World of Warcraft: Shareholders Approve Activision Blizzard

Szark · July 2008

Vivendi and Activision have announced that the merger of the two companies that would see the creation of a new company called Activision Blizzard, has been approved by their shareholders, with a vote 92% in favor of the merger.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Activision Inc (ATVI.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) shareholders approved a deal on Tuesday to merge with French telecommunications and media group Vivendi SA's (VIV.PA: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) games unit, creating a public company called Activision Blizzard.

Activision said 92 percent of shares voted were in favor of the merger, which is expected to close on July 9 .

The deal gives Vivendi, creator of "World of Warcraft," a 52 percent ownership stake in the new company that would have annual revenue of $3.8 billion and more heft to take on Electronic Arts Inc (ERTS.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), the world's biggest independent game publisher.

Read more here.

AlienShirt · July 2008

...and so the downfall of Blizzard begins.

Sovrath · July 2008

Originally posted by AlienShirt

...and so the downfall of Blizzard begins.

To be honest it is a bit disturbing.

tvalentine · July 2008

i must have missed something, hows is this blizzards downfall? and how is this disturbing? Vivendi will have 52% ownership (the majority). And they will merge with a company that just came off of 2 huge successes (COD4, GH). If anything this just makes Vivendi more of a monster then it was with just WoW. And dont forget about SC2 and D3 wich will be blockbusters IF done right. This is a smart move imo, and it looks like they are switching gears to try and compete with the big boys at EA.

Sovrath · July 2008

Originally posted by tvalentine

i must have missed something, hows is this blizzards downfall? and how is this disturbing? Vivendi will have 52% ownership (the majority). And they will merge with a company that just came off of 2 huge successes (COD4, GH). If anything this just makes Vivendi more of a monster then it was with just WoW. And dont forget about SC2 and D3 wich will be blockbusters IF done right. This is a smart move imo, and it looks like they are switching gears to try and compete with the big boys at EA.

I feel that it is disturbing because it seems that their shareholders are a bit more involved than I originally thought.

And it doesn't matter that Vivendi has 52% ownership in the "now". It is easy enough to sell those shares or convince their board to throw their votes in places that might not be good for any game.

Hey, The family that owned (and originally started) The Wall Street Journal had a majority stake in the Journal and we know what happened there.

I'm all for investments and having economic power but at what point does it completely become a business.

tvalentine · July 2008

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by tvalentine

i must have missed something, hows is this blizzards downfall? and how is this disturbing? Vivendi will have 52% ownership (the majority). And they will merge with a company that just came off of 2 huge successes (COD4, GH). If anything this just makes Vivendi more of a monster then it was with just WoW. And dont forget about SC2 and D3 wich will be blockbusters IF done right. This is a smart move imo, and it looks like they are switching gears to try and compete with the big boys at EA.

I feel that it is disturbing because it seems that their shareholders are a bit more involved than I originally thought.

And it doesn't matter that Vivendi has 52% ownership in the "now". It is easy enough to sell those shares or convince their board to throw their votes in places that might not be good for any game.

Hey, The family that owned (and originally started) The Wall Street Journal had a majority stake in the Journal and we know what happened there.

I'm all for investments and having economic power but at what point does it completely become a business.

the shareholders voted on a merger, not a game. And it was ACTIVISIONs shareholders who voted. And what do you expect? shareholders(investors) have a say in everything, in every company. And like it or not, gameing is a business, ask SOE.

Sovrath · July 2008

Originally posted by tvalentine

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by tvalentine

i must have missed something, hows is this blizzards downfall? and how is this disturbing? Vivendi will have 52% ownership (the majority). And they will merge with a company that just came off of 2 huge successes (COD4, GH). If anything this just makes Vivendi more of a monster then it was with just WoW. And dont forget about SC2 and D3 wich will be blockbusters IF done right. This is a smart move imo, and it looks like they are switching gears to try and compete with the big boys at EA.

I feel that it is disturbing because it seems that their shareholders are a bit more involved than I originally thought.

And it doesn't matter that Vivendi has 52% ownership in the "now". It is easy enough to sell those shares or convince their board to throw their votes in places that might not be good for any game.

Hey, The family that owned (and originally started) The Wall Street Journal had a majority stake in the Journal and we know what happened there.

I'm all for investments and having economic power but at what point does it completely become a business.

the shareholders voted on a merger, not a game. And it was ACTIVISIONs shareholders who voted. And what do you expect? shareholders(investors) have a say in everything, in every company. And like it or not, gameing is a business, ask SOE.

Yes, I know. Check any one of my posts where the business of games is mentioned and you will see me with my flag talking about shareholders, returns on profits, and why games are no longer made in garages and why dev's can't take the same chances that they used to. etc.

But as I've said and will say again, I find it disturbing as mergers have a tendency to drive people out, change the paradigm of a company, and in the end, it does mean that those shareholders are very active in what happens with that company and their future. I'm not saying that anything bad "will" happen. I am saying that the possibility of something happening that might be distasteful to players (and heck, even the company itself) might be on the horizon.

Let's just adopt a wait and see attitude.

laresloci · July 2008

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by tvalentine

i must have missed something, hows is this blizzards downfall? and how is this disturbing? Vivendi will have 52% ownership (the majority). And they will merge with a company that just came off of 2 huge successes (COD4, GH). If anything this just makes Vivendi more of a monster then it was with just WoW. And dont forget about SC2 and D3 wich will be blockbusters IF done right. This is a smart move imo, and it looks like they are switching gears to try and compete with the big boys at EA.

I feel that it is disturbing because it seems that their shareholders are a bit more involved than I originally thought.

And it doesn't matter that Vivendi has 52% ownership in the "now". It is easy enough to sell those shares or convince their board to throw their votes in places that might not be good for any game.

Hey, The family that owned (and originally started) The Wall Street Journal had a majority stake in the Journal and we know what happened there.

I'm all for investments and having economic power but at what point does it completely become a business.

What? At what point wasn't it?

Sovrath · July 2008

Originally posted by laresloci

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by tvalentine

i must have missed something, hows is this blizzards downfall? and how is this disturbing? Vivendi will have 52% ownership (the majority). And they will merge with a company that just came off of 2 huge successes (COD4, GH). If anything this just makes Vivendi more of a monster then it was with just WoW. And dont forget about SC2 and D3 wich will be blockbusters IF done right. This is a smart move imo, and it looks like they are switching gears to try and compete with the big boys at EA.

I feel that it is disturbing because it seems that their shareholders are a bit more involved than I originally thought.

And it doesn't matter that Vivendi has 52% ownership in the "now". It is easy enough to sell those shares or convince their board to throw their votes in places that might not be good for any game.

Hey, The family that owned (and originally started) The Wall Street Journal had a majority stake in the Journal and we know what happened there.

I'm all for investments and having economic power but at what point does it completely become a business.

What? At what point wasn't it?

Don't know. I do know that there are companies that like to operate in a transparent framework and that though they need to make sure a return is made, the shareholders are hands off.

Sure, in the end it is a business and profits have to be made. But as I've said, mergers change the paradigms of companies, can alter the culture of a company and can bring about unforseen changes which can affect the company, its people and its products.

But sure, whatever, let's see if it remains business as usual or if something else happens.

Look at what happend with the chrysler/benz merger or the Stanford/University of Southern California - Sanfrancisco Hospitals. They don't always end up being good in the end.

Mergers also create redundancies and people are let go, they end up reporting to completely different people, maybe people who come from the other company which has a completely different culture. Just because both companies are good by themselves doesn't mean that they can be good together.

Not saying the sky "will" fall, just it is something to watch because of the obvious concerns.

tvalentine · July 2008

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by laresloci

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by tvalentine

i must have missed something, hows is this blizzards downfall? and how is this disturbing? Vivendi will have 52% ownership (the majority). And they will merge with a company that just came off of 2 huge successes (COD4, GH). If anything this just makes Vivendi more of a monster then it was with just WoW. And dont forget about SC2 and D3 wich will be blockbusters IF done right. This is a smart move imo, and it looks like they are switching gears to try and compete with the big boys at EA.

I feel that it is disturbing because it seems that their shareholders are a bit more involved than I originally thought.

And it doesn't matter that Vivendi has 52% ownership in the "now". It is easy enough to sell those shares or convince their board to throw their votes in places that might not be good for any game.

Hey, The family that owned (and originally started) The Wall Street Journal had a majority stake in the Journal and we know what happened there.

I'm all for investments and having economic power but at what point does it completely become a business.

What? At what point wasn't it?

Don't know. I do know that there are companies that like to operate in a transparent framework and that though they need to make sure a return is made, the shareholders are hands off.

Sure, in the end it is a business and profits have to be made. But as I've said, mergers change the paradigms of companies, can alter the culture of a company and can bring about unforseen changes which can affect the company, its people and its products.

But sure, whatever, let's see if it remains business as usual or if something else happens.

Look at what happend with the chrysler/benz merger or the Stanford/University of Southern California - Sanfrancisco Hospitals. They don't always end up being good in the end.

Mergers also create redundancies and people are let go, they end up reporting to completely different people, maybe people who come from the other company which has a completely different culture. Just because both companies are good by themselves doesn't mean that they can be good together.

Not saying the sky "will" fall, just it is something to watch because of the obvious concerns.

your post would be more relevant if you gave examples of game company mergers that went bad, and not car companies or hospitals/colleges .......

Sovrath · July 2008

Originally posted by tvalentine

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by laresloci

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by tvalentine

i must have missed something, hows is this blizzards downfall? and how is this disturbing? Vivendi will have 52% ownership (the majority). And they will merge with a company that just came off of 2 huge successes (COD4, GH). If anything this just makes Vivendi more of a monster then it was with just WoW. And dont forget about SC2 and D3 wich will be blockbusters IF done right. This is a smart move imo, and it looks like they are switching gears to try and compete with the big boys at EA.

I feel that it is disturbing because it seems that their shareholders are a bit more involved than I originally thought.

And it doesn't matter that Vivendi has 52% ownership in the "now". It is easy enough to sell those shares or convince their board to throw their votes in places that might not be good for any game.

Hey, The family that owned (and originally started) The Wall Street Journal had a majority stake in the Journal and we know what happened there.

I'm all for investments and having economic power but at what point does it completely become a business.

What? At what point wasn't it?

Don't know. I do know that there are companies that like to operate in a transparent framework and that though they need to make sure a return is made, the shareholders are hands off.

Sure, in the end it is a business and profits have to be made. But as I've said, mergers change the paradigms of companies, can alter the culture of a company and can bring about unforseen changes which can affect the company, its people and its products.

But sure, whatever, let's see if it remains business as usual or if something else happens.

Look at what happend with the chrysler/benz merger or the Stanford/University of Southern California - Sanfrancisco Hospitals. They don't always end up being good in the end.

Mergers also create redundancies and people are let go, they end up reporting to completely different people, maybe people who come from the other company which has a completely different culture. Just because both companies are good by themselves doesn't mean that they can be good together.

Not saying the sky "will" fall, just it is something to watch because of the obvious concerns.

your post would be more relevant if you gave examples of game company mergers that went bad, and not car companies or hospitals/colleges .......

LOL! Are you saying that the problems of mergers for hospitals and car companies are not relevant for a game company? That somehow game companies are immune to these things?

And as the industry is large are there that many game companies that have merged? hmmm... well, let me find out.

tvalentine · July 2008

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by tvalentine

your post would be more relevant if you gave examples of game company mergers that went bad, and not car companies or hospitals/colleges .......

LOL! Are you saying that the problems of mergers for hospitals and car companies are not relevant for a game company?

yes, very much so. your comparing cars and hospitals to software companies.

Sovrath · July 2008

Originally posted by tvalentine

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by tvalentine

your post would be more relevant if you gave examples of game company mergers that went bad, and not car companies or hospitals/colleges .......

LOL! Are you saying that the problems of mergers for hospitals and car companies are not relevant for a game company?

yes, very much so. your comparing cars and hospitals to software companies.

So software companies don't have different cultures? Redundancies are not created when combining to software companies (and I know from first hand experience this one is true) that leadership will not change in a software company (I also know from first hand experience this is true).

I stand by what I say whether you want to accept it or not. Just me writing that reaffirms my position to myself.

As far as famous video game mergers (and I am not talking acquisitions though that has similar problems) I don't seem to find many so we are on the cusp of something that will be interesting to look at.

Did find the bad Parker Brothers merger with General mills but General mills is not a game company and parker brothers had other issues with the onslaught of video games.

Did find this:

"IT DIDN'T WORK." Also, merging two large software companies is tricky. It's extremely difficult to blend technologies, and as a result, a merged company ends up keeping on the bulk of the sales, support, and development staff of both companies. That makes it difficult to fulfill the cost-savings envisioned when merger plans are hatched (which seems to be a viable concern - S)

In this article:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2005/tc20050111_8857_tc202.htm

Not exactly game companies but interesting about software companies. But then that is one article and rather old. Still, I maintain my postion as I feel it's apt.

tvalentine · July 2008

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by tvalentine

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by tvalentine

your post would be more relevant if you gave examples of game company mergers that went bad, and not car companies or hospitals/colleges .......

LOL! Are you saying that the problems of mergers for hospitals and car companies are not relevant for a game company?

yes, very much so. your comparing cars and hospitals to software companies.

So software companies don't have different cultures? Redundancies are not created when combining to software companies (and I know from first hand experience this one is true) that leadership will not change in a software company (I also know from first hand experience this is true).

I stand by what I say whether you want to accept it or not. Just me writing that reaffirms my position to myself.

As far as famous video game mergers (and I am not talking acquisitions though that has similar problems) I don't seem to find many so we are on the cusp of something that will be interesting to look at.

Did find the bad Parker Brothers merger with General mills but General mills is not a game company and parker brothers had other issues with the onslaught of video games.

Did find this:

"IT DIDN'T WORK." Also, merging two large software companies is tricky. It's extremely difficult to blend technologies, and as a result, a merged company ends up keeping on the bulk of the sales, support, and development staff of both companies. That makes it difficult to fulfill the cost-savings envisioned when merger plans are hatched

In this article:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2005/tc20050111_8857_tc202.htm

Not exactly game companies but interesting about software companies. But then that is one article and rather old. Still, I maintain my postion as I feel it's apt.

i should have said game companies not software companies. Seeing as regular software is nowhere near as popular as games, and blending technologies is nowhere near as tough in the gaming industry as it is in a software industry. Considering both activison and Vivendi are both high quality companies, they will have technology that wont need to be changed to continue producing games. And your just listing mergers that dont include gaming companies, so we dont know if this is bad or good.

You also mentioned "acquisitions" are similar, but you didnt mention EA's acquisition of Bioware, or any other company. Probably because the acquisition went smoothly and Bioware has come off a major success with mass effect, Please try and find as much bad publicity on mergers as you can, although it wont make it difference, its hard to find bad publicity of mergers in the gaming industry.

Djfusion · July 2008

Square Enix? Merged...doing quite well...

tvalentine · July 2008

Originally posted by Djfusion

Square Enix? Merged...doing quite well...

yeah i was curious myself, and just found a link of quite a few company mergers, square enix being one of them

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3158827

Namco, and Bandai also merged. They seem to be doing pretty well also.

Sovrath · July 2008

Originally posted by tvalentine

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by tvalentine

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by tvalentine

your post would be more relevant if you gave examples of game company mergers that went bad, and not car companies or hospitals/colleges .......

LOL! Are you saying that the problems of mergers for hospitals and car companies are not relevant for a game company?

yes, very much so. your comparing cars and hospitals to software companies.

So software companies don't have different cultures? Redundancies are not created when combining to software companies (and I know from first hand experience this one is true) that leadership will not change in a software company (I also know from first hand experience this is true).

I stand by what I say whether you want to accept it or not. Just me writing that reaffirms my position to myself.

As far as famous video game mergers (and I am not talking acquisitions though that has similar problems) I don't seem to find many so we are on the cusp of something that will be interesting to look at.

Did find the bad Parker Brothers merger with General mills but General mills is not a game company and parker brothers had other issues with the onslaught of video games.

Did find this:

"IT DIDN'T WORK." Also, merging two large software companies is tricky. It's extremely difficult to blend technologies, and as a result, a merged company ends up keeping on the bulk of the sales, support, and development staff of both companies. That makes it difficult to fulfill the cost-savings envisioned when merger plans are hatched

In this article:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2005/tc20050111_8857_tc202.htm

Not exactly game companies but interesting about software companies. But then that is one article and rather old. Still, I maintain my postion as I feel it's apt.

i should have said game companies not software companies. Seeing as regular software is nowhere near as popular as games, and blending technologies is nowhere near as tough in the gaming industry as it is in a software industry. Considering both activison and Vivendi are both high quality companies, they will have technology that wont need to be changed to continue producing games. And your just listing mergers that dont include gaming companies, so we dont know if this is bad or good.

You also mentioned "acquisitions" are similar, but you didnt mention EA's acquisition of Bioware, or any other company. Probably because the acquisition went smoothly and Bioware has come off a major success with mass effect, Please try and find as much bad publicity on mergers as you can, although it wont make it difference, its hard to find bad publicity of mergers in the gaming industry.

No I didn't mention the acquisitions because I didn't think of them (just the idea of acquistion came to mind), not because I'm trying to cover anything up.

Sometimes a cigar really is a cigar.

But if you feel that there will be no issues then "ok'. If there are you owe me a beer. If there aren't then I owe you a beer.

Djfusion · July 2008

dude...both companies make amazing games...only thing thats gonna change is that when you boot up one of their games, both of the companies gonna show up on those annoying opening credits

Sovrath · July 2008

Originally posted by Djfusion

dude...both companies make amazing games...only thing thats gonna change is that when you boot up one of their games, both of the companies gonna show up on those annoying opening credits

Ok, ok we'll see. I still don't think that just because they make "amazing games' that their can't be problems down the line. Interesting that I also found this in that article that was quoted:

While industry forecasts show the Japanese market leading to an increases in sales due to company mergers, does that necessarily mean what will be sold will be of the same quality? Not necessarily, says JC Bennett, a game developer in Japan. While mergers are a sign of change, he says what really needs to change is "[T]he way game development is run," perhaps along the lines of per-project freelance approach that is employed by Hollywood studios, because mergers "...simply allow for the status quo to run a little longer. Companies can't grow by themselves for various reasons, and lack of good staff is one of them. Programmers, especially, are hard to find, and merging is a way of expanding the pool of talent within a company".

But perhaps you are right and perhaps the more talent the better. I'm still not convinced that just because they make good games and that other mergers have worked that they will not have issues. But maybe that is just not the way it is and this will be better than sliced bread.

Djfusion · July 2008

The problem with that quote is that, its saying that mergers do not mean a good thing unless you have the talent and the creative power to back it...which Blizzard and Activision both have...WoW blew EVERY mmo out of the water when it first came out, no one had played such a massive and immersive game...Activision went on a limb and made a COD that wasnt WW2 and put everything that any FPS player has dreamed of in it....tested to the T...they both KNOW HOW to make games...thats the thing..

Sovrath · July 2008

Originally posted by Djfusion

The problem with that quote is that, its saying that mergers do not mean a good thing unless you have the talent and the creative power to back it...which Blizzard and Activision both have...WoW blew EVERY mmo out of the water when it first came out, no one had played such a massive and immersive game...Activision went on a limb and made a COD that wasnt WW2 and put everything that any FPS player has dreamed of in it....tested to the T...they both KNOW HOW to make games...thats the thing..

Well I certainly [edit] can't argue with that point. I just wonder if their managment styles and culture differences will cause issues. The other gentleman mentioned that technology differences are slight and though I am not a programmer that seems to ring somewhat true as I don't seem to see anything radical. But perhaps there are game programmers out there that might no more about that.

Annihlator · July 2008

I have absolutely no expertise, but the biggest clinch might occur in each company's standards, it's only logical each of the companies used their own ways as "standard" , im talking mostly engine wise.

I mostly hope the merge won't do anything bad as anyone else, but i am curious as to which technologies they will adapt from which company, i have a feeling that Blizzard will take the main role in this. Im mostly referring to the Engines and such they will be using. And I pray each of the companies gets to keep their own expertises, no offence. but i'm not sure if i'd dare to see Blizzard influences in the likes of Guitar Hero, mainly because Blizzard thus far has a quite different experience field. though, a downfall of any of these two companies, especially these two combined combined will be quite unlikely, as long as they keep their pieces of seperation based on their expertises, they should use the merge as an opportunity to learn too, not to overrule.

On a side note, Activision Blizzard... i don't find that a suitable name, seperated they might be catchy, together it doesnt work for me -> New name anyone?

PS: These companies will be favourites over EA anytime, as EA seems to get more towards stomping out a new title with just a changed year number over and over again, First Fifa and the likes, which was reasonable... then NFS... and what else might just follow now? At that pace we will quite likely get tired of the "new" titles, as each title gets less and less new content. For Fifa it's only reasonable due to the changes in the actual teams in real-life. They should also stop imposting titles that at some fields seem to gain more success, each company should have their style, to stay unique and dont take big risks losing fans by attempting to attract new ones with "new" stuff already included in other games.

-edit- as a followup to the post above: I agree about the COD part and that proves my point in the fact each company has their own expertises.

IAmMMO · July 2008

Originally posted by AlienShirt

...and so the downfall of Blizzard begins.

Not at all. It's quite the opposite. World economic climate is changing. USA development companies not only have the spiralling costs to deal with, they also have the Asian developers to compete with, and also the emerging eastern European and Russian game developers who will be a huge force in game development in the future as they have an economic advantage in development costs. It's becoming far to expensive to do in the USA and that's one reason for mergers like this.

Bluezeer · July 2008

I think there is a danger on creativity , .. becose with game compagny becoming so big . Its gona start to be hard for smaller compagny to follow . Less real competitions = less effort to create something original . i am scared of seen the game industry turn horrible like the movies industry . (( have you seen the movie this summer .... 5 super hero movies or something hehe ))

just look at Ea with the NFL rights , they are now selling the same game every year without even trying . .

Until then we can all go watch hulk 2 this summer .

Vatigu · July 2008

Blizzard said at the front end of the merger that it will be left on it's own intellectually it will just share it's profits out basically.

Activision wants Blizzard so they can push their wares in Asian markets not to change Blizzard.

Also the deal is 52% Vivendi ownership but Activision's CEO will be taking over the new company. So it's kind of in Activision's favour.

However as I said Blizzard assured the WoW community that the merger would not have any direct effect on the way Blizzard makes games aside from having more money for development.

coffee · July 2008

Originally posted by Djfusion

dude...both companies make amazing games...only thing thats gonna change is that when you boot up one of their games, both of the companies gonna show up on those annoying opening credits

Thats not right to be truthful.. you will never see a Blizzard/Activition logo, all Blizzard made games will just say Blizzard and all activision games will say activision.

Howdy, Stranger!

World of Warcraft: Shareholders Approve Activision Blizzard

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

World of Warcraft: Shareholders Approve Activision Blizzard

Comments