Microsoft in talks to buy Blizzard

[Mad Monkey 7]

Microsoft is supposely in talks to buy all of Universal's gaming units including Blizzard, Sierra, Black Label, and Universal Interactive. Here the link, www.videogamespot.com.

So if this does go through, Gates will have Crash, Spyro, Roger Wilco, King Quests, Star Craft, War Craft, etc for Xbox only.

[Zoddman]

I hate this kinda crap. :mad:

[KingKoopa]

Starcraft: Ghost better be multi-platform. That's all I have to say on the matter.

Hell, if they make this deal, I'm just gonna cave and buy the friggin Xbox.

[Skiptastic]

Yeah, didnt we talk about this already?

[Mr. Obsession]

Originally posted by Mad Monkey 7
So if this does go through, Gates will have Crash, Spyro, Roger Wilco, King Quests, Star Craft, War Craft, etc for Xbox only.
If it means we finally get Space Quest 7, I'd go out and buy an X-Box right now.

[bfmusashi]

Space Quest 7 would rock. I'm not too sure how well it would do on an Xbox, though. I've always preferred my adventure games on the computer. But then again, if that's the price we have to pay for another of Roger Wilco's adventures, so be it.

[Mynd Hed]

I will be extremely angry if one of my favorite game makers of all time, Blizzard, sells out to the Man. That's all I've got to say about that. (-:

[SilverKnight]

I won't believe it until I see it signed, sealed, delivered, and gift wrapped at my doorstep. Microsoft is in talks to buy everything. They'd buy our kitchen sinks if they weren't owned by GE. Thank God for small businesses, eh? :D j/k

[Achika]

Originally posted by Mad Monkey 7
So if this does go through, Gates will have Crash, Spyro, Roger Wilco, King Quests, Star Craft, War Craft, etc for Xbox only.

So uh..

What GOOD game series will they get out of this?

O.o

[Bakasama]

Wait a minute, isn't Blizzard owned by a French company?

[atf487]

Originally posted by Achika
So uh..

What GOOD game series will they get out of this?

O.o

Half-Life. Warcraft.

Two of the most popular game series ever.

Warcraft 3 is one of the best RTSs ever..

[Drachentöter]

:eek:

NO!

This is the worst thing that could happen to the gaming industry. Microsoft monopolizing the third party field. First Rareware, now Blizzard? It makes my skin crawl.

I seriously hope Blizzard and every other decent third party company holds out and forces Microsoft to start making its own games instead of preventing the competition from access to third party support.

[SilverKnight]

Warcraft owns. I've played all three, and each one has bettered itself, Warcraft III being the creme of the RTS crop.

Well, if all of this goes down--which I still doubt--at least C&C will still be left. :)

[Tim Drake]

Bill Gates is lazy. If he ran a real video game console company he'd be more interested in making new games rather than buying out other companies.

[.hack//Tsukasa]

i cant whate
Diablo 3
Warcract Wrolds
Half-Life2
um that starcraft ghost game

[Nin-Nin69]

Bill Gates is a real ****en *******. Nuff said. Just because he has all that money doesn't give him the right to ruin the lives of everyone else in the world by taking over companies like Sierra or Blizzard. If he thinks he's got a God like system, then why have I only seen 5 good games come out on it? :confused: (NO HALO ISN'T ONE OF THEM YOU FPS NUBS!!! ITS YOUR DAM FAULT THAT SYSTEM IS SO POPULAR BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T WAIT FOR THE PC RELEASE LIKE ME!!!) The worst part is they are all 3rd party developers who have nothing to do with Microsoft. :p So in general people should just contraband the X-Box from here on then if you don't want Mario, DK, Link, Samus, Gordon Freeman, Sonic, Simon Belmont, Ken and Ryu, Shinobi, Solid Snake, Cloud, Terry Bogard, or even Chris Redfield and Jill Valentine owned by the richest baby boomer in the world. His system will then shortly fail, all other ideas will soon cease to exist, Starcraft, Diablo, Warcraft, and every other popular video game/company will still be available for the public, everyone is once again at peace. :)

[Mr. Obsession]

Originally posted by VortexInfinite
I seriously hope Blizzard and every other decent third party company holds out and forces Microsoft to start making its own games instead of preventing the competition from access to third party support. You do realize that Blizzard and the others are subsidiaries, and thus have no real say if their parent company decides to sell them, right.


Personally I say that if it means breathing new life in some decent franchises that have been sitting on a shelf collecting dust, then it's a good thing. I mean Serria was once the king of adventure games and I'd like to see them be in the position once again.

Another thing people are kind of forgetting, these are studios that mostly develop PC games. So if they're bought by Microsoft if probably means that they'll still be making games for the PC, along with some X-Box projects.


And before anyone jumps me for supporting Microsoft in this, let me say that I don't own an X-Box. But this is the kind of news that makes me seriously consider getting one in the future.

[Drachentöter]

Mr. Obsession, you're right of course, it isn't up to Blizzard and there is some good that can come of it. It' s just that, personally, I don't agree with those kind of tactics.

I don't plan to fork over 200 bucks on an X-Box. I have no source of income and I'm a Nintendo fan-boy. So what am I gonna prefer? Microsoft acquring other companies for its own system or free subsidaries who can distrubte among many platforms, including my GC?

I got seriously annoyed when I heard Rareware kept the rights to Banjo Kazooie after its movement to Microsoft. I realized I would not be able to play BK on a next-gen platform if I didn't get an X-Box, and that's just not gonna happen. True, Blizzard makes mostly PC games, but Starcraft: Ghost is supposed to be a console game, which shows they have intersts in the console market. Well, if Microsoft has its way, it'll only have interest in the X-Box market.

The day this deal falls through will be a sad day for financially impaired gamers without X-Boxes.

[Anyone00]

Originally posted by SilverKnight
Well, if all of this goes down--which I still doubt--at least C&C will still be left. :)

Yes and no. (http://www.gamespydaily.com/news/fullstory.asp?id=4644)

[Skiptastic]

Originally posted by VortexInfinite
I got seriously annoyed when I heard Rareware kept the rights to Banjo Kazooie after its movement to Microsoft.

Um, they did create the characters, so it only MAKES SENSE. I mean, Rare got worked over because they didnt get to keep Diddy Kong and all the other Kong characters they created. Talking like Nintendo deserved more than what they got is not logical thinking at all.

[atf487]

Originally posted by Nin-Nin69
Bill Gates is a real ****en *******. Nuff said. Just because he has all that money doesn't give him the right to ruin the lives of everyone else in the world by taking over companies like Sierra or Blizzard. If he thinks he's got a God like system, then why have I only seen 5 good games come out on it? :confused: (NO HALO ISN'T ONE OF THEM YOU FPS NUBS!!! ITS YOUR DAM FAULT THAT SYSTEM IS SO POPULAR BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T WAIT FOR THE PC RELEASE LIKE ME!!!) The worst part is they are all 3rd party developers who have nothing to do with Microsoft. :p So in general people should just contraband the X-Box from here on then if you don't want Mario, DK, Link, Samus, Gordon Freeman, Sonic, Simon Belmont, Ken and Ryu, Shinobi, Solid Snake, Cloud, Terry Bogard, or even Chris Redfield and Jill Valentine owned by the richest baby boomer in the world. His system will then shortly fail, all other ideas will soon cease to exist, Starcraft, Diablo, Warcraft, and every other popular video game/company will still be available for the public, everyone is once again at peace. :)

"The big fish eat the little ones."

In other words, whoever has most money will win. Yeah, it's not always what you want, but Microsoft isn't going away. If they make this perchase, it'll just be more AAA games for Microsoft. As an Xbox owner, I would love this buyout.

Anyway, it's the games that matter, so why are you complaining? Just buy an Xbox 2 when it comes out, if you want to play the games so bad, even if it happens.

Halo: When you're playing the first one, I'll be playing on XBL with Halo 2. Ha.

And there are more then 5 good games :rolleyes:

[NachoHat]

Bill Gates is lazy. If he ran a real video game console company he'd be more interested in making new games rather than buying out other companies.

Sony's not a real video game console company?

Nuff said. Just because he has all that money doesn't give him the right to ruin the lives of everyone else in the world by taking over companies like Sierra or Blizzard.
Doesn't ruin my life. And if your life is ruined by someone buying Sierra and Blizzard...well....may I suggest a psychiatrist?

The worst part is they are all 3rd party developers who have nothing to do with Microsoft.
That's a bad thing?

So in general people should just contraband the X-Box from here on then if you don't want Mario, DK, Link, Samus, Gordon Freeman, Sonic, Simon Belmont, Ken and Ryu, Shinobi, Solid Snake, Cloud, Terry Bogard, or even Chris Redfield and Jill Valentine owned by the richest baby boomer in the world.
Wait, so this insists that if Microsoft bought all these companies, new DK, Fatal Fury, Castlevania, and Street Fighter games will be made? Woohoo! I'm buying another Xbox!
(Yeah, I know there's a Castlevania game in the making but hey...the more Castlevania, the better)

I think I said the same thing in another topic like this but I still find it funny: Whenever Microsoft buys a company(or does anything for that matter. I'm sure that somewhere there's a flame war about the employees of Microsoft taking a crap. "They're monopolizing the toilet paper!"), everyone's in an uproar. When Nintendo bought Camelot and Silicon Knights, there wasn't a peep.

[Drachentöter]

Originally posted by Skiptastic
Um, they did create the characters, so it only MAKES SENSE. I mean, Rare got worked over because they didnt get to keep Diddy Kong and all the other Kong characters they created. Talking like Nintendo deserved more than what they got is not logical thinking at all.

I never said it was unjust. Microsoft made a better offer in the end and Rareware had every right to take BK and other characters not based on an existing franchise to the X-Box. I just said I was annoyed, because it means I won't be able to continue to play the BK series in the forseeable future. And it doesn't say much about Microsoft's ingenuity when it comes to creating games. I say the video game market should belong to those who can use their own resources to create quality games.


Originally posted by NachoHat
I think I said the same thing in another topic like this but I still find it funny: Whenever Microsoft buys a company(or does anything for that matter. I'm sure that somewhere there's a flame war about the employees of Microsoft taking a crap. "They're monopolizing the toilet paper!"), everyone's in an uproar. When Nintendo bought Camelot and Silicon Knights, there wasn't a peep.

Call it good old-fashioned, biased hypocrisy. I have no problem with Microsoft monopolizing the computer industry, because I use Windows and I like it. But my video game loyalties lie with Nintendo, so I'm indignant that Microsoft is using company buy-outs to beat out its competitiors.

Oh, and here I was trying to prevent people from thinking I was a blithering idiot. Now Now I probably enraged more readers. I welcome the flames and bashing. Let the contesting begin.

[Robin2099]

Call it good old-fashioned, biased hypocrisy. I have no problem with Microsoft monopolizing the computer industry, because I use Windows and I like it. But my video game loyalties lie with Nintendo, so I'm indignant that Microsoft is using company buy-outs to beat out its competitiors. But you don't have anything to worry about, as Nintendo isn't going to be sold, and as long as Nintendo still has there triple a franchises, they'll be safe. Honestly, I don't blame Microsoft for buying up these companies. And just because there buying them out doesn't mean they have a monopoly over the game industry. Nintendo, and Sony both have in house developers they own, and Capcom, Konami, etc won't be bought by MS anyway.

[nuclear chicken]

Just aslong as they keep makeing Diablo games, I'm fine with who ever buys it. :goku:

[Bartak123]

Honestly Blizzard is garbage right now...

Diablo II is nothing more than a click fest, crud story
Warcraft III = heap of crud, a very boring game...no where as much skill as Starcraft, no where near as fun.

[Perfect Cell]

NachoHat Camelot is still a third party, and comparing Silicon Knights to a 2 Billion Dollar Publishing empire of Vivendi is ridicolous really. Id be disapointed if M$ did buy them but not that much. Out of all the games Vivendi makes theres just a few that really are good for console gamers, and no Spyro isnt one of them... It would be really funny if M$ does buy Vivendi and forces Sierra to make Half Life 2 Xbox exclusive. Alot of PC Gaming Fanboys would be mad

[Rei]

At this point I'd be glad to see someone buy Blizzard. If they get some money to help with their pathetic excuse of multiplayer called Battle.net I'm all for it.

[NachoHat]

NachoHat Camelot is still a third party, and comparing Silicon Knights to a 2 Billion Dollar Publishing empire of Vivendi is ridicolous really.
I'd still pretty sure that Nintendo did buy Camelot but even if they didn't, just replace Camelot with HAL.

As for comparing Silicon Knights to Vivendi, I know that. But you know what? It doesn't even matter. Even if it was a smaller company like say...Treasure or Genki there would still be tons of people whining about Microsoft buying them but would cheer on Nintendo for the exact same thing. Hell, a week or so ago, people were whining about Microsoft hiring AN EMPLOYEE. Not a company. Not signing an exclusivity deal for a series. Hiring an employee. Give me a break.

[Skiptastic]

Originally posted by NachoHat
Hell, a week or so ago, people were whining about Microsoft hiring AN EMPLOYEE. Not a company. Not signing an exclusivity deal for a series. Hiring an employee. Give me a break.

Your views intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Mynd Hed]

At this point I'd be glad to see someone buy Blizzard. If they get some money to help with their pathetic excuse of multiplayer called Battle.net I'm all for it.

Hey, say what you will about Battle.net, it's free. That's something you don't see too often any more. And how long do you seriously expect it to STAY free if (God forbid) Microsoft were to get their claws on it?

[Killtacular]

If Sony or Nintendo were buying the company, everyone would cheer in anticipation.

But because it's Microsoft, everyone's all... boooooooo. Down with "the man".


How dare they....



..compete fairly.

[Outside Angel]

Hey, say what you will about Battle.net, it's free. That's something you don't see too often any more. And how long do you seriously expect it to STAY free if (God forbid) Microsoft were to get their claws on it?

Thank you! Not all of us have an unlimited cash flow here, and Battle.net is great for those of us who are often limited financially.

I will NOT be happy if MS buys out Blizzard, and then bags Blizzard games as X-Box exclusive. Personally, I won't mind as much if they still release all their titles on PC, especially C&C. I'm not really a huge MS fan to begin with, but so long as I can still get my games without having to drop hundreds of bucks everytime MS decides to release a new system that I don't really want, I can tolerate 'em. Personally, I'd be much happier if third-party developers stayed just that: third party.

[atf487]

Originally posted by Matt Wilson
If Sony or Nintendo were buying the company, everyone would cheer in anticipation.

But because it's Microsoft, everyone's all... boooooooo. Down with "the man".


How dare they....



..compete fairly.

Yup, I agree.

OMG!!111 Mikroshaft iz gonna monoplize the industry!!!!!!1

[Mynd Hed]

Personally, I won't mind as much if they still release all their titles on PC, especially C&C.

Command and Conquer is a Westwood property, not Blizzard.

And for the record, I'm not singling out Microsoft here-- I'd be just as disappointed if Blizzard were to sell out to Nintendo or Sony as I would be if they were to sell out to Microsoft. Blizzard is a very successful company and they do what they do extremely well. They'd have very little to gain by coming under someone else's corporate shadow, and a lot to lose if a corporate monolith started messing around with the way the company works. Yes, they're currently owned by Universal, but that hasn't affected the quality of their games in any way-- so why not leave well enough alone?

[mpm5528]

Why can't Microsoft understand that playing dirty and taking out all the competition, as they're doing by bying out good developers, is not the only way to gain support -- or is it for Microsoft?

Can't they at least TRY to be original and put out their own games instead of using the power of "the Man's" never-ending pockets choke or buy out the competition? :mad:

[KingKoopa]

Originally posted by Matt Wilson
If Sony or Nintendo were buying the company, everyone would cheer in anticipation.

But because it's Microsoft, everyone's all... boooooooo. Down with "the man".


How dare they....



..compete fairly. Competing fairly isn't something I'd call it. More like monopolizing one field, milking it for all its worth, then using this money to monopolize another field. If that's competing fairly, whatever, I still see it as foul play.

[NachoHat]

Why can't Microsoft understand that playing dirty and taking out all the competition, as they're doing by bying out good developers, is not the only way to gain support -- or is it for Microsoft?
The magic Eight Ball tells me that Microsoft does get support in ways other than "playing dirty". JSRF, Gun Valkyrie, Phantom Crash, Crazy Taxi 3, House of the Dead 3, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Steel Battalion, or Panzer Dragoon Orta, anyone? Or how about the upcoming Fable, BC, Star Wars:KOTOR, Spike Out X-treme, O-togi, Murakumo, Thousand Land, Dino Crisis 3, or Psychonauts?


Can't they at least TRY to be original and put out their own games instead of using the power of "the Man's" never-ending pockets choke or buy out the competition?
MechAssault, Halo, Project Gotham Racing, Blinx, and Amped aren't their own original games? Oh wait, they're by companies bought by MS. I guess Kirby, Eternal Darkness, Jet Force Gemini, Pokemon, Blast Corps, Banjo Kazooie, and Star Fox Adventures aren't Nintendo's games either. What, you say they are? But they're by companies purchased by Nintendo so if it's that way for one company shouldn't it be for the other? Oh, sorry, I forgot. Nintendo is an infallable angel that only thinks of the gamer's enjoyment. Microsoft is an evil capitalist monster who drinks children's blood.

[Rei]

Hey, say what you will about Battle.net, it's free. That's something you don't see too often any more. And how long do you seriously expect it to STAY free if (God forbid) Microsoft were to get their claws on it?

I never said I hated MS for buying Blizzard. Personally I don't care if they start charging for Battle.net. There are so many problems with it that if even $4.99 a month fixed them I'd be happy. It may be free now but that doesn't mean it's great. Ever played Diablo II? Duped items everywhere, regular realm downs, Maphacks, Tradehacks, D2Hackit, and a promised patch for nearly 7 months now. If 5 bucks a month fixed this I'd be fine.

[Killtacular]

Competing fairly isn't something I'd call it. More like monopolizing one field, milking it for all its worth, then using this money to monopolize another field. If that's competing fairly, whatever, I still see it as foul play.

Oh, sure. And I'll bet Sony and Nintendo were NEVER guilty of THAT. :rolleyes:


I guess Kirby, Eternal Darkness, Jet Force Gemini, Pokemon, Blast Corps, Banjo Kazooie, and Star Fox Adventures aren't Nintendo's games either. What, you say they are? But they're by companies purchased by Nintendo so if it's that way for one company shouldn't it be for the other?

You forgot Metroid Prime by Retro Studios. Hee.

[KingKoopa]

Originally posted by Matt Wilson
Oh, sure. And I'll bet Sony and Nintendo were NEVER guilty of THAT. :rolleyes:
Did I say that? I didn't say Nintendo and Sony are angels, but Microsoft's the biggest offender. They practically OWN the computer OS industry, and since computers are so commonplace, Bill Gates could afford to do anything. Sony and Nintendo, on the other hand, have LIMITED income. They can't just go to the store and buy a company like we would buy a can of soda.

[Drachentöter]

Sony has its other home entertainment hardware to fall back on. And Nintendo is resourceful enough to stay in the game. My bigget gripe is that quality products are all being sifted into the X-Box because Microsoft continues to acquire other gaming companies. So, while there will still be more Playstations and Gamecubes in the future, they won't reach their highest potential because the support has been pulled out from under them. It's an effective and legal way to succeed in the business, but I think it sucks.

[Skiptastic]

Originally posted by KingKoopa
Did I say that? I didn't say Nintendo and Sony are angels, but Microsoft's the biggest offender. They practically OWN the computer OS industry, and since computers are so commonplace, Bill Gates could afford to do anything. Sony and Nintendo, on the other hand, have LIMITED income. They can't just go to the store and buy a company like we would buy a can of soda.

Yeah, cuz Sony doesnt have a bunch of money from their many other industries. Sony has enough money to not call it limited, its just that they arent going to sink the money into getting video game companies. They could, but they never were the type to really put much into their first party games.

[Skiptastic]

Originally posted by VortexInfinite
Sony has its other home entertainment hardware to fall back on. And Nintendo is resourceful enough to stay in the game. My bigget gripe is that quality products are all being sifted into the X-Box because Microsoft continues to acquire other gaming companies. So, while there will still be more Playstations and Gamecubes in the future, they won't reach their highest potential because the support has been pulled out from under them. It's an effective and legal way to succeed in the business, but I think it sucks.

Um, if things worked in a video game utopia, all of the quality products would go to Xbox because they have the most powerful system. If all things worked in a perfectly competetive model, all games would be made for the PS2 because it has the largest user base and you will probably sell more of your good game on the PS2 than any other system. But things arent perfectly competetive or utopian, so things are the way they are, and in the end, it works.

[Mynd Hed]

The other thing to think about is that Blizzard has, historically, had a pretty good track record when it comes to releasing Mac versions of their games in a timely manner; usually they do a simultaneous release. If Microsoft were to acquire Blizzard, I doubt that would continue to be the case. For that matter, Blizzard usually tries to keep the system requirements on their games low, but I could conceivably see a Microsoft buyout changing that trend as well. Higher system requirements on games = people feeling a greater need to upgrade or replace their machines = more money in the tech economy = good for Microsoft.

[NachoHat]

The other thing to think about is that Blizzard has, historically, had a pretty good track record when it comes to releasing Mac versions of their games in a timely manner; usually they do a simultaneous release. If Microsoft were to acquire Blizzard, I doubt that would continue to be the case.
Last I checked, which wasn't all that recently because I don't really care, Microsoft is porting Halo to Macs as well...

[KingKoopa]

Originally posted by Skiptastic
Yeah, cuz Sony doesnt have a bunch of money from their many other industries. Sony has enough money to not call it limited, its just that they arent going to sink the money into getting video game companies. They could, but they never were the type to really put much into their first party games. Honestly, I was thinking of Nintendo more than Sony.

[Spike04]

Sony's not a real video game console company?

Yes I believe they are.


Doesn't ruin my life. And if your life is ruined by someone buying Sierra and Blizzard...well....may I suggest a psychiatrist?

Yes you may.


That's a bad thing?

To some people yes.. to others.. no.

Just thought I'd answer some unanswered questions! :D

By the way..Nachos aren't meant to be worn on your head...they're meant to be eaten with melted cheese on top you silly goose
YUUUMMM...CHEESE :eek:

[guinaevere]

Originally posted by KingKoopa
<SNIP>but Microsoft's the biggest offender. They practically OWN the computer OS industry, and since computers are so commonplace, Bill Gates could afford to do anything. Sony and Nintendo, on the other hand, have LIMITED income. They can't just go to the store and buy a company like we would buy a can of soda.

Actually, the X-box division of MS does run on a limited budget, as any division of any corporation does. Your reference to Bill Gates and the Windows OS's is out of place. Yes, the Windows franchise has grown Microsoft into a giant company, but that has nothing to do with the Xbox division.

MS Xbox works on a limited budget, which is then divided up many, MANY times over (advertising, R&D, franchise building, et cetera), just as their competition does.

If you have a problem with Bill Gates personally, then rest easy that he has next to nothing to do with Xbox, OR the third-party support they're lining up.

If you're totally against Mr Gates and the MS line, then don't buy the product. Simple enough.

If your problem is that MS Xbox has a larger budget, then I can't really help you there. That's just how it is.

[reubot]

I'm hoping microsoft can fix some of the problems that Blizzard have. I remember when they said "Warcraft III is expected to release by the first half of 2001 in Windows 95/98/2000/NT formats. "

About two years overdue.

[Mynd Hed]

Actually, I like the fact that Blizzard takes their time with their games. I can't count the number of times I've played a mediocre game that has a great concept, but it just feels rushed. I know that if Blizzard delays the release of a highly-anticipated game, it's because the delay will make it a better game when it finally does come out. I'd rather wait longer for a good game than have them rush production and have to deal with a game that cut corners and wasn't as polished as it could have been.

[Bakasama]

Originally posted by Mynd Hed
The other thing to think about is that Blizzard has, historically, had a pretty good track record when it comes to releasing Mac versions of their games in a timely manner; usually they do a simultaneous release. If Microsoft were to acquire Blizzard, I doubt that would continue to be the case. For that matter, Blizzard usually tries to keep the system requirements on their games low, but I could conceivably see a Microsoft buyout changing that trend as well. Higher system requirements on games = people feeling a greater need to upgrade or replace their machines = more money in the tech economy = good for Microsoft.

That's consider a valid point with many Mac gamers. When Mircosoft bought out Bungie Software, that company stopped making Mac games as a whole. That's bad enough but that company is now geared towards making Xbox exclusives. That could happened if Mircosoft buys Blizzard. That would be bad news not only for Mac gamers but PC gamers as well.

[Killtacular]

Wait. What on earth are you saying?

Must we forget that 80% of Microsoft's business lies in the PC world? Why would they stop Blizzard from making games for computers, when that's where the real money comes from? Geez.

[guinaevere]

Originally posted by Matt Wilson
Wait. What on earth are you saying?

Must we forget that 80% of Microsoft's business lies in the PC world? Why would they stop Blizzard from making games for computers, when that's where the real money comes from? Geez.

Ahh.. well.. the real money may very well be in PCs, but not in PC games. Last year, PC games made up a little under 10% of video game sales.

So, unfortunately, video game sales (money) is in consoles. http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/guinaevere/grudgegreen.gif Don't be angry with me, I'm just breaking the news to ya...


I thank the PC (gaming) market for bringing all games to the amazing level we enjoy today.

I also love my PC games and will continue to purchase them as long as they're made. I drool over Halo, Splinter Cell, et cetera, but I will only purchase them for my PC. It's on the computer that we get absolutely everything there is to get out of these games. Plus, keyboard & mouse gives the best control. blah blah blah... I've said it all before...

[guinaevere]

I realize this thread is rather dead at the moment, but I was talking with the Vivendi (blizzard/sierra) vendor on Tuesday, and while there is no comment regarding MS, they are very srongly emphasizing that they WILL be remaining in the PC market!