Slashdot Mirror


EA Takeover Moves and Countermoves

Details have emerged regarding several EA takeover related stories. The long running dispute with Digital Illusions may be coming to an end as EA has waived the requirement to own majority shares in the company. They still plan to purchase as many shares of the company as possible. Ubisoft announced that they have a defense planned against a hostile takeover bid from EA, should it arise. No mention of what this plan is, of course. In reaction to the recent press coverage of their move to purchase Ubi stock, EA has announced that their purchase was not hostile, and that they'd spoken often with Ubi representatives. From the article: "Florin reiterated that Electronic Arts was not asking for a seat on Ubisoft's board. 'We had the opportunity to buy a 20 percent stake in Ubisoft and we haven't asked for anything... That's not hostile. In our industry, one doesn't make hostile moves because our value lies with people,' he added."

14 of 120 comments (clear)

  1. Valued people by Roland+Piquepaille · · Score: 1, Insightful

    In our industry, one doesn't make hostile moves because our value lies with people

    Considering how EA treat their employee, I can't believe they have the gall to say this...

  2. Such BS... by Krankheit · · Score: 4, Insightful


    "our value lies with people," - Companies exist to make money, not care about people. What kind of BS line is this?

    --
    Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
    1. Re:Such BS... by Antonymous+Flower · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suppose it is a matter of perspective. People drive all business, plain and simple. Of course, I'm sure your comment is result of the infamous livejournal post about EA overworking their employees. For the slashdot coverage see: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/11/ 0031259&tid=98&tid=10

    2. Re:Such BS... by EricTheMad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "our value lies with people,"
      - Companies exist to make money, not care about people. What kind of BS line is this?


      True, but you can't make money without people. Innocent, niave people that you can work to near death and pay almost nothing.

      --
      -- Remember, we're not happy until you're not happy. -- Local FAA Inspector --
  3. Re:Well... by DARKFORCE123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That statement about EA dying is not true. With a strong cash reserve ( 2.5 billion ) last time I checked, EA isn't going anywhere soon but up. A 20 % investment in Ubisoft was a small transaction for them.

    And with EA and Microsoft getting tighter together, well you do the math.

    Most of us like the old EA instead of the new one , but they are a financially strong company. They were one of Fortune magazines top picks for the year and their current stock price is around $60.

    Sorry they're not going anywhere.

  4. value lies with people by downlo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "because our value lies with people."

    Are these the same people who worked OT and never got paid?

    1. Re:value lies with people by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If those people didnt work, there would be no value to the company. Its that value they are talking about, not 'we value people'.

  5. oh really? by lordkuri · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's not hostile. In our industry, one doesn't make hostile moves because our value lies with people,' he added."

    yes, but only when they're valuable for 80 hours a week.

    note to mods, here's the point of this joke

  6. hostile purchasing? by Antonymous+Flower · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hostile purchasing is sort of bewildering. I think back to a time when men made tools for the sake of selling them to other men so the town could prosper(think free software movement). I can't imagine any type of hostile purchase in a market setting (You know, markets, those things they had a long time ago. Think Wal-mart without the flourescent lighting). How did this perversion of economics take place?

    1. Re:hostile purchasing? by bitwiseNomad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't imagine any type of hostile purchase in a market setting. How did this perversion of economics take place?

      A monopoly occurs when a single firm in a free market gains enough production power to sell (at the market price) to everyone in a given market. A free market is maintained if all of the firms selling in the market remain small enough to compete with each other. Your town setting is a free market, and it is maintained because every entity in the market is one or two people, almost by definition (therefore remaining small). The game changes when people band together and incorporate. In a competitive market, a firm selling below the market price will be flooded with orders and be unable to fill demand. A firm selling above the market price will lose all of their business. These firms are called-price takers, whereas a monopoly (read: large, large company) is a price-giver.

      There's nothing saying a small firm can't buy another firm out, but that isn't the only way they have to expand. They can expand by simply entering markets in new areas or by increasing their capacity to produce by buying more capital or hiring more people. However, for a behemoth who already sells to nearly every buyer in a market, they have to pay to get more sales, so they may not have much room to grow by getting new sales. If they can't grow that way, the only thing left is to try to get existing sales into their pockets (read: get rid of or buy out competitors). In EA's case, it may be wiser for them to buy up the shelf space that companies like Ubisoft own rather than try to fill the shelves with more of their games. Hence, the hostile takeover becomes a means of survival for them.

      It is important to note that this sort of strategy only makes sense for a very large company. Companies that big can arise out of competitive markets, and most economists believe that monopolies are inevitable in a capatalist economy. So it may be possible that the perversion of economics is natural, and that it could just as easily have been Activision where EA is now, or Acclaim instead of Valve.

      --

      Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
  7. Ubisoft board's responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The board of ubisoft should be open to buyout offers which exceed the board's esitmated value of the company.

    Their duty is to the owners of the company (shareholders).

    The board is not bound to look after the best interest of those, such as Ubisoft upper managment, that don't have the best interest of the owners/shareholdders in mind. /end "corporate ownership 101"

  8. The Wal-Mart of Video Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The similarities between Electonic Arts' recent practices and those of the world's largest retail company Wal-Mart should be ovious to those with rudimentary economics knowledge.

    Electronic Arts can use its leverage and sheer breadth of titles to outcompete others through volume. Wal-Mart also cuts their profit margin very thin, but makes up for it in volume.

    If I sell 10000 video games at a profit of $1 a game, and you sell 1000 video games at a profit of $5 a game, I win.

    The caveat here is that I have to sell 10 times as many games as you do, which leads to increasing the workforce output in order to increase production time and meet quotas.

    Wal-Mart, too, has resorted to cutting its labor costs as dramatically as possible in order to maintain its standing as a volume-based retailer.

    However, Electronic Arts is unlike Wal-Mart in a very particular way: they rely on a discretionary product to make their money. Whereas everyone presumably needs T-shirts, food, and chairs, and thus will always *need* Wal-Mart (or at least its products), video games are nonessential and are one of the first things to disappear from a household budget when money is tight.

    Unless EA begins to make high-quality games that move to the top of the pack, they will implode the next time a major recession hits. And judging by their volume-over-creativity track record, this is unlikely.

  9. EA bites by pieisgood · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't want EA to take over a good game company. EA makes those shitty sports games, and with new workers they could make even MORE shitty sports games. I also don't want Far Cry 2 to fall into the wrong hands and turn into another Need For Speed Underground, that would hurt the soul. Fuck off EA.

    --
    Eat sleep die
  10. Boycott EA Please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I cant stress how much I hate this company... I would like to ask every sports game fan who will be missing out on a great offering from Sega ESPN NFL2k6 because of this bullshit licensing buyout to not give in and buy Madden* next year!

    I haven't seen anything good come from EA's yearly sport releases in so long, with the exception of Fight Night. NHL finally became playable this year, but still sucks compared to ESPN...

    Yes this is a rant, its also a plea, please do not buy EA games, rent them if you have to, you know they will sit on your shelf anyways!

    Now what developers like EA and Sega should start doing, is release updates to their games via Demo Disc's in a magazine, or selling them at $10 a pop, here we could get updates to the engine, ui, gfx, sound, rosters, etc. While maintaing a strong customer base, and your share of loyal consumers. Even if they did it at $20-$30 for the update, $60-$80 for the full newest version... i dunno if you guys are following me , im hung over. but I think its a great idea! I want Sega to release updated rosters on a disc so that I wont have to do it myself :) and so that I can play it and enjoy it in 2006

    Please go fuck yourself EA

    *Since EA likes to save money, rumor has it their trimming more fat. pun intended