Blizzard should split from Activision before it's too late.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Timstuff
Timstuff

26840

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#1 Timstuff
Member since 2002 • 26840 Posts

After jettisoning the Guitar Hero brand, it's clear now that Activision has only one cash cow left-- Call of Duty-- and that they intend to milk it for all it's worth to compensate the hole left by Guitar Hero. Activision has been operating this way for nearly a decade now-- Tony Hawk was popular, but then Activision killed it and had Guitar Hero take its place. Then, Guitar Hero was popular, but Activision killed it and now Call of Duty has taken its place. So what's next? Activision doesn't have any star franchises left afer Call of Duty inevitably runs out of gas and people get sick of semi-anual sequels, at least none that are at Call of Duty's current level of popularity.

What does this mean for Blizzard? Well, Blizzard has remained popular for a long time without having to resort to semi-annual sequels, and they still bring in tons of money from their franchises like World of Warcraft. When Activision runs out of franchises, they're going to look to Blizzard to pick up the slack, which means that we'll proabably end up with Warcraft and Starcraft sequels rammed down our throats pre-maturely the same way we had Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, and Call of Duty rammed down our throats. If Blizzard is smart, they will cut the dead weight while they still can and split from Activision. That way, Activision goes down without taking Blizzard with it.

Avatar image for VensInferno
VensInferno

3395

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#2 VensInferno
Member since 2010 • 3395 Posts

I vote for TC. :D yah i hate to see the WOW brand destroyed.

Avatar image for NaveedLife
NaveedLife

17179

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 NaveedLife
Member since 2010 • 17179 Posts

Then will find another I am sure.

Tony Hawk ROCKS!.....I mean Guitar Hero ROCKS!.....errr Call of Duty ROCKS!....now whats next? :P

Avatar image for Cataclism
Cataclism

1537

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4 Cataclism
Member since 2007 • 1537 Posts

I don't think you understand the nature of the Blizzard - Activision relationship...

Avatar image for 2beers_in_hand
2beers_in_hand

2950

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 2beers_in_hand
Member since 2007 • 2950 Posts

No Acti can create a super genre like I mentioned in the GH thread Call of Tony the Guitar Hero's pro skating Duty... Then They can milk that for 5 to 7 years more. If I was a shareholder of the company I would be a little bit worried with what Acti is doing to there franchises. If Acti rolls out their plan for different teirs of multiplayer and the next Cod is as messed of as BLOPS or MW2 then expect to see the decline start to happen in the next couple of years.

Avatar image for Nintendo_Ownes7
Nintendo_Ownes7

30973

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#6 Nintendo_Ownes7
Member since 2005 • 30973 Posts

Blizzard's Parent Company Vivendi Universal owns majority stake in ActivisionBlizzard. So Activision is the one not in control of the company. Bob Kotich (Spelling?) is only in charge because for the deal to go through Activision needed to use one of their people to be head of the joint company if Vivendi has majority stake.

Avatar image for Timstuff
Timstuff

26840

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#7 Timstuff
Member since 2002 • 26840 Posts
The plight that Activision now faces is that they are not investing in innovation, and innovation is what gave them franchises like Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, and COD in the first place. In a nutshell, Activision is not going to find a franchise to take COD's place as primary cash cow when it dies, because they are not investing in new ideas. Getting another franchise of COD's magnitude would essentially be trying to predict where lightning is going to strike next, because Activision got where they are in large part due to luck. They can't rely on "getting lucky again" as their contingency plan for if and WHEN COD fails, and since there is nothing in Activision's lineup ATM that could plausibly fill a hole left in COD's wake, they are going to take a huge nosedive once customers grow tired of annual Call of Duty updates, the same way EA took a nosedive. Perhaps with both EA and Activision humbled from their past positions as the "goliath" of the industry, we'll finally see some sort of equilibrium between publishers that encourages the development of new ideas and does not have the whole industry revolve around the success of one franchise.
Avatar image for Baranga
Baranga

14217

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#8 Baranga
Member since 2005 • 14217 Posts

Kotick is Activision's CEO since early 1991. Shocking, I know.

Also, Activision has no power over Blizzard. You can't even find the Activision name anywhere in Starcraft 2.

Avatar image for Twin-Blade
Twin-Blade

6806

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Twin-Blade
Member since 2005 • 6806 Posts

Call of Duty: Tony Hawks Guitar Heroes.

Avatar image for Boomshaffted
Boomshaffted

721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Boomshaffted
Member since 2009 • 721 Posts

I doubt Activision has that kind of power. It's Blizzard/Activision for a reason. You don't see 2K/Firaxis, EA/Bioware, etc... They're partners - Activision doesn't run Blizzard, and Blizzard knows they have an *extremely* successful business model and haven't seriously tampered with it for almost 20 years. Heck, I'd imagine Activision knows this too...

Besides, Activision effectively built up all three of those franchises and, while it has torn two of them down, they always have other things in the works - CoD isn't their only active franchise, after all. Who knows what they'll push into the spotlight in the future? None of us, that's all I know.

Avatar image for 2beers_in_hand
2beers_in_hand

2950

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 2beers_in_hand
Member since 2007 • 2950 Posts

I doubt Activision has that kind of power. It's Blizzard/Activision for a reason. You don't see 2K/Firaxis, EA/Bioware, etc... They're partners - Activision doesn't run Blizzard, and Blizzard knows they have an *extremely* successful business model and haven't seriously tampered with it for almost 20 years. Heck, I'd imagine Activision knows this too...

Besides, Activision effectively built up all three of those franchises and, while it has torn two of them down, they always have other things in the works - CoD isn't their only active franchise, after all. Who knows what they'll push into the spotlight in the future? None of us, that's all I know.

Boomshaffted

But Timstuff summed it up pretty accurately when he said that Acti is no longer trying to innovate besides CoD what does Acti have left as a major cash cow??? Prototype is not the answer it didn't sell to the levels that TH, GH or CoD have reached in the past. What other games does Acti have???

Avatar image for Boomshaffted
Boomshaffted

721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 Boomshaffted
Member since 2009 • 721 Posts

[QUOTE="Boomshaffted"]

I doubt Activision has that kind of power. It's Blizzard/Activision for a reason. You don't see 2K/Firaxis, EA/Bioware, etc... They're partners - Activision doesn't run Blizzard, and Blizzard knows they have an *extremely* successful business model and haven't seriously tampered with it for almost 20 years. Heck, I'd imagine Activision knows this too...

Besides, Activision effectively built up all three of those franchises and, while it has torn two of them down, they always have other things in the works - CoD isn't their only active franchise, after all. Who knows what they'll push into the spotlight in the future? None of us, that's all I know.

2beers_in_hand

But Timstuff summed it up pretty accurately when he said that Acti is no longer trying to innovate besides CoD what does Acti have left as a major cash cow??? Prototype is not the answer it didn't sell to the levels that TH, GH or CoD have reached in the past. What other games does Acti have???



Well, here are some links for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Activision_games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#Studios

You'll see lists of games they've made or published there and, since 2005, they've been involved with some of the most large scale names in the entertainment world. The potential is undeniably there for making another cash cow.

What's more, seeing as they're incredibly profitable at the moment, they're more than capable of buying promising new devs, putting them to work on IPs of interest, and going wild.

As for Timstuff... He says they "don't have any star franchises left." They essentially had Tony Hawk as a star franchise for a good period of the 2000's, then that started to peter out. They then made Guitar Hero, and that was a big one until it petered out. Now they've got CoD. At any given time, they've only ever really had one big star franchise, and they MADE an up and comer into a star franchise after that. They have promising IPs in their stable, good developers, and who knows what that we aren't aware of? They've got the means, they've got the talent, they've got the IPs - it's all good and fine to speculate, but, Activision is so far away from having nothing left to turn to it's ludicrous that some of you seriously entertain the idea.

Avatar image for 2beers_in_hand
2beers_in_hand

2950

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 2beers_in_hand
Member since 2007 • 2950 Posts

[QUOTE="2beers_in_hand"]

[QUOTE="Boomshaffted"]

I doubt Activision has that kind of power. It's Blizzard/Activision for a reason. You don't see 2K/Firaxis, EA/Bioware, etc... They're partners - Activision doesn't run Blizzard, and Blizzard knows they have an *extremely* successful business model and haven't seriously tampered with it for almost 20 years. Heck, I'd imagine Activision knows this too...

Besides, Activision effectively built up all three of those franchises and, while it has torn two of them down, they always have other things in the works - CoD isn't their only active franchise, after all. Who knows what they'll push into the spotlight in the future? None of us, that's all I know.

Boomshaffted

But Timstuff summed it up pretty accurately when he said that Acti is no longer trying to innovate besides CoD what does Acti have left as a major cash cow??? Prototype is not the answer it didn't sell to the levels that TH, GH or CoD have reached in the past. What other games does Acti have???



Well, here are some links for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Activision_games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#Studios

You'll see lists of games they've made or published there and, since 2005, they've been involved with some of the most large scale names in the entertainment world. The potential is undeniably there for making another cash cow.

What's more, seeing as they're incredibly profitable at the moment, they're more than capable of buying promising new devs, putting them to work on IPs of interest, and going wild.

As for Timstuff... He says they "don't have any star franchises left." They essentially had Tony Hawk as a star franchise for a good period of the 2000's, then that started to peter out. They then made Guitar Hero, and that was a big one until it petered out. Now they've got CoD. At any given time, they've only ever really had one big star franchise, and they MADE an up and comer into a star franchise after that. They have promising IPs in their stable, good developers, and who knows what that we aren't aware of? They've got the means, they've got the talent, they've got the IPs - it's all good and fine to speculate, but, Activision is so far away from having nothing left to turn to it's ludicrous that some of you seriously entertain the idea.

There is a difference between building up a franchise and one that is popular from the start. All three of Acti's major cash cows were critically acclaimed and brought some thing new to the table by either creating a new genre or doing something an existinggenre didn't do be for. I could spend hours going over a of Acti's game list but none of them really scream out as equalling what TH, GH or COD has done in terms of sale as those three. And due to all the crap Acti has done with developers like IW or double fine I don't see a lot of company's wanting to hope aboard that ship.

Avatar image for Makari
Makari

15250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 Makari
Member since 2003 • 15250 Posts

[QUOTE="2beers_in_hand"]

[QUOTE="Boomshaffted"]

I doubt Activision has that kind of power. It's Blizzard/Activision for a reason. You don't see 2K/Firaxis, EA/Bioware, etc... They're partners - Activision doesn't run Blizzard, and Blizzard knows they have an *extremely* successful business model and haven't seriously tampered with it for almost 20 years. Heck, I'd imagine Activision knows this too...

Besides, Activision effectively built up all three of those franchises and, while it has torn two of them down, they always have other things in the works - CoD isn't their only active franchise, after all. Who knows what they'll push into the spotlight in the future? None of us, that's all I know.

Boomshaffted

But Timstuff summed it up pretty accurately when he said that Acti is no longer trying to innovate besides CoD what does Acti have left as a major cash cow??? Prototype is not the answer it didn't sell to the levels that TH, GH or CoD have reached in the past. What other games does Acti have???



Well, here are some links for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Activision_games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#Studios

You'll see lists of games they've made or published there and, since 2005, they've been involved with some of the most large scale names in the entertainment world. The potential is undeniably there for making another cash cow.

What's more, seeing as they're incredibly profitable at the moment, they're more than capable of buying promising new devs, putting them to work on IPs of interest, and going wild.

As for Timstuff... He says they "don't have any star franchises left." They essentially had Tony Hawk as a star franchise for a good period of the 2000's, then that started to peter out. They then made Guitar Hero, and that was a big one until it petered out. Now they've got CoD. At any given time, they've only ever really had one big star franchise, and they MADE an up and comer into a star franchise after that. They have promising IPs in their stable, good developers, and who knows what that we aren't aware of? They've got the means, they've got the talent, they've got the IPs - it's all good and fine to speculate, but, Activision is so far away from having nothing left to turn to it's ludicrous that some of you seriously entertain the idea.

What?

a) They didn't 'make' guitar hero - Harmonic and RedOctane originated the game/brand with GH1 with Activision as the *distributor.* It's like crediting EA with L4D, as they handled the retail distribution with Turtle Rock / Valve actually made/published the game. Activision bought the publisher of the game immediately afterward, ditched the developer, and by the general opinion of the industry spent the next few years screwing it up. It didn't 'peter out' so much as they 'ran it into the ground.'

b) Call of Duty has been around since 2003/4 - again, not so much something Activision 'created' as something they inherited, by picking up the ex-2015 MoH developers and letting them do what they did best. It evolved into its current paradigm roughly around 2005 with COD2. That more or less parallels GH's shelf life.

c) IIRC they just posted a nice loss this past quarter, and that was *including* BLOPS.
c1) Also IIRC, Blizzard alone was responsible for something like 35-40% of Activision's revenue. Have to double-check to make sure there..

Avatar image for tagyhag
tagyhag

15874

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 tagyhag
Member since 2007 • 15874 Posts

I'm sure Vivendi (Who owns 52% of the stake) will listen to the plight of us gamers. :roll:

Avatar image for OmegaTau
OmegaTau

908

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 OmegaTau
Member since 2007 • 908 Posts

How they are owned by the same company.

Avatar image for Jynxzor
Jynxzor

9313

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#17 Jynxzor
Member since 2003 • 9313 Posts
The choice really lies with Vivendi the majority shareholder, if the fallout with Activision gets too severe they may decide to split Blizzard away from Activision...but in all seriousness aside from the name they still both operate as individual entities. The only change would be Activisions name wouldn't be clinging onto Blizzard. Unless Activision is going under "litterally" I doubt Vivdendi really cares too much. They let Blizzard do there thing, and they let Activisions do...whatever it is they do.
Avatar image for rcignoni
rcignoni

8863

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 rcignoni
Member since 2004 • 8863 Posts
It IS too late...
Avatar image for Led_poison
Led_poison

10146

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 Led_poison
Member since 2004 • 10146 Posts

I don't think you understand the nature of the Blizzard - Activision relationship...

Cataclism
This.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#20 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts

There's a huge difference between a gimmicky franchise like guitar hero and the quality titles that blizzard puts out. I doubt activision would do much to kill off blizzard's talent and quality titles.

Avatar image for Boomshaffted
Boomshaffted

721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 Boomshaffted
Member since 2009 • 721 Posts

[QUOTE="Boomshaffted"]

[QUOTE="2beers_in_hand"]But Timstuff summed it up pretty accurately when he said that Acti is no longer trying to innovate besides CoD what does Acti have left as a major cash cow??? Prototype is not the answer it didn't sell to the levels that TH, GH or CoD have reached in the past. What other games does Acti have???

Makari



Well, here are some links for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Activision_games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#Studios

You'll see lists of games they've made or published there and, since 2005, they've been involved with some of the most large scale names in the entertainment world. The potential is undeniably there for making another cash cow.

What's more, seeing as they're incredibly profitable at the moment, they're more than capable of buying promising new devs, putting them to work on IPs of interest, and going wild.

As for Timstuff... He says they "don't have any star franchises left." They essentially had Tony Hawk as a star franchise for a good period of the 2000's, then that started to peter out. They then made Guitar Hero, and that was a big one until it petered out. Now they've got CoD. At any given time, they've only ever really had one big star franchise, and they MADE an up and comer into a star franchise after that. They have promising IPs in their stable, good developers, and who knows what that we aren't aware of? They've got the means, they've got the talent, they've got the IPs - it's all good and fine to speculate, but, Activision is so far away from having nothing left to turn to it's ludicrous that some of you seriously entertain the idea.

What?

a) They didn't 'make' guitar hero - Harmonic and RedOctane originated the game/brand with GH1 with Activision as the *distributor.* It's like crediting EA with L4D, as they handled the retail distribution with Turtle Rock / Valve actually made/published the game. Activision bought the publisher of the game immediately afterward, ditched the developer, and by the general opinion of the industry spent the next few years screwing it up. It didn't 'peter out' so much as they 'ran it into the ground.'

b) Call of Duty has been around since 2003/4 - again, not so much something Activision 'created' as something they inherited, by picking up the ex-2015 MoH developers and letting them do what they did best. It evolved into its current paradigm roughly around 2005 with COD2. That more or less parallels GH's shelf life.

c) IIRC they just posted a nice loss this past quarter, and that was *including* BLOPS.
c1) Also IIRC, Blizzard alone was responsible for something like 35-40% of Activision's revenue. Have to double-check to make sure there..

You know, in a way, you're augmenting my point. 2beers says "oh, but what do they have? How will they continue forth from here?" and you kindly point out that they actually bought existing publishers/developers/franchises and proceeded to make a ton of money off of them. Now that they're financially flying, that's all the more a possibility.

As for them financially flying, on point C, you recall incorrectly:

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/114/1148704p1.html?RSSwhen2011-02-09_133300&RSSid=1148704 (reported record earnings just yesterday)

**** (quarter 3 earnings up from previous year, posted strong profit)

http://investor.activision.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=548900 (the yearly report).

Frankly, they're doing awesome.

As for C1... So? Blizzard is one of - if not the - most successful single developer in the world. Is it a shock they compose over a third of the company's earnings? That's still 2/3's coming from Activision's other holdings.

As for your point B with CoD, the franchise was comparatively tiny prior to Activision picking it up. You're entirely right - it evolved into what it is with CoD2 - and that's when it made it big (though it got REALLY big with CoD4) Under Activision. You're right, you can't credit the entire thing to the publisher - but it's also not entirely right to not credit it to them somewhat. Uncharted is credited to Sony in some ways, as was Halo to Microsoft, etc. They're the ones who fund the project, they're the ones who set the deadlines, they're the ones who make the money. Heck, sometimes, they're the ones who own the company making it, or just outright own the intellectual property - which, if I'm not mistaken, is the case with CoD and Activision, and its developers. The fact that CoD was bought by Activision and then made it big... Well, it's their IP that made it big then. So, what's your point? Activision owns CoD. CoD is huge under Activision.

The idea that Activision has only CoD left and are now potentially in trouble is far-fetched at best. They've proven that, for all they do to drain franchises, they've managed to find/make big ones for well over a decade consistently - and they've been a major force in the gaming industry since the relatively early 90's. And even if they don't get themselves another superstar, they've still got a number of IPs that are successful, just not mega successes like CoD. If CoD starts to dry up and they don't have another Superstar, Activision still has products to push.

Avatar image for glez13
glez13

10314

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 glez13
Member since 2006 • 10314 Posts

Hell, no. I'm still waiting for World of Duty to wipe the floor with Planetside.

Avatar image for DarkLink77
DarkLink77

32731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#23 DarkLink77
Member since 2004 • 32731 Posts

Activision has never had more than one key franchise at any one time. After Tony Hawk started going downhill, Guitar Hero became a hit. Once Guitar Hero had obviously peaked, Call of Duty became one of the biggest video game franchises of all time. Now, they've shelved Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk is all but dead. Call of Duty has never been more popular. They have an exclusivity deal with Bungie, a developer with one of the best track records in the industry, bar none. They have Blizzard. Activision isn't going anywhere anytime soon, even if Call of Duty hits the saturation point soon, and it likely will. They know how to make money.

Avatar image for Silverbond
Silverbond

16130

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 Silverbond
Member since 2008 • 16130 Posts

World of Tony Hawk's Call of Diablo Heroes?

Avatar image for iAtrocious
iAtrocious

1567

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25 iAtrocious
Member since 2010 • 1567 Posts

What a glorious day it'd be,

when WoW and CoD cease to annoy me.

Avatar image for Silverbond
Silverbond

16130

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 Silverbond
Member since 2008 • 16130 Posts
[QUOTE="iAtrocious"]

What a glorious day it'd be,

when WoW and CoD cease to annoy me.

How do they annoy you?
Avatar image for iAtrocious
iAtrocious

1567

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#27 iAtrocious
Member since 2010 • 1567 Posts

[QUOTE="iAtrocious"]

What a glorious day it'd be,

when WoW and CoD cease to annoy me.

Silverbond

How do they annoy you?

Existing.

It's more of an irrational hate for what each game represents, though: WoW being an MMORPG, and the gamer-sucker it is, and CoD being the overrated, over-purchased piece of crap (ok, it's not that bad) that's causing a lot of games in the genre to steer towards its characteristics.

Avatar image for Diviniuz
Diviniuz

6460

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 0

#28 Diviniuz
Member since 2009 • 6460 Posts
Woah, I had no idea that this many people on these forums misunderstood how the blizzard and activision relationship
Avatar image for campzor
campzor

34932

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 campzor
Member since 2004 • 34932 Posts
call of duty will die out eventually. Activision doesnt really have anything else to be honest.. movie licensed games suck tony hawk is dead guitar hero is dead They have pretty much gotten rid of a lot of their devs (Raven i think? guys who did blur? etc...) most of the low budget titles suck.. Blizzard rocks though.
Avatar image for XboximusPrime
XboximusPrime

5405

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 XboximusPrime
Member since 2009 • 5405 Posts

Dont think they can.

Avatar image for warmaster670
warmaster670

4699

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 warmaster670
Member since 2004 • 4699 Posts

that's causing a lot of games in the genre to steer towards its characteristics.

iAtrocious

Rofl, and hows that a games fault instead of, oh gee i dont know, the DEVELOPERS who CHOOSE to do this?

Really, this is like blaming a cow for making you fat.

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab

17476

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#32 deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
Member since 2008 • 17476 Posts
While i agree that blizzard should split, i wouldn't worry too much about them in this partnership. I'm sure blizzard still runs things pretty much how they please because even Activision would probably understand that when the Developer responsible for probably 60%+ of your company's total revenue, you dont try to mess that up. Both Guitar Hero and COD still pale in comparison to what Blizzard and the almighty juggernaut of WoW bring to activision and if they arent completely stupid they will respect that you shouldn't mess with these guys. Plus, i don't think Activision actually owns blizzard but it is more of a partnership.
Avatar image for badtaker
badtaker

3806

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 badtaker
Member since 2009 • 3806 Posts
i would say bioware should split from EA. quality of Bioware is dropping
Avatar image for -Renegade
-Renegade

8340

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#34 -Renegade
Member since 2007 • 8340 Posts

I don't even know why Blizzard joined them. They don't make console games so what was the point of the merger?

Call of Duty is obviously next though. They already lost half the team who made the series what it is today. Just like all their other developers they lost to EA it will be 2-3 more years before we see the fall of Call of Duty to. They can only build games off that engine for so long.

Black Ops was a fun game but honestly it felt just like CoD 4(the best game in the series) with a new coat of paint.

Avatar image for rzepak
rzepak

5758

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 rzepak
Member since 2005 • 5758 Posts

Its more likely that at a time when Activisions value starts plummeting, Blizzard will buy them, fire Kotick and create an empire the likes of which this world has never known!

Avatar image for neo_violence
neo_violence

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 neo_violence
Member since 2011 • 25 Posts
Down with Activision!
Avatar image for Makari
Makari

15250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 Makari
Member since 2003 • 15250 Posts
clickBoomshaffted
C) Uh... I don't know if you actually read the investor report, but it has them posting a $233 million net loss for the final 3 months of 2010? Unless I misunderstand somehow. B) The point is that Activision had little active hand in the growth of the franchises. CoD wasn't coaxed into a titan of the genre by Activision any more than MoH wasn't coaxed into what it was by EA - the common thread were the people making the games. Simple example is Guitar Hero - they bought the *name,* then proceeded to rest on its laurels and not understand what made it great while the originators pretty much hammered them at their own game for the next few years. Just like Call of Duty did to MoH! Rather the opposite of what you imply, they've established a record of buying up existing talent/names and strangling them in the search for the next annualized sequel-machine. The best thing they can do is stay out of a developer's way, i.e. Blizzard.