Rumor: MS bidding for Activision

Activision's parent company needs cash and is looking to sell it (Activision's sale could provide up to $10,000,000,000) and MS is reportedly one of the companies interested in buying it.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/173968/Microsoft_Tencent_among_potential_Activision_Blizzard_buyers__report.php

No formal processes have begun just yet, but sources have indicated that Vivendi has entered discussions with companies like Microsoft, China's Tencent, and Time Warner, along with a number of major investment firms.
Regardless of whether the sale actually takes place, Vivendi actually has some real incentive to offload the division, as the corporation as a whole has wrestled with significant debt and slumping stock prices for quite some time.

Wow that would give M$ a huge advantage in the console race if they got Activision.

Man, that would be huge. Activision's got a lot of IPs and developers under their roof. That would Microsoft one hell of a diversity of developers.

If M$ did acquire Activision, I would be impressed.

So it's just Activision now? Guess they're holding onto Blizzard.

Good, they deserve each other.

I highly doubt MS is going to spend $10 BILLION to acquire ActivisionBlizzard when all they've been doing this generation is getting rid of developer who made exclusive games for them. They've been following Nintendo's business model of selling at a profit/ overpricing shovelware.

COD and WoW/Diablo IP sell by the millions but Diablo's been released, CoD seems to have reached its peak (MW3 hasn't outsold BLOPS) and WoW's subscriber base has been shrinking significantly. Guitar Hero is dead thanks to Bobby Kotic.

What other franchises does ActivisionBlizzard have that are million sellers? Didn't they get rid of most of them because they didn't put CoD type numbers like MS did with its first party studio?

I highly doubt MS is going to spend $10 BILLION to acquire ActivisionBlizzard when all they've been doing this generation is getting rid of developer who made exclusive games for them. They've been following Nintendo's business model of selling at a profit/ overpricing shovelware.

COD and WoW/Diablo IP sell by the millions but Diablo's been released, CoD seems to have reached its peak (MW3 hasn't outsold BLOPS) and WoW's subscriber base has been shrinking significantly. Guitar Hero is dead thanks to Bobby Kotic.

What other franchises does ActivisionBlizzard have that are million sellers? Didn't they get rid of most of them because they didn't put CoD type numbers like MS did with its first party studio?

D3s7rUc71oN

COD and WoW/Diablo IP sell by the millions but Diablo's been released

D3s7rUc71oN

As long as they keep making good games I don't care who owns them.

[QUOTE="D3s7rUc71oN"]

COD and WoW/Diablo IP sell by the millions but Diablo's been released

DABhand

Yes but don't they have other IP's really, I just checked Wiki and see Crash Bandicoot, GH, Prototype (shut down recently) , Tony Hawk, Spyro & Spiderman. Spiderman needs the likes of Rocksteady to make it a multimillion seller. I don't see James Bond there strange since Activision's been publishe them, most likely they didn't opt to renew the Bond License.

If MS buys Activision and a next-gen CoD at launch will give them the upperhand next-gen. We will see, they have the money and they've been spending a lot lately with the acquisition of Skype and others.

It makes sense. Microsoft loves Call of Duty, they always have Call of Duty consoles and timed exclusive DLC. Plus Call of Duty always sales like triple the amount on Xbox versus the others. It would give Microsoft a huge advantage going into next gen because the Call of Duty name alone would sell millions of consoles ontop of the actual games themselves, they would make back the $10 billion in 2-3 years tops and thats not even including the other games/licenses that activision owns.

Highly unlikely to work.

The potential value of Activision is based on the expected return from making and selling games across multiple platforms, which includes the millions of games sold on the PS3. If the purchase price was expected to be $10B and the PS3 accounts for say 30% of sales then the effect would be to immediately flush $3B down the toilet.

MS would have to acquire a massive gain in marketshare very quickly to make it worth it. This is highly, highly unlikely. One thing we do know about gaming is that the market is fickle and series and genres can ebb and flow relatively quickly. For example Guitar Hero etc were on top of the world not long ago...now that whole category is virtually dead. And the industry copies success easily, just like TV shows and movies. It is a significant risk in this business to buy large and popular because you pay full price and a premium.

If I was MS I might kick the tires just to see what is there. But if I am Vivendi there is no way I am going to sell at a discount which is what a first party manufacturer would offer unless they were to take what I would view as a huge and irrational risk.

lol $10 billion? If it was cheaper then maybe yeah, but like Destruction said MS has been offloading devs left and right this gen, it just wouldnt make sense for them to go for Activision even for CoD.

I daresay that Microsoft buying Activision would be a devastating blow to Sony... like it or not, Call of Duty has a huge impact upon the console industry and if the series was exclusive to the future Xbox, the PS4 would definitely feel some negative effects from that.

Although, I'm not really expecting Microsoft to actually buy Activision.

Hopefully M$ does buy them then kills them off like they did Rare.

Man, that would be huge. Activision's got a lot of IPs and developers under their roof. That would Microsoft one hell of a diversity of developers.

c_rake

Really? I cant name a single good game, or series that has been published under the Activision name.

Last time i checked all Acitivision had was the ability to milk & kill the few series it has, with the only surviving IP being COD. Didnt they also recently shutdown the Prototype developer? So i dont think they have that much to offer, besides COD.

Microsoft would probably use any developers under Activision for Kinect anyways.

Really? I cant name a single good game, or series that has been published under the Activision name.

Last time i checked all Acitivision had was the ability to milk & kill the few series it has, with the only surviving IP being COD. Didnt they also recently shutdown the Prototype developer? So i dont think they have that much to offer, besides COD.

Microsoft would probably use any developers under Activision for Kinect anyways.

brucecambell

They're a big publisher. They're likely sitting on a lot of unused IPs. I could easily see them being used if Microsoft got a hold of Activision to diversify their platform's lineup. That's what they'd mostly be getting out of the buy.

As for a good game from them: Pitfall?

I don't really see that happening. Yes, they'd gain all the Activision franchises, but a huge part of Activision's value is also in developing games for the other consoles. If MS then only made games for XBOX, the value of Activision would collapse.

I don't know if they might want to have a big publishing arm putting out games on other consoles. Maybe. That'd be really crazy.

I highly doubt MS is going to spend $10 BILLION to acquire ActivisionBlizzard when all they've been doing this generation is getting rid of developer who made exclusive games for them. They've been following Nintendo's business model of selling at a profit/ overpricing shovelware.

COD and WoW/Diablo IP sell by the millions but Diablo's been released, CoD seems to have reached its peak (MW3 hasn't outsold BLOPS) and WoW's subscriber base has been shrinking significantly. Guitar Hero is dead thanks to Bobby Kotic.

What other franchises does ActivisionBlizzard have that are million sellers? Didn't they get rid of most of them because they didn't put CoD type numbers like MS did with its first party studio?

D3s7rUc71oN

Neither MS nor Nintendo has written off the core market, but they both believe it is mature (meaning they think it is as big as it will get and won't change) so they no longer offer original core games, but merely sequels to handful of popular franchises. CoD and WoW are about as safe as safe gets, so even a company like MS that is very risk adverse should find them appealing.

The fact Kotick and MS both agree that original games or sequels to games which don't sell many millions of copies aren't worth making makes the merger more likely because there would be no cultural clash.

What I think would be wild is if Nintendo came along and snapped up Activision. Of course, that would be a much bigger risk for Nintendo than MS because Nintendo's audience has shown little appetite for core games not named Mario, but still, if Nintendo is serious about wanting to compete for the money of core gamers outside of the people who care about Mario/Zelda/Metroid (I have my doubts) there is no better move they could make.

Isn't being an interested party and bidding two seperate things? If they've not put in a bid, they're not bidding. Have they put in a bid?

Highly unlikely to work.

If I was MS I might kick the tires just to see what is there. But if I am Vivendi there is no way I am going to sell at a discount which is what a first party manufacturer would offer unless they were to take what I would view as a huge and irrational risk.

SUD123456

I understand your point but I think they are talking about a discounted rate aren't they? I think they have to if there are no genuine suitors and if the parent company need the cash and have no other alternatives .

I don't know the economics of it. $10 large is obviously huge but then their assets are A1 cash cows. If it comes to a deal we can only presume that it happens at a fair and rational price,

But I think I would be mightily impressed if Microsoft were to do this. It really would be confirming to the world that MS are incredibly serious about owning the gaming industry.

This aquistion alone would make a massive impact on Nintendo and Sony.

MS have the no.1 FPS franchise with Halo, Sony are stuggling to make Resistance and Killzone relevant, but no matter because they have CoD. Take CoD away and what have you got? Not a great deal, and even those franchises will remain multiplatform.

I could see myself switching from Sony to MS if they pull this off.

What I think would be wild is if Nintendo came along and snapped up Activision. Of course, that would be a much bigger risk for Nintendo than MS because Nintendo's audience has shown little appetite for core games not named Mario, but still, if Nintendo is serious about wanting to compete for the money of core gamers outside of the people who care about Mario/Zelda/Metroid (I have my doubts) there is no better move they could make.

CarnageHeart

Nintendo? What have you been smoking? That would be a shock. I bet if they did they'd re-release Pitfall as is.

Nope, too ambitious for Nintendo and like you say too much of a culture clash. But MS and Activision seems natural doesn't it. Especially given that MS has the cash to splash, and also especially given that MS has a natural connection to PCs as well as Xbox, and that the Blizzard games are mostly PC based. Also subscription based and fairly progressive because of it.

If MS does buy Activision, they'll be purchasing industry leading IPs, a wealth of historical IPs, not forgetting that Acitivision is itself a classic gaming icon, they'll be showing the world their intentions, and they may even have Nintendo and Sony cap in hand asking to have the games compatible with their machines. Surely that would put MS on the top of the pile, Nintendo and Sony on the backfoot for sure.

I'm thinking MS has to do this. I'd like to think Sony could do this too but financially speaking they couldn't risk it.

Wow that would give M$ a huge advantage in the console race if they got Activision.

Bigboi500

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

What I think would be wild is if Nintendo came along and snapped up Activision. Of course, that would be a much bigger risk for Nintendo than MS because Nintendo's audience has shown little appetite for core games not named Mario, but still, if Nintendo is serious about wanting to compete for the money of core gamers outside of the people who care about Mario/Zelda/Metroid (I have my doubts) there is no better move they could make.

davedrastic

Nintendo? What have you been smoking? That would be a shock. I bet if they did they'd re-release Pitfall as is.

Nope, too ambitious for Nintendo and like you say too much of a culture clash. But MS and Activision seems natural doesn't it. Especially given that MS has the cash to splash, and also especially given that MS has a natural connection to PCs as well as Xbox, and that the Blizzard games are mostly PC based. Also subscription based and fairly progressive because of it.

If MS does buy Activision, they'll be purchasing industry leading IPs, a wealth of historical IPs, not forgetting that Acitivision is itself a classic gaming icon, they'll be showing the world their intentions, and they may even have Nintendo and Sony cap in hand asking to have the games compatible with their machines. Surely that would put MS on the top of the pile, Nintendo and Sony on the backfoot for sure.

I'm thinking MS has to do this. I'd like to think Sony could do this too but financially speaking they couldn't risk it.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

Wow that would give M$ a huge advantage in the console race if they got Activision.

rawsavon

Every first party wants to be the last man standing.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

Wow that would give M$ a huge advantage in the console race if they got Activision.

CarnageHeart

Every first party wants to be the last man standing.

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

Man, that would be huge. Activision's got a lot of IPs and developers under their roof. That would Microsoft one hell of a diversity of developers.

brucecambell

Really? I cant name a single good game, or series that has been published under the Activision name.

Last time i checked all Acitivision had was the ability to milk & kill the few series it has, with the only surviving IP being COD. Didnt they also recently shutdown the Prototype developer? So i dont think they have that much to offer, besides COD.

Microsoft would probably use any developers under Activision for Kinect anyways.

I have to agree with you. Call of Duty is running out of steam. MW3 never topped Black Ops in sales and Blops2 might follow the same suit, which isn't surprising given the way Activision handled Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk prior. Spyro is the only franchise I can think of off the top of my head that was recently successful, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if a sequel to last year's whatever-the-hell-it-was is in the works.

Most of the stuff I can think of with Activision's name tagged to it involve movie tie ins and other games based off already popular franchise. I'll admit I liked a few of the Spider Man games and Transformers: War for Cybertron was alright, but the James Bond ones have been terrible and watching my friend play the Men in Black game was just... disasterous.

I will say it would be funny if Microsoft bought Activision, because then they'd have their time with Bungie again :P

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] maybe... But they would be 'shooting themselves in the foot', so to speak, to keep a series like Call of Duty only on MS (losing tons of sales, which is the reason they would buy it in the first place). Would it help sell systems? Yes, of course. But many systems lose money for the first several years. They would probably be better served by the added sales from all platforms while reaping the benefits of timed exclusives (like DLC). Everyone succeeding is in MS' best interest as it grows the industryrawsavon

Every first party wants to be the last man standing.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Every first party wants to be the last man standing.

CarnageHeart

Really? I cant name a single good game, or series that has been published under the Activision name.

brucecambell

There are quite a few great games published through Activision. Here are just a few:

Both Marvel : Ultimate Alliance games

Wolverine

Both Prototypes (Shallow but fun)

007 Bloodstone (One of the best Bond games ever made)

Wolfenstein 2009

Singularity

Spiderman: Shattered Dimensions (Probably the best non-linear SM game ever)

Spiderman: Web of Shadows (Probably the best overall SM game)

Transformers: War for Cybertron (The best Transformers game, period)

Blur

You have to separate Activision from the talented developers working for them because as a company they have published some pretty damn great software over the years.

[QUOTE="brucecambell"]

Really? I cant name a single good game, or series that has been published under the Activision name.

Grammaton-Cleric

There are quite a few great games published through Activision. Here are just a few:

Both Marvel : Ultimate Alliance games

Wolverine

Both Prototypes (Shallow but fun)

007 Bloodstone (One of the best Bond games ever made)

Wolfenstein 2009

Singularity

Spiderman: Shattered Dimensions (Probably the best non-linear SM game ever)

Spiderman: Web of Shadows (Probably the best overall SM game)

Transformers: War for Cybertron (The best Transformers game, period)

Blur

You have to separate Activision from the talented developers working for them because as a company they have published some pretty damn great software over the years.

Absolutely! Bloodstone was fantastic! It was very challenging on 007 difficulty though, but it was well worth it!

To give a simple example: Nintendo brought people into gaming that might never have tried it...this is good for the other 2.

rawsavon

What Nintendo created was an unsustainable market for ultra-casual consumers, most of whom will probably never purchase another console in their lifetimes and many of whom bought the Wii merely for WiiSports or a few other ancillary motion-based titles.

These people are not repeat customers and collectively contributed nothing else to the market save their initial hardware purchases and a very select smattering of software.

The Wii and motion-controlled gaming as a whole is a fad and no fad, regardless of success, is infinitely sustainable. That is precisely why Nintendo is attempting to wrangle the hardcore market back to the Wii U; they realize that the hardcore and even moderate consumer is a far more reliable and consistent stream of revenue than a bunch of soccer moms trying to tone their collective asses using WiiFit.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

To give a simple example: Nintendo brought people into gaming that might never have tried it...this is good for the other 2.

Grammaton-Cleric

What Nintendo created was an unsustainable market for ultra-casual consumers, most of whom will probably never purchase another console in their lifetimes and many of whom bought the Wii merely for WiiSports or a few other ancillary motion-based titles.

These people are not repeat customers and collectively contributed nothing else to the market save their initial hardware purchases and a very select smattering of software.

The Wii and motion-controlled gaming as a whole is a fad and no fad, regardless of success, is infinitely sustainable. That is precisely why Nintendo is attempting to wrangle the hardcore market back to the Wii U; they realize that the hardcore and even moderate consumer is a far more reliable and consistent stream of revenue than a bunch of soccer moms trying to tone their collective asses using WiiFit.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] No, they really don't (in almost every case). Not going to get into an economics lesson here, but... 1. that would signify some (bad) things about the state of the industry 2. a few companies doing really well helps to grow the entire industry (usually) far more than 1 could do alone Businesses are not the enemies (in most cases) the public thinks they are. ...why do you think companies let competitors use their ideas, technology, etc *usually is there b/c no economic model is absolute rawsavon

All corporations strive for complete dominance of market share. It is the nature of the corporation - predicated on the notion of responsibility only to generate increased revenue for the shareholders - to desire this dominance and it is the very reason why anti-monopoly legislation exists.

The very structure of the corporation is literally a mandate for greed: the goal is to perpetually and tirelessly increase revenue and to do so at all costs, even when said costs might be ethically or socially irresponsible. Your assertion that companies do not utilize cutthroat measures to increase market share is as laughably naïve as it is intellectually dishonest. There is a complex and storied history that essentially disproves your altruistic rendition of the corporation and rather illuminates its continuing assault on everything from healthcare and human rights to the very core of democracy.

So no, I don't believe that companies want competitors to succeed and even assuming there were viable economic models where such mutual existence was symbiotic, the current corporate model is so entrenched in malevolent greed that it is unlikely that such a mutually beneficial strategy would be respected in an atmosphere where acquisition is the only clear goal.

It also bears mentioning that licensing competitors to use your technology is merely another way to assert dominant market share and increase revenue. If Bluray becomes the de facto standard for optical media then Sony spreads their influence and increases their profit, period.

Lastly, your typewriter analogy is quite utterly pointless. Typewriters are an entirely obsolete technology and their extinction was both necessary and inevitable once the computer came to fruition and widespread implementation. It is technological Darwinism at its most definitive.

@Grammaton-Cleric In addition, something being a 'fad' or not is irrelevant and debatable...but, as I said, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that it brought people to the door so to speak. It is similar to door buster deals the day after Thanksgiving. They are concerned with getting people in and having them spend money. If it is a fad, it still brought people into games...some will stay. If it is not a fad, more will stay. Also, so long as it is a healthy industry, there will always be a next fad...the next thing to bring people to the door. This is yet another reason competition is a vital part of a healthy industry, and, much to the dismay of the public, competitors really do not want all of their competition to die outrawsavon

The Wii being a fad, however protracted, is not debatable. The sales over the course of its lifecycle demonstrate this, as do the software sales and the types of games consumers purchased on the system.

It is also reinforced by Nintendo?s decision to minimize motion-control on the WiiU and rather focus on something they believe is the current fad/trend: tablet gaming.

The Wii was a fad, motion control was a fad, and the fad is just about over.

It really doesn't matter how many people bought a Wii if most of those people, outside the hardcore crowd, have no intention of continuing their dalliance in this medium. The Wii catered to a broad, casual audience but such a market is both temporary and fickle and it is doubtful many of these consumers will return to any of the Big Three console makers.

If anything, the soccer moms and elderly masses, whom at one point were trumpeted as the most important consumers in this market, will have no particular desire to shell out money for a new system and will likely purchase their games from the unrelenting torrent of shovel-ware that the Wii will enjoy for years to come.

Assuming of course that these people even purchase additional software at all.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]@Grammaton-Cleric In addition, something being a 'fad' or not is irrelevant and debatable...but, as I said, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that it brought people to the door so to speak. It is similar to door buster deals the day after Thanksgiving. They are concerned with getting people in and having them spend money. If it is a fad, it still brought people into games...some will stay. If it is not a fad, more will stay. Also, so long as it is a healthy industry, there will always be a next fad...the next thing to bring people to the door. This is yet another reason competition is a vital part of a healthy industry, and, much to the dismay of the public, competitors really do not want all of their competition to die outGrammaton-Cleric

The Wii being a fad, however protracted, is not debatable. The sales over the course of its lifecycle demonstrate this, as do the software sales and the types of games consumers purchased on the system.

It is also reinforced by Nintendo?s decision to minimize motion-control on the WiiU and rather focus on something they believe is the current fad/trend: tablet gaming.

The Wii was a fad, motion control was a fad, and the fad is just about over.

It really doesn't matter how many people bought a Wii if most of those people, outside the hardcore crowd, have no intention of continuing their dalliance in this medium. The Wii catered to a broad, casual audience but such a market is both temporary and fickle and it is doubtful many of these consumers will return to any of the Big Three console makers.

If anything, the soccer moms and elderly masses, whom at one point were trumpeted as the most important consumers in this market, will have no particular desire to shell out money for a new system and will likely purchase their games from the unrelenting torrent of shovel-ware that the Wii will enjoy for years to come.

Assuming of course that these people even purchase additional software at all.

@Grammaton-Cleric 1. The typewriter serves as a perfect example as it encompasses the entire life cycle (all industries end) ...it shows us (in a modern situation) the rise and fall 2. Who ever said anything about altruism??? I never made any claim other than it was all for profit. Businesses realize it is more profitable to have competitors (not too many or too few). One reason being the thing you and I mentioned...'lending' out technology, ideas, and other competencies for profit. This has absolutely nothing to do with the 'goodness of their heart' and everything to do what ends up creating a SUSTAINABLE economic situation for them. a $100 a year for 50 years is far better than $300 now The very fact that companies engage in practices that allow their competitors to also flourish disproves w/e childish notions of winning and losing you think corporations have. ...many engage in mutually beneficial relationships where they could engage in practices that would sink the other now at a small cost to them but ensure they emerged the victor to reap all later rewards. Why? B/c they know what we have covered ITT (better to have some competition in a healthy market than none in an unhealthy market)rawsavon

All industries don't end. Technology evolves and delivery methodologies change but inherently many industries can and will continue to exist until the collapse of society or the end of humankind.

Some products and technology are simply sustainable while others are not.

The typewriter comparison is not analogous because gaming is a medium and the typewriter was a piece of technology with limited applications and a finite lifespan. Currently, the most apt comparisons to the gaming market would be publishing, music and film.

Such mediums and their subsequent industries are, theoretically, infinitely sustainable and will merely change in terms of delivery and monetizing methods.

As to the notion that companies want other companies offering the same services or goods to thrive, I find that assertion suspect. Certainly licensing the use of technology is a viable way to increase revenue but having dominant or even a monopolistic market share is a far more effective way to make money while simultaneously controlling the price of goods through price fixing, etc.

Historically, most industries, however initially fragmented and varied, become absorbed and congeal into a handful of large corporations. That fact alone negates your theory and even assuming such an approach was viable, historically it has not been supported.

I would also remind you that if these industries truly had the foresight to implement such a model they probably wouldn't be so quick to rape the environment, knowingly release faulty products, utilize sweat shops or abuse their own employees. What I've observed in the contemporary business paradigm is the constant need for immediate gratification that facilitates a model of take and run; basically, let the poor bastard behind me foot the bill. (See the 2008 financial collapse)