The Impact
As we've
already stated, there's no argument that the merger of Activision and Vivendi
has already had a vast impact across the industry, but once the company is established,
what are the true, meaningful reverberations going to be? We asked game
attorney and Gamasutra columnist Thomas H. Buscaglia, veteran online game journalist Michael Zenke (Massively, MMOG Nation) and financial analyst Michael
Pachter from Wedbush Morgan for their unique opinions.
"If I didn't see this merger coming, nobody did -- and
I didn't see it coming," said Pachter when we asked him if he, one of the
industry's most respected analysts, had any idea that such a deal was in the
offing. We've yet to speak to anyone who
did see it -- "I haven't talked with anyone who saw it coming, including
insiders I know at both companies," said Buscaglia, "but the folks
involved in the deal sure knew what was going on. And they did a bang up
job of keeping the lid on it."
Whether or not he saw it coming, Pachter admits that the
merger makes perfect sense "insofar as Activision conducted solely a
packaged goods business (and quite successfully), and Vivendi games derived all
of its profits from the MMO side of the business."
"Vivendi was not performing well with its packaged goods
business, so the combination gave them capable management that they hope will
productively reinvest the profits from World
of Warcraft. Activision gains by diversifying its revenue base and
gaining access to a much higher level of profits that it hopes to reinvest for
even greater profits," he continued.
The Impact on Blizzard
"Blizzard
is the cash cow that drove the whole deal," said Buscaglia. "You bet
they will maintain a level of autonomy, and
I suspect that level will be whatever they want, so long as they keep
doing what they have been doing -- bringing in the cash. Other areas are more problematic with
Activision stronger in the core game areas, for example, with Blizzard and
Sierra Online, Vivendi has a superior understanding and expertise. It would make sense to let the group with the
most expertise have a fairly free hand to run with it in that area."
There are
few (if any) dissenting opinions with this opinion from most sources, though
there are further possibilities that could impact Blizzard rather than simply
messing with any of their carefully organized processes.
"Expect
[Activision] to offer ideas about pricing and microtransactions that will
enable Blizzard to be even more profitable," offered Pachter. "For
example, I think Activision will ultimately figure out a way to extract some
value from farmers who create things on WoW
and sell to other subscribers, bypassing the middleman. Activision is
sufficiently resourceful to figure out how to insert itself into the process as
an exchange (a la eBay) and collect a transaction fee for sales of user
generated content."
Similarly,
"Advertising for Blizzard games is going to become more aggressive (as
we've already seen happen with World of
Warcraft)," said Zenke, though he agreed with general opinion that
"Activision's reach isn't going to go much past the front door."
"Will
the new company try to use the Blizzard folks as sort of internal consultants
on other MMO projects in the organization? I'm probably going to go with a no,"
Zenke continued. "While certainly there are areas of development, design,
and certainly technical areas where Blizzard is an industry leader, most of
those concepts are on the institutional level. That is to say, I'm not sure a
quick consultation from Rob Pardo would be all that helpful to another group's
game."
As for the
question of whether or not Activision will make other MMOs? "I think
that's probably a firm yes," said Zenke. "The MMO style of game has
been a proven money-maker even since the days of Neverwinter Nights and Meridian
59; adding more MMOs to the Activision/Blizzard portfolio makes a great
deal of sense just from a business point of view."
When it
comes to a Call of Duty MMO, as
floated by Bobby Kotick, Zenke feels that Kotick is "late to the party"
- "All CoD 4 needed were some
persistent hubs for the instanced 'spokes', and it would have been essentially
as detailed as Guild Wars' PvP. A
better question is, in ten years are we going to look around and see any games
that don't have that sort of online
component?"
|
Epic states they wouldn't do such a thing, but in the end it's all about waiting for the right offer.
It will happen
As to the first comment (Epic Games), if anything, I see Microsoft buying up Epic if they ever decide to let go of the business workings of game development
Also, the article mentioned some 'possible financial changes' to World of Warcraft. Maybe. If anything, maybe a livegamer.com style of RMT market for players. I don't see any sort of micro-trans system going into the game. (Why give up the solid income for a very chancy stab at 'potential income' when Blizzard has 10+ million worldwide subscribers?)