Activision + Vivendi Games merge!!

K.O.Kiki

Hooooooooooly sh!t! :eek:
Activision + Vivendi Games = Activision Blizzard

I wonder what this will mean for games localisers/QA testers, seeing as there are offices for both companies in Dublin?

humanji

Hmmm, I'd of called it Actizard.

L31mr0d

humanji wrote: »

Hmmm, I'd of called it Actizard.

or Blizzision... would convert a load of Snoop Dogg fans

User45701

Kool. Thanks for the link.

Why do corperations oppose one another? What is with these massive opposing blocks like EA buying up bioware a few weeks back and now Blizision or whatever, dont also forget the hd format war with another 2 opposing blocks of massive conglomerits

L31mr0d

User45701 wrote: »

Kool. Thanks for the link.

Why do corperations oppose one another? What is with these massive opposing blocks like EA buying up bioware a few weeks back and now Blizision or whatever, dont also forget the hd format war with another 2 opposing blocks of massive conglomerits

??? are you seriously asking this question? How old are you?

If companies didn't compete there would be no reason for them to lower their prices or to release new hardware.

It's why people are worried about Intel and Nvidia dominating AMD, as AMD is their biggest rival, without AMD, Intel and Nvidia could just slow release new hardware whenever they felt like it and charge however much they wanted.

In fairness the only way for independant gaming companies to survive nowadays is to get absorbed by the larger companies as the production costs for games is going through the roof. Just look at how much its costing to develop MGS4

User45701

L31mr0d wrote: »

??? are you seriously asking this question? How old are you?

If companies didn't compete there would be no reason for them to lower their prices or to release new hardware.

It's why people are worried about Intel and Nvidia dominating AMD, as AMD is their biggest rival, without AMD, Intel and Nvidia could just slow release new hardware whenever they felt like it and charge however much they wanted.

In fairness the only way for independant gaming companies to survive nowadays is to get absorbed by the larger companies as the production costs for games is going through the roof. Just look at how much its costing to develop MGS4

No,

greed, its all you and your kind can understand

L31mr0d wrote: »

If companies didn't compete there would be no reason for them to lower their prices or to release new hardware.

Is this what you really think?

L31mr0d wrote: »

It's why people are worried about Intel and Nvidia dominating AMD, as AMD is their biggest rival, without AMD, Intel and Nvidia could just slow release new hardware whenever they felt like it and charge however much they wanted.

Do you honenstly think that would happen?

Fnz

humanji wrote: »

Hmmm, I'd of called it Actizard.

Nintendo have already copyrighted that name...

"Actizard! I choose you!"

AlmightyCushion

User45701 wrote: »

No,

greed, its all you and your kind can understand



Is this what you really think?



Do you honenstly think that would happen?

Take for example the Pentium 4. It was a terrible processor compared to the athlon 64. It was inefficient, ate power and gave out more heat than radiator. Amd started gaining more market share because it was the better processor and Intel actually acknowledged it had a competitor. Now we have the core 2 duo. A fine processor that makes the pentium 4 look like dog crap. Without competition there is no need for a company to innovate and create better products. They can just sell the same crap but make minor improvements and make loads of profit because they don't need as much R&D.

uglyjohn

competition gives the consumer an alternative product and so forces the manufacturer to justify their market share. it can only be good for the consumer.
it drives innovation and gives us ever improving products at cheaper prices.

i completely agree with almighty cushion and L31mr0d in this case.

AlmightyCushion

They should really call the new company Vivivision.

uglyjohn

try saying it out loud, it just sounds like you have a lisp/are really cold.

L31mr0d

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

They should really call the new company Vivivision.

sounds like a TV channel for watching Vivisections

Also no comment in reply to User45701 :rolleyes:

KoKane

lol @ the "your kind" dig towards l31mr0d....

puny humans.

Froot

Well they could go hog wild and call it Blactivision™

Sabre0001

Originally Posted by User45701
"No,

greed, its all you and your kind can understand
Is this what you really think?
Do you honenstly think that would happen?"

Within the games world - EA could be used as an example...FIFA went without proper competition for years and less improvements were made each time - just repackaging the same product...Then Pro Evo came around and became huge and gamers have benefitted!

Maximilian

User45701 wrote: »

No,

greed, its all you and your kind can understand



Is this what you really think?



Do you honenstly think that would happen?

Not to be confrontational or anything, but buy a book on economics or something. If you want to see why monopolies or oligopolies or any other opolies are bad, just take a look at Microsoft over the years.

Creature

Maximilian wrote: »

oligopolies

Best word ever.

User45701

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Take for example the Pentium 4. It was a terrible processor compared to the athlon 64. It was inefficient, ate power and gave out more heat than radiator. Amd started gaining more market share because it was the better processor and Intel actually acknowledged it had a competitor. Now we have the core 2 duo. A fine processor that makes the pentium 4 look like dog crap. Without competition there is no need for a company to innovate and create better products. They can just sell the same crap but make minor improvements and make loads of profit because they don't need as much R&D.

Why would a company only put money into R&D if they had competation? The owner of the company already has access to enough funding to make his and his familys life (if he chooses to provide for them) happy. So why woud a company not R&D? proffit is not a motavation because the company does not need any more money

Maximilian wrote: »

Not to be confrontational or anything, but buy a book on economics or something. If you want to see why monopolies or oligopolies or any other opolies are bad, just take a look at Microsoft over the years.

i remember a good while back microsoft was forced to split as i remember? thats a bit odd. i wont go into it but if i built a comapny and i was told it was being split in 2 i would say No.

AlmightyCushion

User45701 wrote: »

Why would a company only put money into R&D if they had competation? The owner of the company already has access to enough funding to make his and his familys life (if he chooses to provide for them) happy. So why woud a company not R&D? proffit is not a motavation because the company does not need any more money

Microsoft has more than enough money why don't they give all their software away at cost price or for free or make all their code open source?

They still have to invest in R&D otherwise they wouldn't have new products and we wouldn't have anything to buy off them. The amount they spend on R&D though won't be anywhere near as high as it would be if they had competition though. This is because they have nothing to be afraid of. There is very little risk of them losing their market share if they don't innovate.

If there is a lot of competition on the other hand they have to spend more on R&D to keep ahead of the competition and offer the consumer better products to give them a competitive edge.

Branoic

Oh man oh man. What world are you living on?

User45701 wrote: »

So why woud a company not R&D? proffit is not a motavation because the company does not need any more money.

If you said that to any company director on the planet, he'd laugh you right out of his office.

User45701 wrote: »

i remember a good while back microsoft was forced to split as i remember? thats a bit odd. i wont go into it but if i built a comapny and i was told it was being split in 2 i would say No.

Umm, it wouldn't be up to you, you could say "no" all you like.

K.O.Kiki

Don't feed the trolls

uglyjohn

User45701 wrote: »

Why would a company only put money into R&D if they had competation? The owner of the company already has access to enough funding to make his and his familys life (if he chooses to provide for them) happy. So why woud a company not R&D? proffit is not a motavation because the company does not need any more money

its not that they only put money into r&d when they have competition, they would still do that anyway...just not as much. i think saying that profit is not a motivation is fairly ridiculous. these companies are not owned by one man who turns around and decides he has enough money. they are run, and exist, to make money....thats how business works, from the guy selling hotdogs to the biggest corporations. people can decide they have enough money, thats true.....big business doesnt.

User45701 wrote: »

i remember a good while back microsoft was forced to split as i remember? thats a bit odd. i wont go into it but if i built a comapny and i was told it was being split in 2 i would say No.

there are laws in place to protect consumers from monopolies there are also laws about price fixing and other things that are bad for the general public. you should be thankful for them, they stop big business from f**king us.

if you built a company, and were told to split it....you wouldnt really have much choice.

uglyjohn

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Don't feed the trolls [/QUOT


good idea. this thread has gone off topic and into fantasy land.

User45701

Branoic wrote: »

Oh man oh man. What world are you living on?



If you said that to any company director on the planet, he'd laugh you right out of his office.



Umm, it wouldn't be up to you, you could say "no" all you like.

What do you mean exeatly? if you own the property its yours. You could simpy sell all your land and property. Its like saying no because the blow to the world econemy would be severe

Also yes this has gone off topic, im just saying people are to narrow minded when it comes to business economics and general human society

Dont be at yourself

Narrow-minded? Perhaps. Still though, at least they grasp the very basics, which is seemingly more than you have been capable of.

Now, back on topic!

L31mr0d

User45701 wrote: »

im just saying people are to narrow minded when it comes to business economics and general human society

lol... i'm sorry I nearly just spewed all my cornflakes over my keyboard from laughing at that... if that isn't the definition of irony I don't know what is.

i've said it before and i'll say it again.... :rolleyes:

plus I still want to know how old you are User45701.

one thing though:

User45701 wrote:

proffit is not a motavation because the company does not need any more money

what planet are you on, because on the one I live on there is no limit to greed. Show me a company that has stopped caring about the bottom line and i'll show you a squadron of flying pigs.

BUT... back OT, what exactly does this merger mean for the gaming industry? Is activision absorbing Vivendi or vice versa

Bubs101

I think Vivendi have 52% majority

L31mr0d

Decent article about the merger, although a lot opinions rather than hard facts.

http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9827896-1.html

I personally agree, that the only way for game companies to stay afloat atm is to absorb smaller studios and produce games that have been proven sellers (see Halo, MoH, CoD) but I don't think this will be a problem for Blizzard as they already seem to like churning out sequels.

I mean multi-monitor support has already been canned for Starcraft II due to it giving some players an unfair advantage (what RTS player in their right mind wouldn't want multimonitor for an RTS). I guarantee this game will get wrapped up in so much red tape that blizzard will just produce a carbon copy of Starcraft with only graphical updates.

K.O.Kiki

L31mr0d wrote:

Decent article about the merger, although a lot opinions rather than hard facts.

On CNet?
Never!

Varkov

Quite obviously this means a mmorpg mech game : "World of Battletech"

Obviously:)

uglyjohn

Varkov wrote: »

Quite obviously this means a mmorpg mech game : "World of Battletech"

Obviously:)

its not gonna happen...but that sounds damn cool!

stomping around on planets blowing bits off someones mech with all dx10 bells and whistles making everything look better than jessica alba covered in baby oil.