If there's anything that all the chaos between Activision and Infinity Ward in the past 24 hours has taught us, it's that no one is safe and dry under Bobby Kotick's umbrella. And while Call of Duty: Modern Warfare was one of Activision's biggest earners, that hasn't stopped the company from revamping the brand however it sees fit. So what about Activision's other big game, Blizzard's World of Warcraft? The same annual report released to the SEC yesterday that kicked off the Infinity Ward shakeup also mentions that Activision is worried about WoW becoming "obsolete," and that the regulatory issues in China could affect the entire company's bottom line.
So will we hear about Mike Morhaime being frogmarched off of the Blizzard campus? Not likely -- the fears about WoW are all in a section of the report labeled "Risk Factors," in which a company must disclose anything that could possibly go wrong with its financials in the future, just in case. In there, Activision worries about everything from credit card fraud to its ESRB ratings -- WoW is mentioned a lot because it makes up most of the revenue (in fact, one of the worries is that Activision depends on WoW too much), but these are all worst case scenario guesses. The report admits that Blizzard did decrease its net revenues last year, but then credits that to no new releases in 2009 and interrupted licensing fees from China. Assuming Blizzard releases both Starcraft II and Cataclysm as planned in 2010, the odds are low that Activision will raise the axe in that direction.
Reader Comments (51)
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 9:03PM Ballistic H said
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 9:05PM Ballistic H said
Btw, I've a feeling they might milk Starcraft and Diablo by turning them into MMO like they just did to CoD.
Reply
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 9:09PM einhanderkiller said
Unlikely. Blizzard already has a new MMO in development.
Reply
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 9:06PM Funkmaster General said
Activision by itself does not have the authority to axe WoW. Blizzard runs its own IP's, ran through a different man at the top. ActivsionBlizzard are one company, but Blizzard cannot axe Activsion titles and Activision cannot axe Blizzard titles unless there is an agreement.
Reply
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 9:17PM Funkmaster General said
"...Activision and Blizzard Entertainment still exist as separate entities"
Reply
Posted: Mar 3rd 2010 1:48AM Mr Tastix said
Yup, very true. Good thing too.
Blizzard Entertainment are pretty much the shining star amongst the companies Vivendi Games used to own, in the sense that it's classed as a separate entity and, for the most part, safe from the meddling of outsiders.
The same can't be said for all the other holdings Vivendi had, however. Look at the now defunct Sierra, for example.
Reply
Blizzard Entertainment are pretty much the shining star amongst the companies Vivendi Games used to own, in the sense that it's classed as a separate entity and, for the most part, safe from the meddling of outsiders.
The same can't be said for all the other holdings Vivendi had, however. Look at the now defunct Sierra, for example.
Posted: Mar 3rd 2010 10:05AM Warlock said
No, Kotick can not dictate what Blizzard does. Vivendi has majority share of that company. Technically, Blizzard owns Activision, not the other way around. While Kotick was appointed head of the double-company, I'm pretty sure there were some strong stipulations that he leaves them the hell alone.
Reply
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 9:20PM DevilSei said
And you obviously didn't read my comment then, because I know I read the article.
WoW is the definition of a "cash cow", so there should be no reason as to why they need to be put under the "risk" group. They are getting sued by the Chinese for about 212k USD, and player numbers have currently settled to a stable number, but that number is 11.5M, which more than makes up for that suit cost in a month or two. Not to mention the rip-off that is the Blizz-store is more than capable of getting idiots to buy from it.
Reply
WoW is the definition of a "cash cow", so there should be no reason as to why they need to be put under the "risk" group. They are getting sued by the Chinese for about 212k USD, and player numbers have currently settled to a stable number, but that number is 11.5M, which more than makes up for that suit cost in a month or two. Not to mention the rip-off that is the Blizz-store is more than capable of getting idiots to buy from it.
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 9:29PM Funkmaster General said
It's a risk factor because it makes the majority of their cash. If something were to happen to WoW, they would be screwed.
Reply
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 10:03PM Solar Jetman said
The awkward thing about financials, is that if something made $100 million net profit last year, and $90 million net profit this year, that's still a 10% loss and cause for concern.
Forget the fact that as a company you still have $90 million more dollars, it means your investors get a smaller share, and they may not be willing to throw you another $20 million when you do need it for something new.
Reply
Forget the fact that as a company you still have $90 million more dollars, it means your investors get a smaller share, and they may not be willing to throw you another $20 million when you do need it for something new.
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 10:04PM EvoHelix said
Even if they stop developing it, i'm sure this game will still be profitable 50 years from now simply by addiction amongst it's massive install base.
My grand kids won't believe me when I tell them that people used to wait till 40 to get their first mount.
Reply
My grand kids won't believe me when I tell them that people used to wait till 40 to get their first mount.
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 11:36PM aughscreennames said
You didnt understand the article and either did a lot of other people, they are not going to get rid of it, they want to update it. It makes so much money that they are afraid of it losing popularity and tanking the company.
If they take no action and just let it sit there then theyll end up like MySpace with people jumping ship in the millions to go to something better (Facebook).
Reply
If they take no action and just let it sit there then theyll end up like MySpace with people jumping ship in the millions to go to something better (Facebook).
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 11:53PM DevilSei said
Eh, where in the bloody hell did I say they were going to get rid of it?
And once again, for the 3rd time, Activision shouldn't be worrying about it. Blizzard damn well knows their game better then them, and anyone with half a mind would see that they are actually updating the game, without Kottick forcing his hands down their pants for their collective wallets.
It's called Cataclysm.
Reply
And once again, for the 3rd time, Activision shouldn't be worrying about it. Blizzard damn well knows their game better then them, and anyone with half a mind would see that they are actually updating the game, without Kottick forcing his hands down their pants for their collective wallets.
It's called Cataclysm.
Posted: Mar 3rd 2010 11:43PM Chareth Cutestory said
@Eh
I think the real fear here is what lengths Activision would take to "update" World of Warcraft, especially with this fear of obsolescence.
General consistency is one of the things that makes the persistent worlds of MMOs so enticing. Small mechanics might change now and again, but you'll seldom have the rug pulled out from under you, as SoE did with Star Wars: Galaxies.
Fear of being left behind by the fresh faced competition is what caused SoE to knock an average MMO down to an utter failure. I think the fear of Activision forcing something similar upon WoW in the coming years is legitimate.
I understand that these "risks" encompass every worst case scenario they can think of to temper their stockholders, but the things they see as "risks" are telling.
The MMO market has been fairly stagnant since WoW came out. A couple games have found middling audiences in that time, but no one has been able to loosen WoW's grip on the market. When the vast majority of MMOs currently available and slated for future release are still heavily cribbing WoW and its predecessors, a fear of WoW becoming "obsolete" seems unfounded. Any changes to the game pushed by Activision to stave off obsolescence would be fittingly unfit.
Reply
I think the real fear here is what lengths Activision would take to "update" World of Warcraft, especially with this fear of obsolescence.
General consistency is one of the things that makes the persistent worlds of MMOs so enticing. Small mechanics might change now and again, but you'll seldom have the rug pulled out from under you, as SoE did with Star Wars: Galaxies.
Fear of being left behind by the fresh faced competition is what caused SoE to knock an average MMO down to an utter failure. I think the fear of Activision forcing something similar upon WoW in the coming years is legitimate.
I understand that these "risks" encompass every worst case scenario they can think of to temper their stockholders, but the things they see as "risks" are telling.
The MMO market has been fairly stagnant since WoW came out. A couple games have found middling audiences in that time, but no one has been able to loosen WoW's grip on the market. When the vast majority of MMOs currently available and slated for future release are still heavily cribbing WoW and its predecessors, a fear of WoW becoming "obsolete" seems unfounded. Any changes to the game pushed by Activision to stave off obsolescence would be fittingly unfit.
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 9:14PM Jack Spicer said
"odds are low that Activision will raise the axe in that direction"
Hehe.
Does anyone know how much influence Activision has over Blizzard's hiring and firing?
Reply
Hehe.
Does anyone know how much influence Activision has over Blizzard's hiring and firing?
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 9:49PM Just A Canuck said
None at all I would think. Although they're both under ActivisonBlizzard, and owned by Vivendi, both still operate as separate companies. Hence why in Blizzard games they just Blizzard Entertainment, and Activison games just say Activison, instead of both companies games saying ActivisonBlizzard.
Reply
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 9:20PM CyberKnight said
This isn't news. Seriously. Don't read too much into it.
"'Risk Factors,' in which a company must disclose anything that could possibly go wrong with its financials in the future, just in case."
And by "anything", they really mean "EVERYTHING". I seriously doubt they spend all their time "worrying" about the list, as it probably lists things like a butterfly sneezing in Africa stirring up a typhoon that wipes out their corporate office.
The first time I read an SEC filing for a company I worked for and got to the section titled "Risk Factors", I was almost afraid to come in to work the next day. But then you get used to the "doomsday scenarios" and realize they're not predictions, just CYA so if anything *does* go wrong, they won't get sued by their investors claiming "YOU NEVER TOLD US THIS COULD HAPPEN!"
Reply
"'Risk Factors,' in which a company must disclose anything that could possibly go wrong with its financials in the future, just in case."
And by "anything", they really mean "EVERYTHING". I seriously doubt they spend all their time "worrying" about the list, as it probably lists things like a butterfly sneezing in Africa stirring up a typhoon that wipes out their corporate office.
The first time I read an SEC filing for a company I worked for and got to the section titled "Risk Factors", I was almost afraid to come in to work the next day. But then you get used to the "doomsday scenarios" and realize they're not predictions, just CYA so if anything *does* go wrong, they won't get sued by their investors claiming "YOU NEVER TOLD US THIS COULD HAPPEN!"
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 9:33PM Torpedo Vegas said
I was going to say this, but you beat me to it. So now I say "thank you"
Reply
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 9:55PM Just A Canuck said
If your wondering about WoW, one account=one subscription fee, but you can have more then one account assigned to a Battle.net account. For when SCII and Diablo 3 come out, you'll use all three (WoW, D3, SCII) under one Battle.net account. For as far as I know, there isn't any type of fee yet (if any) for SCII and D3. Although I wouldn't be surprised that if those two need some type of fee, that Blizzard would make it for you pay a certian amount (say $15/month, the same as WoW) and you get to play all three.
I hope this is the answer to what you were wondering.
Reply
I hope this is the answer to what you were wondering.
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 9:39PM Special Agent Steve said
AS long as they don't touch my fu****** peggles I'm all good. MY CRACK!
Reply
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 10:52PM ch3burashka said
Since Activision DOES get a big chunk of its revenue from Blizzard, their concerns are understandable.
However, citing WoW as a 'risk factor' AT THE SAME TIME as adding people to the Robomodo team? Purely shameless.
Unlike those MW2 Boycott wusses who caved on the first day, I challenge all of you to refrain from the next T.Hawk game, no matter the quality.
Reply
However, citing WoW as a 'risk factor' AT THE SAME TIME as adding people to the Robomodo team? Purely shameless.
Unlike those MW2 Boycott wusses who caved on the first day, I challenge all of you to refrain from the next T.Hawk game, no matter the quality.
Posted: Mar 2nd 2010 11:16PM (Unverified) said
The title of this article is somewhat irresponsible and misleading.
Reply
Posted: Mar 3rd 2010 1:02AM Deone said
"...assuming Blizzard releases both Starcraft II and Cataclysm as planned in 2010, the odds are low that Activision will raise the axe in that direction."
You know what they say happens when you assume? Apparently a couple of studio heads at IW made a commercial dream come true and assumed they had some bargaining/staying power, and look what happened to them.
(naturally we don't know the details surrounding the current controversy, so I'm inferring a bit there)
Reply
You know what they say happens when you assume? Apparently a couple of studio heads at IW made a commercial dream come true and assumed they had some bargaining/staying power, and look what happened to them.
(naturally we don't know the details surrounding the current controversy, so I'm inferring a bit there)
Posted: Mar 3rd 2010 10:46AM (Unverified) said
Cancel WoW! Cancel WoW! Cancel WoW! Cancel WoW!
Reply
Posted: Mar 3rd 2010 5:28PM hiruuamon said
The difference is that Blizzard's merger with Activision, was one of equals, not a typical buy-out...think Disney-Pixar. If Activision starts getting too demanding, you can bet ur sweet ass that Blizzard will tell them to pack sand and look to spin-off...in a heartbeat. The 2 companies are independent of each other and I can assure you, Mark Morhaime and his folks RUN Blizzard, not Bob "Boozo" Kotick.
Reply
Posted: Mar 3rd 2010 12:18PM (Unverified) said
WoW has been obsolete for years, but that hasn't stopped it. It never stops any MMO, really, as long as it had a reasonably long period of success. MMOs can continue turning a profit pretty much forever, which is why such oldies as Everquest I are still up and running. A game that people have to buy every month is a powerful moneymaker, even if not that many people are buying it. Even if better, modern MMOs come out, there will be a chunk of people who are stuck into WoW. Once you've invested ten thousand hours of your life, it's hard to walk away.
Reply
| 1 | 2 |
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.
Featured Stories
The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- Vita 'UMD Passport' won't be offered in US 218 comments
- Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning review: A tempting fate 152 comments
- David Jaffe leaves Eat Sleep Play, layoffs hit developer [Update] 107 comments
- Don't call it a remake: Final Fantasy X is a 'remaster,' to be clear 95 comments
- Battleship movie adapted into FPS by Double Helix 93 comments










