Why don't you own stock in the greatest gaming company ever?

>>1969547

- The wonder years of WoW are long gone and they don't have a succesor.
- Hearthstone should be 10 times bigger if they had someone competent on charge.
- They have proven the don't know how to capitalize on the eSports scene. They are losing money or barely breaking even there and just using it to promote the games instead of it being the huge revenue source it can be.

>>1969547
They'll be gone within 10 years.

WOW gave them billions. Then they turned it into a glorified mobile phone app.

D3 is a farce.

They have nothing else of substance.

>>1969558
Overwatch and Hearthstone are both fucking gigantic.
Overwatch even has a nearly-competent dev team.

>>1969563
Yeah OK invest in them then.

I'd feel more confident investing in Chevy

>>1969556
it doesn't matter if wows glory days are over. To this day, wow brings in decent cash flow to the company allowing it to develop new hit games (like over watch which has tons of players)

>>1969547
Blizzard has made a bit of a return but their glory-days are behind them. Really. Their four franchises dominated PC gaming unlike any other company has. WoW, SC: BW, Diablo, and WC 1-3 will be remembered as the best of their respective genres. Can't say the same about Overwatch (it won't dethrone CS: GO). You can say that about Hearthstone.

Valve is comparable, but as big as CS:GO and DOTA are, their marketshare is still paltry compared to what Blizzard was doing from like 1998 to 2009 (Diablo 3 and the migration of Dota from BNet to Valve/Riot mark the end of an epoch. SC2 had its run but wasn't as big as SC:BW. B.Net 2.0 was a FAILURE!!).

>>1969592
I disagree valve these days is pretty large are doing the best they have ever done but it's debatable. if there pushing gaming forward currently, not really.
So there there not being loud to avoid kicking up a shit heap

>>1969592
Besides the story and the useless rhythmic ability clicking (inject larva etc) there is literally nothing wrong with Starcraft 2.

>>1969547
I just sold everything, I bought the dip and made good money of them but now they are going to go sideways for a time I think.

>>1969556
yet it always has good earning reports because it still has a monopoly on very successful games.
>tons of revenue from app store games
>dlc jews
>destiny
>cod still going strong
If you are going to invest in video games you should invest in activation.
Plus i bet they're going to release a ww2 game which is desperately needed since there hasn't really been one for a decade now.

>>1969547
"DUUUUDE WHY DONT U OWN STOCKS IN APPLE LOOOOL"
cuz it's not 1995 you dumb cunt

Blizzard is not the company it used to be, its really a shadow of its former self. The overwhelming success of Wow was essentially the end of Blizzard. Blizzard is Blizzard in name only. In many ways they are like EA, too big to fail, too many franchises, they could screw up their next games and still have the cash flow to stay afloat.

They just dont have the edge like they used to have. It's about profit now, safe bets, safe games. Don't get me wrong, theys till make good games.

Diablo 3 was Blizzard's answer to the rabid fanbase that demanded a sequel.

Hearthstone was Blizzard's answer to the casual mobile games market (microtransactions)

Overwatch was Blizzard's answer to the MOBA scene.

See a pattern with their newest games? It's all about microtransactions. It's that simple. Pay to play, pay to win, pay for content.

>>1969547
I own a few shares of Blizzard, its a great company. However with gaming, there is a always a crack team of 20s who can move in and displace them + competition from other studios.

>>1970964
They have great IPs and a competent dev team. Competition isn't exactly a relevant thing with creative/qualitative based companies. The economics are behind them.

>>1970978
I agree with you, but at the same time competition is real. There are only so many spots on the top for AAA games, think the fall of Lionhead Studios/id software back in the day, or recent phenomenal success of Horizon Zero Dawn from Guerilla. If Blizzard won't manage to deliver this kind of quality, it will go down eventually.

>>1970996
>competition is real
It isn't. The Dragon Age franchise has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether Elder Scrolls will do well. The existence of the Saints Row franchise has no effect on the GTA franchise. Lord of the Rings has no effect on Harry Potter. This is the realm of creative/qualitative based companies, they all have extremely high monopolization factors; whether they do well or not is based solely on their work's unique qualitative merit.

All of Acitivision Blizzard's IPs are very valuable and profitable and I expect this to continue for a long time to come. They're not a one-trick-pony like Take Two's GTA.

>>1971042
Kids, teens and young adults only have so much money to spend. Sure, in Korea they will keep going strong because of network effects, if half your friends bought new SC, chances are so will you. But elsewhere, maybe not.

>>1971078
You're missing the point. Decisions to buy games (and creatives in general) aren't done on the basis of comparison with something else. It's because it, itself seems desirable. A new, but under-par game priced at $5 can easily undersell units compared to a good $60 game. Now, part of why people may buy it a creative based good is because previous games in the franchise were good -- something which Activision Blizzard have a lot of. If a new Warcraft, StarCraft, Diablo, Overwatch, Call of Duty, etc. come out, people will undoubtedly buy it.