1. Why did Blizzard merge with Activison?
2. What are the benefits?
3. When did this happen?
4. Why now and will Activision have control of all the games?
5. Can Activison touch Blizzard's games or add or change anything?
6. What are the bad things about this merge?
7. Are you afraid of this merge in any way?
8. Do you think this is a good idea for them to pick Activison to merge with?
1. Business is business
2. For us, none.
3. A while ago.
4. No, Blizzard still makes the games.
5. No.
6. Nothing really.
7. No.
8. I don't really care.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
-My Position on Black Metal: "So you know those annoying kids you see running around listening to crap radio rock bands wearing tripp jeans and shopping at hot topic? Well, Black Metal is just the next big thing... have fun with your trends, I'm gonna stay metal"
Which titles of Activision can be used to Enrich Blizzard games (along the lines of content)?
Do you see any elements in any of their games that can make you say "this I want in WoW/Diablo/SC" ?
Do you feel that blizzard will take over their old titles? make new one?
I don't think this merger is going to have any real impact on Blizzards development of games, other than the fact that if Blizzard ever made a console game, Activation has a lot of experience in the console market and would likely be a big help.
1. Why did Blizzard merge with Activison?
2. What are the benefits?
3. When did this happen?
4. Why now and will Activision have control of all the games?
5. Can Activison touch Blizzard's games or add or change anything?
6. What are the bad things about this merge?
7. Are you afraid of this merge in any way?
8. Do you think this is a good idea for them to pick Activison to merge with?
1) To expand their gaming industry
2) Expansion of their gaming market and access to Activision's games: CoD4, Guitar Hero 3, etc.
3) Somewhere around 2-5 months ago
4) Its better than never, and no they won't
5) Impossible unless permission from Blizzard
6) Nothing
7) Not Really
8) It's better than EA and will be a great help for upcoming console games in the future OR they might help Blizzard on the cancelled Starcraft: Ghost
I've heard Activision is trying to pressure Blizzard into bringing their game worlds to the console. I remember reading something along the lines of them pressuring as much as possible without actually forcing. I'll try to find a link to where I read this.
If that's the case, I guess you could take it either good or bad. Good that they're expanding. Bad that they won't have as much of a focus on the PC gamers as they have exclusively had.
Think about this for a second guys. Suppose you are one of the original part of the "core team" at Blizzard. You have a product that has monumental revenues, but no one is exactly sure how long you can keep it up (World of Warcraft). Obviously though, since your product is wildly profitable, and you have a proven track record, you know that the market is hungry for your company and NOW is the time to sell.
Mike Morhaime, Rob Pardo, maybe even Samwise Didier...they must be probably very rich guys from this merger. WoW is so crazy profitable that they can do some sort of lip-service thing to Activision, maybe consolidate server technology and some management stuff, yet still remaining independent - but at the same time getting a big ass payday. Apparently the deal valued Activision Blizzard at $18.8 billion. Since no doubt, being a relatively small company, Blizzard has a stock equity plan, alot of core members might have just replaced theoretical equity with cold hard cash. Just having say 1% of the company would make Morhaime worth over $100 million dollars, and just like Googlers, I think there are many Blizzard people who are now millionaires in their own right.
2.Activision is rich and can hopefully sponsore blizzard with their games.
I felt that if Blizzard continued on their own that they would have turned out as a gaming giant. Not that they weren't already in their own right, they had dominated the [computer] RTS, RPG, and MMORPG genres for years before this merger, but with the addition of WoW Blizzard had to be making billions of dollars a year. I mean how much more money do you need to create quality games? Activision may have more money (I seriously don't know how you can make more money than 10 million subscribers paying $15 a month) but I don't know how or why Blizzard could be sponsored by them.
The only thing I see good coming from this is more graphics and physics engine sharing. Also, seeing as how Activision is completely console gaming, Blizzard games may see higher probabilities of being console ports (good for Blizzard because more $$$).
BTW, were they bought out or is this more of a "let's bring together our efforts to benefit us both, but in reality it's better for one of us" things?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Why can't a heterosexual guy tell a heterosexual guy that he thinks his booty is fly?
I felt that if Blizzard continued on their own that they would have turned out as a gaming giant. Not that they weren't already in their own right, they had dominated the [computer] RTS, RPG, and MMORPG genres for years before this merger, but with the addition of WoW Blizzard had to be making billions of dollars a year. I mean how much more money do you need to create quality games? Activision may have more money (I seriously don't know how you can make more money than 10 million subscribers paying $15 a month) but I don't know how or why Blizzard could be sponsored by them.
The only thing I see good coming from this is more graphics and physics engine sharing. Also, seeing as how Activision is completely console gaming, Blizzard games may see higher probabilities of being console ports (good for Blizzard because more $$$).
BTW, were they bought out or is this more of a "let's bring together our efforts to benefit us both, but in reality it's better for one of us" things?
You lost me when you said,"they had dominated the [computer] RTS, RPG, and MMORPG"
Dominated the RTS genre? Pft, Warhammer wins that category. Dominated the RPG gender? Look at Oblivion on PC. The only one I can agree with is the MMORPG factor AKA WoW
2. What are the benefits?
3. When did this happen?
4. Why now and will Activision have control of all the games?
5. Can Activison touch Blizzard's games or add or change anything?
6. What are the bad things about this merge?
7. Are you afraid of this merge in any way?
8. Do you think this is a good idea for them to pick Activison to merge with?
Sentence of the year:
"WoW, It's like a disease"
2. For us, none.
3. A while ago.
4. No, Blizzard still makes the games.
5. No.
6. Nothing really.
7. No.
8. I don't really care.
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
My thoughts exactly...
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
You missed some activivisions :PPP
Sentence of the year:
"WoW, It's like a disease"
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Do you see any elements in any of their games that can make you say "this I want in WoW/Diablo/SC" ?
Do you feel that blizzard will take over their old titles? make new one?
Sentence of the year:
"WoW, It's like a disease"
Spot fucking on.
Cheers,
SmashBoy (still bitter towards EA for ruining Ultima)
1) To expand their gaming industry
2) Expansion of their gaming market and access to Activision's games: CoD4, Guitar Hero 3, etc.
3) Somewhere around 2-5 months ago
4) Its better than never, and no they won't
5) Impossible unless permission from Blizzard
6) Nothing
7) Not Really
8) It's better than EA and will be a great help for upcoming console games in the future OR they might help Blizzard on the cancelled Starcraft: Ghost
If that's the case, I guess you could take it either good or bad. Good that they're expanding. Bad that they won't have as much of a focus on the PC gamers as they have exclusively had.
Mike Morhaime, Rob Pardo, maybe even Samwise Didier...they must be probably very rich guys from this merger. WoW is so crazy profitable that they can do some sort of lip-service thing to Activision, maybe consolidate server technology and some management stuff, yet still remaining independent - but at the same time getting a big ass payday. Apparently the deal valued Activision Blizzard at $18.8 billion. Since no doubt, being a relatively small company, Blizzard has a stock equity plan, alot of core members might have just replaced theoretical equity with cold hard cash. Just having say 1% of the company would make Morhaime worth over $100 million dollars, and just like Googlers, I think there are many Blizzard people who are now millionaires in their own right.
There is no negativity in this post (YOU HEAR THAT ANAKYN?!?!?!?!!)
The only thing I see good coming from this is more graphics and physics engine sharing. Also, seeing as how Activision is completely console gaming, Blizzard games may see higher probabilities of being console ports (good for Blizzard because more $$$).
BTW, were they bought out or is this more of a "let's bring together our efforts to benefit us both, but in reality it's better for one of us" things?
You lost me when you said,"they had dominated the [computer] RTS, RPG, and
MMORPG"
Dominated the RTS genre? Pft, Warhammer wins that category. Dominated the RPG gender? Look at Oblivion on PC. The only one I can agree with is the MMORPG factor AKA WoW