," the population of the GTP did not create these companies or succeed as they have and so we are in no position to judge what potential a merger of this kind can bring.

Of course, with that said, there are basic economics to consider... Is this a true merger? Is this a hidden buyout?
I'd be interested to know what makes anyone here think this merger would not be profitable.

Btw, the last to replies make me think... Diablo I and II = PC, wow= PC, Blizzard= PC RPGs, Square= needs competition, Me= GAME ON!

 

[FoolKiller]

Man...why would they merge...blizzard makes mainly online games and activision makes platform...they will be a big mixture now.

And I'm old. Mainly online games? Warcraft (was that even online?), Warcraft 2 (LAN only). I mean, I believe Starcraft was the first to use Battle.net, and then both Diablos. Only World of Warcraft would, in my opinion, be considered an online game as I never did more than a LAN game with their other franchises.

Meh, only if you're into RTS's. I've never really sat down and played a Blizzard game myself.

Diablo, World of Warcraft.



And if you look at overall quality of games, ignoring genre, Blizzard does it the best. There has yet to be a Blizzard game that wasn't considered to be awesome, unless I am missing one. No one else that I can think of can claim to be dud free.

 

[CDailey]

Well, I wouldn't doubt a wow title on consoles after this... I mean really, do you think any company would skip an entire market like that?

That would be cool, only problem is that the game would be completely gimped. WoW gets at least monthly updates adding new gear/quests/raid items etc... and thats what keeps the game interesting. You can never finish it and there's always new gear/items to be had. Judging by the lack of DLC for any game on the market now (going by 360 only as I don't own a PS3) , a WoW game on a console would be seriously gimped in the fact that what comes on the disc is what you're stuck with untill they decide to release a whole new expansion disc, or release DLC to the market via XBLMP or the PSN. Of course the DLC wouldn't be mandatory, and of course they would have to charge for it instead of a monthly deal because we know how well that works (Final Fantasy 11). There's nothing inherently wrong with charging for the DLC, but it will make the game entirely unfair and unbalanced. The people who bought the DLC will have access to the better gear/items, while the people who chose not to buy the DLC/couldn't afford it will always lose to the people who did.

And lets not get started on the control scheme. I have "1" through "=" (and their +shift counterparts) mapped as spell hot keys, and I'm not even using all my spells...

 

[Casio]

Well, I wouldn't doubt a wow title on consoles after this... I mean really, do you think any company would skip an entire market like that?

I think more likely (though still unlikely) is the redevelopment of 'StarCraft: Ghost' for Consoles.

 

[FoolKiller]

That would be cool, only problem is that the game would be completely gimped. WoW gets at least monthly updates adding new gear/quests/raid items etc... and thats what keeps the game interesting. You can never finish it and there's always new gear/items to be had. Judging by the lack of DLC for any game on the market now (going by 360 only as I don't own a PS3) , a WoW game on a console would be seriously gimped in the fact that what comes on the disc is what you're stuck with untill they decide to release a whole new expansion disc, or release DLC to the market via XBLMP or the PSN. Of course the DLC wouldn't be mandatory, and of course they would have to charge for it instead of a monthly deal because we know how well that works (Final Fantasy 11). There's nothing inherently wrong with charging for the DLC, but it will make the game entirely unfair and unbalanced. The people who bought the DLC will have access to the better gear/items, while the people who chose not to buy the DLC/couldn't afford it will always lose to the people who did.

Are the WoW updates free for PC? Do you have to download them to your desktop and install or download them through the game somehow? I've never played WoW so these are all things I don't know. I only know that the expansions cost money.

Anyway, I ask all this because as the GT5: Prologue demo and Warhawk has shown you can have DLC that is done through the game itself. In the Prologue Demo we all signed on to find the unveiling of a new car and then we could go into GTTV and download free videos, most recently was last week with Kazunori Yamauchi driving and testing out the new GT-R. This was all implemented server side and downloaded through the game.

The same for Warhawk. There have been multiple server side updates and even one free client-side update downloaded in-game. These were patches, but I am sure new material could easily be implemented in the same way.

Or if new free content were offered as DLC; Motorstorm received a free download through the PSN to increase the online aspect. It gave a whole new, free, gameplay element. Really with the hard drives and whatnot the consoles will not be limited by DLC and whether or not it will cost money is purely up to Blizzard.


All this said, Blizzard has said before, and says now, their focus is purely PC and if they decide to go to consoles down the road then they will discuss with Activision about making that happen, but there are no plans as of yet.

Source:
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/03/notes-from-the-activision-blizzard-conference/

There are a few major takeaway points from the conference call, most of which involve Blizzard. Those worried that the merger could affect Blizzard's sterling reputation for quality -- and those still unconvinced despite Blizzard's FAQ on the topic yesterday -- will be pleased to know the company will operate as its own entity. The deference paid to Blizzard's properties throughout the call -- not to mention the new company's name itself -- serves as a testament to the value of Blizzard in the arrangement.

Will Blizzard make World of Warcraft for consoles? "There are no plans to release anything on the console side. Blizzard's focus is on the PC side. If we were to release anything on the console side, that would be managed by the Blizzard side of the business. At some point in the future, if it made sense to talk to the Activision side of the business about that, we would certainly do so. At this point, there are no plans to release any of the Blizzard franchises on the consoles," says Blizzard boss Mike Morhaime.

And lets not get started on the control scheme. I have "1" through "=" (and their +shift counterparts) mapped as spell hot keys, and I'm not even using all my spells...

PS3s have keyboard and mouse support, it only has to be implemented by the developers. And I keep wondering how well a Wii with a keyboard would work, using the remote as a mouse pointer. It seems it would be even quicker than a mouse. To bad it doesn't have the graphical abilities of the PS3 or 360. Of course Namco's Guncon 3 will use the same RF sensor technology that the Wii uses so it may be possible to have some sort of remote pointer for the PS3 as well.

I think more likely (though still unlikely) is the redevelopment of 'StarCraft: Ghost' for Consoles.

I though that had been dropped a long, long time ago.

OK, research shows "postponed indefinitely" as the official statement. If it were revived I would assume it would be a console game as that was their original goal.

With the announcement of Starcraft 2 I am hoping for a console port of that, but their FAQ blatantly says that their focus for Starcraft 2 is PC and other versions will be looked into after that id finished. In other words, don't hold your breath.

Honestly, I think the best title for a console port would easily be the Diablo games as they could be played with a controller if needed.

 

[Casio]

When was the last good RTS to be ported to a Console in any decency? I can't see Starcraft 2 working unless you use a keyboard/mouse combo with the Console, which kinda defeats the point of porting it.

 

[Silverzone]

I think more likely (though still unlikely) is the redevelopment of 'StarCraft: Ghost' for Consoles.

I wanted to play that game so damn bad.

 

[FoolKiller]

When was the last good RTS to be ported to a Console in any decency? I can't see Starcraft 2 working unless you use a keyboard/mouse combo with the Console, which kinda defeats the point of porting it.

If they give the option then I would gladly hook up my keyboard and mouse. The PS3 can do it, and there are even small keyboards that will connect to the controller out there.

As it stands, my PC won't be able to play Starcraft 2 and it would require upgrades more expensive than a new console to get it there. If there is no port Starcraft 2 will be the first Blizzard RTS I did not play. I could barely run Warcraft III.

The technology is there, it is all on the shoulders of the developers to use it. I understand that Blizzard has a PC focus and I respect that. I would even be willing to wait for a year or more to get a delayed port if it allowed them to not sacrifice their quality. It is just that economically I had to choose between PC or console gaming and would love to still have some of my favorites from the PC days as an option.