Activision Blizzard voted most likely to succeed
by Mike Schramm 
Feb 19th 2009 at 3:30PM
An industry survey put together by GI.biz has voted WoW's own Activision Blizzard as the most likely videogame publisher to succeed in 2009. Not that surprising -- not only do they have the Warcraft behemoth under their belt, but Starcraft 2 is rumored for a release this year, as is a sequel to 2007's best selling game, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and a Guitar Hero spinoff called DJ Hero.And who knows what BlizzCon will hold -- even though we're only now reaching the steps of Icecrown, the time is ripe for Blizzard to start hinting at content patches that come after 3.1, or maybe even expansion number three. Blizzard and their parent company at Activision are on top of the world right now, so there's no question why 30% of the industry folks surveyed said they'd have the biggest 2009 around. We can't wait.
[via Joystiq]
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Odds and ends, Blizzard, Expansions, Making money, BlizzCon
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Tumleren Feb 19th 2009 3:37PM
Things definitely are looking good for AV-B right now.
Can't wait for DJ Hero tbh
Zeplar Feb 19th 2009 3:42PM
I still cannot fathom why Blizzard is releasing a second MMO in direct competition with their first one.
Tech Feb 19th 2009 3:45PM
Starcraft II is an RTS (real time strategy) not an MMO.
Karilyn Feb 19th 2009 3:47PM
I'm pretty sure Blizzard does not want to.
This is an Activision push more likely than not. They see it as an opportunity to make more money, and don't realize that they will likely harm themselves in doing so.
Karilyn Feb 19th 2009 3:49PM
To clarify on what I meant when I said Blizzard wouldn't want to...
Blizzard has had a very long history of a simple concept... Don't release a game until it's ready.
Activision however, has been putting frequent and heavy pressures on Blizzard to release games with very heavy frequency, which risks lowering the quality of games that are developed.
Zeplar Feb 19th 2009 3:56PM
In response to Tech:
Blizzard is confirmed to be making Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, and an as-yet-unnamed MMO that is "Not related to the Warcraft universe," i.e. not an expansion or Warcraft 2.
In other words, an MMO that competes with WoW. o_O
Zeplar Feb 19th 2009 3:57PM
And in response to Karilyn, I believe news of said MMO was discovered (via job openings) long before the Activision merger was announced.
Johan Strauß Feb 19th 2009 4:08PM
To be honest I doubt we'll see this new MMO for a few years. WoW took years to come out, and that was from the point that they'd even announced what it was exactly.
Assuming WoW has at least 2 more expansions planned, the new MMO would likely come out close after the second of these releases.
I don't think this is pressure so much therefore. I think this is Blizzard trying to find away to 'mop-up' the players that leave warcraft as it dies out. And I wouldn't be suprised if the new battle-net login system (of which all our WoW account are now tied into) allows us to play both WoW and the new MMO for the cost of the one subscription.
This would encourage us all to play the new MMO as WoW's life came to an end, and get us all hooked on the new MMO.
Chelon Feb 19th 2009 4:17PM
Blizzard is absolutely correct in developing the next MMO.
The truly good companies are their own best competition. Jeff Kaplan has made the switch so they are going with their 'A' team.
The problem for WoW is all the obsolete content that new players must run through. Who wants to run through Azeroth and BC and level WoLK just to get up to everyone who has had time to experience these.
Plus the computer interface must meet some legacy constraints that drive developers crazy.
I'll bet that Blizzard will create the next great MMO and will have a special deal for those who have conquored the current one.
Retron Feb 19th 2009 4:29PM
Blizz has commented several times now that the new MMO would not be another WoW, and would be 'next gen' in terms of gameplay. What exactly that means we probably won't know for a couple of years, but at least we can be sure it's not WoW with a different (e.g. Starcraft) skin.
At any rate, having another MMO with relatively different gameplay won't do much to hurt WoW's success. Even if the player base overlaps, and some leave WoW to play the new one, how exactly does that hurt Blizzard? They can only make more money overall, by getting players that didn't like WoW. Think about Sprite, which is made by Coca-Cola...
Nemesis Feb 19th 2009 4:49PM
Sounds like a good idea to combine playing WoW and their other MMO into one payment.
Is there any proof that Activision are rushing the work of Blizzard? I recall Blizzard saying they are no way involved except financially with Blizzards work.
Arcaria Feb 19th 2009 4:01PM
Their stock is at a 52 week low right now and dropping pretty steadily. It dropped .18% today.
http://quote.morningstar.com/Quote/Quote.aspx?ticker=ATVI
Zeplar Feb 19th 2009 4:41PM
It takes a lot of money to develop a good MMO, and their new MMO cannot be as successful as WoW unless it comes out after WoW dies.
In any case...
I am still hoping that Blizzard buys the rights to Arcanum and makes a new MMO based off it =D I would sell my soul to them...
Kyane Feb 19th 2009 6:13PM
I wonder who was voted class clown....
Deathomen Feb 19th 2009 6:32PM
I for one really hope to hear Bobby Kotick as one of the Blizzcon speakers.......I would love nothing more than an opp. to peg that fool's head with eggs.
Chryso Feb 19th 2009 8:20PM
How does cannibalizing your only profitable division for all the money and talent you can squeeze a mark of future "success"?
Have these people even heard of Valve?
Psy Feb 19th 2009 11:18PM
Wait, wait? These people call making rip-offs of their own games success'?
TL;DR version: Activision can go screw themselves silly with a rusty rod from the tip. CoD sequels don't need to happen, neither do Guitar Hero rip-offs. Activision are using Blizzard for money. Simple.
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 2 - Do you HONESTLY think this game needs to be made? Activision will keep pumping out this fucking STUPID CoD games until all you idiots stop wasting your money on them. Call of Duty 1 was good, CoD2 fine, CoD3 was getting a bit too far. But CoD4 and up is just goddamn PATHETIC.
DJ Hero? WTF is "DJ Hero?" Call me a pessimist, narcissist and just a good ol' cynic of Activision but they are actually WORSE THAN EA. Worse than Electronic Arts. Can those words even be put in a sentence? They can now, because Activision is the new EA and EA are actually looking GOOD.
Activision don't care for WoW, or Warcraft in general, they care for money. If they did care for games we wouldn't see all this Guitar Hero shit and it's many rip-offs, we also wouldn't see games they like to slap older games titles on and call them games (referring to Call of Duty).
Activision Blizzard is not a success, in making money it is, but in making decent games to make gamers happy, it's not. If you're one of those people who actually believes more CoD games is a good thing, then you can give me your brain right now, because you don't deserve it.
Tumleren Feb 20th 2009 2:49AM
Cannibalistic it may be, but it's not shortsighted, in the sense that they think their current MMO will survive a lot more years. They are thinking ahead and making an MMO that will be able to take WoW's place. Is that bad?
Call of Duty 4 was one of the best in the CoD series due to it changing the game in a positive way, e.g. from WWII to current time. I'd rather play a game that takes place today rather than one of the gazillions of games that take place in WWII. 4 was much more fun that the others in my opinion, and a lot of people were bummed to hear that CoD 5 would go back to WWII
How are they worse than EA? By creating a spin-off? YES OHMFG WTFBBQq_q NO-ONE HAS DONE THIS BEFORE ONLY EA OMGLOL
Because they smack another name in front of "Hero" the game is automatically as bad as EA games? That's just stupid and prejudicial - Wait for the game to come out and see how it is before you bash it to hell - We don't know anything about it yet.
Activison doesn't "care for games" because they make a spin-off? A spin-off that hasn't (to my knowledge) been done before by a major company, making it an interesting new idea - That's bad? Okay, wow, good thing we have you to keep the business as it is without ever evolving. Thank god.
Again - Activision didn't just "slap on" a title on an old game. They changed the game.
And.. I have to give you my brain because I'm hoping that Activision will make another good CoD game like they have done before? I have to give you my brain because I think that more games are good (almost regardless of quality - who's forcing you to buy it? Isn't any game better than none, when you're complaining?) then here, have it.
You obviously need one yourself
Psy Feb 20th 2009 3:18AM
Activision are worse than EA not for making spin-offs but for constantly making sequels that don't need to be made. Oh, so CoD4 was good? So what, they're actually considering making a sequel to Call of Duty every few years, you think that's good?
Activision are worse than EA because at least EA admitted their mistakes, they still work for money but at least they admitted that buying out companies and laying off most of the workers was a BAD idea. Activision are worse because they make shit sequels, shit games, have crappy support (at least in my experience) and think of money.
Activision claim they won't put their foot in the mouth of Blizzard, but to me, that's got them dripping shit from their mouth. I find it easier to believe that the core will explode and we will all burn in a fiery explosion tomorrow than believing Activision won't influence Blizzard in any way.
And I suppose it's their right to do so, they are one in the same now technically speaking. But saying one thing and doing another doesn't make your company look good. Neither does making half-assed sequels of games when we need more ORIGINAL IP's.
So maybe I just don't like Activision because they, like most other "big" gaming companies, want to monopolize on everything. Hardly any game company gives a shit about the gamer anymore, they all just care for the money. And all I've seen for 2009 is shitty sequels and no IP, same with 2008.
Tumleren Feb 20th 2009 9:59AM
"So what, they're actually considering making a sequel to Call of Duty every few years, you think that's good?"
If the games are good, I can't see what's that bad about it
"Activision are worse because they make shit sequels, shit games, have crappy support (at least in my experience) and think of money."
In your opinion they make shit sequels. I don't think so (if you're thinking of CoD4 - If not, then what?). Wouldn't know if they have crappy support, never needed it. And wow, a company that thinks of earning money? Damn, that's gotta be a world-first.
"I find it easier to believe that the core will explode and we will all burn in a fiery explosion tomorrow than believing Activision won't influence Blizzard in any way."
It's two different things. One is saying that Activision will tell Blizzard what to do and what not to do, the other is being influenced by each other. There's quite a difference. One is "Do this!" the other is "Hey, Activision does this, let's try that". Of course they're going to influence Blizzard, they're the same company now. But that doesn't mean that Blizzard will automatically turn into a direct replica of Activision.
"Neither does making half-assed sequels of games when we need more ORIGINAL IP's." Again, how is it half-assed "sequels"? Which are you thinking about? They made the original CoD, made an agreement for someone else to do some of the sequels, and then made No. 4 (not sure if they made 2 or 3), followed by CoD 5 which was NOT made by Activision. Explain what you mean. (Oh, and what are IPs?)
"So maybe I just don't like Activision because they, like most other "big" gaming companies, want to monopolize on everything"
What are they trying to monopolize? They haven't got a monopoly on... anything