Talk:Activision Blizzard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conflict of interest with Patenplays[edit]

I would just like to note that the editor who has added the bulk of the worlds lawsuit over the years (since 2014), is an SPA for Worlds. Please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Patentplays, and consider disallowing all their live edits to the page, and requesting they utitilize this talk page to bring up their requests. Earflaps (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to remove the entire addition, as it seems to have little to specifically do with Activision Blizzard and heavy jargon that really isn't pertinent to this article, but was reverted. -- ferret (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone doesn't understand the difference between subsidiaries and divisions[edit]

Unfortunately, User:Earflaps made a bunch of inexplicable edits in March 2016 that indicate a lack of understanding of the difference between subsidiaries and divisions. A subsidiary is a legal entity that is owned in part or in whole by another entity. A division is merely a business unit within an existing business but not a separate legal entity.

Any objections before I clean up this mess? --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolcaesar: Earflaps is blocked as a sock as well as undisclosed paid editing, go for it. -- ferret (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Activision Blizzard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improving article[edit]

Hi fellow editors, I noticed that considering the size and importance of this company, the article leaves much to be desired. I have some ideas on how to make some improvements, and wonder if anyone would like to take part, and not just revert edits, which I notice happens a lot, but to add to the article as far as content and structure. I would like to begin with a separate section on the company's venture into film production. What say you? ApplePieRising (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ApplePieRising, you're free at any point to expand the article as long as you are familar with Wikipedia's content guidelines (such as sourcing, no original research, neutral lanuage). If Activision Blizzard has a notable film production arm, surely there are secondary sources on the matter you can expand the article with. However, given that an article for that subsid already exists, try to keep it concise here. If you need any help, you can consult other editors, such as myself, at any given time. Lordtobi (✉) 11:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lordtobi for your help and encouragement. I hope you agree that the page is a little easier to read now, and has more sources to support the content. I worked with the content that was already there as much as possible, and only added clarifying, or essential information that had been missing. Not everyone is a video game aficionado, and I think some clarifying language adds to the understanding of the content. Thanks for any feedback and quality control, but I would appreciate if you did not simply revert everything, which is very disheartening. ApplePieRising (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just went on to the Activision Blizzard Studios page for the first time to see how much redundancy there is with this page, and I was surprised to see how little is actually on that page. I dont think there is any need to keep the content on the main page here overly "concise." I think my additions on this page are not at all redundant with the so-called "full article" which is really not particularly "full." I hope you agree. ApplePieRising (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ApplePieRising, we usually keep content concise on non-main pages because the main pages contain the majority of the content. This is the inverse here, for some reason. Please transplant the content you added to this page to the Activision Blizzard Studios article and add a short summary here instead. This will better comply with Wikipedia's standards. Lordtobi (✉) 13:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lordtobi Good suggestion, I just dont have time this moment. I hope I can get to this later this week. ApplePieRising (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ApplePieRising, I've gone ahead annd transplanted the content. If you would like to expand it further, be sure to edit the main article first. Lordtobi (✉) 08:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Activision Blizzard Studios[edit]

I decided to start a new section, all the colons were making me crazy. Thanks for moving over the content Lordtobi. However, I think the content on the main page concerning the movie studio can stand to be a little more developed than what is left, while the content on the "studios" page can also be developed more. There is plenty of information on line. When the holidays are over I hope to expand both. There seems to be plenty of information on-line that would be of interest to Wiki readers. I hope you agree. Happy Holidays!! ApplePieRising (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Entertainment company[edit]

I think it is important, when describing the company in the opening sentence of the article, that we use words that are as accurate as possible. Therefore, I believe, and I hope you will see my POV, that the company is much more than a video game holding company, since it is involved in film-making and esports, etc. and a better description is the broader "Interactive Entertainment." I am changing the description back to this. ApplePieRising (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ApplePieRising, "interactive entertainment" and "video game [industry]" are basically synonymous (the referenced HuffPost article also describes the video game industry), and the former does not cover motion picture production, while both cover esports. First and foremost, Activision Blizzard is a holding company: all major operations are "outsourced" to its subsidiaries. Furthermore, "video game X company" is the standard nomenclature that is understood by most and used most frequently in the project, so I see no need not to use it. I'm amending the sentence to reflect this properly. Lordtobi (✉) 08:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The infobox looks terrible with a description of the logo there. I am taking the description out of the infobox, and adding a new section about the logo in the body of the article, if you feel such a clarification of the logo is needed. Otherwise, since the logo's derivation is self-explanatory, perhaps no discussion at all is needed. So either a new section in the body, or no discussion at all. ApplePieRising (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profit shifting and tax[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians. Full disclosure, I work for TaxWatch UK.

In August 2019, we published a report explaining how Activision Blizzard shifted €5bn to companies in Bermuda and Barbados between 2013-2017. This shifting of profits using royalty payments to tax haven companies is the same scheme used by Google, which has been heavily criticised by MPs.

This report was picked up by multiple outlets, including GamesIndustry and The Sunday Times,

I would like for a small section to be included on the Activision Blizzard Wikipedia page. However, given the conflict of interest, I believe that someone else should make that edit.

Happy to answer any questions on the report.

Thanks,

Alex Alex0190 (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of TENCENT in Infobox is incorrect[edit]

Hi all, It is clear that the fact that Tencent owns 5% of Activision Blizzard is not enough of a reason to list Tencent as an owner in the infobox. Please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_company where it states in the "owner" field to "Use this field for publicly traded companies only when the owner is a long-term strategic owner such as an affiliate or founding family." Also, see this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_company/Archive_9#Owner_field where the conclusion is not to list owners with such a small stake; and this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_company/Archive_10#Slight_change_to_%22owner%22_tag where it was decided that for a public company "ONLY in the case for name and percentage of a large long-term strategic owner (I'm thinking like TD Bank's 42% ownership of TD Ameritrade, or the Walton family's 51% ownership of Walmart, and similar)." I am removing the parameter. Thanks. ApplePieRising (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling mistake[edit]

Below the heading "Corporate structure", find the sentence "There are also two non-reporting segments within Activition Blizzard" and please correct the spelling of the word "Activision" so that the sentence reads "There are also two non-reporting segments within Activision Blizzard". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.99.54.98 (talk • contribs)

 Done --Masem (t) 14:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the sexual harassment situation be split into a separate article?[edit]

The whole debacle has very quickly spiraled into something quite huge, with considerable media coverage and more information coming out all the time. Trying to fully detail it might be out of scope for this article alone, the section already makes up almost 1/3rd of the entire page and is rapidly growing. There is precedent for this; see the Blitzchung controversy. A separate article would also allow for better organisation of information. Thoughts? 78.152.233.71 (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. It's a bit too early to tell. If the situation continues for another couple of weeks with the same level of coverage, yes. It could also disappear quietly tomorrow, in which case what's there is fine. Probably better to make an assessment on it early next week. --Masem (t) 12:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

location of lawsuit section[edit]

@ForTheGoodOfAllofUs: there is zero requirement that all lawsuits about a company be in one section, and the fact that I renamed that section "other lawsuits" is sufficient to acknowledge the DHEF version is discussed already.

As the other factor, even before my change, there were already plenty of non-official statements related to the acquisition in the acquisition section. And because we have several RSes that indicate the DHEF lawsuit was part of the reason for the acquisition (including Kotick's own statements), it 100% makes sense to describe the events in a chronological order with the lawsuit and then subsequent acquisition. --Masem (t) 13:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The DFEH can be under history as long as it mentioned at least in the manner of "see main article", otherwise it appears as a cleanup of the article to put information under the rug. Furthermore the new flow of information pertaining to the deal itself you set does not do well, on differing between official and outlet "leaks" which have significant gaps in terms of information. It also does not in line with public discussion on the deal pertaining to Kotick's position as CEO. I intend to restore the flow of information to how it was before in those while maintaining DFEH being in history for your request. If you have specifics on the matter of how the merger is handled let me know. ForTheGoodOfAllofUs (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're missing the point. There is a clear connection from RSes between the lawsuit, the acquisition, and what is then expected to happen related to Kotick. There's a story here, and breaking the lawsuit from the acquisition makes it hard to follow. We don't need to cover the lawsuit in full, just that it happened mid-last year and included allegations at Kotick that came in November. It flows completely chronologically as given by RSes and follows what is line with the story around Kotick here (both what is factually known and what major RSes have reported from their inside persons). --Masem (t) 14:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to ignore what I'm saying. Placement can be resolved with a link to "see main article" to acknowledge to acknowledge the lawsuit in legal disputes without putting the info "under the rag" buried within the article. With further more smaller adjustment such as "according to", etc. I think we can get here to a solution that keeps your will to put DFEH in history while maintaining flow and "story" information in the article properly because right now there are some misleading points. ForTheGoodOfAllofUs (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lawsuit is outlined in the section headers, so it is definitely not being swept under the rug. That's why remaining the last section to "Other lawsuits" makes sense with the TOC outline as well. Also, nothing in the last history section is misleading. Its in order, attribution is given where necessary, and is primarily all the same info that was in the article before I merged the sections, just with necessary language flow. --Masem (t) 14:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lawsuit has a main article, and it has to be at least linked in the legal section, no expansion needed if it's in history. There are some flaws in portraying the story. If Kotick's position takes a significant portion of public reaction to the deal, which follows mishandling with the board, then they shall be portrayed one after another as in the original version. Furthermore with several claims here and there with significant gaps, it's important to maintain "Who said what" as in part with Wikipedia. Particular with one point the deal does not seal Kotick position as CEO as might be portrayed from the new way of putting the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForTheGoodOfAllofUs (talk • contribs) 15:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was expanded, just moving the top level summary to the history section. And while the sequence of events (assuming WSJ and others are true), in that after the Nov 2021 WSJ report that MS re-approached AB to reoffer an acquisition deal and the board taking it, this is stuff that is not fully crystal clear, and so it is far better (after talking of the lawsuit) to present the factual event (the acquisition) and then outline why RSes state that the lawsuit was the driver for it. (If the lawsuit leading to the acquisition was more crystal, I agree that we want to discuss it that way). And I don't know what you're talking about with Kotick as CEO - we have it clearly stated that Kotick will remain there while the deal is being completed, and then he's expected to leave. --Masem (t) 15:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't said anything was expanded. The way some information was moved and some connection words were dropped, may create a disambiguation that fails to portrait the situation, without the need to assume WSJ, Bloomberg and others are correct or not, as this is not or job decide as wikipedia editors. In any way, the lawsuit and the WSJ article have a role in the stock price, which appears if anything to be a big reason for the acquisition, as portrayed by all sources and sides. We could agree on the current formulation with the added "according to official announcements" (I'll have to review the section again for any case), as said it's not our job as wikipedia editors to decide whether articles such as the WSJ entail the correct trailing of the future with that article saying he will leave or not. I do hope we could also get to an agreement of having the lawsuit in the legal section as well. (You may have also noticed I have made further edits that are not related to our discussion here) Regards, ForTheGoodOfAllofUs (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's zero need to include "according to official announcements" related to Kotick staying as CEO - no one is contesting that. It's Kotick's fate after the merger that there's not a clear picture and why that needs to attributed. And no, you do not need to repeat the lawsuit in a section called "Other lawsuits". --Masem (t) 16:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's in regarding to the future/fate with several different perspectives given (official vs leaks vs outlets etc.) , if you want to stick to semantics, but button line it needs to be needs to attributed. So currently the main point of debate seems to be whether to include a link to the lawsuit in the legal section or not, perhaps a 3rd person could make a decision on that. Pinging the last one to edit in the article, @X-Editor: Regards, ForTheGoodOfAllofUs (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022[edit]

CHANGE: "DFEH's lawsuit brought a second lawsuit against the company by its shareholders asserting it falsified knowledge of these problems in their financial statements" to: "The DFEH lawsuit is the source of securities class action lawsuit brought against the company by its shareholders alleging it misled its investors by failing to disclose discrimination against women and minority employees, a pervasive “frat boy” workplace culture and that numerous complaints about unlawful harassment, discrimination, and retaliation were made to human resources personnel, putting the company at greater risk of regulatory and legal scrutiny and enforcement." TheBrios (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done We don't need to reiterate the internal problems at AB already given earlier in the para when the shareholders suit was simply about misinformation they were given. Also consider this shareholder suit has been dismissed by the judge already. --Masem (t) 14:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Update: Overwatch is now a series game[edit]

Overwatch is a story that now spans multiple games i.e. a game series, perhaps the infobox could be amended to reflect that as it has done so for the other games on the list? Dasein (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Masem (t) 14:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace misconduct lawsuit subsection[edit]

Hi. I work for Activision Blizzard and am therefore not making these edits directly, but would like to open a discussion about the subsection titled Workplace misconduct lawsuit subsection in the main article. Since a standalone article has been created on the subject, I believe it would be appropriate to trim the in-article section to more of a summary, as is common practice in similar situations. Would appreciate the community's input on this, and am happy to work on the text in a draft if that would make things easier. Pinging Masem as he created that break-away article and appears to still have an active interest in the subject. Thanks for your time, Sh-abkcomms (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely needs reduction though aspects directly affecting the corporate nature of Activision should still be highlighted. Masem (t) 16:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is way too sensitive for COI editors. Request closed. Quetstar (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Quetstar for sharing your concern. This is precisely why I brought the topic to the Talk page and am working to collaborate with impartial editors. And Masem, thanks for the quick reply! I will work on the language and get back to you with my suggestions. I look forward to your input. Sh-abkcomms (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've worked on a reduction, per Masem's request, and put it up as a draft so you can take a look. I believe there are inaccuracies in the remaining text and would be happy to work with you and the rest of the community to address these in the future. I look forward to your thoughts. Sh-abkcomms (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a bit could be trimmed but that is a good start. Masem (t) 18:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Masem great! Do you need anything else from me before making the changes you are comfortable with? I would like to defer to the community and will not be making the edits myself.. Thanks again, Sh-abkcomms (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry in late in adding your trimmed version but that's now in place. I trimmed it down a bit more since we have good sized details in those other articles Masem (t) 17:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, great! Thanks for the update. Sh-abkcomms (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note of additional information - 7/12/23[edit]

Hello, just to put this here: the Microsoft v. FTC's Judge has ruled in favor of Microsoft, lifting the FTC's block on Microsoft's acquisition. Warren, Tom. "Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard". The Verge. The Verge. Retrieved 12 July 2023. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kodalee4 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2023[edit]

On the right hand infobox, on "Parent", "Microsoft Gaming" should redirect to the existing Xbox Game Studios page. Liornz (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: This is under discussion at the XGS talk page. Microsoft Gaming is not XGS, but the division both ABK and XGS report to. -- ferret (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2023 (2)[edit]

I want to edit the Activision Blizzard article to reflect its condition after acquired by Microsoft. NawdirOtmikaz (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It already does reflect this properly. We don't include the "owner" field if there's a "parent" field, which is the case here. --Masem (t) 22:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the categories still doesn't changed, which shall included in "2023 mergers and acquisitions" and "companies formerly listed on the Nasdaq". You shall know it! NawdirOtmikaz (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Activision_Blizzard&oldid=1204503249"