Right - Ubisoft have everyone working on a wide variety of games. This year, just for Wii U, Ubisoft have Rayman and Rabbids, Just Dance, Marvel, ZombiU, a fitness title, and a sports title... and possibly Ghost Recon Online.

Activision's total lineup for the second half of 2012 is a 007 title, a Tony Hawks downloadable game, CoD, Skylanders, Transformers, and Wreck It Ralph. The last two are licensed games, as is the first one. CoD and Skylanders are both franchises they release every year at this point. And Tony Hawks is a low-risk downloadable title after the relatively weak sales of recent Tony Hawk titles.

And EA does NOT do things dramatically differently from Activision. Their main difference is a slightly broader range of cash cows - FIFA and Madden, Sims, Battlefield. Their lineup for second half of 2012 is Sims, Sports titles, MoH, and Need for Speed. And EA had a net profit in the most recent fiscal year (2011-2012). And EA is often as bad as Activision - their main benefit is that they don't tend to run franchises right into the ground. Let's look at their active franchises and franchises they've consistently published...

Madden, FIFA, Tiger Woods, (other sports titles), Sims, Simcity, SSX, Medal of Honor, Battlefield, Crysis, Army of Two, Dragon Age, Burnout, Need for Speed, Command and Conquer, Rock Band, Skate, Mass Effect, Dead Space.

While EA might not have made much profit over the last few of years, that's a risk you always face. Where EA differs from Activision is that EA is diversified in its lineup, and thus they aren't dependent on a megahit to keep them afloat.

All numbers in millions

EA Revenue $3,589, net loss $276

Ubisoft Revenue $1,267, Profit $35

Activision Revenue $3,257, Profit $1,085

I know which I would prefer as an investor, it's not like CoD and WoW are going to die overnight they will have plenty of time to deversify and as they say make hey while the sun shines. Making less money today so you can maybe make the same ammount of money by spending more in the future is not good business. And as I have said many times they are not a one trick pony they do have other investments hell they just announced 2 new games. Sure they might end up losing money in the future if their big franchises die faster than they can aquire new ones but that is a risk you have to take to turn a profit.

http://www.vg247.com/2012/05/07/ea-2012-mass-effect-3-takes-200m-ea-swings-to-profit/

"EA made a profit last year [2011-2012], the publisher said today, and is now looking forward to heavy investment in next-gen consoles."

"Total profit at $76 million from $4.14 billion in revenue, up from a loss of $276 million last year."

Your numbers are outdated.

And, using the same period for Activision (year ending March 2012 - I'm going to add Q1 2012 numbers and subtract Q1 2011 numbers, source), Activision had $2,980 million in revenue and $966 million in net income.

And the whole point of this argument is whether Activision is worth purchasing. Current profit isn't really the point when you're investing - it's future profit you have to be concerned with when you're investing long term, as one would be doing when buying the company. Q1 income for Activision this year decreased by almost 24% from last year, despite a decrease in costs.

Meanwhile, Activision has been cutting jobs and then some more jobs (the main reason for shuttering Radical was that Prototype apparently didn't have enough of a following - the first one sold over 1 million each on PS3 and 360, and the sequel hadn't even been out for three months, and hadn't been through a holiday season). They lost big names from Infinity Ward, which have now set up a competing studio that has yet to release its first game (meaning, it may pull sales away from CoD 2013).

Activision had a batch of games in development, including a Crash Bandicoot game, a couple of years ago - they were cancelled, including some that were nearing completion, so that they could focus on their cash cows. So I say again - Kotick's activities with Activision make it a product that, right now, is not a good purchase for Microsoft. Time Warner may get more value out of it, but that value comes from the studios, not the management, and they should get rid of Kotick if they do it.

You need to learn to have this thing called humor.

Kid, is also probably reversed. But i like to think i'll always be a kid inside. :D

fixed.

Microsoft is an incompetent game studio manager.....perhaps the worst ever.

ENSEMBLE, ACES, DIGITAL ANVIL, FASA.....all good studios killed because of Microsoft.

Then look at RARE.....just a pitiful shadow of it's former self.

Bungie....they got smart and got the hell away from Microsoft before it was too late.

Microsoft is incompetent......no one can deny this.

Activision would do wise to run, not walk, away from any parts of a Microsoft acquisition.

That would kill at least 1/3rd of Activision's market, that being people not compelled to buy a platform just for Call of Duty, yet who are interested enough in the game and others to buy it

I agree with Troll_Whisperer. Vivendi is insane to do this.

I agree with the first part of your statement because this would suck for Activision if their franchises were to suddenly become exclusive.  Activision's whole business model is predicated on selling their games to as many people as possible and on as many platforms as possible.  It would probably mean layoffs and devaluation, which in turn would suck even for Microsoft.

However, I disagree with the second (bolded) part because Vivendi doesn't care about the gaming industry......All they want is cash.  

Call Of Duty isn't really gonna grow anymore, and neither is Wow.....they can only go down at this point, so they figure they can cash out and make this someone elses problem.  Vivendi's not insane at all.......shrewd business people is more like it.

LATEST UPDATE: selected investors not much interested, Vivendi could have to sell Activision on the market.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-13/vivendi-s-search-for-activision-suitors-off-to-slow-start.html

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/07/13/vivendi-finding-little-enthusiasm-in-selling-activision?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ign%2Fnews+%28IGN+All+News%29

Lol they tryed to shop it to take 2? They must be desperate to get rid of it, there is no way that they would be able to raise $10b, tho I see they have droped the asking price down to $8.27. Disney could afford it but they already stepped away from "core games" so not surprised. Tencent and Nexon can't afford it.

I guess that the stock will end up on the open market at this rate, tho I wonder why they don't try selling Activision and Blizzard separately.