Slashdot Mirror


Blizzard-Activision Merger Official

The Washington Post's Mike Musgrove is reporting that the Blizzard-Activision merger is official as of yesterday afternoon. "One analyst has predicted that the merged company would make $1.38 billion in profits during its first financial year, enough to make Activision Blizzard the world's largest game publisher. [...] But this merger should give the newly-formed company enough heft to compete with EA for such blockbuster projects, said Pachter. 'It's good to have a duopoly instead of a monopoly,' he said. 'This just makes the industry that much more interesting.'"

23 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. Holy... by techpawn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What does this do to Diablo III? I hope they don't over commercialize their better blizzard offerings with in-game ads.

    --
    Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    1. Re:Holy... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Think about what ads in web-search did for Google."
      Shame that is a radically different market. I mean really, while your shooting at Diablo are you going to stop and click on an Add to 'Al's Archery supply'

      With Google, people are in the mindset that they will be looking at web pages already.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Holy... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but that is said about most mergers, and it's never true.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Holy... by netsavior · · Score: 4, Informative

      they have had adverts in the lobby portion of battle.net for something like 8 years... I don't see why they would stop that program.

    4. Re:Holy... by Cookie3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Question: "How does this impact D3?" Answer: "It doesn't."
      Ditto for WoW and Starcraft.

      Blizzard Entertainment is retaining all of its own staff; no one's going anywhere.

      The actual merger is more akin to "Vivendi-Activision", but Vivendi doesn't have as strong a brand as Blizzard, so they slapped Blizzard's name on it instead.

      --
      present day... present time... hahahaha...
    5. Re:Holy... by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think this means John Madden is now the final boss you face in Diablo 3

      --
      * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  2. Duopoly better than monopoly by CrashPoint · · Score: 5, Funny

    'It's good to have a duopoly instead of a monopoly,' [Pachter] said. 'This just makes the industry that much more interesting.'

    In other news, thumbscrews said to be preferable to the rack.

  3. Can't wait for the Diablo / River Raid mashup. by JoshDM · · Score: 5, Funny

    Riverablo.

  4. Well... by AkaKaryuu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just look at all the improvements Activision made to the Guitar Hero series after acquiring R.O. Ads... poor note charts... incredibly gimmicky additions to gameplay. I am very disapointed to hear of this merger.

  5. Profits by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Doesn't Blizzard bring in more than a billion in profits a year, by itself? What's Activision bringing to the table?

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:Profits by AkaKaryuu · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't discredit Activision. They _do_ have some of the best titles out for Atari.

  6. Re:Oh boy by oahazmatt · · Score: 4, Funny

    I sure hope Activision isn't stupid enough to mess around with the way Blizzard does things. Disney may be full of twats, but at least they knew better than to screw with Pixar after buying them. Let's hope that Activision has the same sense.

    What are you talking about? This is great. In fact, I'm downloading a demo of Blactivision's newest title, Tony Hawk's Streets of Warcraft, right now.

    --
    Those who believe the Internet is private,
    find their privates are on the Internet.
  7. Re:Oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's no way that'll be as good as Guitarcraft Hero III: Call of Doom 2.

  8. The question is... by david.given · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...are they going to call it Blahctivision or (my favourite) Actilizzard?

  9. Where are the Games of Yore? by falcon9x · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Where are the games of yore?
    That captured you in an experience like never before,
    and when completed, left you wanting for more?

    Used to be that in box was a map made of cloth.
    Nowadays when opened, out of the box comes a moth.

    In a game like Command & Conquer, even the installation was a treat.
    But now its all boring wizards. I guess the programmers just aren't that 1337.

    Where are the games that are deep, like Zork and Chrono Trigger?
    Now they all seem to be shallow and simple, but they are a lot bigger.

    I loved playing with friends, in games like System Shock 2 (with patch)
    But now its all against friends, seems like there's only deathmatch.

    These games of old came with books that were a joy to read.
    Now they won't even print it, they just put it on the CD.

    The graphics weren't great, but they had a great story and they were immersive.
    Nowadays you have to do it yourself for games that have multiplayer that's massive.

    I want to go back to Monkey Island or command X-COM to save us from alien attacks.
    And I'd like to thank Telltale Games for the fun revival of Sam and Max.

    Oh how I yearn for the games of yore
    That captured you in an experience like never before,
    and when completed, left you wanting for more?

    http://9xrnet.com/blog_gaming/where_are_the_games_of_yore

    1. Re:Where are the Games of Yore? by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "games of yore" mindset is just another "back in my day" phenomenon. The kids who grew up gaming are getting older now. It's just a sad fact of reality that the when I think about all the awesome games I played as a kid, I'm looking at them through rose-colored glasses. Most, truth be told, had simplistic gameplay that I wouldn't enjoy now. That "magic" that the old games had was essentially that a lot of us were kids who were easily entertained. A little guy to move around on screen and some flashing lights and we were happy. I mean honestly, RC Pro Am or Contra aren't much more than twitchy little diversions.

      These days, game companies are still coming out with tons of those types of boring, meaningless games. The kids now are eating them up, and we look at them with disdain saying "If only they had some REAL games like WE had when we were kids . . . uphill in the snow both ways yadda yadda". Don't get me wrong, I'm still an avid gamer, but I'm just much more selective now that I used to be. In generally I'll play through half a dozen games per year, but they're not the mindless little diversions that I once enjoyed. Now, it takes a very detailed game with an intricate story to wrap me in. Last full game I played through was Mass Effect. Currently I'm in the beginning stages of Assassin's Creed (which is decent so far).

      So yeah, the games haven't gotten lower in quality as time has weathered on - it's just that our demands for them have gone up as we've gotten older.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:Where are the Games of Yore? by cthulu_mt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Damnit old man! I got off your lawn like 20 minutes ago. Would you please stop shouting now?

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
  10. Game Development Studio Identity by MiceHead · · Score: 5, Informative

    Activision has snagged, founded, or otherwise invested in a number of companies:

    1997 - Raven Software
    1998 - Pandemic Studios
    1999 - Neversoft Entertainment
    2000 - Gray Matter Interactive
    2001 - Treyarch Invention LLC
    2002 - Z-Axis Ltd, Luxoflux Corporation
    2003 - Infinity Ward, Shaba Games LLC
    2004 - Activision's 25th birthday- take one free acquisition. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
    2005 - Vicarious Visions, Toys for Bob, Beenox, Inc.
    2006 - RedOctane, Inc.
    2007 - Bizarre Creations

    It's odd to me how studios gain/lose/change their identities through acquisitions. Toys for Bob was responsible for Star Control II, which remains one of my favorites to this day. More recently, they did a PS2 movie tie-in for Madagascar. I'm guessing that that game was solid, but not the tour de force that was SC2. On the other hand, Maxis is now "just" one of EA's brands, and they've always done stuff that interested me. Perhaps companies just need well-placed pied pipers (Wright; Jobs; Carmack) to retain their identities?

  11. Spin machine by Brain-Fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They made it sound like merging these two companies is somehow increasing the number of competitors in the market.

    Previously, there were three big companies, EA, Activision, and Blizzard.* They were all competitors. Now, there are only two: EA and Activision-Blizzard. That does not benefit consumers. The already-existing cartel has just shrunk, moving even closer to a monopoly.

    The benefits of capitalism (low prices, high quality, variety of choice, available jobs, economic health, etc...) all come to fruition in free markets with lots of competitors. When you have largely controlled markets (high barriers to entry) with very few competitors, you lose those benefits. This is Econ-101 stuff.

    Whenever these mergers happen they always try to sell up the benefits to customers "by centralizing our efforts we can cut our own production costs greatly, which means we can provide better quality and even bigger savings on to our clients." While that is true in theory, in practice the lack of competition means there is nothing forcing them to provide these benefits, and so over time they don't provide them...and instead maximize their own profits by cutting corners on quality and price gouging. Merging eliminates the balancing factors in the market, which is what allows them to get away with this.

    So that is what will happen. And it is nothing new. "All this has happened before. All this will happen again." --Pythia

    *Yes, I am aware that there are actually other companies in the games industry at the moment...I was just filtering the set to those mentioned in the summary for the sake of simplicity. The principle still applies.

  12. Some confusion by Compenguin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since there appear to be a lot of misinformed people in this thread, this actually a merger of Vivendi Games and Activision. Blizzard has been a subsidiary of Vivendi Games (and it's predecessors) for a long time. The merges company is taking the name Activision Blizard instead of Activision Vivendi because Blizzard is a much for famous brand name and the Vivendi brand has been tarnished since the Vivendi Universal implosion while the Blizzard brand is known for quality. Blizzard has been known for it's ability to convince its owners that its formula works and it should be left alone for a long time now. âoeMike [Morhaime] has to train his new boss every time he gets a new boss.â

    Blizzard was founded in 1991. It acquired by Davidson and Associates in 1994. Davidson was acquired by a a mail-order/conglomerate company CUC International in 1996 along with Sierra On-Line and Berkley Systems. Then in 1997 CUC merged with a hotel company HFS to form Cendant. After an accounting scandal in 1997 Cendant sold it's software arm to French publisher Havas. In 1999 French water conglomerate Vivendi acquired Havas and while working to acquire Universal (which it did in 2000) becoming Vivendi Universal. In 2002 Vevendi Universal began to enter financial trouble and began divesting many of it's properties. In 2004 it sold 80% of Vivendi Universal Entertainment to NBC keeping it's software properties. In 2006 it dropped Universal from it's name completely once again becoming Vivendi (with Vivendi Universal Games becoming Vivendi Games). In 2007 announced a merger of Vivendi Games with Activision which just became official, resulting in Vivendi owning a huge portion of Activision (now Activision Blizzard) stock (54% of shares outstanding).

  13. The Reason Why by kenp2002 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First stop thinking about EA\Activision\etc as game companies. They are at the core Interactive Entertainment companies.

    Just as Marvel is no longer a comic book publisher, they deal in intellectual property. Their product is the world and characters they create and the various outlets are the tools (comics, movies, games, etc.)

    With that in mind Activision and EA are looking at entertainment resources. The reason for the mergers is to pool capital for large projects that are internal and self directed.

    Case in point, how many good video game movies are there?

    Ok with that answer in mind: How many of them were produced by the game company?

    Ahh we are starting to see the motivation here.

    Blizzard alone, despite being a large high quality producer of games doesn't have all the tools they need to push things to the next level. The inverse is also true Activision doesn't have the tools that Blizzard has.

    We all know there is a Warcraft movie in the works. The more money that Blizzard can front in the production, the more control. If they could fund the movie completely, they have complete control.

    This is what motivated Marvel to start doing their own movies. Look at Marvel based movies before they spun their own studio (Hulk, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Electra, etc.) and look at the post results in Iron Man.

    By combining resources they are given themselves better leverage for a complete Entertainment company with better cross platform capitalization of their intellectual properties.

    ActivisionBlizzard can do more with existing IPs then Blizzard alone can. Remeber, business is just as much about networking personally then just the logistics of business-as-usual. Activision brings a lot of "Who to call for XYZ" and "So-and-So over at Paramount owes me a favor".

    The same goes the opposite way, Activision can now dip into the substantial talent pool that Blizzard has, their biggest asset is their art department. Think of all the artists who can now branch out and do work for other IPs not getting burned out drawing their 400th Orc or 200th Zerg. Retaining talent isn't jsut about good benefits, but giving them something to do that keeps them energized.

    The key is ensuring good management, keeping the creative forces insulated against the business lines, and ensuring that creativity and profitability co-exist as peacefully as possible. That takes strong leadership to say yes and no when needed.

    That being said I would love to see some new use of the WoW IP, how about a racing game in the theme of Rally car racing through Azeroth and Outland. How about some FPS in the land of Starcraft. How about a few anime series based on Starcraft, Diablo, and Warcraft?

    Maintain quality, respect the IP, keep focused and keep costs in control.

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  14. Re:Don't Understand by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    You are missing something. The comment above mentions that Blizzard was already part of Vivendi. Blizzard already merged. Now they're merging again.

  15. Well since no one said it by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm looking forward to the Mechwarrior action MMOG