Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1

    Activision Blizzard can't seem to break away from Vivendi

    Hello,

    Interesting situation. Currently there's a lawsuit in Delaware,USA stopping Activision Blizzard from buying up Vivendi's stake in the company. Hopefully the judge sees fit to allow it but we'll see. Vivendi imo is just out for profits. Not that it's bad but ActiBlizz development I think would be hampered by that. Sooner or later you'll have to cave in and do the "money grab". I don't know what this has done to wow, or call of duty etc if anything at all. But somewhere things will have to be added or subtracted for profit's sake.

    Your thoughts.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielny...uyout-on-hold/

  2. #2
    the vivendi merger was the worst thing to happen to blizzard. vivendi killed off sierra (kings quest) and then they tried to milk blizzard the same way.

    vivendi is rumored to be responsible for the staff reduction during cata development, which lead to half the expansion being cut (the malfurion/naga side).

  3. #3
    Deleted
    Ugh hating Vivendi more and more..

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Yurnero View Post
    Ugh hating Vivendi more and more..
    It is not Vivendi bringing the lawsuit it is a shareholder that feels that ATVI Vivendi separation has allowed the management company run by Kotick to purchase a number of shares below market value. I dare say that Vivendi, as desperate fo cash as they are, do not want this lawsuit to go ahead.

  5. #5
    Yup Blizzard's downfall is down to Vivendi, even though Blizzard remained autonomous after the merger.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Lbgr View Post
    vivendi is rumored to be responsible for the staff reduction during cata development, which lead to half the expansion being cut (the malfurion/naga side).
    What staff reduction? People that got fired from Blizz was from customer support.
    Never going to log into this garbage forum again as long as calling obvious troll obvious troll is the easiest way to get banned.
    Trolling should be.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultramonkey View Post
    Yup Blizzard's downfall is down to Vivendi, even though Blizzard remained autonomous after the merger.
    autonomous as far as board directors go, but not as far as shareholder pressure.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Lbgr View Post
    autonomous as far as board directors go, but not as far as shareholder pressure.
    Shareholder pressure? They just acquired the most successful and profitable game ever made! I highly doubt they came in and said "Right, change EVERYTHING!".

    Other studios took a hit while Blizzard remained free to do as they please. Vivendi weren't going to ruin their prize cow.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by vesseblah View Post
    What staff reduction? People that got fired from Blizz was from customer support.
    worded it wrongly. blizzard wanted to increase staff to double the output of cata. one team do redesign of 1-60, the other do full expansion design. voted down. end result, revamp of 1-60, and half of an expansion for max level.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Lbgr View Post
    autonomous as far as board directors go, but not as far as shareholder pressure.
    What shareholder pressure? The majority of shareholders have absolutely no say in how a company is run other than maybe a vote or two at the AGM.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lbgr View Post
    worded it wrongly. blizzard wanted to increase staff to double the output of cata. one team do redesign of 1-60, the other do full expansion design. voted down. end result, revamp of 1-60, and half of an expansion for max level.
    This is the first I have heard of this and considering the company by-laws in place it is highly unlikely to have happened.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Lbgr View Post
    worded it wrongly. blizzard wanted to increase staff to double the output of cata. one team do redesign of 1-60, the other do full expansion design. voted down. end result, revamp of 1-60, and half of an expansion for max level.
    Cataclysm brought a revamp of two continents, added numerous zones, had seven dungeons and four raids at launch. It added five dungeons and two raids after release.
    Mists of Pandaria brought a new continent, ten dungeons, three raids and a couple of scenarios. It added one raid after release.

    You say Cataclysm was half an expansion, what was Mists?

  12. #12
    I am Murloc!
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bordeaux, France
    Posts
    5,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Lbgr View Post
    the vivendi merger was the worst thing to happen to blizzard. vivendi killed off sierra (kings quest) and then they tried to milk blizzard the same way.

    vivendi is rumored to be responsible for the staff reduction during cata development, which lead to half the expansion being cut (the malfurion/naga side).
    From memory, vivendi had no say in activision blizzard policy. That is why they waited the end of the 5 years agreement to demand the (justly due) dividende.
    From all i read, it's more Activision-blizzard than vivendi that is at fault there.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultramonkey View Post
    Cataclysm brought a revamp of two continents, added numerous zones, had seven dungeons and four raids at launch. It added five dungeons and two raids after release.
    Mists of Pandaria brought a new continent, ten dungeons, three raids and a couple of scenarios. It added one raid after release.

    You say Cataclysm was half an expansion, what was Mists?
    There is so much wrong with this post, I don't know where to start. First of all, Cata opened with 12 raid bosses, 7 5 mans, a few new zones and some new leveling content for 1-60. MoP opened with 10 5 mans, some scenarios, 16 raid bosses, and a continent.

    Also, the patches for Cata brought 5 new 5 mans, and 15 new raid bosses. The MoP content patches have brought several new scenarios, and 26 new raid bosses. If you do an actual comparison of the content and new features of each beyond just new raids/dungeons/scenarios, you'll find that Mists has had more content.

  14. #14
    For me it's concerning as one of the stated intentions was for Blizzard to be mostly publically owned.

    It's a point a lot of people miss - they concentrate too much on the number of shares Bobby Kotick's investor group will grab and assume that means they get the majority.

    They won't as shown here :

    http://files.shareholder.com/downloa...13%20FINAL.pdf

    Look under "Impact of Transaction on Ownership Structure"

    You'll see the intent at the end is for Activision Blizzard to be 63.1% publicly owned.

    Also :

    http://files.shareholder.com/downloa...13%20FINAL.pdf


    “Post-transaction majority of shares outstanding will be held by public”

    http://files.shareholder.com/downloa...ishing_Inc.pdf

    “Following the completion of the transaction, Activision Blizzard will be an independent
    company with the majority of its shares owned by the public”

    IMHO The guy that's doing this (which according to http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/2...by_lawsuit.php is Douglas M Hayes) is just wanting a large part of the share holder pie.

  15. #15
    I want so badly for blizzard to just break away from everyone and be an independent developer.
    Slaying 8bit dragons with 6 pixel long swords since 1987.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Ariluz View Post
    There is so much wrong with this post, I don't know where to start. First of all, Cata opened with 12 raid bosses, 7 5 mans, a few new zones and some new leveling content for 1-60. MoP opened with 10 5 mans, some scenarios, 16 raid bosses, and a continent.

    Also, the patches for Cata brought 5 new 5 mans, and 15 new raid bosses. The MoP content patches have brought several new scenarios, and 26 new raid bosses. If you do an actual comparison of the content and new features of each beyond just new raids/dungeons/scenarios, you'll find that Mists has had more content.
    Are we actually counting scenarios as "content"? They are laughable.
    Was Cataclysm's end-game as strong as Mists? No
    Was Cataclysm a bigger expansion than Mists? Yes

    You can claim that Mists has more content, but mists added a couple new zones. Cataclysm remade both continents not only for leveling, but to allow flying mounts, as well new zones.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultramonkey View Post
    Are we actually counting scenarios as "content"? They are laughable.
    Was Cataclysm's end-game as strong as Mists? No
    Was Cataclysm a bigger expansion than Mists? Yes

    You can claim that Mists has more content, but mists added a couple new zones. Cataclysm remade both continents not only for leveling, but to allow flying mounts, as well new zones.
    Oh, and 5 man dungeons count as content? It's subjective.

    Also, MoP added gear scaling, Flex raids, tons of dailies, Timeless Isle, Proving Grounds, Connected Realms, Black Market AH, they are also working on new character models (we might not see them soon, but they did start working on that during MoP).

    The WoW team is now bigger than it was during Cata development, so yes, it's quite a safe bet that MoP is bigger than Cata, and the next expansion is probably going to be bigger than MoP.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultramonkey View Post
    Are we actually counting scenarios as "content"? They are laughable.
    Was Cataclysm's end-game as strong as Mists? No
    Was Cataclysm a bigger expansion than Mists? Yes

    You can claim that Mists has more content, but mists added a couple new zones. Cataclysm remade both continents not only for leveling, but to allow flying mounts, as well new zones.
    How many times did you actually use the "new" 1-60 zones? I've only actually quested through them on one char since release, and its most likely the same or less for most people. the 1-60 revamp, while a nice change, also didn't really add that much more content for people to do - it just changed the existing content.

    I would also say that scenarios are as much content as 5 man dungeons, I'd say that they both don't really count for much of anything outside of telling a small part of the end game story. Also, I mainly play for end game PVE as do a lot of people at some level, which this expansion has been much better than cata in that regard. (T11 was a good tier, but the other 2 were very lacking) I feel like Mists also gave a better outlet for casual players to experience end game raids with flex modes, as opposed to just having LFR.

  19. #19
    Immortal Tharkkun's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Minnesnowta
    Posts
    7,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Redmage View Post
    I want so badly for blizzard to just break away from everyone and be an independent developer.
    They basically are. They use the Activision - Blizzard name for distribution. The publishing side of Activision was a lot bigger than Blizzard was for distribution, marketing, etc.

  20. #20
    Over 9000! ringpriest's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Silk Road
    Posts
    9,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultramonkey View Post
    Cataclysm brought a revamp of two continents, added numerous zones, had seven dungeons and four raids at launch. It added five dungeons and two raids after release.
    Mists of Pandaria brought a new continent, ten dungeons, three raids and a couple of scenarios. It added one raid after release.

    You say Cataclysm was half an expansion, what was Mists?
    A small, but pretty quality expansion. There is more to the game than 5-mans and raids. MoP's story quality was far better than Cataclysm's.

    I'm also curious where you get ten dungeons at MoP launch. I count six: GSS, SNT, SPM, MP, SSB and TJS; plus two revamps. (Even if you count SH/SM as seperate instances, that still only brings the count to nine.)
    "In today’s America, conservatives who actually want to conserve are as rare as liberals who actually want to liberate. The once-significant language of an earlier era has had the meaning sucked right out of it, the better to serve as camouflage for a kleptocratic feeding frenzy in which both establishment parties participate with equal abandon" (Taking a break from the criminal, incompetent liars at the NSA, to bring you the above political observation, from The Archdruid Report.)

Posting Permissions

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