Vivendi selling their share on Activision-Blizzard

  • 61 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Winternet (8000 posts) -

Oh and their share is worth 8 billion dollars. So they may get a bit trouble finding a buyer. Everybody's favorite analyst shares some words on the subject: "The problem is there are no readily apparent buyers for Activision," Michael Pachter told Bloomberg. "The only option left to Vivendi is to lever up Activision's balance sheet and pay out all of its cash as a dividend, then spin the company off."

So, what do you guys think about this? Will Vivendi be able to sell their share? Who do you guys see coming up and making an offer? And will this result in changes to the company videogames-wise?

Source: Gamespot's Brendan Sinclair story is right here.

#2 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4513 posts) -

I am not a financial analyst and barely understand what the fuck Pachter is talking about, but I would laugh pretty damn hard of EA managed to buy it.

#3 Posted by alternate (2679 posts) -

@Oldirtybearon said:

I am not a financial analyst and barely understand what the fuck Pachter is talking about, but I would laugh pretty damn hard of EA managed to buy it.

This is clear.

#4 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4513 posts) -

@alternate said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

I am not a financial analyst and barely understand what the fuck Pachter is talking about, but I would laugh pretty damn hard of EA managed to buy it.

This is clear.

Fuck you too?

#5 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

I'm gonna buy it.

#6 Posted by Doctorchimp (4067 posts) -

@Oldirtybearon said:

@alternate said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

I am not a financial analyst and barely understand what the fuck Pachter is talking about, but I would laugh pretty damn hard of EA managed to buy it.

This is clear.

Fuck you too?

I am not a fucking analyst and I barely understand what the fuck you guys are talking about.

#7 Posted by Fattony12000 (6954 posts) -

I fuck am fuck fuck barely fuck.

#8 Posted by jewunit (1054 posts) -

I wonder if these discussions occurred as fallout from the West-Zampella lawsuit? I can't imagine Vivendi finding an appropriate buyer. I think their share is going to end up being put into the open market and splintered. If that comes to pass, I think Activision-Blizzard will have to worry much more about maintaining a steady source of funding. Blizzard in particular works on a very measured schedule and, should the company become strapped for cash, they may be asked to step up their production schedule. Both sides of the company may have to lay off employees. That stable group of shareholders means a lot to a company and can really upset its balance if those shares aren't appropriately replaced.

#9 Posted by Brodehouse (9518 posts) -

@Oldirtybearon said:

I am not a financial analyst and barely understand what the fuck Pachter is talking about, but I would laugh pretty damn hard of EA managed to buy it.

As soon as I heard "problems finding a buyer" I thought "so if EA can't buy it no one will".

Honestly, I'd be very careful about buying Activision for that amount of money right now. It feels like this is the peak and Vivendi has identified this.

#10 Posted by adam1808 (1355 posts) -

THQ buys Activision. The impending collapse was just a front for Jason Rubin's masterplan. Calling it.

Online
#11 Posted by endaround (2135 posts) -

So what Pachter is saying is that Vivendi could try to use Activision's credit to borrow lots of money and raise a ton of cash to then pay out the cash as a huge dividend to themselves. This will cause the stock price to drop allowing Vivendi to sell off. Of course this will also likely severely hamper Activision in the future and could easily lead to a break up of the company.

#12 Posted by alternate (2679 posts) -

@Doctorchimp said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@alternate said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

I am not a financial analyst and barely understand what the fuck Pachter is talking about, but I would laugh pretty damn hard of EA managed to buy it.

This is clear.

Fuck you too?

I am not a fucking analyst and I barely understand what the fuck you guys are talking about.

heh, no offence @Oldirtybearon

Well according to the latest published figures (Q4 2011 - 2012) Acti-Blizz seems to have about $12b in assets and $2b in liabilities. So this is what Pachter is talking about when he says they could pay of the creditors, liquidate the assets and spin-off as a new company. Vivendi values its 60 odd percent share as the total assets of the company. Problem being that the new company would have little assets left and would need to heavily refinance.

EA (figures of a similar time frame) seems to have $4.5b in assets and about $1.5 in liabilities. So basically if EA sold everything it owns it would still only have less than half the money to buy a controlling stake in Acti-Blizz. At which point a weak EA would be a tasty target for takeover themselves.

#13 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4513 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

I am not a financial analyst and barely understand what the fuck Pachter is talking about, but I would laugh pretty damn hard of EA managed to buy it.

As soon as I heard "problems finding a buyer" I thought "so if EA can't buy it no one will".

Honestly, I'd be very careful about buying Activision for that amount of money right now. It feels like this is the peak and Vivendi has identified this.

I came to that conclusion as well. I mean, how long could the WoW and CoD gravy train keep rolling? WoW is holding steady for now (last I heard), but that market is continually shrinking. Then we have Black Ops 2 coming and certain reports are predicting that it will be the first Call of Duty (since 4) to not out-perform its predecessor. Those same reports are citing MW3's general lackluster reception as the culprit. Considering more people flaked from MW3 multiplayer in a shorter time span than any other Call of Duty title before it, that seems possible.

I mean when you think about it, those are the only two things that keep Actiblizzard going. I can't think of an Activision title outside of Call of Duty that's been financially successful. Not just in terms of Call of Duty numbers, but at all. I'm racking my brain trying to think of even one franchise Activision has that sells well outside of Call of Duty. I can't think of anything.

-cue the woodwork to churn out people to prove me wrong-

#14 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4513 posts) -

@alternate said:

@Doctorchimp said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@alternate said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

I am not a financial analyst and barely understand what the fuck Pachter is talking about, but I would laugh pretty damn hard of EA managed to buy it.

This is clear.

Fuck you too?

I am not a fucking analyst and I barely understand what the fuck you guys are talking about.

heh, no offence @Oldirtybearon

Well according to the latest published figures (Q4 2011 - 2012) Acti-Blizz seems to have about $12b in assets and $2b in liabilities. So this is what Pachter is talking about when he says they could pay of the creditors, liquidate the assets and spin-off as a new company. Vivendi values its 60 odd percent share as the total assets of the company. Problem being that the new company would have little assets left and would need to heavily refinance.

EA (figures of a similar time frame) seems to have $4.5b in assets and about $1.5 in liabilities. So basically if EA sold everything it owns it would still only have less than half the money to buy a controlling stake in Acti-Blizz. At which point a weak EA would be a tasty target for takeover themselves.

I remember reading that about EA, but the only thing I ever hear about ActiBlizzard is "holy fuck they been had money." Never concrete numbers like that.

Still, it would be funny if EA did buy them (which was my original point).

#15 Posted by Winternet (8000 posts) -

I could only see Apple moving in on this. Would it make sense for them to make a move like that?

Or a media monster like Fox. Fox entering the videogame business?

#16 Posted by laserbolts (5309 posts) -

@Oldirtybearon: Did skylanders do well? It's almost like I can remember reading that it was very successful.

#17 Posted by mosespippy (3975 posts) -

Coca Cola will buy it.

#18 Posted by alternate (2679 posts) -

@Oldirtybearon said:

@alternate said:

@Doctorchimp said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@alternate said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

I am not a financial analyst and barely understand what the fuck Pachter is talking about, but I would laugh pretty damn hard of EA managed to buy it.

This is clear.

Fuck you too?

I am not a fucking analyst and I barely understand what the fuck you guys are talking about.

heh, no offence @Oldirtybearon

Well according to the latest published figures (Q4 2011 - 2012) Acti-Blizz seems to have about $12b in assets and $2b in liabilities. So this is what Pachter is talking about when he says they could pay of the creditors, liquidate the assets and spin-off as a new company. Vivendi values its 60 odd percent share as the total assets of the company. Problem being that the new company would have little assets left and would need to heavily refinance.

EA (figures of a similar time frame) seems to have $4.5b in assets and about $1.5 in liabilities. So basically if EA sold everything it owns it would still only have less than half the money to buy a controlling stake in Acti-Blizz. At which point a weak EA would be a tasty target for takeover themselves.

I remember reading that about EA, but the only thing I ever hear about ActiBlizzard is "holy fuck they been had money." Never concrete numbers like that.

Still, it would be funny if EA did buy them (which was my original point).

You might be right about diminishing returns on WOW and COD. Blizzard still makes a lot of money, remains a huge asset for them and Skylanders is making COD money at the moment - of course who knows if this can continue as they churn out more toys.

Biggest asset (sic) Blizzard has at the moment is that they didn't spend all that COD money. They are sitting on $8-10 billion - which is why Vivendi is looking to cash in now before it gets spent on future dev that may or may no pay off.

EA is in no shape to buy them - although you are right in that it would be funny - and ironically these positions were reversed not that long ago, only EA spent all its war chest.

#19 Posted by Brodehouse (9518 posts) -

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

I am not a financial analyst and barely understand what the fuck Pachter is talking about, but I would laugh pretty damn hard of EA managed to buy it.

As soon as I heard "problems finding a buyer" I thought "so if EA can't buy it no one will".

Honestly, I'd be very careful about buying Activision for that amount of money right now. It feels like this is the peak and Vivendi has identified this.

I came to that conclusion as well. I mean, how long could the WoW and CoD gravy train keep rolling? WoW is holding steady for now (last I heard), but that market is continually shrinking. Then we have Black Ops 2 coming and certain reports are predicting that it will be the first Call of Duty (since 4) to not out-perform its predecessor. Those same reports are citing MW3's general lackluster reception as the culprit. Considering more people flaked from MW3 multiplayer in a shorter time span than any other Call of Duty title before it, that seems possible.

I mean when you think about it, those are the only two things that keep Actiblizzard going. I can't think of an Activision title outside of Call of Duty that's been financially successful. Not just in terms of Call of Duty numbers, but at all. I'm racking my brain trying to think of even one franchise Activision has that sells well outside of Call of Duty. I can't think of anything.

-cue the woodwork to churn out people to prove me wrong-

Eh, the Spider-Man games have a pretty steady return despite their quality, and Skylanders appears to be a hit. Selling the toys is really where the money comes from rather than copies of the game. Whatever Blizzard sells is basically a money printing device, the only negative is they are significant cash investments, long long development times and no set dates. Blizzard has released two games in the last 7 years.

But yeah, whereas EA can get money (and more importantly, market share) out of Crysis, Medal of Honor, Dead Space, Activision has struggled significantly with their original IP. And it's really their own fault, if Singularity is given the right marketing blitz and towards the mainstream in particular, it could've given closer to BioShock's numbers (I don't think 1-2 million was completely beyond that game). Instead that game is a complete failure and now Raven is making Call of Duty map packs.

#20 Posted by alternate (2679 posts) -

@laserbolts said:

@Oldirtybearon: Did skylanders do well? It's almost like I can remember reading that it was very successful.

30 million toys sold. The actual game (not including all the attach rate of toys - claimed to be two to three times expectations) was the third biggest seller by dollar of Q1 2111.

@Winternet said:

I could only see Apple moving in on this. Would it make sense for them to make a move like that?

Or a media monster like Fox. Fox entering the videogame business?

It could, in that it has the cash, but Apple is very conservative and it has no experience in the sort of games AB make. It would be more likely to buy up some mobile firms and spin off their own hardware first. Even then, apple has shown no desire to get in to gaming. The margins are too small and it is happy to make the device and take a 30% cut of all sales.

#21 Posted by Tim_the_Corsair (3065 posts) -

Maybe Vivendi will spin their part off and use it to purchase THQ and create a third super-publisher.

STRAP IT ON

#22 Posted by Dany (7887 posts) -

Everyone is thinking a gaming studio is going to pick them up. If anything its going to be another telecommunications company who already has their eggs in different entertainment baskets.

If that makes sense.

#23 Posted by JackSukeru (5897 posts) -

@CL60 said:

I'm gonna buy it.

Let's do a Kickstarter.

#24 Posted by green_sky (49 posts) -

@adam1808 said:

THQ buys Activision. The impending collapse was just a front for Jason Rubin's masterplan. Calling it.

Haha good one :D. THQ buys Activision with their barely $45 million market cap. That would be some sorcery.

#25 Posted by NaDannMaGoGo (338 posts) -

For those wondering why Vivendi would sell AB, it's not because AB isn't profitable or anything (far from indeed) but because Vivendi itself struggles and basically just wants to get a one-time big money surge by selling of AB. At least, that's what I've taken from it.

Either way it has me scared. I couldn't give less of a shit about the Activision part, but the Blizzard one? I don't know if there is any company with enough funds to buy AB that I'd have no issue with. I mean if someone like Microsoft acquires (Activision-)Blizzard then... fuck my life.

#26 Posted by blueduck (964 posts) -
@NaDannMaGoGo said:

For those wondering why Vivendi would sell AB, it's not because AB isn't profitable or anything (far from indeed) but because Vivendi itself struggles and basically just wants to get a one-time big money surge by selling of AB. At least, that's what I've taken from it.

Either way it has me scared. I couldn't give less of a shit about the Activision part, but the Blizzard one? I don't know if there is any company with enough funds to buy AB that I'd have no issue with. I mean if someone like Microsoft acquires (Activision-)Blizzard then... fuck my life.

Blizzard is in trouble now since wow is slowly but more rapidly falling off and the game that was supposed to sustain them until their next big release has dropped to only about a 1000 players at peak.
#27 Posted by Winternet (8000 posts) -

@blueduck said:

@NaDannMaGoGo said:

For those wondering why Vivendi would sell AB, it's not because AB isn't profitable or anything (far from indeed) but because Vivendi itself struggles and basically just wants to get a one-time big money surge by selling of AB. At least, that's what I've taken from it.

Either way it has me scared. I couldn't give less of a shit about the Activision part, but the Blizzard one? I don't know if there is any company with enough funds to buy AB that I'd have no issue with. I mean if someone like Microsoft acquires (Activision-)Blizzard then... fuck my life.

Blizzard is in trouble now since wow is slowly but more rapidly falling off and the game that was supposed to sustain them until their next big release has dropped to only about a 1000 players at peak.

Last time I heard, WoW is sitting on 8 million subs. And Diablo 3 selling over 3 million on the first day.

#28 Posted by ChrisTobin (56 posts) -

$8 Billion? Why doesn't Kotick just buy it himself? He can just take the money out of his party planning budget.

#29 Posted by NaDannMaGoGo (338 posts) -

@Winternet said:

@blueduck said:

@NaDannMaGoGo said:

For those wondering why Vivendi would sell AB, it's not because AB isn't profitable or anything (far from indeed) but because Vivendi itself struggles and basically just wants to get a one-time big money surge by selling of AB. At least, that's what I've taken from it.

Either way it has me scared. I couldn't give less of a shit about the Activision part, but the Blizzard one? I don't know if there is any company with enough funds to buy AB that I'd have no issue with. I mean if someone like Microsoft acquires (Activision-)Blizzard then... fuck my life.

Blizzard is in trouble now since wow is slowly but more rapidly falling off and the game that was supposed to sustain them until their next big release has dropped to only about a 1000 players at peak.

Last time I heard, WoW is sitting on 8 million subs. And Diablo 3 selling over 3 million on the first day.

Yeah Blizzard is in no trouble at all financially. What makes people think that? 10million subscribers don't earn them enough money, maybe even make them operate at a loss (which they would've to do for some years in order to be in financial problems now).

Of course Blizzard is doing fine, so is, unfortunately, Activision with CoD and Skylanders. For Activision you may say the future doesn't look all that great in terms of IPs apart from the previous 2 titles. But Blizzard is solid in that regard.

#30 Posted by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

Do I smell a "Hey everyone, let's buy Activision" Kickstarter?

#31 Posted by SmilingPig (1337 posts) -

10$ that EA buys them.

#32 Posted by PenguinDust (12436 posts) -

Since Call of Duty is already a mainstay on the Xbox, I could see Microsoft picking it up. I doubt they will, but it would be a reasonable fit. I don't know if they have the spare cash these days, though. They used to, but time marches on.

#33 Posted by Deusx (1902 posts) -

Let´s make a Kickstarter to buy Activision. Once we buy the company, we make Call of Duty into a Rollercoaster simulator.

#34 Posted by Vinny_Says (5681 posts) -

@adam1808 said:

THQ buys Activision. The impending collapse was just a front for Jason Rubin's masterplan. Calling it.

They can berely afford to buy toilet paper for their corporate headquarter bathrooms....

8 billion dollars is a lot of money, even for big companies like Apple and Microsoft, to buy it all up.

#35 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7039 posts) -
@SmilingPig

10$ that EA buys them.

As stated previously, EA doesn't have enough money to buy it. They only have about $4.5 Billion.
#36 Posted by SmilingPig (1337 posts) -

@MariachiMacabre said:

@SmilingPig

10$ that EA buys them.



As stated previously, EA doesn't have enough money to buy it. They only have about $4.5 Billion.

I just looked at your previous post now; If EA can't than there is pretty much only Microsoft, maybe Sony or a non-game related company who wants in.

#37 Posted by Hailinel (23676 posts) -

What exactly is Activision's return on investment for Skylanders? That at least seemed like a big thing for them, though in targeting things like it at children, it's very easy to burn to the ground as a fad.

#38 Posted by SmilingPig (1337 posts) -

Weird idea here but Blizzard must have a lot of money; couldn’t it buy back its own shares?

#39 Posted by Hailinel (23676 posts) -

@Dany said:

Everyone is thinking a gaming studio is going to pick them up. If anything its going to be another telecommunications company who already has their eggs in different entertainment baskets.

If that makes sense.

It does. But at the same time, if Vivendi is willing to dump them, I don't know what party would be willing to buy them up.

#40 Posted by blueduck (964 posts) -
@NaDannMaGoGo said:

@Winternet said:

@blueduck said:

@NaDannMaGoGo said:

For those wondering why Vivendi would sell AB, it's not because AB isn't profitable or anything (far from indeed) but because Vivendi itself struggles and basically just wants to get a one-time big money surge by selling of AB. At least, that's what I've taken from it.

Either way it has me scared. I couldn't give less of a shit about the Activision part, but the Blizzard one? I don't know if there is any company with enough funds to buy AB that I'd have no issue with. I mean if someone like Microsoft acquires (Activision-)Blizzard then... fuck my life.

Blizzard is in trouble now since wow is slowly but more rapidly falling off and the game that was supposed to sustain them until their next big release has dropped to only about a 1000 players at peak.

Last time I heard, WoW is sitting on 8 million subs. And Diablo 3 selling over 3 million on the first day.

Yeah Blizzard is in no trouble at all financially. What makes people think that? 10million subscribers don't earn them enough money, maybe even make them operate at a loss (which they would've to do for some years in order to be in financial problems now).

Of course Blizzard is doing fine, so is, unfortunately, Activision with CoD and Skylanders. For Activision you may say the future doesn't look all that great in terms of IPs apart from the previous 2 titles. But Blizzard is solid in that regard.

You're not think in a business sense. Blizzard is much larger than it was before Wow took off and it has grown accordingly. However unlike most business's all of this massive growth was due to one product that will need to be replaced at one point. Wow is now fading and with its fade it is not bringing in the same amount of money so Blizzard can has to replace the cash cow with something that brings in the same amount of money and more.  http://beta.xfire.com/games/d3 Diablo 3's long term profitability is not looking good and it's making investors nervous because one the key selling points Activison sells the Blizzard brand on is its ability to make games that pay for their huge dev costs overtime. This is why D3 has the RMAH. If no one is playing Diablo 3 then the RMAH isn't going to bring in the money needed to pay off its huge dev costs and not to mention time costs.   
The counter point I always see is that Diablo 3 sold so much in the first week but really COD sells way more every year and takes a fraction of the money and time to make. The bottom line is people are quitting and not coming back to Diablo 3 and it isn't good considering wow is over its peak and Blizzard doesn't really have any huge projects close to completion. 
#41 Posted by Winternet (8000 posts) -

@blueduck: still, Blizzards earns about a billion dollars a year from wow subs. That's still tons of money.

#42 Posted by ajamafalous (11807 posts) -

I'm afraid of what this could mean for Blizzard. 
 
@SmilingPig said:

Weird idea here but Blizzard must have a lot of money; couldn’t it buy back its own shares?

I didn't think of that until just now; that'd be the best way this works out. 
 
@blueduck@Winternethttp://wow.joystiq.com/2012/05/09/world-of-warcraft-subscriber-numbers-remain-at-10-2-million/ 10.2 million as of last month with no dropoff since February (http://wow.joystiq.com/2012/02/09/world-of-warcraft-subscriber-numbers/ ), so I'm not sure where you guys are getting your "8 million" and "rapid decline" from.
#43 Posted by stinky (1543 posts) -

@blueduck said:

You're not think in a business sense. Blizzard is much larger than it was before Wow took off and it has grown accordingly. However unlike most business's all of this massive growth was due to one product that will need to be replaced at one point. Wow is now fading and with its fade it is not bringing in the same amount of money so Blizzard can has to replace the cash cow with something that brings in the same amount of money and more. http://beta.xfire.com/games/d3 Diablo 3's long term profitability is not looking good and it's making investors nervous because one the key selling points Activison sells the Blizzard brand on is its ability to make games that pay for their huge dev costs overtime. This is why D3 has the RMAH. If no one is playing Diablo 3 then the RMAH isn't going to bring in the money needed to pay off its huge dev costs and not to mention time costs. The counter point I always see is that Diablo 3 sold so much in the first week but really COD sells way more every year and takes a fraction of the money and time to make. The bottom line is people are quitting and not coming back to Diablo 3 and it isn't good considering wow is over its peak and Blizzard doesn't really have any huge projects close to completion.

to think from a business sense you would have to see the ledgers. how much they are spending, how much they are taking in.

unless you have that you can't claim a business sense, only some armchair guesses.

#44 Posted by Demoskinos (14512 posts) -

I'd throw my hat in for Microsoft. Think. If MS can secure CoD as a exclusive it could pay off in the long run.

#45 Posted by Drebin_893 (2891 posts) -

@Winternet said:

@blueduck: still, Blizzards earns about a billion dollars a year from wow subs. That's still tons of money.

Is that gross revenue or operating profit from Blizzard?

#46 Posted by iAmJohn (6107 posts) -

So wait, why exactly are they doing this?

#47 Posted by Twinsun (469 posts) -

@Demoskinos: It might aswell already be and exclusive.

#48 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@alternate said:

@laserbolts said:

@Oldirtybearon: Did skylanders do well? It's almost like I can remember reading that it was very successful.

30 million toys sold. The actual game (not including all the attach rate of toys - claimed to be two to three times expectations) was the third biggest seller by dollar of Q1 2111.

Good jesus, how long have I been asleep?

#49 Posted by Hailinel (23676 posts) -

@iAmJohn said:

So wait, why exactly are they doing this?

Vivendi is apparently interested in restructuring, and as part of that restructuring, they want to get rid of their stake in Activision-Blizzard. It's possible that the board of directors might simply feel that the costs associated with Activision are no longer worth it in the long run and would prefer to make money by selling their stake in the company than risk seeing the value tank when Call of Duty and WoW both decline. Both are long in the tooth, and while they likely still have plenty of strength left for the foreseeable future, why risk holding onto the investment?

#50 Posted by blueduck (964 posts) -
@stinky said:

@blueduck said:

You're not think in a business sense. Blizzard is much larger than it was before Wow took off and it has grown accordingly. However unlike most business's all of this massive growth was due to one product that will need to be replaced at one point. Wow is now fading and with its fade it is not bringing in the same amount of money so Blizzard can has to replace the cash cow with something that brings in the same amount of money and more. http://beta.xfire.com/games/d3 Diablo 3's long term profitability is not looking good and it's making investors nervous because one the key selling points Activison sells the Blizzard brand on is its ability to make games that pay for their huge dev costs overtime. This is why D3 has the RMAH. If no one is playing Diablo 3 then the RMAH isn't going to bring in the money needed to pay off its huge dev costs and not to mention time costs. The counter point I always see is that Diablo 3 sold so much in the first week but really COD sells way more every year and takes a fraction of the money and time to make. The bottom line is people are quitting and not coming back to Diablo 3 and it isn't good considering wow is over its peak and Blizzard doesn't really have any huge projects close to completion.

to think from a business sense you would have to see the ledgers. how much they are spending, how much they are taking in.

unless you have that you can't claim a business sense, only some armchair guesses.

No, again for a normal business this would be true but Blizzard is a company that has 3 products. It has Starcraft 2, Diablo and Wow. Wow has passed its peak and their only new product is Diablo 3 so if Diablo 3 isn't doing well then it comes down to basic logic. I'm not saying they're losing money I'm saying that with this company you can make predictions for years down the road since  they have at least 5 years between new products. 

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.