Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
  1. #161
    Spam Assassin! MoanaLisa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Tralfamadore
    Posts
    30,207
    Quote Originally Posted by DesoPL View Post
    2000 want hire to work in Activision? Who the fuck is dumb enough to do it? xD
    They wouldn't be working for Activision per se. They would be working for whatever studio hires them. A lot of the new jobs will be in Europe supposedly. Other comments about having a major studio on your resume is quite true. Spending a couple of years at Blizzard opens a lot of doors for future employment.
    “We live in a moment where everything immediately seems to default to outrage. There’s a kind of M.O. of either it’s exactly how I see it, or you’re my enemy.”

  2. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by MoanaLisa View Post
    They wouldn't be working for Activision per se. They would be working for whatever studio hires them. A lot of the new jobs will be in Europe supposedly. Other comments about having a major studio on your resume is quite true. Spending a couple of years at Blizzard opens a lot of doors for future employment.
    Activision-Blizzard is who people are applying to. People here don't seem to understand that Blizzard and Activision are two separate gaming compnanies under that roof and continue to falsely believe that Activision owns everything when it isn't the case.

  3. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    Activision-Blizzard is who people are applying to. People here don't seem to understand that Blizzard and Activision are two separate gaming compnanies under that roof and continue to falsely believe that Activision owns everything when it isn't the case.
    People are just using the word "Activision" to refer to Activision-Blizzard. Realize that in the deal with Vivendi, Blizzard was merged into Activision and the corporation that had been called Activision was renamed Activision-Blizzard. This corporation now had a segment named Activision, but CEO was (and is) Kotick.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "I hate caps lock. I pry it off my keyboard." -- Ghostcrawler
    WoW is like 99% bear ass collection simulator -- D-Rock

  4. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    People are just using the word "Activision" to refer to Activision-Blizzard.
    No no no. It's CHINAVISION-BLIZZARD!

    @DesoPL asks an excellent question. Who in their right mind would want to work for such people? Whether directly working for Chinavision or one of their assimilated drone studios doesn't matter. It's one thing to want to work, and of course there's nothing wrong with that. It's entirely something else to be so desperate that you sell your dignity to a company run by the obese incarnation of the sin of Greed.

  5. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by T-34 View Post
    No, they are exactly the same thing.
    Without profit a company will go out of business and the game will be shut down.
    Without profit a company will not invest in further development of its product and no new content or expansions will be made and then the game will be shut down.
    This is so dumb

    Answer me this Mr. "profit and heath are EXACTLY the same thing" guy.

    If a company produced a lower than expectation game that damaged its reputation, and the CEO decided to lose profit by fixing it. Does this action makes the company more healthy or less healthy?

    Answer me this?

  6. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by Skandulous View Post
    There's a reason why they stopped showing sub numbers and there's a reason they lumped all Blizzards MAUs into one.
    It serves as a better metric for Blizzard's value to existing and potential investors.

  7. #167
    Well, with the prices for the TBC Classic boosts and CE announced we know how they're going to make money in the future. And guess what, it's not quality games, it's disgusting overpriced micro transactions and account services.
    MAGA - Make Alliance Great Again

  8. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    People are just using the word "Activision" to refer to Activision-Blizzard. Realize that in the deal with Vivendi, Blizzard was merged into Activision and the corporation that had been called Activision was renamed Activision-Blizzard. This corporation now had a segment named Activision, but CEO was (and is) Kotick.
    Not exactly, Activision was merged with Blizzard's parent company Vivendi Games. Blizzard kept a similar level of autonomy with the new company (renamed Activision-Blizzard) while a new division Activision took control of all old-Activision's and Vivendi Games' studios.

    Fast-forward a few years and Vivendi SA (the big-daddy company) were feeling a bit bloated and looking to shed some of their divisions. Acti-Blizz were one part they were looking to get rid of, including options to strip out the assets and sell off IPs piecemeal, which is when Kotick and other higher-ups went to get loans and investors and burned through cash reserves to buy its independence.

  9. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by gobio View Post
    If a company produced a lower than expectation game that damaged its reputation, and the CEO decided to lose profit by fixing it. Does this action makes the company more healthy or less healthy?

    Answer me this?
    If a company produces a wonderful game, but the cost were so high that it couldn't get any customers to pay a price that would produce a profit, is that a healthy company?

    The quality of your product is completely irrelevant if you can't make a profit out of selling it. Quality does not equal profitability.
    The only way to measure if your product/service is good or not is if it makes your company a profit.

    I am not saying that a company should make shitty products/services in order to be profitable and thereby healthy. I am saying that a company's health can only be measured by its profitability, no matter how people perceive its products.

    If it sells and makes a profit then it is good.

    Added:
    Just to clarify: I have the exact same respect/love for Blizzard as I have for any other multi-national big dick company, which is exactly zero, but I greatly admire their ability to make a profit within the parameters of our capitalist society.
    Last edited by T-34; Today at 12:04 PM.

  10. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    Not exactly, Activision was merged with Blizzard's parent company Vivendi Games. Blizzard kept a similar level of autonomy with the new company (renamed Activision-Blizzard) while a new division Activision took control of all old-Activision's and Vivendi Games' studios.
    There's a subtle distinction here. The question is, what is the legal trail of identity of the corporation that is now Activision-Blizzard?

    Under your scenario, the old Activision ceased to exist. Its stockholders, their shares now referring to a nonexistent entity, would have had to have been issued new shares in a new corporation.

    But if Vivendi's subsidiary was merged into Activision, those shares would remain valid. Vivendi would be (and was) issued new shares, obtaining a majority stake, but that would have happened even under the process you are imagining.

    This second scenario is simpler and faster, and I believe if you go back and look at the various SEC filings it's what happened.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "I hate caps lock. I pry it off my keyboard." -- Ghostcrawler
    WoW is like 99% bear ass collection simulator -- D-Rock

  11. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    There's a subtle distinction here. The question is, what is the legal trail of identity of the corporation that is now Activision-Blizzard?

    Under your scenario, the old Activision ceased to exist. Its stockholders, their shares now referring to a nonexistent entity, would have had to have been issued new shares in a new corporation.

    But if Vivendi's subsidiary was merged into Activision, those shares would remain valid. Vivendi would be (and was) issued new shares, obtaining a majority stake, but that would have happened even under the process you are imagining.

    This second scenario is simpler and faster, and I believe if you go back and look at the various SEC filings it's what happened.
    Isn't that what I said, or is there a legal difference between the terms "merged with" and merged into?" The key point I was making is Blizzard wasn't merged with Activision, Vivendi games was merged with (or into) Activision and Blizzard went from being a subsidiary of Vivendi Games to being a subsidiary of Activision-Blizzard.

Posting Permissions

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