MICROSOFT IS BUYING BLIZZARD! Noooooooooo! :(

Vesayen · January 24, 2003, 14:51

(Vivendi owns Blizzard, and Sierra, amoung others)

Reuters
Microsoft, Vivendi in video game talks - analyst
Friday January 24, 12:30 pm ET

LOS ANGELES, Jan 24 (Reuters) - Investment bank Investec said on Friday that it believed Microsoft Corp. (NasdaqNM:MSFT - News) was in talks with French media conglomerate Vivendi Universal (NYSE:V - News) about buying Vivendi's video game business for as much as $2 billion.
ADVERTISEMENT

A spokeswoman for Vivendi Universal's game unit declined to comment. A Microsoft spokeswoman could not be immediately reached for comment.

Jeff Van Rhee, Investec's director of enterprise software research, told Reuters he had received indications a deal was in the works. "There was some pretty actionable data that said something had just happened and things were heating up pretty quickly," he said.

Speculation has been rampant for months on the fate of Vivendi Universal Games, which publishes well-known PC titles like "WarCraft" and "Diablo" and games based on J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" books.

The division, which is strongest in PC games but also has significant console game operations, has been reported at various times in the last year to be either up for sale or in preparations for an initial public offering.

Sources told Reuters in mid-December that Vivendi had had at least preliminary conversations about the potential for a deal with Microsoft, Sony Corp. (Tokyo:6758.T - News) and Electronic Arts Inc. (NasdaqNM:ERTS - News).

Van Rhee, in his note, reiterated past speculation that Vivendi has been seeking a price of anywhere from $1 billion to $2 billion for the games unit. Most financial analysts have characterized the lower end of that range as more likely.

Microsoft, which bought British games developer Rare for $375 million cash in September, has said it would be most interested in acquiring game developers that could add to its internal product efforts rather than a full-fledged publisher.

One of the main criticisms of the company's Xbox video game console has been the lack of internally produced hit titles, though the company did find success with the military action game "Halo" in 2001 and 2002.

A number of video game companies have warned that their results for the December quarter would be weaker than previously expected as retailers became more conservative in their ordering, only taking large quantities of titles with proven hit potential.

Asher · January 24, 2003, 14:58

ComputerandVideoGames.com reported it on wednesday.

Not only would it be Blizzard, but also Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, Half-Life 2, Counter-Strike, TeamFortress 2, etc...

Quote:

MICROSOFT TO BUY VIVENDI?

Fevered speculation points to a shock swoop by Bill Gates's company, with an announcement imminent

19:25 If insider speculation is to be believed, Microsoft has bought US publisher Vivendi, with an announcement to that effect due soon. Take a deep breath and reflect on the implications of that, if true.
Half-Life 2, Warcraft, Counter-Strike, Crash, Spyro, Lord of the Rings... Vivendi has an enormous portfolio boasting some of the biggest titles on all formats, and it would be an ultra-smart move on Microsoft's part to snap them up. Such a buyout, of course, would come at a terrifically high price, making the 365 million acquisition of Rare look like peanuts. But if anyone has the necessary funds, it's Microsoft.

Rumours regarding potential buyout targets for Microsoft are nothing new, of course, and have been spreading for months, with the likes of Sega and Capcom both mentioned in dispatches. However, talk of the Microsoft/Vivendi deal seems far more serious, with one insider suggesting the buyout could be confirmed as early as Friday.

Furthermore, an email from Universal was accidentally sent out to developers last week stating that all work on GBA titles should be suspended. The email was promptly recalled and branded an error, but could it be that this was in some way tied in with this alleged deal?

We contacted Vivendi for comment and a spokesperson told us: "We've heard all sorts of rumours over the past months - Activision, EA and many more. They'd all like to get their hands on Blizzard. I guess Microsoft are one of the few companies that has enough money."

A Microsoft spokesperson would only state: "This is a rumour and we do not comment on rumours."

If the rumours prove true, this will be a huge boost for Microsoft's soaring Xbox console, providing it with a broad spectrum of big-name games that would either appear as Xbox lead or as Xbox exclusives outright.

I don't see why your reaction is "NOOOOOOOOOO!" though. MS funds its game division way better than Vivendi ever did, and they make PC games as well as Xbox games...

The only direct implication this has on Blizzard games would be Starcraft: Ghost would not longer be on all three consoles, and now is an Xbox exclusive...

Az · January 24, 2003, 15:00

oh no, less competition, less innovation. less new ideas for games

OneFootInTheGrave · January 24, 2003, 15:01

So Valve goes back to Microsoft :d... I think its founder was a long time MSFT employee, like from beggining of the eighties.

OneFootInTheGrave · January 24, 2003, 15:01

Anyway perhaps MSFT will gain too much influence in the industry? As if they do not have enough already.

DinoDoc · January 24, 2003, 15:02

Quote:

The only direct implication this has on Blizzard games would be Starcraft: Ghost would not longer be on all three consoles, and now is an Xbox exclusive...

Noooooooooo!

monkspider · January 24, 2003, 15:03

I never much cared for Blizzard games, but this is quite a coup for MS obviously.

Asher · January 24, 2003, 15:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
oh no, less competition, less innovation. less new ideas for games

Huh????????

Vivendi is *SELLING* the division. It'd end up as either a Sony, EA, or Microsoft property. How does this create less competition, and how does it encourage less innovation??

Quote:

So Valve goes back to Microsoft :d... I think its founder was a long time MSFT employee, like from beggining of the eighties.

Yeah, Gabe Newell was a Windows NT bigwig before making Valve...

Az · January 24, 2003, 15:07

It's not an anti-MS rant. It's a general anti-gamemaker-merger rant.

Asher · January 24, 2003, 15:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
It's not an anti-MS rant. It's a general anti-gamemaker-merger rant.

I still don't see what difference it'll make...

DinoDoc · January 24, 2003, 15:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

I still don't see what difference it'll make...

I won't get to play Starcraft: Ghost! That's the difference it will make!

Asher · January 24, 2003, 15:13

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I won't get to play Starcraft: Ghost! That's the difference it will make!

You also can't play a whole bunch of awesome games.

That's life when you only own one console.

Like Crimson Skies is shaping up VERY nicely...it will now support Xbox Live also. http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen004.jpg

Az · January 24, 2003, 15:15

Asher? remember, when there were more developers? More titles came out then. Games were innovative, brilliant, etc. now, We don't see that. We only see different games of SAME generes. I don't like it.

I am an oldie fan. But clearly isn't just that.

Asher · January 24, 2003, 15:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Asher? remember, when there were more developers? More titles came out then. Games were innovative, brilliant, etc. now, We don't see that. We only see different games of SAME generes. I don't like it.

I am an oldie fan. But clearly isn't just that.

Um...Azazel...there's far more developers now than there ever was in the history of games.

And competition doesn't cause people to innovate, it causes people to clone eachother's games.

Microsoft is one of the few developers to actually encourage innovation in games. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Blinx is an innovative platformer, Tao Feng an innovative fighter, etc.

To be honest there's just no basis for your rant. There are plenty of brilliant and innovative games out there, there's no shortage of them now.

DinoDoc · January 24, 2003, 15:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
You also can't play a whole bunch of awesome games.

But I don't care at all about Halo 2 or Brute Force. Why should MS strip this little slice gaming goodness from me?

Now that I'm calm. What are the chances of it being an Xbox lead like Splinter Cell and not a complete exclusive?

Edit: Like Crimson Skies is shaping up VERY nicely...

You're an evil person to kick a man when he's down.

Asher · January 24, 2003, 15:20

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Now that I'm calm. What are the chances of it being an Xbox lead like Splinter Cell and not a complete exclusive?

Zero, if MS really did buy Vivendi's game division.

It'd be like putting Halo 2 on the Gamecube or PS2.

Xbox always was the lead development platform for Ghost, it was to be ported to the GCN and PS2 before release. I don't think the quality of the game would have been good on the GCN and PS2 to beginwith, since they'd be ports...

Quote:

But I don't care at all about Halo 2 or Brute Force. Why should MS strip this little slice gaming goodness from me?

What about Fable? Psychonauts? Perfect Dark? Sam & Max? etc. None of those games do anything for you?

Az · January 24, 2003, 15:28

Quote:

Um...Azazel...there's far more developers now than there ever was in the history of games.

*thinks*that is truth. lots of new players from places like central and eastern europe, btw.

what I meant is that there is no innovation in new game types. you see:

Quote:

Microsoft is one of the few developers to actually encourage innovation in games. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Blinx is an innovative platformer, Tao Feng an innovative fighter, etc.

no new game genres, just working with old basic ideas. I am craving for something revolutionary.

Asher · January 24, 2003, 15:29

You mean like Rise of Nations? Which is, ironically, a Microsoft game...

And what genre would you place GTA3 in? Midtown Maddness 3?

DinoDoc · January 24, 2003, 15:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
I don't think the quality of the game would have been good on the GCN and PS2 to beginwith, since they'd be ports...

It still would likely have been better on the GCN than on the PS2 simply on the basis of hardware alone.

Quote:

What about Fable? Psychonauts? Perfect Dark? etc. None of those games do anything for you?

I've never heard of the first two and I never got around to playing Perfect Dark 1 on the N64.

Thankfully, Blizzard is likely to remain primarially a PC game developer even if the MS deal goes through.

Drake Tungsten · January 24, 2003, 15:31

Quote:

I don't think the quality of the game would have been good on the GCN and PS2 to beginwith, since they'd be ports...

I agree. Ports do suck, as MGS2: Substance proved.

Asher · January 24, 2003, 15:32

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I've never heard of the first two and I never got around to playing Perfect Dark 1 on the N64.

Fable is Project Ego, they renamed it.
Psychonauts is the game by Tim Schaffer.

Nubclear · January 24, 2003, 15:34

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I never got around to playing Perfect Dark 1 on the N64.

Anyway, hopefully Microsoft will then force Blizzard to make STARCRAFT 2 for the PC ON ITS OWN.....But seeing how blizzard is making some FPS on a console (and letting another developer do it), I highly doubt anything will change it....

SnowFire · January 24, 2003, 15:50

Sigh... Ashie, Ashie...

Even if this deal DID go through, that's hardly a guarentee that "all the multi-platform console games will go XBox only." Just like after Sony bought a good chunk of Square, Square still didn't stay PS2 only. Now, would they encourage more games to be ported to the Box, and maybe encourage more new XBox games? Sure, I bet they would. But I don't think they'll toss out all the previous work.

And why do you say that Ghost is being done XBox first, then port? Any source?

Asher · January 24, 2003, 15:54

Quote:

Originally posted by SnowFire
Sigh... Ashie, Ashie...

Even if this deal DID go through, that's hardly a guarentee that "all the multi-platform console games will go XBox only." Just like after Sony bought a good chunk of Square, Square still didn't stay PS2 only. Now, would they encourage more games to be ported to the Box, and maybe encourage more new XBox games? Sure, I bet they would. But I don't think they'll toss out all the previous work.

This makes no sense.
First, Sony bought less than 10% of Square. MS is buying 100% of Vivendi's game division, if this is true.

And yes, they WILL toss out all of the previous work. That's what Rockstar did when Sony signed them to an exclusive contract: the Xbox game was scheduled to ship a couple months after E3 but was cancelled due to the deal.

MS would certainly NOT publish any games for the PS2 or Gamecube...you're smoking something if you think they will.

Quote:

And why do you say that Ghost is being done XBox first, then port? Any source?

Every single one of the screenshots released have been Xbox screenshots, figure it out.

DinoDoc · January 24, 2003, 15:55

Thanks for the reality check, Snow. I needed it.

Asher · January 24, 2003, 15:57

Snow is on something, Dino.

Do YOU honestly believe MS would publish GCN and PS2 games once they acquire Vivendi's game division?

His example of Sony and Square is laughable, Sony has such a pathetically small stake in Square and MS is buying 100% of Vivendi...

Asher · January 24, 2003, 15:59

If we followed Snow's logic, Kameo would be released for the Gamecube in 2003.

But once MS bought Rare (100%, again), Kameo was changed to be exclusively Xbox...

Same thing will happen with Ghost and all other multiplatform/other platform games Vivendi is working on.

Az · January 24, 2003, 16:03

Quote:

You mean like Rise of Nations? Which is, ironically, a Microsoft game...

And what genre would you place GTA3 in? Midtown Maddness 3?

Rise of nations looks to be great. however it is still an RTS.

GTA3, together with Sims, are perhaps the most innovative games made in the last years. true, both were made by the big boys, but my point is if the big boys held less power, there would be more of those.

Asher · January 24, 2003, 16:04

Quote:

GTA3, together with Sims, are perhaps the most innovative games made in the last years. true, both were made by the big boys, but my point is if the big boys held less power, there would be more of those.

The exact opposite is usually true.

Innovative games are exceptionally risky. You need a big-boy to fund the project for the most part, one with deep pockets and can take a loss if the game flops.

Frankychan · January 24, 2003, 16:47

Hmmm, I thought Squaresoft agreed to be 'PS2-exclusive' for a coupla years? I've read that Square and Sony have a contract going on.

As for 'Ghost', I hope its not going to be Only On X-Box. I wouldn't mind trying that game out.

But as for Splinter Cell *drool*...I hear it's coming out on PS2 so I finally get to play THE game I've been looking forward to. All I have to do is wait.

Oh yeah, as for the classification of GTA, I'd personally put it under Action. But unfortunately I see other game developers trying to make copies of it instead of trying to find their own innovativeness. I like GTA, but come on, lets get new stuff out there instead of the same old game style.