Vivendi and Activision merge to form Activision Blizzard
- Thread starter 22psi
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
Because they're all reading in between the lines.
But just because I'm curious, what else does Vivendi have?
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
Veteran
You WANT them to take 20years to make a game??
Seriously PC gamers just scare me sometimes..
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.
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.
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.
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 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
Regular
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.
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.
Maybe not that few, but there are certainly a top 5 or 6 that are clearly the top publishers.
I'm not clear on what spurred this comment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Regular
Activision does not own id.
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?
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
Veteran
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.
