Slashdot Mirror


Blizzard and Activision Announce $18.8bn Merger

Ebon Praetor writes "The BBC reports that Blizzard and Activision have announced an $18.8bn merger. Activision's CEO, Bobby Kotick, will become the head of the joint company, while Vivendi, Blizzard's current parent company, will become the largest single investor in the new group. Even with the size of the merger, the combined company will still be smaller than the industry giant EA. 'As part of the merger plan, Blizzard will invest $2bn in the new company, while Activision is putting up $1bn. The merged business will be called Activision Blizzard ... Vivendi will be the biggest shareholder in the group.'"

66 of 298 comments (clear)

  1. A dupe in itself? by hysma · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not too often the summary itself IS the dupe...

  2. World Of Warcraft by tsj5j · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How is the WoW community going to take it?

    I think it really matters whether the game developers are going to be replaced by Activision or not, as a decrease in quality might spark some anger.
    Especially since their number of players are ... alot.

    1. Re:World Of Warcraft by DurendalMac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I doubt they're going to mess with Blizzard. It's going to be more like the Disney-Pixar buyout. Disney was at least smart enough not to mess with what Pixar was doing, because it was damned obvious that they were doing something right. If Activision has any shred of intelligence, they'll let Blizzard keep doing what they're doing with minimal interference, because Blizzard is making over $100m a month off of WoW.

    2. Re:World Of Warcraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, obviously they bought Blizzard out so that they could nerf warriors; it had nothing to do with the money.

    3. Re:World Of Warcraft by SL+Baur · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How is the WoW community going to take it? I think that depends on when and how the Wrath of the Lich King comes out. As of patch 2.3, they've trashed most of the sport of WoW (leveling to 60), so I'm sure I'm not the only one anxiously awaiting the new expansion.

      Give me my World of Warcraft (as I've experienced it for the last year or so) and I don't particularly care what they do corporate-wise.

      I'm not sure why I love that game more than Nethack/Rogue, but I do.
    4. Re:World Of Warcraft by icedcool · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure,
      On the plus side what if Activision's management is replaced with Blizzard's. Blizzard's process obviously works. This could be the start of us seeing a lot of much higher quality games.

      Hopefully.

      --
      Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.
    5. Re:World Of Warcraft by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, if you look at the Gamasutra summary, it's Blizzard (well, Vivendi) buying out Activision. Vivendi gets 52% of the stock of the merged company and 6 of 11 seats on the board.

    6. Re:World Of Warcraft by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 4, Informative
    7. Re:World Of Warcraft by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Indeed. Every game Blizzard has made has been a huge success.

      WoW - Biggest MMORPG in the world...has changed the gaming industry so much, other publishers are accusing Blizzard of destroying the market.
      Starcraft - Still has the biggest professional gaming industry (South Korea) which has more money in it than all other professional gaming industries put together.

      Diablo series - While not nearly as successful as the other two, proved itself as a popular RPG almost all gamers have had a go at.
      Warcraft series - Still proves itself as one of the most popular RTSs. Warcraft III especially was played in many professional levels and the modification game, DotA is probably the most popular game to play at LAN parties and cafes.

      So yeah, unlike EA, they make few games, but each game is a hit. They put out quality games with few bugs and support them well. They look at the needs of the gamers and do well in producing something they would like.

      I only hope Starcraft II will be as good as the first one, and I think that will be largely based on whether they plan to aim towards the South Korean needs of the game (Who want something perfectly balanced, simple, hard to play well, but can be put into a professional league and is competitive that can last in proleagues for years), or towards the more mainstream market (Who want an RTS with fancy graphics, to play the campaign once, play a couple of multiplayer games which involve just massing units for one big attack, then forget it a couple of months later).

      But yeah, hopefully Activision won't come and say "Let's start pumping out 3 new games a year!" or something stupid like that.

      ~Jarik

    8. Re:World Of Warcraft by SL+Baur · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since 2.3 half the quests have degenerated into 'hunt the questionmark' and it's insanely easy to level.. in fact it's more of a task to *not* level before half your unfinished quests go grey. Yeah, that's what I meant. Besides that, they've also cut the "armor repairs tax" in half because you now get a 20% discount from vendors where you're exalted. (I like that change a lot more than I like the Azeroth nerfing).

      It's not all bad. There's no reason whatsoever to pay someone to "powerlevel" your character and with the revered and exalted additional discounts + decreased time at low levels, it's easier to save up mount money so there's less reason to pay for gold, less reason to pay exorbitant prices for epic drops below level 60 and much, much harder to keep a twinkie. And really, is it that much fun to have to squint, search hard, resort to things like Thottbot to find quest givers and quest items on the ground? Those are all desired features for me, your mileage may vary.

      I bought the game because a) it was available on Macintosh (and hence Linux); b) it was very popular and I've kept playing because I find it most entertaining. So long as the Blizzard spirit I've come to know and enjoy remains intact, I'll continue supporting them by being a loyal customer.

      Preparation for Activision perhaps? They're big in consoles and the relative complexity of a PC game wouldn't go down well on the average Wii. I don't like consoles in general and especially Xbox/MS-Windows-only games. I hope that's not the direction they're headed.
    9. Re:World Of Warcraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, yes... Vivendi bought Activision, but as part of the deal, Vivendi is giving Blizzard to them. The former head of Activision is going to be the new head of "Activision Blizzard." It doesn't really seem like something that's going to go well for Blizzard fans.

  3. Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Both companies do little else other than release sequel after sequel for once popular series. Most of their original titles were released in the 90s.

    1. Re:Makes sense by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate to be the one to break this to you, buddy, but Blizzard's franchises are STILL popular. Warcraft III was highly acclaimed when it came out, and widely enjoyed. Starcraft is still, of course, rabidly played in Korea and other places, as will Starcraft II, I imagine. World of Warcraft (the last game Blizzard released for a while) doesn't even count as a sequel to Warcraft in any way, considering that it isn't an RTS. So yeah, I don't know where you get your ideas, but it isn't reality.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  4. I can't wait until I can buy their games. by Seumas · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can't wait to start buying their games and various swag -- all emblazoned with the new Blactavision logos!

    1. Re:I can't wait until I can buy their games. by shystershep · · Score: 4, Funny

      I prefer the Actalizzard, myself.

      --
      The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:I can't wait until I can buy their games. by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm kinda partial to Blizzavision.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    3. Re:I can't wait until I can buy their games. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shut yo mouff!

      I'm just talking about Blactavision!

    4. Re:I can't wait until I can buy their games. by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Funny
      I'm kinda partial to Blizzavision.

      No, that's what causes me to hit on ugly chicks after six drinks.

    5. Re:I can't wait until I can buy their games. by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 3, Funny

      You shouldn't complain about something that pushes your chances of getting laid up into the single digits. :-o

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    6. Re:I can't wait until I can buy their games. by TomHandy · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can dig it.

    7. Re:I can't wait until I can buy their games. by macz · · Score: 2, Funny

      How about just "Blizzard" since Activision is the one that needs Blizzard's credibility to prop it up?

      --
      ...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
    8. Re:I can't wait until I can buy their games. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      AcTard.

  5. New MMORPG by Valacosa · · Score: 4, Funny

    World of Command and Conquer?

    --
    "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
    1. Re:New MMORPG by Valacosa · · Score: 3, Informative

      Damn - upon further research, I find that it was EA that bought Westwood, not Activision. Now I feel really stupid.

      It's too bad too. Imagine how awesome it would be to have a game where orcs could be pwned by an Obelisk of Light.

      --
      "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
    2. Re:New MMORPG by jmoriarty · · Score: 2, Funny

      Damn - upon further research... There are certain things regular Slashdot readers come to expect from this site, and researched posts or comments is not one of them. Please don't let it happen again.

  6. Here's an FAQ from Blizzard by Jon.Laslow · · Score: 5, Informative
    http://blizzard.com/press/activision-faq.shtml

    Provides some details. From their front page:

    Blizzard to Join Forces With Activision
    We're pleased to announce that along with the other companies that make up Vivendi Games, we are merging with Activision to form a new global entertainment organization called Activision Blizzard (pending shareholder and regulatory approval). Similar to our previous arrangement, Blizzard Entertainment will now operate as a division of this new organization.

    There will be no changes to our games, our websites, our personnel, or our day-to-day operations as a result of the deal. However, this combining of resources will benefit all of the companies involved and will further strengthen Blizzard's ability to continue delivering high-quality content for our players around the world for many years to come.
    1. Re:Here's an FAQ from Blizzard by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, this combining of resources will benefit all of the companies involved and will further strengthen Blizzard's ability to continue delivering high-quality content for our players around the world for many years to come. I would have thought Activision was the one that needed to strengthen their ability to deliver high quality content.

      They routinely rush studios to push out complete and utter crap under the Activision Value title. Even the decent games still come with serious flaws due to the rushed timetables.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Here's an FAQ from Blizzard by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There will be no changes to our games, our websites, our personnel, or our day-to-day operations as a result of the deal. That's what they always say first.
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:Here's an FAQ from Blizzard by Minupla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There will be no changes to our games, our websites, our personnel, or our day-to-day operations as a result of the deal. if this is true, how can:

      ... combining of resources will benefit all of the companies involved and will further strengthen Blizzard's ability to continue delivering high-quality content Also be true? Either nothing is changing or something is, you can't have it both ways. The reason for mergers and aquisitions is generally that the companies involved believe that through the merger some gains can be made. The way that history proves works is through reductions is redundancy. (call these layoffs, retrenchments, rightsizing, as your personal tastes dictate) The other not-so-successful-historically model is the "merge two companies with no redundancies, run them together and lose money" model (ref: AOL-Time-Warner among others)

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    4. Re:Here's an FAQ from Blizzard by king-manic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There will be no changes to our games, our websites, our personnel, or our day-to-day operations as a result of the deal.
      if this is true, how can: ... combining of resources will benefit all of the companies involved and will further strengthen Blizzard's ability to continue delivering high-quality content
      Also be true? Either nothing is changing or something is, you can't have it both ways. The reason for mergers and aquisitions is generally that the companies involved believe that through the merger some gains can be made. The way that history proves works is through reductions is redundancy. (call these layoffs, retrenchments, rightsizing, as your personal tastes dictate) The other not-so-successful-historically model is the "merge two companies with no redundancies, run them together and lose money" model (ref: AOL-Time-Warner among others) They now have ~twice the advertising clout and a bigger stick to negotiate with retailers. ie. Stock or we will only have limited quantities of SC2 and COD5 for you.
      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    5. Re:Here's an FAQ from Blizzard by Ghubi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or maybe... 1bn + 2bn = 18.8bn.

      The way I see it, Activision must have had some super cool idea for the next major online cash cow err game. But, Activision must have determined that they lacked the resources to complete this epic production on their own. So, they carefully weigh their options of ways to raise the extra 2bn they estimate is needed to complete the project. Stock offering, venture capitalists... apparently they decided that their best option was to merge with another larger gaming company.

      There's no reason why this new 3bn project should interfere with the day to day operations of the other 15.8bn of whatever makes up the total merger. I can't wait to find out exactly what this new 3bn project is.

  7. My gosh by guardiangod · · Score: 4, Funny
    Activision and Blizzard have said they will form "the world's most profitable games business"

    I screamed.

    1. Re:My gosh by OakLEE · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'll tackle this in two parts,

      It really saddens me when game companies make good business decisions...

      Well, like you said, both Blizzard and Activision are businesses, and businesses exist to make money that they can return to their owners and shareholders. Both Blizzard and Activision don't make games just because it's fun to. They make games because people will pay money for them.

      ...that, to me, seem like they will hurt gamers in the long run

      I actually think this will help gamers. First off, Vivendi will basically retain control of Activision Blizzard by bieng the majority shareholder and having the majority of seats on the board. This will allow them to protect Blizzard's independent operation status, something it has always had as a subsidiary of Vivendi, and something that has clearly worked in past given the quality and profitability of the titles and franchises Blizzard has created. Blizzard is probably set for the longterm with this deal.

      Activision fans also benefit, at least in the short term, because it will get access to Universal Music Groups song catalog through Vivendi. This will translate into more, and better Guitar Hero sequels, which will benefit Guitar Hero fans. Of course, the problem with Guitar Hero is that it is an inherently faddish game, ala DDR, and its novelty will probably wear off in a year. Then Activision will have to depend on its Call of Duty, Tony Hawk, and Quake franchises, all of which are oversaturated. However, that would have happened to Activision regardless of the merger, so I fail to see how gamers are hurt by this merger.
      --
      The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
  8. Guitarcraft: Lords of Music by Crock23A · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How long until I can play some crazy rhythm-based RTS with my guitar hero controller?

    1. Re:Guitarcraft: Lords of Music by rootofevil · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thrall Pro Skater 2: grinding in dalaran

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    2. Re:Guitarcraft: Lords of Music by david.given · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How long until I can play some crazy rhythm-based RTS with my guitar hero controller?

      You know, that might actually be quite fun. Did you ever play Loom? That was a point-and-click adventure game where all your actions were done by playing short phrases of music.

      Update it to the present day, and you have your character roaming the wilderness blowing monsters away with your sw33t r1ffs. The more powerful the spell, the harder it is to play, so your character's skills are directly related to your skills. If you could solve the lag issue, you could even have the ability to team up with other players and jam together for extra power.

      Hmm. Different character classes would map to different types of music quite well. Healer == psychedelic 60s. Tank == 80s power ballad. Fighter == rock. Necromancer == death metal...

  9. $18.8bn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why are the amounts quoted in Barbadian dollars?

  10. Starcraft by snl2587 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as Starcraft 2 is still going to be released, this is fine with me.

    1. Re:Starcraft by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you mean
      As long as Starcraft 2 is still going to be released finished, this is fine with me. Let us hope that they don't rush SC2 out the door half-done and utter garbage shall we?

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  11. (Shudder...) by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No one makes games with great replay value like Blizzard does. Blizzard's strategy of not releasing a game until its ready is almost unheard of in this industry. I seriously hope that the new overlords don't mess with this - I'd hate to stop benefiting from Blizzard's good work.

    1. Re:(Shudder...) by Hexedian · · Score: 2, Informative

      By MMO standards, World of Warcraft was a finished product. You only need to look at other games, like Anarchy Online, or, more recently, Tabula Rasa (Which was so incomplete upon release that they thought it a good idea to start numbering their patch from 0.1 onward), to see that a game that is fully HALF complete really IS a good deal.

    2. Re:(Shudder...) by cdomigan · · Score: 5, Funny

      I seriously hope that the new overlords don't mess with this Not the end of the world if they do - you can always SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS
  12. Commentary by hibiki_r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not Blizzard that is merging: They've been part of Vivendi universal for years. Their parent company has many developers other developers outside of Blizzard. WoW is their cash cow though.

    That said, it doesn't seem like their different developer studios have a lot of synergy though: The end result is a company that has very diverse offerings, and will be difficult to market as a single entity. It's not like either company needed the other for stability purposes though: Both WoW and Guitar Hero are the kind of franchises that allow a company to have a nice R&D budget and take risks with new franchises.

    So I guess the merger will just mean they'll be able to push retailers around more easily, and make their revenue even more predictable.

    1. Re:Commentary by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Ghost of Infocom cries out in the wind.
      The Ghost of Infocom moves north.
      The Ghost of Infocom enters.
      The Ghost of Infocom hits Blizzard with the long sword.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  13. COD5: Azeroth Edition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Call of Duty 5, Azeroth Edition-

    "{crackle} SGT Hulka, bring up your platoon of Orcs and get a crossfire on those Dwarves STAT!"

    1. Re:COD5: Azeroth Edition by Neuticle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As funny as that is, it raises an interesting prospect: The Warcraft lore and brand are immensely popular and well developed. At the same time, everyone got tired of seeing *yet.another.WWII.shooter* but the "modern" war shooters aren't fundamentally that different.

      If they could work together to make some sort of Warcraft themed massively multi-player FPS, I'd be on that like stink on poo. Different classes that are *actually* different, instead of just one guy having a bigger gun and more ammo. It would be hard to balance since it would probably play quite differently than the current WWII formula, but it would be sweet.

      --
      "Cheeze it!" - Bender
  14. Makes sense by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No wonder their stock has been climbing lately. I have made so much money day-trading them. I guess it's time to go short now that all the sheeple will want some... I'll sell you some on Monday afternoon.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  15. Yo! by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Funny
    Activizza in da hizza!

    "Blactavision" makes me think of "Blacula". But silly as that (and my suggestion) sounds, it's better than "Activision Blizzard". What were they thinking? They may as well have called themselves "No Imagination Games Corp."

    -Keeping Activision (on its own) would have been cool for the nostalgia factor.
    -Keeping Blizzard (on its own) would have been cool for the currently-successful factor
    -If they couldn't decide, they should have just gotten a new name altogether. Maybe they could have sold themselves as a bridge between the gaming industry and general media distributors and called themselves gPod. Or maybe Gune...

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  16. Simple. by Kortalh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To make money.

  17. I have a solution... by theorem4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Put Blizzard employees in all management spots. Call me naive, but I think with them in charge it would keep a certain level of quality in the company that us fans like so much.

  18. EA is no longer alone at the top. by 6350' · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Many news-sites are actually reporting this as a merger between Vivendi and Activision (perhaps more of a semantic distinction, but it does serve to remind that Blizzard is owned by someone, and is not an independant self-owned development studio, in the strictly on-paper sense).

    This is a fascinating move for one very important reason: EA. This merger combines a hugely profitable juggernaut of game-making (Blizzard) with what is probably the largest publisher out there (Activision). Electronic Arts suddenly got not only competition, but may have just dropped into second place, all in one fell swoop.

    This is a great move for Blizzard: there is no other development company that is such a proven success, having long passed the point of "one hit wonder" or "a lucky run," and they now have access to, in light of how bankable they are, absolutely vast wodges of capital for their future plans. This is an awesome move for Activision: a publisher (with some developer in there too) that has quietly grown over the last decade to become one of the largest now has pretty much the ultimate triple-A development juggernaut at its core. This last bit is a key point, as it reflects EA. EA is large publisher wrapped around a large and important development house. Vivendi and Activision have now stepped up to that level and type of operation, and can be expected to give EA a run for its money.

    What particularly pleases me is how this could be seen as providing a "good guys" team to stand against EA's often-percieved "bad guys" team, which should be an interesting public dynamic to watch :P

    1. Re:EA is no longer alone at the top. by fm6 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Many news-sites are actually reporting this as a merger between Vivendi and Activision (perhaps more of a semantic distinction
      That's like saying there's a "semantic" distinction between fruit and fruit trees. Vivendi owns several media and telecom businesses. (In fact, they used to be a major player in the media world, with movie studios, cable networks, and more. But that's another story.) Not only will this new company be a small part of Vivendi's operation, but Vivendi will share ownership with Activision's former stockholders.
  19. Activision Blizzard by bcharr2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Activision Blizzard? That's the best name they could come up with?

    If they wanted to depend on brand name recognition, they should have simply called themselves "The Creators of WOW & Call of Duty".

  20. Starcraft II ramifications by AngelKurisu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Blizzard has long been a 'Release it when its done' company--and the resulting products have almost always been very polished. Activision(at least in the past 15 years), has been willing to push crap out to market. With Activision's CEO taking over the merged company, can we expect anything -but- a quality drop in Blizzard's future products?

    --
    Whack a Catgirl: You know you want to!
    1. Re:Starcraft II ramifications by Cyberllama · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can afford the karma hit so I'm gonna say it like it is:

      Blizzard hasn't been a "release it only when it's done" company since Warcraft 3: TFT. I've Participated in the last 4 Blizzard betas, and there was a remarkable shift from Warcraft 3: RoC to Warcraft 3: TFT -- you almost couldn't even call TFT a beta test by comparison. It lasted maybe 2 months total? The game came out very incomplete -- missing an entire single player campaign from what had been promised -- but was slowly added in over the course of several balance patches (the game as also a joke of balance when it came out). Blizzard, to their credit, did do a good job with the final product -- it just took them a couple months worth of patches after release to get the job done.

      I hate to be the one to break the bad news to you, but Blizzard has been a "patch it till it's done" company for a few years now, just like everyone else.

      This actually works out well enough in the MMORPG setting since often they are able to patch in missing content and polish/fix other content before players even get to it -- since it takes players some time to burn though the lower-end content which tends to be the most polished/playtested.

      I do give them credit for actually delaying TBC (thus causing it to miss it's initial November 30th release date which would have meant massive Christmas sales) and spending more time with it -- but they almost didn't have a choice there -- there was literally no content above level 67 at the time and 3 out of the 7 zones weren't even populated/open/quested/etc, not to mention none of the raid content was implemented yet.

  21. Guitar Hero by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think this is the real news:

    Vivendi, owner of the Universal Music Group -- world's largest music publisher, buys a controlling stake in Activision, maker of Guitar Hero -- the world's most popular music-based game franchise.

    1. Re:Guitar Hero by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's Vivendi that owns UMG, not UMG that owns Vivendi. Basically, that means Vivendi will do whatever makes the most money. Guitar Hero is massively popular, and selling tracks a-la iTunes-for-GH is likely to be far more profitable than suing people for anything they can think of. Picture the scene:

      -
      You're with your friends, having a few beers and some laughs on Guitar Hero.
      - After the fifth beer, male bravado is starting to kick in. You and your buddies all start to think you're guitar Gods.
      - "I bet you can't play Track X", says one of your buddies. You, of course, accept the challenge, and purchase Track X from the GH online store.
      - Once you're done murdering that, you turn and you say to your equally bravado-fuelled friend, "oh yeah, I bet you can't play Track Y better than me", and off you trot, once again, to the online store to purchase Track Y.
      - Repeat until you're all too drunk to work a controller.

      I'm betting this would happen a *lot*, because one or two quid/bucks is nothing when you're having a laugh with your friends, which is where GH gets most of it's play.

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
  22. I think there is something afoot. by Anachragnome · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have been keeping an eye on the hiring page for Blizzard for awhile and they have been hiring for a "top secret" project(their words)for quite some time. http://www.blizzard.com/jobopp/
    (Look on the upper right side of page)

    I have been making potshot guesses regarding what they are up to.

    This changes those guesses. It may boil down to simple licensing issues. Activison has something Blizzard needs and is willing to pay for it? A merger here would put a lot of those licensing issues out of the purview of most people, allowing them to do so without blowing their cover. Thats a wild guess though.

    The thing that puzzles me the most is that ACTIVISIONS current CEO will be running the ship. Granted, that may have been a concession on the part of Vivendi, but it sure looks to me like Blizzard/Vivendi has the majority of the chips on the table. Which, again, leads me to believe that Vivendi wants something from Activision and that was the only way to get it.

  23. Uptime improvements? How many 8's of uptime? by myowntrueself · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If Blizzard is doing something right its not uptime.

    Most people who deliver online services like to measure their uptime in 'nines'.

    Blizzard measure theirs in 'eights'.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  24. Massively Multiplayer Pitfall! by tachyonflow · · Score: 3, Funny

    As someone who mostly associates the name "Activision" with old titles, the first thing that popped in my head when I read this was... "Massively Multiplayer Pitfall!"

  25. Another American company owned by France by smchris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They say it'll be a buyer's market with the dollar tanking over the next year.

  26. Dear Zonk by cralewyth · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dear Zonk,

    You shouldn't repeat yourself in your summary, it makes the summary redundant. It's like when you say something twice and it becomes redundant.

    --
    "Women are just like ninjas; They lie even when it is more convenient to tell the truth." ~ Unknown
  27. Oh, thank the FSM... by Dirtside · · Score: 3, Funny

    Finally, I'll be able to stop playing WoW! It's so addictive now, but I'm sure Activision will somehow find a way to fuck it up so that it won't be fun, and I'll finally be able to quit.

    Thanks, Activision! (Thactivision.)

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  28. Buying Notes by rpgSE · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wonder if we can now trade our Warcraft Gold for new Songs for Guitar Hero III on sites like mmoExchange.com or GamerTex.com

  29. Count your blessings by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They could have been bought by EA instead. Count your blessings.

  30. Re:New WoW Class by Trent+Hawkins · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just thought of this new class for WoW: Bard.

    You plug in your Guitar and cast spells/do attacks by playing a riff.
    Can't wait to roll up Lemmy the Orc Bard... or maybe an undead Eddie.