Because their is no console port in the works either.      Microsoft may make COD exclusive but everyone knows that COD is on the works for other consoles and the shareholders can with ease start a case about it because it is losing income/profit on purpose and win the case with no effort at all. 

sure make Black Ops multiplat, because it is in the works already but next gen they can easily make every CoD game Xbox 3 exclusive. It is not like MS has to keep supporting the PS3 when they bought ActiBlizz for 10 billion.

I think they should though. Especially since consoles are getting more and more app driven. I would like to get a Virtual Console and PSN app on my Xbox. The tree of them could just release some games and gimped versions of some exclusives. Like say you could buy COD on XBL from your PS4 but wouldn't have access to DLC and/or multiplayer. If you want multiplayer you have to get the retail version which is only available on Xbox. The good thing about this is that even if you chance console you would be able to keep your games since they're from XBL. Sony and Nintendo could release something similar... Cloud Gaming could bring a lot, MS doesn't care where Windows ends up as long as it sells. I think that's what they will be doing with XBL and Kinect. Every hardware company should be able to make an Xbox and Kinect... now Smartglass is making sense.

It doesn't explain why, though. As in, why would Activision be first to be sold, given that it's profitable? That's the part I'm offering a possible explanation for, and that explanation is informing my opinion on the idea of MS buying Activision.

what part of them selling NBC Universal last year didn't you understand? And if you mean videogame company well they only own the one. 

I don't think they are, I think they're being very smart. WOW is already declining and COD is going to whether it's with BLOPS2 or the one after that or the one after that. By selling activision now, they're selling it while it's at a high point, possibly t it's highest point ever (and will get the highest price), rather than when it's biggest franshises are selling a fraction of what they once did and they're struggling to create the next big thing.

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.
Rocksteady Studios - Batman Arkham games, of course. Not really the kind of thing Activision does. 
TT Games - Makes most of the LEGO games.
Monolith Productions - Outside of FEAR and Condemned games from 2009 and earlier, they've made a minor RTS (Guardians of Middle Earth) and a minor FPS title (Gotham City Imposters).
Other than that, the other named studios are pretty minor.

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.

This sounds like the perfect solution...

Microsoft turns studios to crap, activision is a milking company with nothing but CoD... yeah i can see us getting rid of this CoD sillyness soon enough. Do it Microsoft, the market can only get better without another shallow and greedy publisher. I wonder if blizzard will go down the drain aswell or microsoft is gonna let them be... amusing times.

Next dont miss it: Blizzard doing kinect games and avatars! LOL

If Sony was smart, they would buy SEGA in response to that. Loads of juicy IP's cheap there.

Lol i see someone mad.

Turn 10, Bungie, 343i, LionHead - how were this studios turned to crap if they are making great games over the years ? Also Epic and Remedy wich are partners with Microsoft.

Lol you are a joke kid.

Talking about this well i see this being done by Microsoft so they get Bungie game/ cods exclusives for next gen aswell blizzard amazing games.

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.