Aielyn said:
And the point isn't so much that Skylanders isn't a 25 million unit franchise, as that it hasn't shown signs of becoming one, yet. And while I don't doubt that the toys are selling very well, and making a tidy profit, that doesn't make for a solid ongoing franchise, either. Simply put, it's not there, yet, and until there are at least signs of it being there, it doesn't have enough value to compare to CoD or WoW. Bungie's game isn't going to be owned by Activision - part of the publishing deal Bungie has with Activision is that Bungie owns the rights to the IP that is developed for the games they make. Remember, Activision doesn't own Bungie. Titan, on the other hand, is simply an unestablished attempt at a new MMORPG to take up the slack from the now-flagging WoW. There's no indication that it will be any bigger than any other MMORPG that isn't WoW, and its continued absence after 5 years is curious. Until the franchise is established, there's no business reason to assume that it'll be big. And that's why I specifically said "established". I'm not challenging Activision's current profitability. I'm not even challenging its continued survival. What I have been pointing out is that Activision doesn't have any fresh, clearly-popular franchises on their way up, and thus a purchase of Activision now would mean risking losses in the near future. And while there are some companies that can buy it and be fine, MS isn't one of them. Not because MS can't afford it, but because the purchase doesn't actually bring anything that MS doesn't already have in one way or another. As I said, Time Warner is a much more appropriate case. Time Warner doesn't have much by way of game studios (they have a few, but not much), while they have a broad array of popular IP waiting to be used in games. Here's what Time Warner currently has, in terms of game studios: NetherRealm Studios - fighting games, which Activision doesn't really do. Outside of Mortal Kombat, Batman Arkham, LEGO, Game Party, and Scribblenauts (none of which really align with what Activision does), Warner Bros Interactive Entertainment doesn't really have much by way of stand-out game series. Activision would be a real asset for them, in my opinion.
The article said nothing about that, and I don't see why them selling NBC Universal is relevant. I'm not certain, but a quick search seems to suggest that NBC Universal isn't profitable at the moment, so that would explain why they sold it. |
Good god what a wall of text
I never said it was going to be a 25m unit franchise I was pointing out that Activision have other baskets, and ones that are currently growing. And they have exclusive rights to Bungies game for 10 years, I doubt even if it's a hit that it will be 10+ years of hit. And they have the option of extending unless bungie wants out at that point.
I never agued that Time warner wouldn't want Activision I argued they wouldn't want to get rid of Bobby Kotick as despite that you may hate what he does he does the only thing that investors care about which is boost profitability. You are argueing that they would want to get rid of them because you think that he might cause Activision to become less profitable in the future.
So if them selling a entertainment company (clearly getting rid of the least profitable first is smart) is not rellevent to your point of "why would Activision be first to be sold, given that it's profitable?" I mean it clearly shows that Activision-Blizzard is not the first and wasn't sold first as it was not profitable. It completely nullifies your objection.
@TheVoxelman on twitter
