The Players
Console Manufacturers(iOS and Android-included)
Microsoft:
Apple:
Why they would: Largest portable device manufacturer, second largest cellphone OS[1][2]. Now would be the perfect time for Apple to get involved in video game publishing.
Good Things: A huge jump forward for tablet and cellphone based gaming. Leaping an evolution that's like to take another 5-6 years, if not longer. Apple has a really good Quality Assurance division.
Why they would: Largest portable device manufacturer, second largest cellphone OS[1][2]. Now would be the perfect time for Apple to get involved in video game publishing.
Good Things: A huge jump forward for tablet and cellphone based gaming. Leaping an evolution that's like to take another 5-6 years, if not longer. Apple has a really good Quality Assurance division.
Bad Things: Don't have an iOS device and want to play Call of Duty? Well you better buy one quick.
Why they wouldn't: Apple still refuses to acknowledge themselves as a gaming company, or iOS as a gaming platform.
Google:
Google:
Why they would: It's affordable for Google and could fit their world vision.
Good Things: Same as iOS, huge jump forward. Google also is more likely to drop the price on these games, if not make a few of them completely free. Call of Duty, Diablo, Warcraft coming to your Chrome browser. Google likely to make the software platform agnostic, as they do with everything else.
Good Things: Same as iOS, huge jump forward. Google also is more likely to drop the price on these games, if not make a few of them completely free. Call of Duty, Diablo, Warcraft coming to your Chrome browser. Google likely to make the software platform agnostic, as they do with everything else.
Bad Things: Does Google need to own everything? Maybe them being out of the games business would be best.
Why they wouldn't: Google seems more likely to buy a small cellphone based gaming company, like Gameloft, over a massive corporation like Activision Blizzard.
Microsoft:
Why they would: 360 sales would jump a bit, and it insures that their competitors don't see Call of Duty in the next generation of consoles.
Good Things: Diablo, WoW, Starcraft coming to your 360. Microsoft finally puts up some varied competition in the first party market.
Good Things: Diablo, WoW, Starcraft coming to your 360. Microsoft finally puts up some varied competition in the first party market.
Bad Things: Don't own a 360? Sucks to be you. Removes a major publisher from competition across the console market.
Why they wouldn't: Microsoft hasn't really shown a major interest in getting heavily involved in publishing, at all.
Nintendo:
Why they would: After their disappointing Wii U conference, Nintendo needs to make a splash if they truly want the hardcore market to buy their console.
Good Things: Mario, Zelda, CoD, WoW, all on the same console. Would truly be a one-stop device for the whole family.
Good Things: Mario, Zelda, CoD, WoW, all on the same console. Would truly be a one-stop device for the whole family.
Bad Things: Mario, Zelda, CoD, WoW, all on the same console. Would truly be a one-stop device for the whole family, including mom. Good luck ever playing a CoD marathon again.
Why they wouldn't: Aside from the licensed partners, name one recognizable character from Activision Blizzard, go ahead. I'm waiting. You can't. Nintendo focuses on iconic characters. Aside from Spiderman and James Bond, Activision Blizzard has none.
Sony:
NCSoft:
Samsung:
Sony:
Why they would: It's no secret that Microsoft takes the lion's share of sales for CoD[3]. This would put Sony into the number one, and only slot for those games, causing sales of their consoles to jump.
Good Things: First party Sony developers, supposedly, have very close working relationships[4]. The Killzone and Resistance devs would benefit from Infinity Ward and Treyarch's knowledge of shooters. The James Bond devs would highly benefit from the knowledge and creativity of the Naughty Dog crew. WoW's servers would play really nice with the open structure of the PSN.
Good Things: First party Sony developers, supposedly, have very close working relationships[4]. The Killzone and Resistance devs would benefit from Infinity Ward and Treyarch's knowledge of shooters. The James Bond devs would highly benefit from the knowledge and creativity of the Naughty Dog crew. WoW's servers would play really nice with the open structure of the PSN.
Bad Things: Don't have a PS3? It's kind of expensive, but you want to play CoD. Well, go ahead and buy one. Oh and get an Orbitz when it comes out, or whatever it'll be called.
Why they wouldn't: Investors aren't exactly in a buying mood at Sony[5]. Granted the Playstation division has been the most profitable, but still a 13.4 billion USD isn't something to scoff at[6][7].
Other Game Industry Players
EA:
Why they would: Would allow EA to reclaim their former glory and give them access to a solid MMO and the Call of Duty franchise they've been trying to compete with for years.
Good Things: EA knows how to handle that many employees, they have history at the top of the industry and recently have been better than Activision when it comes to innovation and employee treatment[8].
Good Things: EA knows how to handle that many employees, they have history at the top of the industry and recently have been better than Activision when it comes to innovation and employee treatment[8].
Bad Things: EA would once again become the top company and perhaps not have to push themselves as much to compete. EA would have Battlefield, Call of Duty, and Medal of Honor under one umbrella, seems a little much.
Why they wouldn't: Would cost them almost all of what they have, if the Activision franchises started to die off the purchase could potentially bankrupt the company[9].
Ubisoft:
Why they would: Ubisoft would love to finally be the number one gaming publisher.
Good Things: Ubisoft is becoming a growing name through quality AAA games, far better than in the previous generation.
Good Things: Ubisoft is becoming a growing name through quality AAA games, far better than in the previous generation.
Bad Things: Ubisoft is almost becoming infamous for terrible shovelware. Their QA is still one of the worst in the industry and they also ship the same franchises year after year, most notably Assassin's Creed.
Why they wouldn't: If Ubisoft couldn't keep up the sales from the current Activision Blizzard they would certainly go bankrupt[10].
Nexon:
Why they would: Tried to buy EA a couple weeks ago, is obviously looking to expand into North America[11].
Good Things: Bring a fresh face to a large American company. Free to play WoW and Call of Duty would be likely. Already a large presence in mobile and browser-based gaming[12].
Good Things: Bring a fresh face to a large American company. Free to play WoW and Call of Duty would be likely. Already a large presence in mobile and browser-based gaming[12].
Bad Things: Free to play MMOs don't offer the same quality usually as subscription based ones. Quality of Nexon games aren't always that high.
Why they wouldn't: EA is a lot cheaper than Activision Blizzard, Nexon might not have enough to get that big of a presence[9][13].
Valve:
Why they would: Valve with a large publisher presence would be a great way to expand the corporation and help promote Steam and the rumoured Steambox PCs[14].
Good Things: Valve has an amazing quality record, great innovation, and a sound relationship with the consumer.
Good Things: Valve has an amazing quality record, great innovation, and a sound relationship with the consumer.
Bad Things: Uhh....hmmm....stuff?
Why they wouldn't: Valve may not want to expand their business by 1700%[15]. A lot of overhead for a company which has traditionally been very free form.
Zenimax:
Why they would: Zenimax has been one of the fastest growing publishers, this would pole-vault them to the largest in the industry.
Good Things: Zenimax has a fairly good quality record on the design side. Activision Blizzard developers would have access to iDTech5.
Good Things: Zenimax has a fairly good quality record on the design side. Activision Blizzard developers would have access to iDTech5.
Bad Things: Zenimax has a fairly corporate structure and would likely continue the classic Activision practices.
Why they wouldn't: The amount of money they have is unknown and it's unsure if they could afford it. If they could I have no doubt they'd put in a bid.
Warner Bros. Interactive:
Why they would: Warner Bros is one of the few successful studios to come from movies to games. They are one of the fastest growing publishers and have Time Warner's money to back them up.
Good Things: Warner Bros has a fairly good track record in these past couple of years. They also seem to be fairly aware of the consumer's concerns and like to try new things.
Good Things: Warner Bros has a fairly good track record in these past couple of years. They also seem to be fairly aware of the consumer's concerns and like to try new things.
Bad Things: Time Warner might just want the company as a cash-in and it's unknown if they would transfer the WBI executives over to the new acquisition.
Why they wouldn't: Time Warner may not want to make such a large investment into the volatile gaming industry.
Lucasarts:
Why they would: Lucas loves money[16].
Good Things: Lucasarts has been growing in quality these past couple of years, and like Warner Bros seems to be fairly aware of the consumer.
Good Things: Lucasarts has been growing in quality these past couple of years, and like Warner Bros seems to be fairly aware of the consumer.
Bad Things: Lucas is a fairly smart businessman, expect to see Call of Duty and Warcraft toys more prevalent then Angry Birds toys.
Why they wouldn't: Lucas likes his own IPs and may not want to use already existing IPs.
NCSoft:
Why they would: NCSoft may desire a larger foreign presence and expansion into the console gaming realm.
Good Things: NCSoft releases quality games and is one of the best online companies in the world. CoD and WoW service would likely improve in the online realm.
Good Things: NCSoft releases quality games and is one of the best online companies in the world. CoD and WoW service would likely improve in the online realm.
Bad Things: NCSoft may have little interested in the singleplayer franchises and in making singleplayer games.
Why they wouldn't: NCSoft already has a sizable foreign presence and a profitable business[17]. They don't need to expand on this level and they've shown little interest in console games.
The Other Guys
Disney:
Why they would: It's no secret Disney has been trying to get a large presence in gaming for a while. Disney does have a small share in Vivendi itself.
Good Things: Despite the negative things you can say about Disney, they have a fairly strong quality record, even with non-kiddy stuff.
Good Things: Despite the negative things you can say about Disney, they have a fairly strong quality record, even with non-kiddy stuff.
Bad Things: Disney would likely leave the corporate structure alone, meaning there would be little change or innovation.
Why they wouldn't: Disney likes iconic and recognizable characters, Activision Blizzard doesn't have a strong record of that. Also, with Nintendo continuing to run into trouble Disney may have its eyes on a larger prize[18].
Comcast:
Why they would: Comcast really loves money. No seriously, they REALLY love money[19].
Good Things: Comcast wouldn't change a damn thing.
Good Things: Comcast wouldn't change a damn thing.
Bad Things: Comcast wouldn't change a damn thing.
Why they wouldn't: Comcast might not be ready to expand into video games, but I highly doubt that, look for them to put their hands into this bidding war.
Viacom:
Why they would: Viacom also loves money and has shown an interest in gaming before.
Good Things: Not unknown in the gaming environment so they have experience in this arena and could use that prior experience to provide innovation and changes to the game industry.
Good Things: Not unknown in the gaming environment so they have experience in this arena and could use that prior experience to provide innovation and changes to the game industry.
Bad Things: Then again, they may not really care about the innovation and defining themselves as a separate company.
Why they wouldn't: Viacom is a little burned on the whole Rock Band thing[20].
Verizon and AT&T(grouping them cause they have the same motives):
Why they would: Carrier exclusive Call of Duty.
Good Things: Call of Duty on your phone!
Good Things: Call of Duty on your phone!
Bad Things: Call of Duty not on your phone, :(
Why they wouldn't: Verizon and AT&T haven't shown too much intuitive in the content provider realm of things.
Samsung:
Why they would: Samsung has been trying to separate their brand from competitors, this is one extreme way to do that[21]. Don't think they aren't a little jealous from Sony's success.
Good Things: Samsung has quality hardware and could create a new console competitor from this merger.
Good Things: Samsung has quality hardware and could create a new console competitor from this merger.
Bad Things: Samsung has no experience in gaming and they still only provide 40% of Android phones, cutting out Call of Duty and Warcraft from most smartphone gamers[1].
Why they wouldn't: Samsung likes being a hardware company and they may not want to involve themselves in the content provider industry.
HTC:
Why they would: HTC has a partnership with Sony and Onlive, they know the importance of mobile gaming[22][23]. They're also fairly pissed at Microsoft for banning them from Windows 8 tablets and this gives them a bit of blackmail[24].
Good Things: HTC knows how important gaming is and would likely put a strong focus behind quality products at cheap prices.
Good Things: HTC knows how important gaming is and would likely put a strong focus behind quality products at cheap prices.
Bad Things: HTC has an even smaller share than Samsung over the mobile market[1].
Why they wouldn't: A lot of money for HTC to spend when they already got Playstation Mobile and Onlive partnerships to provide their gaming services.
Who do I want to buy them and why?: Google. I feel Google desperately needs to get involved in gaming soon and I personally would love to see Android and Project Glass outfitted with quality games. Can you imagine if you wear your Project Glass glasses and you can see live stats of who you're playing against in Call of Duty? It would drastically change how you play the game. I also feel Google wouldn't remove the games from any of the consoles and would try its best to offer the same experience across all consoles. Google may also get more innovative with the pricing structure, something AAA games desperately need.
Who do I think will buy them and why?: Warner Bros Interactive. Apple and Google don't really consider Android or iOS to be proper gaming platforms and as such I feel are unlikely to see this opportunity coming. The FCC would probably prevent Microsoft and Sony from getting involved, and Nintendo probably wants to focus mostly internally. That leaves publishers and external companies. Of those, Warner Bros Interactive has the least to lose, the most to gain, and the least aversion to gaming, therefore I think they'll end up buying the share.
Who do I want to buy them and why?: Google. I feel Google desperately needs to get involved in gaming soon and I personally would love to see Android and Project Glass outfitted with quality games. Can you imagine if you wear your Project Glass glasses and you can see live stats of who you're playing against in Call of Duty? It would drastically change how you play the game. I also feel Google wouldn't remove the games from any of the consoles and would try its best to offer the same experience across all consoles. Google may also get more innovative with the pricing structure, something AAA games desperately need.
Who do I think will buy them and why?: Warner Bros Interactive. Apple and Google don't really consider Android or iOS to be proper gaming platforms and as such I feel are unlikely to see this opportunity coming. The FCC would probably prevent Microsoft and Sony from getting involved, and Nintendo probably wants to focus mostly internally. That leaves publishers and external companies. Of those, Warner Bros Interactive has the least to lose, the most to gain, and the least aversion to gaming, therefore I think they'll end up buying the share.
