Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ...
9
10
11
  1. #201
    No, they are two different companies (Activision and Blizzard Entertainment) that are subsidiaries of a single holding company (Activision Blizzard, formerly Vivendi Games) which until recently had been a subsidiary of Vivendi, one of the largest conglomerates in the world.

    Activision and Blizzard never merged, as has so frequently been erroniously reported. Activision merged with Vivendi Games to form a new parent company, with Activision and Blizzard becoming its sole subsidiaries.

    Activision likewise has its own subsidiaries, though Blizzard is not one of them.

    At least someone here gets it.

    I'm just tired of people making the claim 'since Activision took over Wow has been declining.'

    Blizzard has been declining on their own, regardless of any relation to Activision.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jevlin
    Why? Because fuck you, that's why.

    Every time you have a question that begins with "Why?" that is about what other people prefer to do with their own goddamn time, come back here, and reread the first row of this post. That will ALWAYS be the answer to your question. Have a nice day.

  2. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    There is your first mistake. "Buying a controlling interest in a company" and "buying a company" are two distinctly different concepts. In particular, if you buy a controlling interest in a company, but not the entire company, the other shareholders still have certain rights.




    Here is your second mistake. THERE IS NO STOCK IN BLIZZARD. Please, tell me the ticker symbol for this stock that you are imagining exists.




    By this definition, Activision-Blizzard is not, in fact, a holding company. There is no separate Blizzard corporation with its own stock. There is just Activision-Blizzard. The executives at "Blizzard" are officers of Activision-Blizzard, not the nonexistent "Blizzard Corporation".
    man, you are valiant to keep this up. I give up. doesn't matter what you say, folks just gonna say you wrong and talk abougt blizzard's board seat or blizzard;s stock or how holding companies don't have any say in how they run themselves.

    final effort - vivendi merged their game co's in a reverse merger with activision, in which activision bought the vivendi online entity for so much stock that vivendi's parent, Vivendi SA, got a controlling interest in the new entity, though activision's singular personality and largest holder, bobby kotick, remained ceo of the combined entity and 2nd largest shareholder.

    normally you see reverse mergers by viable private companies into shell's just to easily get a publicly traded listing...this was a bit odd in that the company providing the listing also had substantial assets. Or maybe I trade the wrong stocks and don't see more of this for that reason.
    Last edited by Deficineiron; 2013-07-27 at 04:47 AM.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, John Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Agatha Christie, Steven Erikson & Ian Esslemont, Stephen R Donaldon, and recently Jack L Chalker.

  3. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathranis View Post
    Activision likewise has its own subsidiaries, though Blizzard is not one of them.
    Morhaime still reports to Kotick (former head of Activision), though.

  4. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by Duster505 View Post

    YOu act like Vivendi that gave BLizzard a perfect opertunity to make great games since 1994 as tumor... Ye rigth...
    Vivendi didn't own Blizzard until 1998, suge.

    No, no don't wanna be a hipster but a big star
    And I wanna see my name tattooed where your tits are

  5. #205
    Well, inc more retarded horses and helms. If we're lucky that is.

    Last edited by Zergal; 2013-07-27 at 06:14 AM.

  6. #206
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathranis View Post
    No, they are two different companies (Activision and Blizzard Entertainment) that are subsidiaries of a single holding company (Activision Blizzard, formerly Vivendi Games) which until recently had been a subsidiary of Vivendi, one of the largest conglomerates in the world.

    Activision and Blizzard never merged, as has so frequently been erroniously reported. Activision merged with Vivendi Games to form a new parent company, with Activision and Blizzard becoming its sole subsidiaries.

    Activision likewise has its own subsidiaries, though Blizzard is not one of them.
    This is all true. The real worry now is that Activision, Bobby Kotick and his investor group is now the biggest single share owner of Activision Blizzard. They have control over the company, leaving Blizzard in a bad spot to work independent on their projects and making their own decisions about their games and the business models.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisisvacant View Post
    Vivendi didn't own Blizzard until 1998, suge.
    Ye sorry - it was 1998

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    I was referring to before this recent deal, but after the deal five years ago that merged Blizz into Activision.

    And you are again wrong about Vivendi: they will retain at least one member on the board. See the corporate bylaws; their share would have to drop below 10% (and stay below for 90 days) to lose that seat. This is why the recent deal left Vivendi with 12% of the outstanding shares in ATVI.
    Yes - they will have 1 member. Down from 6 that was majority. Like I said... this leaves Blizzard out of any major decisions that could affect the company. Activison and Bobby Kotick now control the entire Activision Blizzard.

    Here is a good example of how Analysts are now talking. They are not talking about Activison Blizzard any more. They are just talking about Activison.

    Baird Analyst Colin Sebastian says this is nothing but good news: "This looks like a win, win, win for Vivendi and Activision shareholders. It's a better outcome than a special dividend to Vivendi, and I expect Activision will function even better as an independent company without the overhang of a struggling parent."
    http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/07...-stocks-surge/
    Last edited by Duster505; 2013-07-27 at 09:20 AM.

  7. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by Duster505 View Post
    This is all true. The real worry now is that Activision, Bobby Kotick and his investor group is now the biggest single share owner of Activision Blizzard. They have control over the company, leaving Blizzard in a bad spot to work independent on their projects and making their own decisions about their games and the business models.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Ye sorry - it was 1998

    - - - Updated - - -



    Yes - they will have 1 member. Down from 6 that was majority. Like I said... this leaves Blizzard out of any major decisions that could affect the company. Activison and Bobby Kotick now control the entire Activision Blizzard.

    Here is a good example of how Analysts are now talking. They are not talking about Activison Blizzard any more. They are just talking about Activison.

    Baird Analyst Colin Sebastian says this is nothing but good news: "This looks like a win, win, win for Vivendi and Activision shareholders. It's a better outcome than a special dividend to Vivendi, and I expect Activision will function even better as an independent company without the overhang of a struggling parent."
    http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/07...-stocks-surge/
    Not sure analysts ever commonly referred to ATVI as activision-blizzard in the last 5 years.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, John Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Agatha Christie, Steven Erikson & Ian Esslemont, Stephen R Donaldon, and recently Jack L Chalker.

  8. #208
    Not sure analysts ever commonly referred to ATVI as activision-blizzard in the last 5 years.
    I'm pretty sure the analyst in that article is much more concerned with the fact that Vivendi is no longer a controlling majority of ATVI stock and what that means, than whether it's Activision or Activision Blizzard.

    This is all true. The real worry now is that Activision, Bobby Kotick and his investor group is now the biggest single share owner of Activision Blizzard. They have control over the company, leaving Blizzard in a bad spot to work independent on their projects and making their own decisions about their games and the business models.
    Except that when this deal goes through, Kotick and his buddies will only control 24.9% of the stock - not a controlling share.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jevlin
    Why? Because fuck you, that's why.

    Every time you have a question that begins with "Why?" that is about what other people prefer to do with their own goddamn time, come back here, and reread the first row of this post. That will ALWAYS be the answer to your question. Have a nice day.

  9. #209
    Now just break free of activision!

  10. #210
    Immortal True Anarch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Shadowlag Valley
    Posts
    7,543
    It's much more likely right now that Activision will eventually absorb Blizzard, from seeing the direction this all is evolving in.
    Blizzard will be forgotten, just like Sierra Entertainment and Bullfrog (and Maxis to a point).
    "Anarchism is famously opposed to the State, while at the same time advocating planned administration of things in the interest of the community."
    Today, anarchists dedicated to these goals often support state power to protect people, society and the earth itself from the ravages of concentrated private capital. That's no contradiction. People live and suffer and endure in the existing society.

  11. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by Bennadri View Post
    Now just break free of activision!
    Activision Blizzard is estimated to cost around 16 Billion (19.5 Billion after the stock price has gone up due to the recent events). Blizzard last year made up for 1/3 of Activision Blizzards revenue. So that would mean Blizzard would need to pay 5-6 Billion to buy themselves out.

    Last year Blizzards revenue was 1,609 million, with 717 million income. If they would keep that up, which would be hard because last year had the D3 release, and they don't have a massive hit release every year, they would need 7 to 8 years. And that's assuming they don't take on some of the debt that Activision Blizzard has from the deal with Vivendi.

    So no, it's extremely unlikely that they would buy themselves out.

  12. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by Anarchor View Post
    It's much more likely right now that Activision will eventually absorb Blizzard, from seeing the direction this all is evolving in.
    Blizzard will be forgotten, just like Sierra Entertainment and Bullfrog (and Maxis to a point).
    Blizzard exists as a division (not a separate corporation) within Activision-Blizzard because it was perceived to have value to arrange it that way. When that perception changes, the organization will change. With board approval, there is no legal obstacle to doing such a thing.

    It's like Chevrolet and the like as divisions within GM. No one talks about Chevy breaking free of GM. One has seen GM divisions being disbanded and absorbed into the rest of the corporation.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "Almost every time I have gotten to know a critic personally, they keep up with the criticism but lose the venom." -- Ghostcrawler
    I hate these casual Fridays ruining it for real Fridays.

  13. #213
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Blizzard exists as a division (not a separate corporation) within Activision-Blizzard because it was perceived to have value to arrange it that way.
    Blizzard is a subsidiary of Activision Blizzard. As such, it has its own hierarchy that is separate from Activision Blizzard. For example, Activision Blizzard as a subsidiary of Vivendi still has its CEO, chairman and board of directors and make its own decisions when it comes to its business.

    Blizzard is the same. They are a subsidiary of a bigger company and run their own business. On top of that Blizzard having its own separate hierarchy, it also own all its trademarks. Bioware for example doesn't. EA owns the Bioware trademark and all its products.

    That means, if Mike Morhaime would want to sell the Blizzard name with all its trademarks, Activision Blizzard couldn't do anything about it because by its bylaws it can't make decisions for Blizzard unless the board of directors approves so (any board of directors meeting requires at least a 10 day notice to all it's members).

  14. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    I'm pretty sure the analyst in that article is much more concerned with the fact that Vivendi is no longer a controlling majority of ATVI stock and what that means, than whether it's Activision or Activision Blizzard.



    Except that when this deal goes through, Kotick and his buddies will only control 24.9% of the stock - not a controlling share.

    in either event, with mgmt having a quarter of the stock, institutions aren't going to rock the boat unless they feel there is a specific problematic mgmt issue with kotick. since the company isn;t likely to be sold, would be a performance issue and not show up maybe for years.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Noctifer616 View Post
    Activision Blizzard is estimated to cost around 16 Billion (19.5 Billion after the stock price has gone up due to the recent events). Blizzard last year made up for 1/3 of Activision Blizzards revenue. So that would mean Blizzard would need to pay 5-6 Billion to buy themselves out.

    Last year Blizzards revenue was 1,609 million, with 717 million income. If they would keep that up, which would be hard because last year had the D3 release, and they don't have a massive hit release every year, they would need 7 to 8 years. And that's assuming they don't take on some of the debt that Activision Blizzard has from the deal with Vivendi.

    So no, it's extremely unlikely that they would buy themselves out.
    especially hard for blizzard to use its income to buy itself out, since every dime they make belongs to activision-blizzard. any purchase of the company would be with outside funds.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, John Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Agatha Christie, Steven Erikson & Ian Esslemont, Stephen R Donaldon, and recently Jack L Chalker.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •