Does ActiBlizsion Make Sense? Can A Merged Activision And Blizzard Really Work?

from the the-studio-model-at-work dept

Mon, Dec 3rd 2007 4:28am — Mike Masnick

The big news in the tech world this weekend, of course, is the slightly complicated merger between video game firms Blizzard and Activision to form the not-particularly-creatively-named Activision Blizzard. You can read the link above to figure out the complicated parts, including Vivendi's role, as well as the various amounts of cash going into the deal from both sides. As for the rationale behind the deal, it's one of those deals that seems to make sense on paper. It makes the combined company somewhere around the size of EA, the major player in the space. It also aligns the complementary strong points of each firm. Activision is big in console games like Guitar Hero while Blizzard is big in multi-player online games like World of Warcraft. Blizzard also has a strong presence in Asia. So, on paper, it sounds like a great deal. The tricky part will be actually making it work. Even with such clear complementary successes, it's not always so easy to merge two large players like this with different approaches to the market. What almost always happens when two large companies merge is that one side ends up taking over and the other group fights for a while and then leaves -- taking much of the reason for the merger away. Even more complicated in this case is that both companies are pretty dependent on coming up with new "big hits" on a regular basis to keep bringing in the revenue. EA's success (whether on purpose or not) has largely been driven by the ability to release "franchise" games that people will buy the next version of every year -- particularly in the sports arena. If the merger makes the company take its eye off the ball, leading to a weak set of products, it could be quite damaging. Maybe the companies will pull it off. Maybe they can figure out a way to actually build on their separate strengths without fighting themselves -- but it's a big bet to take.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: mergers, video games
Companies: activision, blizzard, vivendi

29 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

moe, 3 Dec 2007 @ 4:43am

Fark's got it's finger on the pulse
I think this headline from Fark.com says it all: "Activision and Blizzard to merge their creative juices, come up with the name Activision Blizzard. Creativity has its limits."

It'll be interesting to see how it works out, but just because you make a company of the same size doesn't guarantee you'll unseat EA. This merger brings together two companies that excel at two different types of games: Console & PC/MMORPG.

Sure, EA competes in both markets but it does so using the same titles! They just make the latest version of Football/Baseball/Golf/etc and then port it out to every gameplaying medium.

Unfortunately, neither of these companies competes very well with EA's core business of sports games. So, the combined margins and profits might equal EA's but they're not going to hurt EA in any significant way. I don't see this merger doing anything that each of the companies couldn't have done on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shohat, 3 Dec 2007 @ 4:57am

Oh comeon
At least link to the
ActivisionBlizzard.com
Website.
There is a very detailed paper there that explains a lot of the reasons behind the merger, and states some key achievements of both companies.
Blizzard is a completely different type of company . They release one game every 2-3 years, but 4 out of 5 all-time bestselling games belong to Blizzard.
Over 9 million WoW users generate more than 100 million a month in revenue.
On a side note, Guitar Hero is owned by Activision and EMI is owned by Vivendi, which could be an another angle for this merger...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2007 @ 5:40am
  
  Re: Oh comeon
  Blizzard made the Sims, Mario Bros and Tetris?
  Wow i underestimated them.
  Although they made the worst decision in selling the Sims to EA :$?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2007 @ 3:09pm
    
    Re: Re: Oh comeon
    They made Starcraft, Warcraft 2, Diablo, Diablo II WOW, and Warcraft 3... Almost all of their games made best-selling lists.. Except maybe the earlier ones.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nick Overstreet (profile), 3 Dec 2007 @ 6:33am
  
  Re: Oh comeon
  4 out of 5 all-time bestselling games belong to Blizzard?
  What are you talking about?
  It is obvious you made NO effort to check this comment, and in reality just made it up.
  Let's look at the top 5 best-selling games of all time:
  1) Super Mario Bros. (NES - 40.23 million)
  2) Tetris (Game Boy - 33 millions)
  3) Pokémon Red, Blue, and Green (Game Boy - 20.08 million approximately, 10.23 million in Japan, 9.85 million in US)
  4) Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES - 18 million)
  5) The Sims (16 million shipped)
  [wikipedia.com]
  Well, you got one thing right, 4 of the top 5 all-time bestselling games do have something in common. They're Nintendo games. With the other top 5 game being from EA.
  
  Please don't make up your own facts, it has only proven to discredit your entire post.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2007 @ 7:03am
    
    Re: Re: Oh comeon
    A lot of those games you just listed came bundled with consoles which accounts for 50% or more of their sales numbers. Just figured you should know, since its kind of unfair to compare Blizzard games to them, seeing as how you cant bundle with computers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nick Overstreet (profile), 3 Dec 2007 @ 9:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Oh comeon
      Ok, so let's remove "bundled" games since you don't want to count those.
      #1 and #2 were the only bundled items, so move up everything else and you end up with this:
      1) Pokémon Red, Blue, and Green (Game Boy - 20.08 million approximately, 10.23 million in Japan, 9.85 million in US)
      2) Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES - 18 million)
      3) The Sims (16 million shipped)
      4) Nintendogs (DS - 15.77 million)
      5) Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (PS2 - 15 million, may include PC and Xbox versions)
      [wikipedia.com]
      
      Huh... still no Blizzard games. 3 Nintendo and 1 EA and 1 RockStar.
      
      The point being that Blizzard's best selling game was StarCraft with 9.5 million and doesn't even make a top-20 list. Sorry.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Shohat, 3 Dec 2007 @ 7:08am
    
    Re: Re: Oh comeon
    To Nick Overstreet
    
    http://www.activisionblizzard.com/
    
    Is the source of my data - the data was copied from the merger summary, written for SEC(and others) by Vivendi and Activision
    
    I assume they were referring to PC games.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dick Underroad, 3 Dec 2007 @ 8:32am
    
    Re: Re: Oh comeon
    and it only proves that people belive everything they read on wikipedia...
    
    I think the man you trying to "disprove" is correct if he only added one small part...
    
    4 out of 5 all time best selling PC games belong to blizzard
    
    Please dont suck facts out of wikipedia, it has only proven to make you look like me... dick underroad....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nick Overstreet (profile), 3 Dec 2007 @ 9:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Oh comeon
      Top 5 selling PC games, Blizzard only has 2 of the 5 spots. Not 4 of the 5 spots as Blizzard would like you to believe.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jason Still, 3 Dec 2007 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh comeon
        For those quoting numbers from the wikipedia article on top selling games, you might want to note that many of the numbers listed are several years old and should not be accepted as the current sales figures. Always look at the dates in the references section!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Toddly, 3 Dec 2007 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh comeon
        To Nick Overstreet
        
        What's your deal man? You're throwing insults at people for lack of research, yet your almighty source is Wikipedia. If you HAD done any research, you'd know that the merger is between Activision and Vivendi games. This includes Blizzard AND Sierra Entertainment. Starcraft, World of Warcraft, Half-Life, Diablo 2... all among the top-selling PC games of all time. Depending how they count sequels and other considerations, I can see how they can claim 4 of the top 5.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jason Still, 3 Dec 2007 @ 11:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh comeon
        Toddly, for what its worth, that part of the fact sheet that they released specifically lists Blizzard Entertainment as having 4 of the top 5 games (it doesn't specify PC only) right after pointing out that Vivendi is made up of 4 units (Blizzard Entertainment, Sierra Entertainment, Sierra
        Online, and Vivendi Games Mobile). Its probably just a snafu on the part of whoever put that document together. I disagree with nick's reliance on the wikipedia numbers, but I'm not sure that I can agree that Blizzard itself has 4 of the top 5 selling (by units) pc games of all time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danno, 3 Dec 2007 @ 5:54am

Since this isn't supposed to be a consumer facing brand (ie You won't be seeing any games with an Activision Blizzard splash screen), it seems like this is more about Activision acquiring Vivendi (which, as a publisher, has slipped in recent years [see, loss of publication of Valve games, loss of publication of Relic games, general suckitude aside from Blizzard]) and acknowledging that Blizzard is such a damn huge entity on their own that they can't rightly call them an Activision development studio.

I mean, to a stockholder, which would you rather purchase Activendi or Activision Blizzard, maker of the most popular video games in the world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My best guess, 3 Dec 2007 @ 6:15am

is MMPG
My best guess is the industry is realizing mutli-player gaming is becoming a big deal and it generates on-going revenue. [? I know Blizzard sucked nearly three years of monthly subscriptions from me until I kicked the habit.] Perhaps Activision is looking to Blizzard's expertise to help develop more multi-player titles?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mod -1 (Troll), 3 Dec 2007 @ 6:22am

Names rejected by committee
Blizzivision
Blizion
Activendi
Actard -- my personal favorite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2007 @ 3:13pm
  
  Re: Names rejected by committee
  I like Blizon
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 3 Dec 2007 @ 7:06am

Sorry Mike
I am going to have to disagree with you saying that Blizzard is in any way dependant on coming out with new big hits at regular intervals. I suspect they only do that for even More money. Blizzard has the wonderful World of Warcraft. That right there brings in gawd awful amounts of money. They are not dependant on big hits. They just choose to keep making more and aiming for the big hit mark.
Next up in line that everyone seems to be insanely hyped about: Starcraft 2 (I'm on that boat), and Diablo 3 (which I was told was announced at the last E3 but I have yet to see verification, partially because I haven't checked).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 3 Dec 2007 @ 7:09am

Re #8 AC
Can't bundle with computers?
Putting all the extra shit that comes with any store bought computer aside (such as Windoze and other various softwares) and leaving it limited to games, games have come with computers.
Especially a lot of the online stores for either complete PCs or just graphics cards. When I bought the last graphics card that I am still using, it had an added bonus of Half Life 2.
I have seen plenty of other games here or there (most notably if you end up being from cyperpowerinc.com) that comes with computers.
So yah, they do bundle with computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
killertim, 3 Dec 2007 @ 7:16am

The biggest problem with the whole thing from the players perspective is that this seems to be all about money and reaching new markets. They will have to work hard to perserve the quality of the games that they have had to date.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2007 @ 7:23am

At least get the name right. As the poster on Slashdot commented, it is BLACTIVISION. Stop trying to erase the funk, you muthafunka.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas, 3 Dec 2007 @ 7:46am

They never teach the MBA's...
That M&A math is different than regular math:
3 legged dog + 3 legged dog = bigger 3 legged dog
This company will go down horribly within 5 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cyen, 3 Dec 2007 @ 9:16am

So much for good mac games...
So one of the last great game makers for the Apple computer has been bought up. Blizzard has been great in dual releases and always being there for the Mac community. Activision, not so much. Blizzard will probably go the same way as Bungie now. A sad day for us mac gamers (all 7 of us).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greyson, 3 Dec 2007 @ 9:18am

Merger
Hope this doesn't delay Starcraft 2! I am dying for that and a Diablo 3. You listening Blizzard???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucretious, 3 Dec 2007 @ 1:41pm

Blizzards first dumb move IMO. They were a privately held company that was silly with cash. No need to answer to the all powerful shareholders or board of directors. Now they will be beholden to the bean counters. Sad.

A few greedy company principals fucked it all up for the rest of the employees. How typical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BBW, 3 Dec 2007 @ 3:15pm

Blizzard will eat them
Blizzard will consume them. It's a good trademark, because of the games currently assosiated with it. Meanwhile the real blizzard will be gutted, and regulated to releasing suckatude, like what happened with Bioware, Bullfrog, and Black Isle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick, 3 Dec 2007 @ 7:10pm

Not going to help
As has been said, neither company can compete now with EA's sports games, so I don't think EA is trembling in their boots over this one. Unless they come up with "World of Sportscraft" and you can go to different arenas to compete as a member of various sports teams instead of slaying monsters, it's not going to make any difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TW, 4 Dec 2007 @ 8:32am

"like what happened with Bioware"

The company that just released what might be the best game of the year? Don't confuse them with Obsidian, the company that made KOTOR2 and NWN2. Bioware is gold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh come on, 25 Feb 2008 @ 10:15am

do reaserch on vivendi they have invested with many huge companys in all other forms of media, including universal music which owns many big labels in the global music market. vivendi games is just one of the branches
[ link to this | view in chronology ]