Activision Blizzard breaks free of Vivendi

[Avallon]

Sorry that you think you had any logical counterpoints, and are easily frustrated, so you call people morons. Or is that a logical counterpoint? I am not upset, I am just sad that you did so, because it is sad when grown-ups behave like that, and then they try to pretend they are above such things (especially when they play make-believe thinking they are in a court-room), but oh well. If after all that was written, you still can't understand anything, but are still trying to "win" this argument, this is just sad. I hope you don't, although your snarky comments imply differently. Oh well #2. Maybe one day you will understand that different people have different opinions, and you can't "win" in an opinions' argument.

And no, I am not going to leave the game, I never said anything about leaving. I have been playing ever since WarCraft 2. And in WoW since Vanilla; I have friends that I play with, I enjoy raiding quite a bit (oh yeah, I raid on quite a high level; I can enjoy raiding and still wish for the game to have better questing and exploring. And I do Brawler's Guild as well! What a rush), and can spare 15 euros a month. So I will still be here, with my opinions. Willing to discuss them with anyone that is polite, or close to it.

So much hurt in this post - I apologize again.

[Osmeric]

So lets see ... Activison and Blizzard not the same company...

http://www.activisionblizzard.com/homepage

See the two different buttons on each side? One says go to Activision.com The other says... go to Blizzard.com

Those are two different divisions of a single corporation.

What we saw yesterday was Activision formally taking over Blizzard from Vivendi.

You are again utterly wrong. What you saw was a deal to buy out most of Vivendi's shares in Activision-Blizzard. Vivendi didn't own "Blizzard". No one (aside from Activision-Blizzard) owns Blizzard. Blizzard is a component of the corporate entity Activision-Blizzard; it does not have separately traded shares.

These are just facts.

They are your delusions.

[Drithien]

So much hurt in this post - I apologize again.

Heh, mate, this stopped working in kindergarten. No, nobody thinks you are the better man/woman. There is no competition here. And this attempt at sarcasm is getting cringe-worthy. Please, my face! No need to apologise either. No bad feelings. Just stop being snarky, it doesn't work; and try to be more polite from now on. That is all.

[Itisamuh]

I'm sure that this won't make any difference whatsoever to the game or the players, and wouldn't have if they didn't break free either.

[glowpipe]

now blizzard just need to get rid of Milkyvision and its all good.

[MoanaLisa]

You are again utterly wrong. What you saw was a deal to buy out most of Vivendi's shares in Activision-Blizzard. Vivendi didn't own "Blizzard". No one (aside from Activision-Blizzard) owns Blizzard. Blizzard is a component of the corporate entity Activision-Blizzard; it does not have separately traded shares.

Thanks for clearing that up. I was reading through this thread earlier today and leaving comments as is my wont and about mid-afternoon I realized that I didn't really know exactly who if anyone owned Blizzard apart from assuming that it was likely the holding company. I sort of wondered if the new deal changed any of that. I didn't think it did and I knew that everyone talking about Activision buying out Blizzard shares was clearly not having any idea what they were talking about. I suspect a lot of people have a difficult time getting their heads around the idea that no one person owns Blizzard or that Bobby Kotick is not really "King of Blizzard". Not that it matters anyway. He and Morhaime have proven at the business level to be good for one another and Kotick--no dummy he--won't mess too much with what is clearly working for now in Irvine.

I would pay for his lunch to hear him talk about what he thinks he likes about mobile games and other properties. Zynga is a shell but could probably be knocked over for next-to-nothing if anyone had any brilliant ideas about how to improve the player experience in their games and thereby extract some money from customers who are clearly interested in the games there but are generally clear that they're asked to bend over far too often.

[Eroginous]

When you point to Wikipedia pages, you should make sure they actually support what you were claiming. Those don't.

In particular, your statement "Both Blizzard and Activision were bought by parent company Vivendi" is nowhere supported (which is a good thing, since it's false).

The discussion of Activision and Blizzard existing "as separate entities" is also misleading. The word "entity" can mean many things. A division in a corporation, for example, is an "entity".

Blizzard does NOT exist as a separate corporation. To prove me wrong, please find the legal paperwork for this supposed corporation (the Certificate of Incorporation, and the documents that amended it, for Activision-Blizzard can be found at activisionblizzard.com under "Corporate Governance".)

What separation between Blizzard and Activision-Blizzard that actually exists are some clauses in the Activision-Blizzard corporate bylaws (also available at that web site) that impose certain limitations on what the CEO of Activision-Blizzard can do to the Blizzard division without prior written approval of the board of directors. That's a very far cry from Blizzard existing as a separate corporation.

Let's see, where to start. Earlier, I claimed that Vivendi bought both Activision and Blizzard. The term 'bought' refers to the act of purchasing a controlling amount of a companies stocks effectively owning them.

In 1994 the company became Blizzard Entertainment Inc before being acquired by distributor Davidson & Associates and later by Vivendi. Shortly thereafter, Blizzard shipped their breakthrough hit Warcraft: Orcs & Humans. Blizzard went on to create several successful video games, including the Warcraft sequels, StarCraft, and Diablo series, and the MMORPG World of Warcraft.

In 1998 it became apparent that CUC had engaged in accounting fraud for years before the merger; Cendant's stock lost 80% of its value over the next six months in the ensuing widely discussed accounting scandal. The company sold its consumer software operations, Sierra On-line which included Blizzard, to French publisher Havas in 1998, the same year Havas was purchased by Vivendi. Blizzard was part of the Vivendi Games group of Vivendi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_Entertainment

Then I claimed that they bought out shares of Activision to merge with the company in name only:

In December 2007, Activision announced that the company and its assets would merge with fellow games developer and publisher, Vivendi Games.


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

Then I claimed that Activision and Blizzard were still different companies and the only control over them that Vivendi had was through stocks.

Activision and Blizzard Entertainment still exist as separate entities.[8] The holding company does not publish games under its central name and instead uses its subsidiaries to publish games, similar to how Vivendi Games operated before the merger.[9] The merger makes Activision parent company of Vivendi Games' former divisions.

While Blizzard retained its autonomy and corporate leadership, other Vivendi Games divisions did not. For example, long-time label Sierra ceased operation. With the merger, there was a rumor that if a Sierra product did not meet Activision's requirements, they "won't likely be retained."[10] Some of Sierra's games such as Crash Bandicoot, Spyro the Dragon and Prototype have been retained and are now published by Activision.[11] Also, due to the closure of Sierra, the Sierra Community Forums servers have been shut down as of November 1, 2008.[12]

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

See, Activision Blizzard is a holding company. A holding company is the following:

A holding company is a company or firm that owns other companies' outstanding stock. The term usually refers to a company that does not produce goods or services itself; rather, its purpose is to own shares of other companies. Holding companies allow the reduction of risk for the owners and can allow the ownership and control of a number of different companies. In the United States, 80% or more of stock, in voting and value, must be owned before tax consolidation benefits such as tax-free dividends can be claimed.[1]

Sometimes a company intended to be a pure holding company identifies itself as such by adding "Holdings" or "(Holdings)" to its name.


A holding company only controls the stocks.

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

So it goes like this:

Vivendi buys out Blizzard entertainment as part of a merger deal with several smaller companies. Blizzard stays in tact and has full autonomy over it's decisions as a company. Vivendi buys out Activision in the same manner, and creates a holding company called Activision Blizzard to manage the stocks of the new merger. Both companies retain their autonomy and are merged in name only.

Now, Activision buys out the majority stocks owned by Vivendi to gain financial control over the holdings company.


If you want to have a an argument, it helps if you actually understand the information related to the topic you want to argue about. IE, read the wikipedia pages.

[Duster505]

Those are two different divisions of a single corporation.

You are again utterly wrong. What you saw was a deal to buy out most of Vivendi's shares in Activision-Blizzard. Vivendi didn't own "Blizzard". No one (aside from Activision-Blizzard) owns Blizzard. Blizzard is a component of the corporate entity Activision-Blizzard; it does not have separately traded shares.

They are your delusions.

Again - lets go over this slowly.... Vivendi did own Blizzard. Blizzard had zero members on board of directors. They were all from Vivendi and the 60% majority shares. Fact.

Second. Bobby Kotick that was the head of Activison is now in full control as the biggest single shareholder and leading a investmetn group of over 24% of the Activison Blizzard. The new board of directors is not clear but what is being said is that Kotick and Kelly will be there - and the Vivendi will loose all their members.

NOTE. BLIZZARD does not have a single member in the board of directors because Blizzard was represented by Vivendi. These are all facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Vivendi was in control, not blizzard through vivendi, I think you do not know how the company properly works.

Vivendi is money orientated, they are the ones behind all the money whoring lately.

In short, Vivendi is the tumor in the gaming industry, it's well known for quite some time.

YOu act like Vivendi that gave BLizzard a perfect opertunity to make great games since 1994 as tumor... Ye rigth...

[Osmeric]

Let's see, where to start. Earlier, I claimed that Vivendi bought both Activision and Blizzard. The term 'bought' refers to the act of purchasing a controlling amount of a companies stocks effectively owning them.

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.

Then I claimed that Activision and Blizzard were still different companies and the only control over them that Vivendi had was through stocks.

Activision and Blizzard Entertainment still exist as separate entities.[8] The holding company does not publish games under its central name and instead uses its subsidiaries to publish games, similar to how Vivendi Games operated before the merger.[9] The merger makes Activision parent company of Vivendi Games' former divisions.

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.

See, Activision Blizzard is a holding company. A holding company is the following:

A holding company is a company or firm that owns other companies' outstanding stock. The term usually refers to a company that does not produce goods or services itself; rather, its purpose is to own shares of other companies. Holding companies allow the reduction of risk for the owners and can allow the ownership and control of a number of different companies. In the United States, 80% or more of stock, in voting and value, must be owned before tax consolidation benefits such as tax-free dividends can be claimed.[1]


A holding company only controls the stocks.

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".

[ro9ue]

I don't know what any of this means. But when I see what the next few WoW content patches/expansions look like and draw my opinion from that.

[Osmeric]

Again - lets go over this slowly.... Vivendi did own Blizzard. Blizzard had zero members on board of directors. They were all from Vivendi and the 60% majority shares. Fact.

Vivendi has not owned Blizzard for five years now. The deal with Activision merged Blizzard into Activision, and gave Vivendi controlling interest in the combined entity, Activision-Blizzard.

I'm not sure where you got the bizarre "Blizzard had zero members on board of directors" statement. It has nothing to do with anything I said. VIVENDI has members on the Activision-Blizzard board.

[Last Starfighter]

This is greek to me. I don't know if this is good or bad.

[Duster505]

Vivendi has not owned Blizzard for five years now. The deal with Activision merged Blizzard into Activision, and gave Vivendi controlling interest in the combined entity, Activision-Blizzard.

I'm not sure where you got the bizarre "Blizzard had zero members on board of directors" statement. It has nothing to do with anything I said. VIVENDI has members on the Activision-Blizzard board.

Vivendi HAD members on that board. They lost all of them. That has been confirmed. With old Activision and extra investors beeing the single biggest share holder with Kotick in control... Blizzard has no say of their company since like you said... its just part of Activision Blizzard. And the old Activision arm has taken over the entire company.

[Osmeric]

Vivendi HAD members on that board. They lost all of them. That has been confirmed. With old Activision and extra investors beeing the single biggest share holder with Kotick in control... Blizzard has no say of their company since like you said... its just part of Activision Blizzard. And the old Activision arm has taken over the entire company.

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.

[Eroginous]

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.

Except that with a publicly traded company, purchasing controlling interest in their stock is the closest you can come to actually buying it. Blizzard is a publicly traded company, and has been since they formed in 1991 under the name 'Silicon and Synapse.' I use the term 'bought' to keep things simple. No point in arguing semantics with the likes of you.

A public company, publicly traded company, publicly held company or public limited company (in the United Kingdom) is a limited liability company that offers its securities (stock/shares, bonds/loans, etc.) for sale to the general public, typically through a stock exchange, or through market makers operating in over the counter markets. Public companies, including public limited companies, can be either unlisted or listed on a stock exchange depending on their size and local legislation.

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.

Just because their stocks weren't listed, doesn't mean they didn't exist or they weren't purchased by Vivendi. Also, when two companies merge, so do their stocks. Naturally, there is no Blizzard stock now, because it's been merged under the holdings company Activision Blizzard.

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".

Except according to the Wiki I've linked several times now:

Activision Blizzard, Inc. is the American holding company for Activision and Blizzard Entertainment. Activision Blizzard is the world's second-largest gaming company by revenue after Nintendo.[4]

ATVI is buying back the stock, and it will be retired. This in effect is a buyback of 30% or so of outstanding shares, itself non-trivial.

So that would mean that the 26.1% of the stock value was paid out and Activision is simply paying off the debt generated by that? Once paid off, the stock is no longer owned specifically by anyone?

I'm confused as to how that doesn't translate into Activision and it's buddies owning a bigger piece of the pie.

[Kathranis]

Those are two different divisions of a single corporation.

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.

[Eroginous]

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.

[Deficineiron]

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.

[Meleti]

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

Morhaime still reports to Kotick (former head of Activision), though.

[chrisisvacant]

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.