[22psi]

SANTA MONICA, Calif. & PARIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Activision, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATVI) and Vivendi (Euronext Paris: VIV) today announced that they have signed a definitive agreement to combine Vivendi Games, Vivendi's interactive entertainment business -- which includes Blizzard Entertainment’s® World of Warcraft®, the world’s #1 multi-player online role-playing game franchise -- with Activision, creating the world’s largest pure-play online and console game publisher. The new company, Activision Blizzard, is expected to have approximately $3.8 billion in pro forma combined calendar 2007 revenues and the highest operating margins of any major third-party video game publisher. On closing of the transaction, Activision will be renamed Activision Blizzard and will continue to operate as a public company traded on NASDAQ under the ticker ATVI.

Activision, one of the world’s leading independent publishers of interactive entertainment, is best known for its top-selling franchises, including Guitar Hero®, Call of Duty® and the Tony Hawk series, as well as Spider-Man™, X-Men™, Shrek®, James Bond™ and TRANSFORMERS™. Blizzard Entertainment, a division of Vivendi Games, has projected calendar 2007 revenues of $1.1 billion, operating margins of over 40% and approximately $520 million of operating profit. Blizzard owns the #1 multi-player online role-playing game franchise, World of Warcraft, which currently has over 9.3 million subscribers worldwide. Blizzard’s World of Warcraft, Warcraft®, StarCraft® and Diablo® games account for four of the top-five best-selling PC game titles of all time. Vivendi Games also owns popular franchises, including Crash Bandicoot™ and Spyro™. Pro forma for calendar 2007, Activision Blizzard expects to generate approximately 70% of its revenues from owned franchises. As a result of the business combination, Activision Blizzard expects to have the most diversified and broadest portfolio of interactive entertainment assets in its industry, positioning the combined company to capitalize on the continued worldwide growth in interactive entertainment.

Source

[Acert93]

I expect to see a bit more consolidation over the next couple years, especially as PS2 sales diminish and publishers struggle to identify the right approach to the changing market (where one platform dominated is now divided among 3 players unevenly in 3 territories) and the divergent Wii model of gaming.

With companies like Blizzard, Infinity War, id Software, Bizzare Creations, and so forth it looks like Activision has aquired some of the best talents in the industry.

You wonder how much of this was a response to the EA/Bioware aquisition and the potential threat of a Bioware MMO.

[Laa-Yosh]

Aee they bigger then EA after the merger? AFAIK Activision was the second biggest 3rd party publisher, but I don't know about Vivendi.

Whatever the case may be though, they've created a monster...

[Skrying]

Huh Josh? Where does it say Activision acquired Blizzard? It says they merged and even now I'm not clear at all on this. Vivendi OWNS Blizzard. This is a Vivendi and Activision merger, so I'm REALLY confused why people keep sayings its a Blizzard and Activision merger.

[AlStrong]

Originally Posted by Skrying

This is a Vivendi and Activision merger, so I'm REALLY confused why people keep sayings its a Blizzard and Activision merger.

Because they're all reading in between the lines.

But just because I'm curious, what else does Vivendi have?

[Skrying]

Originally Posted by AlStrong

Because they're all reading in between the lines.

But just because I'm curious, what else does Vivendi have?

Well, certainly Blizzard is the only important developer Vivendi has. But maybe it's just my secret desire that Blizzard will never be touched and continue to take 20 years to make a game if they want.

[archangelmorph]

Originally Posted by Skrying

Well, certainly Blizzard is the only important developer Vivendi has. But maybe it's just my secret desire that Blizzard will never be touched and continue to take 20 years to make a game if they want.

You WANT them to take 20years to make a game??

Seriously PC gamers just scare me sometimes..

[Skrying]

Originally Posted by archangelmorph

You WANT them to take 20years to make a game??

Seriously PC gamers just scare me sometimes..

If it means making a quality game, then they can take as long as they want. I dislike rushed games, they're trash. My other hope is that this does not mean Blizzard starts making console games. I can imagine it now World of Warcraft 2: Dumbed Down for your Enjoyment. Or god forbid Starcraft 2: Horrible Mechanics Because the Gamepad People Need a Chance.

Sorry, its a bit harsh, I just don't want anyone screwing around with my Blizzard games. If Activision touches them at all, I probably would go on a mad lunatic rage through their offices.

[PARANOiA]

Blizzard have a magic touch... every game they make turns out to be one of the "classics", so it's natural for their standard to be high. I can't think of another developer who can say the same thing, actually.

Let's hope Blizzard remain relatively untouched from this whole thing, and are allowed to continue doing what it is they do so well.

Vivendi (without Blizzard) and Activision, though? Eh, who cares, it's just another big business merger.

[AlStrong]

Originally Posted by Skrying

If it means making a quality game, then they can take as long as they want. I dislike rushed games, they're trash. My other hope is that this does not mean Blizzard starts making console games. I can imagine it now World of Warcraft 2: Dumbed Down for your Enjoyment. Or god forbid Starcraft 2: Horrible Mechanics Because the Gamepad People Need a Chance.

Sorry, its a bit harsh, I just don't want anyone screwing around with my Blizzard games. If Activision touches them at all, I probably would go on a mad lunatic rage through their offices.

You're being a little too presumptuous, and not giving them enough credit. If they'll do a console game, it certainly won't be an RTS. I thought I recall in an interview that the idea of such a thing was preposterous.

Besides, we've already seen what happened so far with their SC: Ghost project. Who's to say they'll use their PC-only dev teams to produce it? They could just as well create a new internal team as outsource the project.

[SugarCoat]

Originally Posted by AlStrong

Because they're all reading in between the lines.

But just because I'm curious, what else does Vivendi have?

Sierra Entertainment and the exclusive rights to a massive amount of titles.

[Color me Dan]

How does these mergers work? Each affected developer goes on marrily as if nothing changes but the name on the door? Something tells me, nay whispers to me from within, that it's not that simple. I was under the impression that Blizzard was an entity made by the gods to be ruled by no man but themselves, how will this affect their business i wont speculate. Upper management will be shuffled around i guess... but that's a given.

[Skrying]

Originally Posted by AlStrong

You're being a little too presumptuous, and not giving them enough credit. If they'll do a console game, it certainly won't be an RTS. I thought I recall in an interview that the idea of such a thing was preposterous.

Besides, we've already seen what happened so far with their SC: Ghost project. Who's to say they'll use their PC-only dev teams to produce it? They could just as well create a new internal team as outsource the project.

Because my titles and game selection was totally serious... It was an example, though an honest one, of not wanting them to go outside of a platform that allows them to fully do what they want. I don't want an outsourced project, I don't want a team created internally specifically to create a game that is also for consoles. That ruins the Blizzard name.

[Jedi2016]

So how long before the industry is dominated by only three or four main publishers? Where every game is EA, AB, etc.

[Skrying]

Originally Posted by Jedi2016

So how long before the industry is dominated by only three or four main publishers? Where every game is EA, AB, etc.

Maybe not that few, but there are certainly a top 5 or 6 that are clearly the top publishers.

[AlStrong]

Originally Posted by Skrying

Because my titles and game selection was totally serious...

I'm not clear on what spurred this comment.

It was an example, though an honest one, of not wanting them to go outside of a platform that allows them to fully do what they want. I don't want an outsourced project,

Fair enough that you don't want an outsourced project. That's exactly what StarCraft Ghost was, and last I knew it was supposed to be a console exclusive. They had full control over it, and they put it on indefinite hold because they knew something wasn't right that would have tarnished the Blizzard name.

I don't want a team created internally specifically to create a game that is also for consoles. That ruins the Blizzard name.

Why does anything they create also have to be for PC? What's wrong with creating a new team exclusively for console development if they have an idea that would suit the consoles?



*even if* SC: Ghost turned out to be good enough for their standards, what you're saying is that it should never have existed.

It's as though (for you at least) consoles = automagic tarnishing of name, despite knowing they would never release a game that would potentially tarnish it.

[Skrying]

Originally Posted by AlStrong

I'm not clear on what spurred this comment.

You seemed to have taken my Stacraft one a bit to seriously, it was simply a joke. Of course they wouldn't create an RTS game for a console.

Fair enough that you don't want an outsourced project. That's exactly what StarCraft Ghost was, and last I knew it was supposed to be a console exclusive. They had full control over it, and they put it on indefinite hold because they knew something wasn't right that would have tarnished the Blizzard name.

Many of us at least expected that from the start. I don't like when a developer outsources a name at all, even when the product is good. (id for example, I have no respect for them anymore). It's just selling a name, when that name should also carry with it the developers time and honor. Blizzard to me stands for much more than simply Wacraft, Starcraft, or Diablo. It stands for a developer that is willing to take the time to make a product right. To make it excel truly above what any others have done.

Why does anything they create also have to be for PC? What's wrong with creating a new team exclusively for console development if they have an idea that would suit the consoles?



*even if* SC: Ghost turned out to be good enough for their standards, what you're saying is that it should never have existed.

It's as though (for you at least) consoles = automagic tarnishing of name, despite knowing they would never release a game that would potentially tarnish it.

Because consoles entail certain sacrifices for the most part. Be it gameplay, graphics, physics, or other (mods for example). If they want to start a new series and have a console specific division work on it, then so be it. What I would truly hate to see however is a Stacraft, Warcraft, or Diablo game on a console. Though, I would be very upset if any Blizzard game released as console exclusive.

Originally Posted by NavNucST3

So, it is not really about what they want, it is about what you want for them or from them.

I think you just defined what we all want from a developer. Or, are you going to try to tell me you're truly concerned about what a developer wants? You could try that, but then you'd be lying to me and yourself. You love a specific developer for what they deliver to you. You don't love a developer because they do what they want.

[Riddlewire]

Originally Posted by Joshua Luna

With companies like Blizzard, Infinity War, id Software, Bizzare Creations, and so forth it looks like Activision has aquired some of the best talents in the industry.

Activision does not own id.

[Laa-Yosh]

They do release pretty much all of their games though... No announcement yet on Rage but id has less and less other potential partners to turn to. EA, Ubi, Eidos... is Take2 still independent too?

And I wouldn't be surprised to see EA go after Ubisoft now. They already own some 20-25% of the shares, right?

[Johnny Awesome]

Doesn't anyone think it's weird that someone is worried about Blizzard's "good name" being ruined? They're a game developer. It's not like it's someone's mother.

[Zaphod]

Originally Posted by AlStrong

But just because I'm curious, what else does Vivendi have?

Apart from the Sierra publishing branch, they've got several other dev houses as well: High Moon Studios in San Diego, CA; Massive Entertainment in Sweden; Radical Entertainment in Vancouver, B.C.; and Swordfish Studios in Birmingham and Manchester, England.

Then there's a 'casual division' and a mobile division. Blizzard may have been Vivendi Games biggest cash cow (by far), but there was a lot more to them than that.

Originally Posted by Skrying

Where does it say Activision acquired Blizzard? It says they merged and even now I'm not clear at all on this. Vivendi OWNS Blizzard. This is a Vivendi and Activision merger, so I'm REALLY confused why people keep sayings its a Blizzard and Activision merger.

According to the financial news, it was actually Vivendi acquiring a controlling stake in Activision, then proceeding to merge it with its games division as a new company. Quite the opposite of Activision buying Blizzard.

Originally Posted by NY Times

Under the arrangement announced Sunday, the companies said Vivendi would pay $27.50 a share and make a cash infusion of $1.7 billion to acquire a 52 percent stake in Activision, valuing the combined company at $18.9 billion. Vivendi will then fold its game operations into those of Activision in the new company. [...]

Depending on how this works out, Vivendi said it could ultimately own 68 percent of Activision Blizzard on a fully diluted basis.

[Skrying]

Originally Posted by Johnny Awesome

Doesn't anyone think it's weird that someone is worried about Blizzard's "good name" being ruined? They're a game developer. It's not like it's someone's mother.

Games are a form of art, just like a movie, or music. You come to expect a certain quality from a developer just as you would a artist, band, or director. So, I personally don't find my own view as weird. In fact, it makes perfect sense when especially when compared to other areas where name is so important.

[ErnstH]

Originally Posted by Zaphod

According to the financial news, it was actually Vivendi acquiring a controlling stake in Activision, then proceeding to merge it with its games division as a new company. Quite the opposite of Activision buying Blizzard.

Yup, the thread title is incorrect. Vivendi Games merges with Activision, with Vivendi being the largest shareholder in the resulting Activision Blizzard company (which will be listed on NASDAQ I believe). And I read that at least w.r.t. revenue the resulting company will be bigger than EA, $3.2b vs $3.6b.

[Farid]

Originally Posted by AlStrong

Because they're all reading in between the lines.

But just because I'm curious, what else does Vivendi have?

It would be incorrect reading though.

Vivendi Universal, as whole, is a much bigger company than Activision. It gaming division, a relict of the J.M. Messier's tantacular ambition days, is only a small part of the group. A small yet quite profitable part, nonetheless.

Even though the idea of selling the gaming division, amongst other "non-core business" parts of the company, has been entertained after the downfall of Messier as the iconic captain of the Vivendi's ship, nothing happened on that front. In fact, after a while, things at the company continued unchanged from the tracks set by Messier. The massive success of the product "World of Warcraft" did obviously cement gaming as one of the group most profiatble endeavour.

Now, what happened here seems simple and clear to me. Both Vivendi Universal Games and Activision (and others in the market) knew that a consolidation was inevitable and thus have both agreed on the details of a merger. This one took the form of a take over from Vivendi, which would become the major stake holder of the newly formed entity.

Activision knew they couldn't engulf a player like Vivendi, and knew that buying a lame duck player like Atari or SCI/Eidos might not be enough of a movement, or even worthy of the money at all. And on the other end of the spectrum, I'm not sure Vivendi shareholders would have been happy with an agressive take-over from one of their divisions of a 3+Billion dollar company... If such thing is a reasonable plan at all, in the first place, is debatable as well.

So, they both agreed to the easiest and best solution of all: a friendly take-over, with both players sharing almost evenly the newly formed entity.

Originally Posted by Laa-Yosh

is Take2 still independent too?

Take2 is too big of a company to be considered an independent. With that said, they're indeed not affiliated with any bigger publisher... for now.

Originally Posted by Laa-Yosh

And I wouldn't be surprised to see EA go after Ubisoft now. They already own some 20-25% of the shares, right?

Well, EA might have to make its move fast, because the French company is getting a more expensive gift each day.

[archangelmorph]

Originally Posted by Skrying

Because consoles entail certain sacrifices for the most part. Be it gameplay, graphics, physics, or other (mods for example).

Elitist fanboy talk..

Console don't inherently present a developer with required sacrifices in areas like physics & gameplay (& even graphics are generally alot worse on the PC side when run on the vast majority [medium & low-end] of rigs in consumers homes).. Mods are about the only area where you point could have held if it weren't for the advent of console-internet-connectivity & what Epic are currently doing with UT3 on the PS3 pretty much make this a moot point also..

Granted in certain circumstances a PC game may not be able to carry over to the console platform in it's current form, since it was never designed to work with such a focused architecture (Crysis for example) however this doesn't mean all games will suffer from these issues..

Lastly your not even talknig about ports though, your talking about franchises which could consist of games from a plethora of genres (a la Starcraft Ghost & Halo Wars..) which don't necessarily have to remain consistent with the rest of the titles in the series. There is absolutely no reason why a game like Starcraft Ghost, done by one of Blizzard's (talented) internal teams couldn't sustain the same level of quality with respect to storytelling, polish, rich gameplay & attention to detail on a console as the original Starcraft has shown on the PC since such concepts are high level and thus ubiquitous across whatever hardware platform one would choose to develop on..