7 ms·

Not mentioned in this story: Chinese internet giant Tencent is part of the "investment group" Kotick has put together. Basically, the company is switching owner

Not mentioned in this story: Chinese internet giant Tencent is part of the "investment group" Kotick has put together. Basically, the company is switching ownership from one conglomerate to a diffusion of others. I'd hardly call that "independent" in any sense of the word. This story is less about independence, and more about allowing Vivendi to cash out on its 2007 merger of Activision and Blizzard. Basically, Vivendi transferred Blizzard to Activision in exchange for 52% of the combined entity (Activision Blizzard). While A-B has been doing well over the years, Vivendi has not fared as well. It wants some to capture some of the upside through the buyback.

wikwocket 13y ago
The article says that Activision Blizzard is buying the majority (about two thirds) of the shares itself. And presumably Kotick and Kelly have some personal stake in the investment group getting the rest of the shares? I don't know if this makes them "independent," but it doesn't seem to make them owned by a conglomeration of other parties either.
- jonnathanson 13y ago
  To clarify my previous comment... The post-split cap table looks something like this (from what information has been made public at this point): Bobby Kotick & associates (including Brian Kelly and Tencent, among other unnamed parties) own 24.9%. Vivendi's share drops to 12%. A-B itself buys back the majority of shares. Technically speaking, yes, A-B becomes an independent company (in as much as the majority of outstanding shares are publicly owned). My phrase "I'd hardly call that independent" was probably an overstatement worth correcting. My bad on that one. Because the word "independent" (and especially the derivative "indie") has a very industry-specific meaning in this case, I found the headline a bit misleading.
ameen 13y ago
Tencent do not get a board seat and as such it's "ownership" wouldn't account to much.
astrodust 13y ago
Also Bobby Kotick, who takes smug pride in the fact he doesn't even play games, is the last guy you want being your CEO.
- JonFish85 13y ago
  See, I'd respectfully disagree with this. Based on [1], I'd say he's a man who knows his limitations in this area. He seems to know enough to stay away from trying to meddle with a game, and a CEO who knows enough not to meddle where he isn't good is a guy I'd trust (to some extent, anyways). [1] http://kotaku.com/5559201/a-delightful-chat-with-the-most-hated-man-in-video-games http://kotaku.com/5559201/a-delightful-chat-with-the-most-ha...
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    It's a vital skill IMO- what CEO is going to be good at everything? They aren't gods.
    - electromagnetic 13y ago
      It's a vital skill in any supervisory or managerial job. Especially so as you get higher up the pyramid, it's important to remember you need a lot of secure blocks below you so things don't collapse. Do you really want a university educated, never used a tool to make a living in his life, deciding he gets to dictate how to frame, roof and side your new house, maybe use less nails to cut down on costs? Is that a company you want to invest in? I work in construction, my boss climbed to the top but he still only gives suggestions on how to do things because it's been over 20 years since he's actually done it. Our tools aren't dictated to us, our set ups aren't. We do our job, he does his. For a company producing games your executives don't need to be the creative brains or anything of the sort, they've got tons of that below them. They've got entire departments of artists, developers, writers, etc. Why the hell would anybody think its financially prudent to get the CEO in on what would be a good story when you've got a career writer, or what cinematography style you should use when you've got artists on staff. You want the management to be coordinating all the little guys so that everyone hits the goal posts and finish lines at the right times and make those judgement calls to either delay the project or drop something to make the deadline.

wikwocket 13y ago

The article says that Activision Blizzard is buying the majority (about two thirds) of the shares itself. And presumably Kotick and Kelly have some personal stake in the investment group getting the rest of the shares? I don't know if this makes them "independent," but it doesn't seem to make them owned by a conglomeration of other parties either.

jonnathanson 13y ago
To clarify my previous comment... The post-split cap table looks something like this (from what information has been made public at this point): Bobby Kotick & associates (including Brian Kelly and Tencent, among other unnamed parties) own 24.9%. Vivendi's share drops to 12%. A-B itself buys back the majority of shares. Technically speaking, yes, A-B becomes an independent company (in as much as the majority of outstanding shares are publicly owned). My phrase "I'd hardly call that independent" was probably an overstatement worth correcting. My bad on that one. Because the word "independent" (and especially the derivative "indie") has a very industry-specific meaning in this case, I found the headline a bit misleading.

ameen 13y ago

Tencent do not get a board seat and as such it's "ownership" wouldn't account to much.

astrodust 13y ago

Also Bobby Kotick, who takes smug pride in the fact he doesn't even play games, is the last guy you want being your CEO.

JonFish85 13y ago
See, I'd respectfully disagree with this. Based on [1], I'd say he's a man who knows his limitations in this area. He seems to know enough to stay away from trying to meddle with a game, and a CEO who knows enough not to meddle where he isn't good is a guy I'd trust (to some extent, anyways). [1] http://kotaku.com/5559201/a-delightful-chat-with-the-most-hated-man-in-video-games http://kotaku.com/5559201/a-delightful-chat-with-the-most-ha...
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  It's a vital skill IMO- what CEO is going to be good at everything? They aren't gods.
  - electromagnetic 13y ago
    It's a vital skill in any supervisory or managerial job. Especially so as you get higher up the pyramid, it's important to remember you need a lot of secure blocks below you so things don't collapse. Do you really want a university educated, never used a tool to make a living in his life, deciding he gets to dictate how to frame, roof and side your new house, maybe use less nails to cut down on costs? Is that a company you want to invest in? I work in construction, my boss climbed to the top but he still only gives suggestions on how to do things because it's been over 20 years since he's actually done it. Our tools aren't dictated to us, our set ups aren't. We do our job, he does his. For a company producing games your executives don't need to be the creative brains or anything of the sort, they've got tons of that below them. They've got entire departments of artists, developers, writers, etc. Why the hell would anybody think its financially prudent to get the CEO in on what would be a good story when you've got a career writer, or what cinematography style you should use when you've got artists on staff. You want the management to be coordinating all the little guys so that everyone hits the goal posts and finish lines at the right times and make those judgement calls to either delay the project or drop something to make the deadline.