Why cant Blizzard leave Activision ?

[NordWitcher]

They can't leave Activision, because they're not a part of it. Never have been. They're part of Activision Blizzard, which is a different beast.

Blizzard has ALWAYS been dependant on investors, since their inception, i really don't get why people ten to romanticize this so much. There's a LOT of projection going on. And a lot of false causalities.

I mean you make it seem like every big corporation isn't dependent on investors or shareholders. I mean even corporations like Sony, subsidiaries like PlayStation etc are dependent on investors to a degree.

[Aleksej89]

I think this copy-paste response is no longer good idea after last week news.

???
/tenchar

[Edge-]

Not all shares are equal. The majority shareholder has considerable influence over the company however holding 50+1% does not grant the shareholder automatic control over the company.

Now we're talking about voting vs. non-voting shares, which are popular with more recent tech companies. I don't believe ATVI has non-voting shares, so all shares denote a vote and whoever owns 50.1%+ makes the final decision with the company. It doesn't look like any one person owns that, but that Bobby + Brian Kelly own a quarter of the company and that the company itself may own enough of the remaining shares to reach 50%+.

But yes, 50+1% gives you the ultimate say in any shareholder decisions at the corporate level. Sure, you're not green lighting games and making granular decisions like that, but you still retain control over the direction of the company as a whole.

[Dracullus]

???
/tenchar

Maybe you don't follow news, but these 'passionate devs' were little TOO passionate in some areas.

[Kaykay]

But isnt it Mikes fault they merged? Why leaving then for a new studio with old values if he sold his soul before. Kinda strange.

Because money, people have lives and dreams outside of delivering junkfood to the masses.

Once you got your family, closest employees and their families secured, then you can start prioritising soft values like turning down a multi billion dollar deal, because you prefer to have full control over your business.

In no world would Blizzard or their owners have been as succesfull finansially if they didnt accept this deal.
Making video games is still a job, a job that usually pays very little.

[Dhrizzle]

Vivendi were a major shareholder and had several positions on the board but it would be a stretch to say that they were in control of ATVI - being the majority shareholder does not automatically mean that you control the company. I interpret it as Activision buying Blizzard because that is exactly what happened. What do you think happened?

Activision wanted to buy Blizzard to gain access to their expertise in online gaming. Vivendi made a counter offer that they would buy a majority stake in Activision and roll it into one of their subsidiaries. Shareholders agreed, whatever relevant regulators agreed and the deal went through.

- - - Updated - - -

Because money, people have lives and dreams outside of delivering junkfood to the masses.

Once you got your family, closest employees and their families secured, then you can start prioritising soft values like turning down a multi billion dollar deal, because you prefer to have full control over your business.

In no world would Blizzard or their owners have been as succesfull finansially if they didnt accept this deal.
Making video games is still a job, a job that usually pays very little.

Also Mike didn't really have a say at the time Activision came on the scene, Blizzard sold its soul to corporate overlords around the time they released the first Warcraft game

[dope_danny]

I can't believe its 2021 and you still have people struggling to deal with blizzard being a brand name used by activision to sell some of their products.

Parasocial company loyalty is a hell of a hustle.

[Dhrizzle]

I can't believe its 2021 and you still have people struggling to deal with blizzard being a brand name used by activision to sell some of their products.

Which Activision products are using the Blizzard brand?

Parasocial company loyalty is a hell of a hustle.

You're only saying that 'cos it isn't a brand you clap for.

[Edge-]

I can't believe its 2021 and you still have people struggling to deal with blizzard being a brand name used by activision to sell some of their products.

Uh...no? Blizzards name is still on Blizzard products, I don't see their name on Call of Duty or Sekiro or anything else.

This isn't EA slapping the BioWare brand on Mythic and Victory studios only to strip it away shortly after, dude.

[Pann]

Now we're talking about voting vs. non-voting shares, which are popular with more recent tech companies. I don't believe ATVI has non-voting shares, so all shares denote a vote and whoever owns 50.1%+ makes the final decision with the company. It doesn't look like any one person owns that, but that Bobby + Brian Kelly own a quarter of the company and that the company itself may own enough of the remaining shares to reach 50%+.

But yes, 50+1% gives you the ultimate say in any shareholder decisions at the corporate level. Sure, you're not green lighting games and making granular decisions like that, but you still retain control over the direction of the company as a whole.

The point I am making is that having 50.1% does not automatically grant control over the company - it is far more complex that. The board controls the company and whilst a majority shareholder can exert significant pressure and influence over the board they do not necessarily control the board.

Specifically in ATVI's case there were a number of bylaws and clauses as a result of the merger that limited the what each party - Activision and Vivendi could do (the most cited on here was that it would require board approval to make changes to senior Blizzard staff). I believe - although I might be misremembering - that these bylaws were in place for five years post merger and it was only when they expired that Vivendi looked to loading ATVI with debt and paying out a massive dividend.

- - - Updated - - -

Activision wanted to buy Blizzard to gain access to their expertise in online gaming. Vivendi made a counter offer that they would buy a majority stake in Activision and roll it into one of their subsidiaries. Shareholders agreed, whatever relevant regulators agreed and the deal went through.

If this is the case how did Vivendi end up owning 52% of ATVI and 0% of Vivendi games? And given that Vivendi didn't actually own ATVI - it was still a publicly traded entity - how would they be able to roll it into one of their subsidiaries?

I even quoted direct from ATVI exactly what happened and then explained in simple terms.

[bearnakked]

I take it OP doesn't realize most of the abuse took place in the blizzard studio, those are wow devs in the Crosby room

[Ivarr]

What could happen is a new megacorp coming in and buying blizzard which isnt interested in directly controlling them like Activision-blizzard is, because they don't know anything about games and are okay with regular paychecks no questions asked.

I bet Amazon actually looked into this, but then realised it's cheaper to just have a go at creating their own MMO. No need to buy out if you can poach the talent off a sinking ship.

Blizzard is no longer doing anything special. Yes, New World is a soulless asset flip, but it's a good first try. A project for a studio to work on while they're fleshing out the team.

[Dhrizzle]

If this is the case how did Vivendi end up owning 52% of ATVI and 0% of Vivendi games? And given that Vivendi didn't actually own ATVI - it was still a publicly traded entity - how would they be able to roll it into one of their subsidiaries?

I even quoted direct from ATVI exactly what happened and then explained in simple terms.

Because after the merger the combined Activision and Vivendi Games was renamed Activision-Blizzard, continued trading under ATVI and had two subsidiaries, Activision and Blizzard.

[Demeisen]

Activision wanted to buy Blizzard to gain access to their expertise in online gaming. Vivendi made a counter offer that they would buy a majority stake in Activision and roll it into one of their subsidiaries. Shareholders agreed, whatever relevant regulators agreed and the deal went through.

This is... sort of correct, but slightly misleading? In simple terms:

- Activision, Inc. ("Activision") formed a wholly owned subsidiary, Sego Merger Corporation ("Sego").
- Vivendi Games ("VG") merged with Sego and is the surviving company from the merger.
- In exchange, VGAC LLC, an intermediate holding company which is the parent of VG and is itself wholly owned by Vivendi ("Vivendi"), receives shares in Activision.
- Simultaneously, Activision issues shares to Vivendi in exchange for cash consideration.
- As a result of the merger and share issuance, Vivendi and its subsidiaries owned ~52.2% of Activision.
- Activision subsequently changes its name to Activision-Blizzard, Inc.

Because after the merger the combined Activision and Vivendi Games was renamed Activision-Blizzard, continued trading under ATVI and had two subsidiaries, Activision and Blizzard.

This is just incorrect.

But yes, 50+1% gives you the ultimate say in any shareholder decisions at the corporate level. Sure, you're not green lighting games and making granular decisions like that, but you still retain control over the direction of the company as a whole.

This is too simplistic a take for a public company.

Edit: Actually, no, I take that back. It's right, but public companies may well be subject to further complications that limit your effective control.

[Pann]

Because after the merger the combined Activision and Vivendi Games was renamed Activision-Blizzard, continued trading under ATVI and had two subsidiaries, Activision and Blizzard.

Right, so they didn't want to sell Vivendi games but then decided to give it away after buying stake in ATVI? How much did they pay for this stake in ATVI?

As I said I have quoted and linked the relevant documents from ATVI that explains what happened but for some reason you choose to ignore them and push an idea that makes no sense what-so-ever.

[Aleksej89]

Maybe you don't follow news, but these 'passionate devs' were little TOO passionate in some areas.

are you confusing social movements with people who give a damn about product quality?

because no one at blizz/acti has given a damn about product quality for over 5+ years regardless of their inter social issues.

[rrayy]

According to the multiverse theory somewhere there is a universe where all the Activision fans are crying about Blizzard ruining Activision after the company merged into Blizzard-Activision.

I sincerely think people only get this misguided idea because Activision's name is first in the new holding company name.

The get the misguided idea because ACtivision was one hhalf of hte merger and it was their CEO, Bobby Kotick, that became the CEO of the holding cmpany, ignoring the fact that Activision got it's own CEO to replace Bobby.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, so they didn't want to sell Vivendi games but then decided to give it away after buying stake in ATVI? How much did they pay for this stake in ATVI?

As I said I have quoted and linked the relevant documents from ATVI that explains what happened but for some reason you choose to ignore them and push an idea that makes no sense what-so-ever.

We gave you the setyup of the company that is publicly available from Activision-Blizzard, ey you continue tp push a falshood while ignoring the truth. ACtivision-Blizzard is a holding company and has two subsidiares, Activision and Blizzard. Activision does not own Blizzard. You are wrong. Move on,.

- - - Updated - - -

I can't believe its 2021 and you still have people struggling to deal with blizzard being a brand name used by activision to sell some of their products.

Parasocial company loyalty is a hell of a hustle.

Wrong. Blizzard's name is not on any of Activision's products. Not Candy Crush, Not Call of Duty. Not anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually that's exactly what it means.

People keep blaming Activision for Blizzard being shitty but Activision didn't own them until 2015 and Blizzard was shitty long before then. Before Activision they was owned by Vivendi and only two years (in the late 90's) was the company not owned by someone.

Being free doesn't fix the issues Blizzard has, new management does.

Aagin, Activision does not own Blizzard and never has. The two companies came together under the holding company Activision-Blizzard. Both Activision and Blizzard are completely separate subsidiaries of that holding company.

- - - Updated - - -

You really think they weren't forced to add a levelling boost to TBC Classic? Or the mount? Or sell it as a deluxe edition? You think those same people who were saying 2 years before that, that classic shouldn't be changed and it should remain classic made those decisions?

No they were not forced. Just because they saiod one thing 2 years ago does not mean they cannot change their minds. They saw things now that they didn't foresee back then, such as people wanting to play TBC but not Classic But, Activision is the big boogeyman, so every one immediately blames them no matter how false it is.

[Aggressive]

For the same reason Donalds can't leave Mc.

LoL. Shit has me cracking up

[ek0zu]

At this point, the only thing that could be done and this is very hard as well is, if Activision Blizzard sells its IPs such as Warcraft as a whole on another company. Therefore, the licenses of all related games will change hands but still the new owner must treat the acquired Universes with care and respect, the same thing that has been done with Sony by acquiring Spiderman or with Disney acquiring Star Wars.

[shise]

No they don't. Activision and Blizzard are two separate companies under one holding company roof, Activision-Blizzard. People need to stop with "Activision owns Blizzard" because it is completely false.

You are sort of wrong.. Activision and Vivendi did merge, and they kept the Blizzard name because... Blizzard.
So the new company resulting was named Activision Blizzard. Therefore, in a way, Activision owns Blizzard, just because Blizzard does not exist anymore as an independent company. Hence Michael Morhaime leaving and saying how "selling out" was a mistake. Once they merged, he was no longer the real "owner" of his company.