Talk:Activision Blizzard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Some Questions
I just had a few questions about the merging of the companies, as I'm not familiar with the aspects of it:
1. Just to reclarify, it was Activision and Vivendi that merged, right? Not Activision and Blizzard as the name suggests?
2. I noticed on the list that Crash Bandicoot is not up there. Does this mean that Crash bandicoot is still going to be published by Vivendi Games or is it not up there because Crash is still directly being produced by Sierra?
3. Does this mean that there's a possibilty for Crash Bandicoot in a Tony Hawk game? (I know it's a dumb question but I was curious.)
69.24.125.144 19:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Article discussion pages aren't a forum, they are here just to discuss how to improve an article, nothing else. Thank you. --Taraborn 09:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Another source
bbc 86.21.74.40 22:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Some answers:
1. Yes.
2. I don't think every franchise that VG and Activision own can be on the short list on the article page. VG will probably not be publishing anything anymore, because VG does not exist anymore. It is Activision Blizzard, and they're most likely to be the ones with their name plastered all over the box.
3. Yes, but it's wrong.
Untamed 01:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Activision Blizzard FAQ from Blizzard Entertainment
http://www.blizzard.com/press/activision-faq.shtml
If someone wants to try and incorporate that into the page at least until the merger happens it would probably help out. 68.226.119.187 17:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's already in, under the reference tag name of "Blizzard FAQ". -- Sabre 19:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] buy out
Blizzard bought out Activision, sweet! Does that mean Star Trek: Armada will be on Battle.net?--xgmx (T | C | D | R | DR) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.244.36.198 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
NO! in actual fact Activision MERGED with Vivendi which owns Blizzard and the disscusion place isn't for disscusing the content of the age, its for dicussing how the grammer can be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.45.222 (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)