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