Can Activision Blizzard compete with EA for mindshare?
I woke up this morning to news that France's Vivendi has agreed to buy a controlling interest in Activision, perhaps creating the world's-largest independent video game company.
The new entity will be known as Activision Blizzard--a suitable name based on the fact that Activision has the best-known video game brand in the new company, but that Vivendi's Blizzard Entertainment unit also produces World of Warcraft, one of the most successful massively multiplayer online games of all time.
But what is not clear is whether the new company will be able to achieve something that is clearly part of Vivendi's rationale for making the $18.9 billion deal: to become the most visible video game company in the world.
For that, I think, it is still going to need to go through Redwood Shores, Calif., the home of Electronic Arts.
EA may have its problems, what with laid off employees, questions about its ability to create hit original games, and a stock price that had dropped into uncomfortable territory earlier this year before rebounding. But there can be little doubt that it is the best-known brand in the business.
Its games are everywhere: Madden, The Sims, Harry Potter, Need for Speed and so on. But more than that, I think that the name Electronic Arts, or the abbreviation, "EA," are short-hand in many people's minds for the video game industry.
Which isn't to say, of course, that neither Activision nor Vivendi nor Blizzard aren't household names in their own right.
But to me it's pretty certain that, in the United States, at least, EA is the far-better known brand, and will continue to be so for some time.
And in that regard, the new Activision will have to work very hard to associate its hit franchises--Guitar Hero, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty and so on with its brand name in the same way EA's games are with it.
I'm sure that there are those who will argue with my assessment, or even the premise of this story, but when a company like Vivendi spends as much money to make a splash with a transaction like this, you can be sure it's not entirely about the bottom line. It's about perception.
And in this case, I think EA is still going to be top dog in the perception game for some time.
Especially if it decides to follow Vivendi's move by making a major purchase of its own.
Daniel Terdiman is a staff writer at CNET News covering games, Net culture, and everything in between. E-mail Daniel. 
EA didn't show up as a good name until around the Commodore age, but it also had its share of hit video games - Bard's Tale, Mail Order Monsters, etc.
The difference between the two companies besides longevity? Activision is to games what Nintendo is to fun - definitive. Yes, EA has the sports genre but I feel it has lost its way to simple fun.
I can't walk into a store without cringing at how saturated the shelves are with the latest Madden. I mean...come ON. It may be EA - but sports games aren't all that anymore - it's the same thing over and over. It's no longer fun.
Good luck to Activision...if they can continue to put out games of the quality of COD4, then they should rightly leave EA for dead.
Blizzard however have done a good job with Mac games, WoW is a
Dual format disc for both Mac & PC & performs well on both.
Activision did a fantastic job with COD4 for PS3.
So here we have 2 games companies that care about quality &
compatibility - sounds pretty neat.
the EA logo on it. They care nothing for the consumers or for
making quality games. They bought out all the rights to the NFL,
therefore enabling them to continue to create a sub-par football
franchise (Madden) without any competition from better
company's (Visual Concepts NFL2KX anybody?).
They also do hardly any work to adapt games to each console's
strengths. As mentioned earlier, EA believes in quantity over
quality and their franchise releases show it. They develop one
version that is the best for the most powerful system, and one
for the least powerful. If you use a console in the middle, you're
going to get an adaptation from the lowest powered console,
that won't take advantage of your system's capabilities.
Activision at this point has some creativity on their side, and
hopefully they won't become the turd that EA has become in
recent years.
Instead people buy the game for the box (impulsive buying), word-of-mouth ("you *have* to check out that game!") reviews on the net, franchises (FIFA, sims etc) and maximum saturation marketing. Its in these last two that EA has an advantage, but not because of the name "EA" but because of the deals they have made so far.
waiting for a HIGH-DEF version of SSX combine the best parts of "tricky" and "3", or simply remake either one.
the Wii version sucked - tis a shame
- electronic arts Is About The MONEY And Only About the MONEY
- by Dragon Forge December 3, 2007 12:23 PM PST
- electronic arts spends BILLIONS on licensing rights and nothing on development. Yet they still drag their developers thru the mud and legal system in trying to avoid paying them their overtime compensations.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(9 Comments)They count on parents and kids not knowing any better but seeing the sports franchise logo and imagining to themselves that this must be the one to get.
They buy popular games that are in development only and also for sports titles merely change a few jerseys and names, but boy do they love charging you full price for a new game.
ea is useless and the only reason I would have one of the games with their logo on it is because it was well developed.