Slashdot Log In
Blizzard-Activision Merger Official
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:06 AM
from the new-sheriff-in-town dept.
from the new-sheriff-in-town dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Activision/Vivendi Merger Looms, Fallout Continues 60 comments
Ever since the announced merger between Activision and Vivendi Games the community has been all aflutter with speculation and fallout. Here we are, six months later, and the shockwaves continue to resonate throughout the industry as the actual merger looms closer. Gamasutra has an in-depth investigation of what this deal actually means and what some of the details might be.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Holy... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not a question of if. It's when and how much.
Re:Holy... (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:Holy... (Score:4, Interesting)
Something like "Alienware" or "Sapphire Graphics" for about 1 second before I hit "Launch."
Parent
Re:Holy... (Score:4, Interesting)
When you listen to the radio, read a newspaper or magazine, look at a billboard or watch TV is it possible for you to immediately click-through onto the advertisers website? Usually no. But for some reason advertising is still big business. Let me give you a example.
The break during super-bowl - it costs $2.6 million for a 30 second ad that is viewed by 97.5 million people. That's just over 2.5 cents per person for a one-time hit. I'm sure no-one was running off to their desk to do a bit of web-browsing right after it either.
GTA San Adreas sold 8.6 million copies and if you use the metric of 2.5 cents per you could charge say $250,000 for a shorter 5 second slot on the loading screen. That would be viewed over and over on multiple occasions.
I bet however that certain entites would pay much more that quarter of a million for this priveledge too. We live in a world where Microsoft pays $240 million for a 1.6 percent stake in Facebook. Just so that they can get ads in front of people.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting point but advertisement isn't just about click-throughs, it's mostly about brand-awareness leading to sales at a later point.
Your numbers are nonsense. Advertising is not free of cost despite what marketing parasites would have you believe. Every single ad reduces the value of the game to the consumer. Meaning the vendor has to charge less for it. Not to mention accepting a hit on their own "brand". Where was that so-called "value" you were talking about?
Marketers love to fraudulently claim or
If I paid for it, I don't want ads! (Score:3, Funny)
I don't pay money for Google. If I'm paying for a game it better not have any ads in it. It would be like paying to see Blade 3 [neowin.net] or I, Robot [thebestpag...iverse.net] or the new Casino Royale [telegraph.co.uk] or paying for a copy of NFSU2. [ocforums.com] I'm not going to pay twice.
Re:Holy... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Holy... (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:Holy... (Score:5, Funny)
I think this means John Madden is now the final boss you face in Diablo 3
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't that how Diablo I and II ended?
Re:Holy... (Score:4, Interesting)
I am very interested in seeing how actual game genre affects the placement of ads in games.
Diablo III is an excellent place to start this discussion because it is set in a time and place where modern advertising does not exist.
People would have to be very clever to put ads in this place without detracting from the game experience. Online marketers, being distinct from people, are not known for being very clever (think popunders, interstials, spywear, and Bonzai Buddy). Something tells me we are not going to be seeing labels on barrels subtly placed in clever spots throughout the game, we are going to see full screen takeovers telling you game will start after a word from our sponsors.
Starcraft III, on the other hand, could include hyperadvertising throughout the game. Ad boards appearing on the surface of the game world. Vehicles produced by specific real world manufacturers. Humans trapped in Zerg cocoons emerging to state their devotion to their favorite fast food restaurants.
There are a lot of options here...
M
Parent
Re:Holy... (Score:4, Insightful)
People would have to be very clever to put ads in this place without detracting from the game experience.
That's nearly impossible. Almost every ad in every game I've played has detracted from the game experience. The only exceptions I can think of are advertisements where they would be in real life, and on similar subjects as in real life: Billboards for fast food restaurants in cities (in realistic concentrations), ads for performance car parts on the barriers on race tracks, ads for sports drinks and sportswear on the sides of playing fields, etc. Having a Cingular logo permanently stuck to my HUD while I'm driving along (not kidding, see any driving screenshot from the PC version of NFSU2) is only going to make me hate Cingular, the company that made the game, and the horse they rode in on. Sticking any ads anywhere in a game that occurs in the past or a fantasy world is going to piss me off BADLY, no exceptions.
Parent
Re:Holy... (Score:4, Funny)
Before this merger, Diablo 3 was going to be released at an indefinite time in the future. Now it'll be released "when it's done".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My bigger fear is blizzard adopting a stance of no in house mac ports (their mac support has always been so top notch) or even worse, using cider to port their games to mac.
Re:Holy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but that is said about most mergers, and it's never true.
Parent
Duopoly better than monopoly (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, thumbscrews said to be preferable to the rack.
Spin machine (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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They have a total of three game franchises: Warcraft, Diablo and Starcraft line. That's it. That's hardly a lot compared to EA or Activision who each have gazillions of franchises.
Quality before quantity my friend.
Oh boy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh boy (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's a great demo! I am currently grinding until I can get my Stick of the Tiger!
+10 Agi +12 Sticking.
Re:Oh boy (Score:4, Funny)
There's no way that'll be as good as Guitarcraft Hero III: Call of Doom 2.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, I'm downloading a demo of Blactivision's newest title
Sounds like the game company from a Dave Chappelle skit.
Can't wait for the Diablo / River Raid mashup. (Score:5, Funny)
Riverablo.
I think I speak with many of us when I say (Score:4, Interesting)
Aww, Fuck.
There wasn't a monopoly. They came up with that line to try to appease the cynical young crowd.
I could only by games from EA? EA was somehow not allowing me to easily buy other games? EA is the only multi-billion dollar game company?
They only monopoly they ahve is on trademarked sport series.
NFL, NBA, etc. . .
And this merger will do nothing to stop that.
In 5-8 year BLizzard will lose there rep of releasing fnished high quality games. You'll see.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In 5-8 year BLizzard will lose there rep of releasing fnished high quality games. You'll see.
Wtf are you talking about? Activision has been publishing id's games for YEARS and they're still released "when they're done". (I know they aren't "GOOD", but that's not he point).
Activision didn't buy the golden goose so they have it for dinner.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In 5-8 year BLizzard will lose there rep of releasing fnished high quality games. You'll see.
I rather doubt this. Blizzard is, for all intents and purposes, a bunch of assholes, and I mean this in a good way. I'm guessing if too much pressure is put on them to bow to some corporate line, they will all just leave. I don't think that Chris Metzen is much for outside influence, or compromise, he'd probably quit (and take most of the design team with him) if anyone tried to mess with his freedom. As would m
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While you may or may not like WOW, I feel pretty certain that Blizzard has generally put out pretty good games, in terms of both quality of the game itself and the stability. I recently popped Diablo II back into my machine and noticed that it had recently been patched.
And, if there is one thing that both game and movie companies know it is that nothing sells like a sequel. Take a hit game or movie and make a new one based off of the old one and you are pretty much going to make MORE. So don't blame for
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Profits (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?
Re:Profits (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mmmm... Chopper Command...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How about more than a billion in profits a year [yahoo.com]. :)
The question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Where are the Games of Yore? (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 [9xrnet.com]
Re:Where are the Games of Yore? (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.
Parent
Re:Where are the Games of Yore? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Game Development Studio Identity (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:Game Development Studio Identity (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, Maxis is now "just" one of EA's brands, and they've always done stuff that interested me.
Maxis used to have a diversified game portfolio (albeit they were just the publishers of some). I think of Klik & Play, Widget Workshop, SimTower, SimAnt, SimFarm, SimIsle... Those were really fun games. I would kill for a modern remake of SimFarm!
Once EA bought them, they were pretty much forced to focus on SimCity and The Sims franchises. The SimCity franchise is dead at this point (another dev shop made SimCity Societies, which isn't even the spiritual heir to SimCity 4).
Parent
Some confusion (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).
The Reason Why (Score:5, 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.
jesus fucking mary and joseph, when will it end? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a Wall-E world. I think these business execs have taken Highlander a bit too seriously, buying and merging companies because in the end, there can be only one. So will it be Wal-Mart or Buy-n-Large?
Re:jesus fucking mary and joseph, when will it end (Score:3, Funny)
It's gonna be Brawndo [brawndo.com], of course!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The other day I was watching American TV and a not-very-little video screen popped up in the lower right corner (more like quadrant) advertising some other program, totally obscuring Darth Vader trying to find Luke.
Brawndo, here we come!
Well since no one said it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mac games (Score:3, Interesting)
Blizzard have always been good at supporting the Mac natively (Unlike EA). Activision have been quite the opposite.
Does this mean we can expect more or less Mac titles?
Re:Don't Understand (Score:4, Informative)
Parent