Frankly spoken, Activision is pretty much the publisher I care least
about even less than EA, who brings out occasionally a game which I am >interested in. Activision while sitting disney like on top of a ton of
unused IP literally has no game anymore and did not have for a long time
I have any interest in. (as I said i dont care about war shooters and
less about Diablo lootbox style, there are so many really good
alternatives even for the click and slay style, I frankly also do not
care about)
Microsoft did not only want to buy Activision for COD but because of the
IPs they wanted to revive. They know that there is a ton of names in the >portfolion beneath the COD and Diablo names which have a high potential
but are basically rotting away.
So basically Activision getting bought by someone competent would be a
good thing in this case.
Man I just wished the original activision would roam its head once in a >while, the studio which brought us Pitfall, River Raid, Little Computer >people etc...
But EA started off innovative as hell as well before they struck gold
with their sports titles. (the rockstar game designer era when they
called themselves EOA)
On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 07:46:56 +0100, "Werner P." <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
Frankly spoken, Activision is pretty much the publisher I care least
about even less than EA, who brings out occasionally a game which I am >interested in. Activision while sitting disney like on top of a ton of >unused IP literally has no game anymore and did not have for a long time
I have any interest in. (as I said i dont care about war shooters and
less about Diablo lootbox style, there are so many really good
alternatives even for the click and slay style, I frankly also do not
care about)
Oh, ditto. I don't buy Activision games. They aren't even on my
watchlist. Another "Call of Duty"? Yawn. I have twelve already. "World
of Warcraft"? You can get the same - or better! - experience from free-to-play MMORPGs these days. Even were their corporate behavior
not enough to drive me away, they just don't have a compelling line-up
of games anymore, at least not for me. And it doesn't look as if
that's going to change any time in the near future. I've said it
before; as much a I bemoan the quality of Indie and small-publisher
games, at least they're creating innovative and interesting products
rather than rehashing the same old pabulum from ten years ago like the triple-A developers.
Microsoft did not only want to buy Activision for COD but because of the >IPs they wanted to revive. They know that there is a ton of names in the >portfolion beneath the COD and Diablo names which have a high potential
but are basically rotting away.
God, how did it ever come that we'd start seeing MICROSOFT as a savior
of PC gaming?!?
Man I just wished the original activision would roam its head once in a >while, the studio which brought us Pitfall, River Raid, Little Computer
people etc...
Or even the Activision from the middle period (although many of those
IPs were acquired rather than invented in-house, I'd still like to see
their return). Games like "Heavy Gear", "Battlezone", "Zork", "Heretic
II", "Soldier of Fortune", "Gun", "Prototype" and "NASCAR".
On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 7:21:28 AM UTC-8, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 07:46:56 +0100, "Werner P." <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
Frankly spoken, Activision is pretty much the publisher I care least
about even less than EA, who brings out occasionally a game which I am
interested in. Activision while sitting disney like on top of a ton of
unused IP literally has no game anymore and did not have for a long time
I have any interest in. (as I said i dont care about war shooters and
less about Diablo lootbox style, there are so many really good
alternatives even for the click and slay style, I frankly also do not
care about)
Oh, ditto. I don't buy Activision games. They aren't even on my
watchlist. Another "Call of Duty"? Yawn. I have twelve already. "World
of Warcraft"? You can get the same - or better! - experience from
free-to-play MMORPGs these days. Even were their corporate behavior
not enough to drive me away, they just don't have a compelling line-up
of games anymore, at least not for me. And it doesn't look as if
that's going to change any time in the near future. I've said it
before; as much a I bemoan the quality of Indie and small-publisher
games, at least they're creating innovative and interesting products
rather than rehashing the same old pabulum from ten years ago like the
triple-A developers.
Microsoft did not only want to buy Activision for COD but because of the
IPs they wanted to revive. They know that there is a ton of names in the
portfolion beneath the COD and Diablo names which have a high potential
but are basically rotting away.
I'm thinking, what are you guys talking about? Diablo and WoW is Blizzard?!
I guess I'm 15 years behind the times, since that's how long ago they
bought Blizzard, and really explains their sharp drop into the cesspool.
God, how did it ever come that we'd start seeing MICROSOFT as a savior
of PC gaming?!?
It makes some sense, they want to keep people on windows. Games
are one way to do that. It is surprising they aren't screwing it up
though.
Man I just wished the original activision would roam its head once in a
while, the studio which brought us Pitfall, River Raid, Little Computer >>>people etc...
Or even the Activision from the middle period (although many of those
IPs were acquired rather than invented in-house, I'd still like to see
their return). Games like "Heavy Gear", "Battlezone", "Zork", "Heretic
II", "Soldier of Fortune", "Gun", "Prototype" and "NASCAR".
Meh to all of that too.
On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 07:39:47 -0800 (PST), Justisaur
Or even the Activision from the middle period (although many of those
IPs were acquired rather than invented in-house, I'd still like to see
their return). Games like "Heavy Gear", "Battlezone", "Zork", "Heretic
II", "Soldier of Fortune", "Gun", "Prototype" and "NASCAR".
Meh to all of that too.Meh to Zork? Blasphemy! Where's my pitchfork?!?!
Meh to Zork? Blasphemy! Where's my pitchfork?!?!
Zork 1, Zork 2, Zork 3, Beyond Zork, Zork Zero, Return to Zork... did
I miss any?
So, it's mixed news for Activision.Another couple of weeks, and it looks even more unlikely that the
It will be interesting to see what will happen if (when) the merger is >blocked. Obviously there will be the usual rounds of suits and
counter-suits, but assuming Microsoft's acquisition of ActiBlizz is
blocked, what's next?
Activsion is very profitable and is not even close to being "vulnerable". >That's just another assumption of people in the video game communitiy
because of all the bad news the company has received. The lawsuits will
be dealt with in one way or another and even they go badly won't have big >effect on the company's bottom line. Activision doesn't need a saviour,
and that isn't what the deal with Microsoft is about. It's just about >Microsoft finally becoming a major video game publisher and having to
pay Activision Blizzard sharesholders a ton of money to do so.
On Fri, 2 Dec 2022 17:33:51 -0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
(Ross Ridge) wrote:
Activsion is very profitable and is not even close to being "vulnerable".
That's just another assumption of people in the video game communitiy
because of all the bad news the company has received. The lawsuits will
be dealt with in one way or another and even they go badly won't have big
effect on the company's bottom line. Activision doesn't need a saviour,
and that isn't what the deal with Microsoft is about. It's just about
Microsoft finally becoming a major video game publisher and having to
pay Activision Blizzard sharesholders a ton of money to do so.
I agree; Activision isn't vulnerable in the sense that it will
disappear, or that it needs a merger to survive. But it has been
treading water for over a year, as is common with companies awaiting a potential merger (you don't want to disrupt the status quo with risky
moves that significantly alter - or are perceived to alter - the value
of the company).
If the acquisition does not go through, it will have to jumpstart its operations, pushing new IPs and operations that have been on hold for
the past twelve months. And until those new ventures come into
fruition, the company will not be falling behind its more active
competitors. This adds risk that will hamper its ability to take on
new investors or loans. Again, it won't kill the company but it could
well push the company out from the forefront of the industry.
(if the acquisition does go through, Microsoft will also have to
jumpstart its new property, but that's less of an issue for the
Seattle behemoth, especially since it's mostly interested in using
Activision for its mobile gaming assets
And its looming lawsuits and labor problems are an issue, even if they
don't directly affect revenue. They affect stock value, they make
investors nervous, they affect employee morale, they affect customer
trust, they attract further government scrutiny. The downsides of
these have - so far - been largely minimized because it was assumed
that many of these problems would be mooted by the new ownership, but
if the acquisition falls through, Activision will have to finally face
up to them.
Whether the regulators allow the sale to go through or not - and
between the FTC and EU looking askance at the deal, it is looking increasingly uncertain - Activision isn't going to disappear. But
until there is an answer to that question, the company is in a sort of
limbo where it can't really resolve any of its issues.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 102:54:40 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,063 |