Ah, ever since I'm doing consulting prep (for a couple of weeks now), I have a new perspective on this. It's just a new perspective, that I happen to trade in i

Ah, ever since I'm doing consulting prep (for a couple of weeks now), I have a new perspective on this. It's just a new perspective, that I happen to trade in in for my soul, not as a price, but as a side effect really, but whatever. I guess that had to happen if you want to know what game the executive suite is playing :D The question is: why wouldn't they? Big corporations exist for one reason which is brought about by a myriad of incentives from stakeholders (e.g. consumers, shareholders, employees and the state). That reason is: to generate as much profit as possible. Some say it's about growth or revenue, IMO those are all indirect ways to potentially generate more profit. That's it, that's why big corporations exist. They're quite mindless in that sense because this mostly comes about by the interaction of all the stakeholders. So from Activision Blizzard its perspective, I applaud them. This is what they should be doing. There's less financial pressure on employees (aka layoff season is probably even further away now), shareholders see more signs of their favorite currency in their eyes, the regulator/state is simply picking a victim that isn't as savvy and the consumers can play new amazing Warcraft games for years to come! Oh, and the victim has trouble to organize itself, so that helps. In short, they are doing well. For the state and economics researchers I'd say: if you care about wealth distribution to the people, then figure out how to get their money. I wonder, if the state wants tax money so badly and the state is represented by the public, then why doesn't the state compete or invest in companies? You can't tax Activision Blizzard, but you definitely can tax a state owned company (right? Or is there something I'm missing).