CJ_Parker wrote on Nov 4, 2015, 09:42:

Slick wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 22:13:
then I guess... enjoy your $5.9B purchase of CandyCrush! everytime you've given Acti-Bliz a dollar, you've basically been funding this deal. that's where your dollars go.

If you can't understand the difference between spending money on your own studios, developing new IPs, and generally trying to push gaming forward... and paying $5.9B for fucking candy crush, then you might just be too far gone for help.

You vote with your dollars, and you're obviously okay with a company taking zero chances, pushing out a watered down lowest-common-denominator rehash every 3 years. Oh and the billions they'll make off this garbage? You can rest assured that it will be well spent.

I'd rather give my income to publishers who A) take risks, B) employ thousands of developers, and not the publishers who A) never take a risk, and B) employ as few actual artists as they can financially get away with.

and to wash your hands of what's actually going on as "all companies only care about their bottom line" is irresponsible. Obviously they exist to make money, HOW they go about doing that is what's under scrutiny here, not the WHY. Elon Musk makes billions making electric cars, meanwhile BP makes billions from raping the planet and spitting carbon into the air... they both just want to make money! *washes hands* lol. get a clue.

^ biggest LOL ever when this is coming from a guy who is defending Star Wars Battlefront like a slobbering dripping wet little fangurl.
EA is just as guilty of every single thing you (rightfully) accuse ActiBlizz of, dude.

did you play battlefront? did you see that game? you can't tell the difference when a publisher actually pours money into game development? no i guess battlefront is the same thing as candy crush.

/thread

siapnar wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 11:34:
This is going to bite them in the ass. There's no way that Candy Crush will continue to rake in the kind of money it has been.

The ROI on this seems poor.

Also, more faith lost in the human race. That game is probably the most annoying piece of "entertainment" on the planet

this has nothing to do with candy crush the game.. it has to do with the amount of people playing it..and the other 200 games that company owns.. seems to me blizzard is attempting to build a platform for gaming.. somewhere between valve and facebook.. only the future ill tell.. i personally think they are shooting themselves in the foot.

this line here is the tell all. for the direction they are trying to go..

"With a combined global network of more than half a billion monthly active users, our potential to reach audiences around the world on the device of their choosing enables us to deliver great games to even bigger audiences than ever before."

Slick wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 22:13:
then I guess... enjoy your $5.9B purchase of CandyCrush! everytime you've given Acti-Bliz a dollar, you've basically been funding this deal. that's where your dollars go.

If you can't understand the difference between spending money on your own studios, developing new IPs, and generally trying to push gaming forward... and paying $5.9B for fucking candy crush, then you might just be too far gone for help.

You vote with your dollars, and you're obviously okay with a company taking zero chances, pushing out a watered down lowest-common-denominator rehash every 3 years. Oh and the billions they'll make off this garbage? You can rest assured that it will be well spent.

I'd rather give my income to publishers who A) take risks, B) employ thousands of developers, and not the publishers who A) never take a risk, and B) employ as few actual artists as they can financially get away with.

and to wash your hands of what's actually going on as "all companies only care about their bottom line" is irresponsible. Obviously they exist to make money, HOW they go about doing that is what's under scrutiny here, not the WHY. Elon Musk makes billions making electric cars, meanwhile BP makes billions from raping the planet and spitting carbon into the air... they both just want to make money! *washes hands* lol. get a clue.

^ biggest LOL ever when this is coming from a guy who is defending Star Wars Battlefront like a slobbering dripping wet little fangurl.
EA is just as guilty of every single thing you (rightfully) accuse ActiBlizz of, dude.

Oh boy, another mega corporation dedicated to selling the least costly to produce slot machine games to the masses.

Slick wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 22:13:
then I guess... enjoy your $5.9B purchase of CandyCrush! everytime you've given Acti-Bliz a dollar, you've basically been funding this deal. that's where your dollars go.

Well then, I guess you're one to not give money to any company, seeing as after-all, they are all using whatever money they gain to further expand their 'territory' in their markets, be it ActiBlizz or EA, or even McDonalds.

If you can't understand the difference between spending money on your own studios, developing new IPs, and generally trying to push gaming forward... and paying $5.9B for fucking candy crush, then you might just be too far gone for help.

If you cannot understand the concept of how businesses are run, then I might suggest not commenting on them. You keep parroting the whole cost of what they spent to purchase King without knowing that they have more than just Candy Crush, they also have millions of instilled users and teams of development staff already established and understanding of their market.

ActiBlizz has been looking to break into the mobile market (much like every other game company) and they went about it in a way that, normally, isn't a big deal.

You vote with your dollars, and you're obviously okay with a company taking zero chances, pushing out a watered down lowest-common-denominator rehash every 3 years. Oh and the billions they'll make off this garbage? You can rest assured that it will be well spent.

Zero chances? Sorry, but c'mon...Overwatch and Heroes are two new games entering a very saturated market, and both of them in their own ways are doing better in their early life cycles against their bigger contenders. Overwatch, which just entered closed 'testing' is garnering better marks than TF2 in the sense that it's a game that allows differing skill levels of players to play together and to actually contribute, where-as TF2 is well-known for being top dog and uses a high skill ceiling for the good players to the point that newer players are left so far in the dust that they couldn't contribute even if they tried.

I mean, really, you show just how ignorant of business you are here by showing an obvious bias, especially since you keep claiming "taking zero chances".

I'd rather give my income to publishers who A) take risks, B) employ thousands of developers, and not the publishers who A) never take a risk, and B) employ as few actual artists as they can financially get away with.

I really wonder where you get your information, because the last I saw no company out there doesn't take a risk in their sectors. Hell, since you seem so hellbent on this, spending $6B on another company is a risk, especially in the volatile mobile market where people's whims change near-hourly.

and to wash your hands of what's actually going on as "all companies only care about their bottom line" is irresponsible. Obviously they exist to make money, HOW they go about doing that is what's under scrutiny here, not the WHY. Elon Musk makes billions making electric cars, meanwhile BP makes billions from raping the planet and spitting carbon into the air... they both just want to make money! *washes hands* lol. get a clue.

How is ActiBlizz any different than EA, or CDPR, or any number of companies out there? What you're seeing is a company that wants to expand into a different sector and they have the resources to obtain the knowledge and skill of others.

Saying that all companies only care about the bottom-line is a simplistic retort, so yea, I'll own up to it, but it's neither dishonest nor irresponsible, it's standard business practice.

The red herring you toss up about Elon Musk is kinda funny...after-all, how does one make the batteries in those cars? You're talking about the outer-effects of companies, and not the actual role of said company, and honestly, that's literally the example of a strawman argument.

InBlack wrote on Nov 4, 2015, 03:04:
Why are you people even engaging Slick. Everyone knows that he shills for EA like he was on their fucking payroll. The sad thing is: He isn't.

It's midnight and I'm awake with little else to do, so I had some free time.

While I admit that Slick's been pretty adamant about his strange relationship over EA, it's just that there's so many people out there that throw impassioned responses to these events.

Like I pointed out, I'm a small-scale shareholder to ActiBlizz and, honestly, I strongly dislike the business practices of King...but I also recognize the business move this makes for both of them, and I could hope on a longshot that may, just maybe, it'll force King to stop ripping off other people's work.

Why are you people even engaging Slick. Everyone knows that he shills for EA like he was on their fucking payroll. The sad thing is: He isn't.

Yeah, luckily we're not talking about BP or fucking Lockheed Martin, Blackwater, Carlyle Group or Halliburton so your punk rock "oi oi" is doing nothing here. We're talking about a massive corporation "diversifying their portfolio" with a developer of casual games. Who fucking cares.... 5 billion to them is a big investment I'm sure but one that they are well prepared to delve out.

I defend Blizzard because they DO take intelligent chances, they take shit that has already been done before, sure - and then make them more entertaining, hire some super fucking talented people to do it - and guess what, they're getting paid good money!! HOLY SHIT!!!! FUCK THOSE GUYS While studios like Bethesda, Activision and Ubisoft hash out the same shit over and over again.

I still buy tons of independent games from "artists", small developers etc but are they publicly traded? No they aren't. They have to earn their shit by making good products and getting sales, just like Blizzard did. ATVI is a good investment if you're (currently) looking to invest in the stock market. 'Nuff said

then I guess... enjoy your $5.9B purchase of CandyCrush! everytime you've given Acti-Bliz a dollar, you've basically been funding this deal. that's where your dollars go.

If you can't understand the difference between spending money on your own studios, developing new IPs, and generally trying to push gaming forward... and paying $5.9B for fucking candy crush, then you might just be too far gone for help.

You vote with your dollars, and you're obviously okay with a company taking zero chances, pushing out a watered down lowest-common-denominator rehash every 3 years. Oh and the billions they'll make off this garbage? You can rest assured that it will be well spent.

I'd rather give my income to publishers who A) take risks, B) employ thousands of developers, and not the publishers who A) never take a risk, and B) employ as few actual artists as they can financially get away with.

and to wash your hands of what's actually going on as "all companies only care about their bottom line" is irresponsible. Obviously they exist to make money, HOW they go about doing that is what's under scrutiny here, not the WHY. Elon Musk makes billions making electric cars, meanwhile BP makes billions from raping the planet and spitting carbon into the air... they both just want to make money! *washes hands* lol. get a clue.

This comment was edited on Nov 3, 2015, 22:18.

Slick wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 20:19:
Where does your money go?

When you buy a card pack in Hearthstone, or renew a sub in WoW? You probably think that you're supporting game developers to continue to make content for your favorite game. NOPE. It went to buy candy crush.

Where does the money go when Valve makes a flat %30 on essentially the entire PC gaming industry? You think they re-invest it back into studios? nope! They pocket it. That where your money goes every time you buy from them.

last I counted in the past 20 years, Valve and Bliz have each put out 5 IPs. fucking five. And yet EA and Ubi are the bad guys, the big evil corporations... you know, the ones who employ over 5000+ employees each. Who make games.

So keep giving your money to people who openly give you the finger, who are essentially spending your good will on crack. And then be sure to attack the other guys who put food on the table for literally thousands of families, and bring many times more games, and new IPs (yes and old recycled IPs too) into the culture of gaming.

Massive Corporations like Acti-Bliz and Valve aren't concerned with making games, they're concerned with sucking up every penny of disposable income from gamers while contributing nothing to the industry.

EVERY corporation is only concerned about their bottom-line, whether it's ActiBlizz, EA, CDPR, or any other business out there. They are also concerned about making the game, which affects their bottom-lines, and it is in their best interest to garner as much money by doing what they do, in this case, which is making games.

Also, the shotgun method of development isn't always the best...if one studio puts out a game every few years and it's better than than a studio that puts out a game every 3 months, then I'll probably be happier with the former.

Where does your money go?

When you buy a card pack in Hearthstone, or renew a sub in WoW? You probably think that you're supporting game developers to continue to make content for your favorite game. NOPE. It went to buy candy crush.

Where does the money go when Valve makes a flat %30 on essentially the entire PC gaming industry? You think they re-invest it back into studios? nope! They pocket it. That where your money goes every time you buy from them.

last I counted in the past 20 years, Valve and Bliz have each put out 5 IPs. fucking five. And yet EA and Ubi are the bad guys, the big evil corporations... you know, the ones who employ over 5000+ employees each. Who make games.

So keep giving your money to people who openly give you the finger, who are essentially spending your good will on crack. And then be sure to attack the other guys who put food on the table for literally thousands of families, and bring many times more games, and new IPs (yes and old recycled IPs too) into the culture of gaming.

Massive Corporations like Acti-Bliz and Valve aren't concerned with making games, they're concerned with sucking up every penny of disposable income from gamers while contributing nothing to the industry.

Exactly, I'm not a huge fan of Activision but I love my Blizz games - though as a shareholder as well - I see this as a solid business decision/interest that will be good for their business so good for you and I. I don't have a prob with that as long as Blizz continues to make good games, but they better get on Warcraft IV or I'm sellin'

Stanly Manly wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 18:53:
What's all this talk about making games? This is about making money. You think CEO's give a shit about anything but making shareholders happy and seeing profit?

As a tiny portion shareholder, I would like to point out that a game company to make profits needs to make games...normally they have to be compelling enough to make money, but in any fashion, the company needs to make the games to make the profits. In this case, they purchased a company that has shown year to year profits and they (ActiBlizz) have made it no secret they want to expand into the mobile space...this makes perfect sense to make 'games and money'.

What's all this talk about making games? This is about making money. You think CEO's give a shit about anything but making shareholders happy and seeing profit?

jacobvandy wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 16:39:

fujiJuice wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 14:37:
They are buying the userbase, just like Microsoft did.

I think you're spot on. It's not billions of dollars just to own the games and earn back that much money or more, they're putting their name on them so that hundreds of millions of people -- many of which would be hearing about them for the first time -- might begin to associate Activision with the kind of freemium crap they like. Then maybe when they see an ad for Call of Duty or whatever else, they might give that a try, too. It's simple advertising, and that figure probably looks like peanuts compared to how much they're spending on all their other marketing every year, targeting a much smaller segment of people in the world.

There's also the high chance of this being a 'purchase of technology and resources', with ActiBliz wanting to push into the mobile market (see: Hearthstone), they probably want a more dedicated department working on it. A team that has experience and established technology can be something that makes or breaks a company venturing into that area.

Yea, near $6B is $6B too high for a company that prides itself on stealing ideas from others in my opinion, but from a business trade off of obtaining an established user base and development house, I see what they are attempting.

I can't believe they paid 6 billion for candy crush. A little perspective starwars & marvel was purchase for 4 billion each. I can't fathom how it is possible that candy crush is worth 50% more (on paper) than either of those franchises. I mean it's relatively new and their primary customers are casual gamers with little brand loyalty. What would stop them picking up and leaving to the next candy crush like game from another developer? Utter madness

I look at it more as $5.9 billion for the acquisition of King's customer data plus $1.8 billion/year of extra revenue. That data is valuable. It's for 500+ million active users.

fujiJuice wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 14:37:
They are buying the userbase, just like Microsoft did.

I think you're spot on. It's not billions of dollars just to own the games and earn back that much money or more, they're putting their name on them so that hundreds of millions of people -- many of which would be hearing about them for the first time -- might begin to associate Activision with the kind of freemium crap they like. Then maybe when they see an ad for Call of Duty or whatever else, they might give that a try, too. It's simple advertising, and that figure probably looks like peanuts compared to how much they're spending on all their other marketing every year, targeting a much smaller segment of people in the world.

Slick wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 10:59:

Parallax Abstraction wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 10:13:
This is like a nexus of evil management.

Goddamn, can you fucking believe 5.9B for candy crush????

just imagine for a moment, if they spent that on new IPs, you could pay 5900 developers $100k a year EACH for 10 years. I'm pretty sure you could build something more impressive than candy crush with that army. But when has Acti-Bliz gambled on anything that doesn't have a proven multi-billion dollar revenue stream lately?

Just like Valve, who literally haven't had an original thought since the original Half-Life (count em: CounterStrike, Team Fortress, Portal, Left4Dead, Dota2, ALL based off of mods which Valve bought out).

The lesson here is clear: don't take chances. Companies who actually employ developers like EA and Ubisoft take chances, and lots of their games are shit. But the public has spoken, they'd rather have a money-grubbing corp like Valve or Acti-Bliz spoon-feed them dumbed-down test-audience-approved, over-marketed, lowest-common-denominator pieces of shovelware.

Well said, dude. This is really incredible and a new all-time low.

With $6bn they could make 1,200 -ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED- games like Divinity Original Sin or Wasteland 2.
They could literally take HUNDREDS of risks along the lines of crowdfunded projects.
At a FRACTION of the cost of $6bn they could have founded dozens upon dozens of smaller in-house studios/teams to try something new and creative.

Instead this....

$6bn for more casual garbage as if they didn't already have enough of that in their catalog and coming up (like that Overwatch shooter for tards).

Un-fucking-believable...

Slick wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 10:59:

Parallax Abstraction wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 10:13:
This is like a nexus of evil management.

Just like Valve, who literally haven't had an original thought since the original Half-Life (count em: CounterStrike, Team Fortress, Portal, Left4Dead, Dota2, ALL based off of mods which Valve bought out).

Steam?

killer_roach wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 11:37:

PacoTaco wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 11:18:
Can anyone do the math on how much Candy needs to be sold to break even on this deal? Must be 1000 clones of Candy Crush at this point and done mostly by terrible devs.

Last I had heard, King was estimated to be making $250 million a year in profit off of their titles. Assuming flat revenue growth, that means Activision bought them at a forward P/E of about 24 - which is actually on the low side for software companies. Makes me think there's a considerable (possibly massive) risk premium built into this purchase.

Mind you, it'd make sense to take as much of a risk premium on this company as possible - King doesn't really have the same sort of network infrastructure that even Activision has, much less Ubisoft or EA, and they don't have any significant software tech assets like engines, APIs, or patents. What Activision bought was a franchise built on some aging IP, and paid dearly for it. This makes Microsoft's purchase of Mojang seem sane in comparison - the only rival in terms of a ballsy acquisition in online/mobile gaming that I can think of was the rumors of Microsoft buying Zynga before they ran away from that potential buyout screaming in terror.

They are buying the userbase, just like Microsoft did.

InBlack wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 09:49:
All hail the new Kings of Casual!

All Hail Diablo Poop Crush!
All Hail Heroes of Warcraft Sugar Candy Mountain!
All Hail Heart of Stone Mega Kerrigan Crush Saga!
All Hail! Hail! Hail!

Beat me to it. Blizz themed Crush Sagas in 3...2...1...