I personally in light of new events would like to support the argument that Blizzard ain't going nowhere, and that Activision might actually learn something from Vivendi.
- Blizzard's reputation speaks for itself. Any gaming company would like to have Blizzard's sterling reputation, including EA and Activision. When announced, Vivendi and Activision were adamant that each would continue to develop games separately - as in Vivendi will continue to work on Starcraft, WoW, etc. and Activision will continue to work on Guitar Hero, Call of Duty, etc. Why do you think that they did this? Because Blizzard fans were so paranoid that Activision would ruin Blizzard's games. It wasn't because all those Call of Duty fans were worried about Blizzard ruining their game. With this in mind, Activision and Blizzard seem to already know about each others' reputations, and will likely work hard to maintain Blizzard's good reputation, while working hard to improve Activision's. Whether that will work remains to be seen.
- Blizzard at one time had been working on a two year cycle (approximately). Over a span of twelve years, they had released 6 major new titles (Warcraft II in 1995, Diablo in 1996, Starcraft in 1998, Diablo II in 2000, Warcraft III in 2002, World of Warcraft in 2004.) Now, about a year apart, Blizzard announced Starcraft II and then Diablo III, two highly anticipated games from titles that are 10 and 8 years old, respectively. Not to mention yet another expansion for WoW and rumors of yet another big MMO. This deal with Activision will allow Blizzard to make more quality games, because they can actually afford to work on more than one big title at a time without worrying about a flop like Starcraft Ghost bankrupting them.
- Now that Guitar Hero IV has been announced, I was interested to hear that it is taking on Rock Band directly by adding drums. People are getting pissed off about this, because "it's copying" and "it will be bad for consumers because we'll have to buy both." Well, why do you have to buy both? I think that it's a good thing, because it will mean direct competition from both. If Guitar Hero IV kept with its two guitars, would Rock Band feel pressure to improve their game at all? Probably not. I blame the bad blood between the two companies more than the direct competition for any technical issues. I agree that Activision has made some questionable company decisions. But now Vivendi has controlling interest in the companies, and business decisions will be run through Vivendi and the new higher-ups. I hope to see a newer company attitude from this. Will this stop the blood feud between Harmonix and Activision? Probably not. But still, I think that it is better to see Guitar Hero directly challenging Rock Band in this way. I guess we shall see.