EA Launches 'Hostile' Bid for GTA Publisher

Games news sites are reporting that EA has issued a new offering to Take-Two's shareholders in an attempt to purchase the company outright. Last month EA offered some $2 billion to Take-Two in an effort to accomplish the same goal. Take-Two declined, and EA took their offer public. Now, Electronic Arts is offering the price of some $26 per share to Take-Two's holders, a generous valuation. "Within ten business days Take-Two is required by law to publish, send or give to shareholders (and file with the Securities and Exchange Commission), a statement as to whether it recommends acceptance or rejection of the latest offer ... Since EA launched its February bid Take-Two said that other parties had approached it regarding a merger, but that it hadn't entered into negotiations with other companies about a deal."

Comments

If this goes through..

[kvezach]

Cue GTA 2009. .. and GTA 2010, GTA 2011, GTA 2012, GTA 2013...

Re:If this goes through..

[FredFredrickson]

Due to the fact that those games are already hot sellers, I'd say they were already pretty much guaranteed up through GTA 2013.

Re:If this goes through..

[Joe The Dragon]

and games will be buggy as the coders will be working 80+ weeks.

Re:If this goes through..

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue GTA 2009. .. and GTA 2010, GTA 2011, GTA 2012, GTA 2013...

Yeah, except with EA in control, don't expect the same GTA edginess. More accurately - queue the nerfing of Rockstar Games. :(

Re:If this goes through..

[Anonymous Coward]

Each with identical gameplay, but updated stats on all your favorite drug dealers and prostitutes.

Re:If this goes through..

[mikael]

The next title of the game has already been developed, and it is about to be released, with guaranteed profits. It is no surprise that EA sees a quick way to boost their quarterly earnings reports.

Re:If this goes through..

[everynerd]

And more to this, each successive year will in fact be a new "episode" to the last with no improvements to the game, nor any bug fixes. Also, EA will not fucking fix the [problem] you have reported to [support].

Re:If this goes through..

[aztektum]

Exactly. If I were an EA shareholder, I'd be pissed. As another poster pointed out, the amount EA is offering is really over stating what GTA specifically is worth. Don't piss away a crap ton for a short term boost. Although I guess that is the American way.

Remember when it use to be about family, apple pie, and fireworks and shit? Now it's all about the Benjamins.

Re:If this goes through..

[BosstonesOwn]

Hope my dealer makes it in , he has some of the best smoke on the east coast !

Re:If this goes through..

[harry666t]

But no GTA 2014, since the world ends in 2012.

Re:If this goes through..

[superpulpsicle]

If EA was really generous they would not be doing this when the stockmarket is in the hell hole. They are obviously taking advantage of the economic situations. Here's a new EA slogan.

EA ---- play the market, not video games.

This is bad for consumers. They should be shutdown. I piss on anyone who spent any money buying their monopolistic football games.

Re:If this goes through..

[Samuel_Gompers]

Anyone who held onto their shares after the creator of "Majestic" was rewarded with the #1 spot at EALA only has themselves to blame. The same goes for the chance to sell at 60 last autumn - if the self-dealing at that point wasn't obvious to Joe Investor in those acquisitions, they should really stick to indices.

Re:If this goes through..

[Deadfyre_Deadsoul]

I shalt giggle one day when EA gets shutdown.

Bastards buy out everyone who has an idea since they cant make something new up any more.

No better, and possibly worse then Microsuck.
Rennovate, dont innovate. Errr....reverse that...?

Re:If this goes through..

[somersault]

Remember when it use to be about family, apple pie, and fireworks and shit? Now it's all about the Benjamins. My rose tinted spectacles must be broken - I can't quite see this time when humanity wasn't all about the money..?

Re:If this goes through..

[fatgraham]

You don't think the coders who currently write the GTA games work 80+ hours a week??

Re:If this goes through..

[Cryolithic]

There's no such thing as good smoke on the east coast

Re:If this goes through..

[utopianfiat]

Are you sure? I'd be interested to see what EA's decision is- considering their current titles I'd expect it wouldn't be very good, but if you consider that they're paying for the liability associated with Rockstar's past and current titles (including but not limited to GTA 1, 2, 3, VC, SA, State of Emergency, Red Dead Revolver, Bully [currently proceeding], etc); Wouldn't you assume that if they're taking on Rockstar's past liability that they might, in fact, be planning to provide a legal umbrella to Rockstar?
That having been said my feeling on the matter is that I fully expect EA to be Microsoft to Rockstar's Rare. Buy the franchise, cut the team, fill it with talentless Bungie dipshits.

Re:If this goes through..

[Joe The Dragon]

But they don't have to deal with the other EA carp and at EA they will just be moved to next game with no brake time.

Re:If this goes through..

[rifter]

Remember when it use to be about family, apple pie, and fireworks and shit? Now it's all about the Benjamins.

Nah you got it wrong, Bro ... it's about gettin the paper NOW, instead of waitin around to *get paid*. :D

Re:If this goes through..

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, do you work there now?

Re:If this goes through..

[BosstonesOwn]

Yes there is ! it comes from BC :)

Re:If this goes through..

[slidersv]

By spending over 2 billion dollars?
Would you buy a local bakery for a million if you knew that they will make 10 grand in the next year?

Also, probably the programmers/graphic designers, and all the people who matter in take two will fork it, and start their own Take Three. They matter, not the name.

Re:If this goes through..

[easyTree]

Bastards buy out everyone who has an idea since they cant make something new up any more.

Pretty soon there's gonna be no way to have a _new_ idea in the USofA unless someone does something about your patent system.
 
/me runs off to patent 'Posting on forum' and 'Pressing keys on a keyboard'.

Re:If this goes through..

[cralewyth]

80+ weeks per year?

THAT'S INSANE!

Re:If this goes through..

[PrayerlessApostle]

No seriously. It's not a matter of who's signing the paychecks. EA really can ruin games. They ruined C&C as far as I'm concerned. They scrapped Tiberian Twilight and made that horrible monstrosity Generals (the expansion of which I had to return because it was so buggy). Tiberium Wars slightly makes up for it, but I wish Westwood had made Tiberian Twilight all those years ago. Red Alert 2 and Yuri's Revenge I guess were partly influenced by EA, and they were good games, but they ruined the whole storyline.

Re:If this goes through..

[darthflo]

INSANE? This! is! SPA^H^H^HEA!

Re:If this goes through..

[darthflo]

I guess sometime around here. :)

Re:If this goes through..

[sortius_nod]

makes me scared... will have the "EA Touch(TM)" just like everything they buy *shudders*.

Re:If this goes through..

[Anonymous Coward]

you can pry my VT outdoor from my cold, dead Ziploc

Re:If this goes through..

[mikael]

There might be other factors involved. Rockstar Games has produced several titles which have caused controversy in the past and given the game industry bad press (Bully and Hot Coffee lawsuit.

Having a controlling interest over Rockstar might prevent such events happening in the future.

Re:If this goes through..

[Moonpie Madness]

years ago?

Are you serious? Go buy an EA game and compare it to somethign you can buy from Valve or Insomniac or Naughty Dog or Polyphony or Nintendo.

EA occasionally comes out with something special, but generally it's repetitive and it's low quality and it's buggy. It's a well deserved reputation, not an isolated problem of yesteryear.

EA = minimal effort enterprise company. They will only put in as much effort as they absolutely have to to get sales before the next iteration. Game making is not an artform or craft to them. That's why, in GTA San Andreas, if you import a car, 1 in 4 or so have "EA SUCKS" as their license plate. EA isn't a joke int he industry, they're a nightmare.

Re:If this goes through..

[HAKdragon]

Except Microsoft didn't fire a bunch of the people from Rare, they left. (A good number of them formed Free Radical.) Also, I wouldn't exactly call the people at Bungie talentless, especially the people who were behind the (now free) Marathon series.

I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[Pichu0102]

But still, I hope that EA doesn't take hold of them. EA's gaining way too much influence on gaming, and considering how they run things into the ground and churn out mediocre games on the backs of good games makes me worried that they'll grab as many companies as they can, and run them and their brands right into the ground.

Obligatory Penny Arcade. Different company, but I still feel it applies here.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/12/05

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[Shakrai]

But still, I hope that EA doesn't take hold of them. EA's gaining way too much influence on gaming, and considering how they run things into the ground and churn out mediocre games on the backs of good games makes me worried that they'll grab as many companies as they can, and run them and their brands right into the ground.

I watch them to do this to Maxis after they bought them out. We went from an absolutely great concept (Sim City) that was implemented nearly perfectly in Sim City 2000 (given the technological limitations of the time) to unstable bloated garbage that cared more about pretty graphics (Sim City 3000) then gameplay and required Google's server farm to run at a decent speed....

And don't even get started on 'The Sims'. Even if I thought it was a good concept (which it might be -- but it's no Sim City, IMHO) WTF is up with twenty thousand different "expansion" packs? They neglected a great franchise (Sim City) in favor of using the brand name to push a crappy product that they sold in 30 different parts.

Why'd ya have to sell out Will?

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, there's plenty of EA related penny arcade material:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/11/15

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[sesshomaru]

My favorite:

Cut Yourself

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[Anonymous Coward]

"And don't even get started on 'The Sims'. Even if I thought it was a good concept (which it might be -- but it's no Sim City, IMHO) WTF is up with twenty thousand different "expansion" packs?" Money? I totally agree with you, and it's easy to take the high moral ground, but remember your* mutual funds are invested in companies like these. * the average middle class citizens

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[Gman14msu]

Well actually Sim City 4 was, and still is, a solid effort from them. They expanded the ability to users to modify aspects of the game and there is still an active community creating user content 5 years after it came out. Many people complained that the game was becoming too complicated and thus didn't garner widespread success. But seriously to summarize the Sim City franchise and not include Sim City 4 does not do the game justice.

Now don't get me wrong, I think EA has done a lot of bad to the gaming industry. Their exclusive contracts with the NFL and NCAA for football (which forced 2k Sports to go exclusive with the MLB), have in my eyes, ruined the sports game industry. Not to mention the worthless Sim City societies that EA recently put out, that wasn't even developed by Maxis.

Seriously though, if you want to> see a great game in development, one that will become the new Sim City, check out Cities Unlimited, http://cuplanet.com/. Monte Cristo is taking in a lot of public input on their forums for the new game and by all accounts it looks like the new Sim City that people have been waiting for.

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[whisper_jeff]

Why'd ya have to sell out Will?

I believe the technical answer is "truck loads of cash."

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks for the link to cuplanet.com - that looks like it could turn out to be pretty outstanding.

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[Lemming42]

And don't even get started on 'The Sims'. Even if I thought it was a good concept (which it might be -- but it's no Sim City, IMHO) WTF is up with twenty thousand different "expansion" packs? They neglected a great franchise (Sim City) in favor of using the brand name to push a crappy product that they sold in 30 different parts. The Sims is the far and away the best-selling PC game franchise in history. Every year since "The Sims" was released in 2000, a Sims product (sometimes more than one!) has held a top 5 spot in PC sales, and according to Wikipedia it's sold more than 70 million units as of January 2007.

Now I'm not saying it's the best game in world, but it's certainly a success.

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[Shakrai]

Well actually Sim City 4 was, and still is, a solid effort from them. They expanded the ability to users to modify aspects of the game and there is still an active community creating user content 5 years after it came out. Many people complained that the game was becoming too complicated and thus didn't garner widespread success. But seriously to summarize the Sim City franchise and not include Sim City 4 does not do the game justice.

To be honest, I've never played Sim City 4. I found it pretty hard to justify giving EA any of my money after the disaster that was Sim City 3000 (combined with their questionable business/employment practices). I have heard some good things about Sim City 4 but I still think the franchise was largely ruined with all the focus on 'The Sims' and the bloatware/disaster that was Sim City 3000.

Perhaps part of that is nostalgia -- I grew up playing the original Sim City on SNES and Sim City 2000 was my first introduction to computers as a kid -- used to spend hours upon hours playing it at the local library before we got a computer. Nothing that has come since has seemed anywhere near as good. FWIW I feel the same way about Civilization -- I still think the best one was Civ2, though at least with that franchise they never sold out to the likes of EA and the new titles are actually playable and well made.

Seriously though, if you want to> see a great game in development, one that will become the new Sim City, check out Cities Unlimited, http://cuplanet.com/. Monte Cristo is taking in a lot of public input on their forums for the new game and by all accounts it looks like the new Sim City that people have been waiting for.

I'll have to give that a look. I've been somewhat bored lately and haven't really found any decent (modern) game titles that remotely interest me. The last game title that interested me enough to actually pay for and play was an independent homage to Wargames called DEFCON.

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[ASimPerson]

Like you I loved 2000 and didn't really like 3000. 4 is pretty much the definitive Sim City game now and will be until Spore comes out.

Speaking of Spore, I like to think that's why there hasn't been a new Sim City lately... why stop work on a new (real) Sim City when you're working on the end-all-be-all of the simulation genre?

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[zippthorne]

I'm not sure that's all that good of a metric. A 'Sims' product may have been on the shelves, and if you aggregate them it's the best selling, but a starcraft product has been on the shelves since 1998. And it's the same product. In glorious 800x600 sprite graphics!

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[Durzel]

"The Sims" is a licence to print money as far as EA is concerned, it really is as simple as that.

You can't exactly blame them for milking the cash cow when it has such a huge following.

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[Morkano]

Exactly. What, should they NOT make a game that people obviously want to buy?

I disagree with a lot of the stuff EA has done, but The Sims is fine.

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[InfinityWpi]

Why'd ya have to sell out Will? Sold out? Yeah, Will sold out. He sold out Best Buy, he sold out Gamestop, he sold out WalMart, he sold out Circuit City... The reason EA focuses more on The Sims than SimCity is that IT MAKES THEM MORE MONEY. Convince ten to twenty million people to buy Sim City 5 when it comes out and maybe they'll start paying it more attention.

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[kyofunikushimi]

(FTA) There is also a severance plan for other employees that has been put in place; they stand to get up to 1.5 times their salary for up to 18 months if Take Two is purchased by another company.

On the other hand, is Take Two hiring?

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[kellyb9]

Now don't get me wrong, I think EA has done a lot of bad to the gaming industry. Their exclusive contracts with the NFL and NCAA for football (which forced 2k Sports to go exclusive with the MLB), have in my eyes, ruined the sports game industry. Madden was... and still, one of the best sports franchises around. I thought 2k couldn't hold a candle to Madden. Although, I'm all in for a competition. This is one area where I think they are doing suprisingly well.

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[AstrumPreliator]

Now I'm not saying it's the best game in world, but it's certainly a success.

Well that's what EA does. They're not in this industry to make great games and have a loyal fan base*, they're in it to make truck loads of cash in any way they can. This usually boils down to buying companies who have a loyal fan base and game names with good reputation, then driving them into the ground. I'm not saying EA is incapable of making good or original games, just that this is what they tend to do.

*I realize all companies are in it to make money. A lot of them consider good products and a loyal following to be a good move financially.

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[Shakrai]

The Sims is the far and away the best-selling PC game franchise in history. Every year since "The Sims" was released in 2000, a Sims product (sometimes more than one!) has held a top 5 spot in PC sales, and according to Wikipedia it's sold more than 70 million units as of January 2007.

Now I'm not saying it's the best game in world, but it's certainly a success.

If sales is your sole metric of software success then Windows is far and away the best operating system ever ;)

Being serious though, I won't deny that the Sims has been a financial success for EA. I just don't see the appeal in it though. To each their own I suppose.... I look back on memories of Sim City 2000 fondly -- the few times I played 'The Sims' I can't recall anything more then tedious boredom, broken up by occasional amusing moments of figuring out ways to murder the Sims (swimming pools and kitchen fires came in handy....) when they got on my nerves.

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[Backward Z]

This is a great example of a point I want to make...

EA makes crap games sometimes, especially when they buy a license they then want to milk. For example, from The Sims comes all the expansion packs, but also The Urbz and The Sims Online... Bunch of crap.

What nobody's giving EA credit for, however, is they do actually own up to their mistakes and work to improve on them.

Disclosure: I worked at EA Redwood Shores for 6 months in a creative position on a major title about a year ago now and the experience was very eye opening. Let me say it again: EA owns up to their mistakes and works to improve them. EA was spending tons of money on licenses that didn't perform extremely well on the market, so they're putting a larger focus on new IP, such as Dead Space. I remember going to an all hands meeting where last year's craptacular NBA Live was called, "an embarassment."

Personally, I think EA's games would be much, much better if they A) lenghtened their dev cycles and B) gave more ownership to the artists, to make the games they envision...

But the bottom line we all have to remember here is that EA is a company that makes mass-market games. That's what they do. They make mass-market games and frankly they're not terrible at it. Compare their track record to another company, say, like Midway or Infogrames/Atari/whatever they're called now or Ubisoft and really, overall they perform well. The developers I met at EA are very passionate about what they do, but it's very clear that the games made there are made for the mass audience and to please the shareholders.

When I was still in college, one of the Redwood Shores studio leads spoke at my school and something he said that haunted me the whole time I was EA was, "Once you accept that it really is all about the shareholders, it gets a lot easier."

Again, my greatest criticism about the way EA makes games is that they just don't take enough time to do it. They claim that it's shareholder pressure that forces games out of the door, but I don't buy it. They're on top, they should be able to make the rules. They have something like two billion dollars in liquid reserves, so you'd think they could afford to chill out a little, but that's not the nature of our stock-market economy, where corporations are expected to show rising growth EVERY YEAR... What do you do when you're huge and global already?

I find it discouraging that Dead Space is due out in October. It seems that because Will Wright saw Spore's launch date extended, everybody else is having to play catchup so that EA has some profits to show this year. As a result, Dead Space is only going to see really a year and a half of development time, where undoubtedly the designers will be working those eighty hour weeks to just get it done... LOL, at the end of a project, the favorite word is KS: "Known Shippable." for all those bugs we'd LIKE to fix but just don't have the time/resources.

So, EA: Hire more people, work them fewer hours, give your games longer dev cycles. The world will thank you for it.

And /.: Remember, EA makes games for the mass audience. That may or may not cater directly to you, but it doesn't mean EA sucks. It just means they make games that aren't catered to you. EA's devs are among the brightest and most talented in the world, but they just aren't given enough space to make the games they could.

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[Shakrai]

But the bottom line we all have to remember here is that EA is a company that makes mass-market games. That's what they do. They make mass-market games and frankly they're not terrible at it.

And /.: Remember, EA makes games for the mass audience. That may or may not cater directly to you, but it doesn't mean EA sucks. It just means they make games that aren't catered to you.

I never claimed they sucked because they make "mass market" games. In fact I don't think I ever came out and said that they sucked in my original post. Personally, I do think they suck but that has more to do with their labor practices then with the quality (or lack thereof) of their product.

In fact, your "mass market game" term is somewhat ironic -- the first image that popped into my head when I read that was Wally World, which is actually a pretty decent analogy for EA, IMHO. Mass marketed crap combined with labor practices that previously (still?) bordered on sweatshop conditions.

Personally, I think EA's games would be much, much better if they A) lenghtened their dev cycles and B) gave more ownership to the artists, to make the games they envision...

Again, my greatest criticism about the way EA makes games is that they just don't take enough time to do it.

EA's devs are among the brightest and most talented in the world, but they just aren't given enough space to make the games they could.

Sounds like you've basically summarized a lot of the reasons why they do suck ;)

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[Backward Z]

Sounds like you've basically summarized a lot of the reasons why they do suck ;) Totally.

Very simply, EA overworks their staff. They take advantage of passionate, talented indviduals who want their work to shine and have every ability to do just that... if they had more time.

In the same breath, I don't think it's wise to just say, "EA sucks" and dismiss them. I replied to your post in particular, but in my head I'm replying to a bunch of anti-EA sentiments I find all over /., Kotaku, EvilAvatar...

Maybe my point is: EA sucks, but not for the reasons most people cite.

And they're in position not to suck forever. They could conceivably turn things around and it might take buying and running more studios into the ground before they figure it out.

On the Maxis topic, I heard much talk around EARS about how Maxis coming to EA had done more to change the way EA operates than the way Maxis operates. Maxis brought with them shorter hours, TGIF parties every other week, a more open office environment, etc. etc., all this stuff was that was completely taboo at EA before they arrived is now integrating into the work/lifestyle, at least at EARS. I hear some of the other studios are still really, really bad (like Tiburon).

I talked to some of the top brass there and they all were saying, "Crunch is becoming a thing of the past," but from what I can gather, it's a lie they keep telling themselves so they can hope next year they'll maybe get to see their kids for ten minutes...

EA has everything in place... and they'd be great...

But right now, they're not great, they're mediocre. Mediocre != suck.

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[notque]

Completely opinion based. I think Madden isn't half the game 2k is.

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[badboy_tw2002]

So selling 70 million units of the same franchise via all the expansion packs is not a loyal fanbase? How was the Sims driven into the ground?

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[badboy_tw2002]

"FWIW I feel the same way about Civilization -- I still think the best one was Civ2, though at least with that franchise they never sold out to the likes of EA and the new titles are actually playable and well made."

LOL! I thought this was true too, but then I looked it up and Firaxis (maker of recent Civ stuff) is owned by none other than Take2 :) So if this deal goes through it will be under EA as well. And it looks like Sid won't care:

http://bigblog.com/computer_games/sid-meier-gives-nod-to-ea-take-two-merger-1321759639.html

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[Jarik_Tentsu]

Let's not forget EA almost always seems to release buggy games...and when they release patches, they seem to just cause more problems...

~Jarik

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[petermgreen]

The problem I had with sim city 4 was that at least in my experiance it slowed down like hell once your city got over a certain size with things like the traffic analysis taking ages to update.

OTOH my newest gaming capable (read: has a dedicated graphics card) machine is just over 3 years old now (though the graphics card is newer, the machine wasn't initially bought for gaming) and was pretty low spec at the time so this may not be such an issue on modern hardware.

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[kellyb9]

May be opinion based, but when they were both freely available, Madden kicked the shit out of 2k.

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[Moonpie Madness]

He's probably referring to the fact that the Sims sucks, objectively and obviously. It caters to the lowest common denominator as opposed to the true creativity and value of the other Sim games of Maxis.

The Sims made a ton of money. So what? EA is an enterprise company totally devoted to profit and not really interested in the craft of gamemaking. The repeated responses to this criticism pointing out that the game made a lot of money is really, really stupid. no kidding it made money. It made money by whoring a great name to the lowest common denominator. Like the Star Wars prequels (more profitable than the originals, after all). Like Thomas Kincaid "art" (the most profitable art in history).

The profits are one way to measure business... if you are looking to buy a business. If you are a customer, it's one of the dumbest ways to evaluate a product. You want a game with some passion, life, and innovation to it. You want something that challenges your mind and opens the door to new gameplay ideas. You do not want the crap that the idiots are playing.

The only response to this criticism that is logical at all is that you found The Sims to be more innovative and challenging and interesting and well crafted than Sim City 2000 or whatever. And if you did, you're not a serious person.

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[badboy_tw2002]

No, he was specifically saying they take games with loyal fan bases and drive them into the ground, thus destroying the fan base. A game that sells 70 million units has a loyal fan base, esp. one that depends on repeat customers through expansion packs. Whether or not its your cup of tea is irrelavent to the fact that people actually like it and are fans of the franchise. And saying that they made those sales off the name of SimCity is rediculous - the demographics of who is playing is completely different. Most of those players never heard of SimCity, SimAnt, SimBuilding, SimXXXXX.

Finally, I can't take you serious with this "flawless" argument: "The only response to this criticism that is logical at all is that you found The Sims to be more innovative and challenging and interesting and well crafted than Sim City 2000 or whatever". Its a personal preference. How can logic be involved? Also, "objectively and obviously" Riiiight, obviously. It obviously sucks. Why does it suck? Doesn't matter, its obvious! I'm not a Sims fan myself but I do realize that some people like what they like, and I'm not going to fault them for it. Finally, have you seen the mechanima produced by the Sims players? That doesn't qualify as "...something that challenges your mind and opens the door to new gameplay ideas"? If anything I think the Sims is more of a sandbox than SimCity just for that feature alone!

Re:I'm no big fan of Take-Two

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an EA employee for the last 4 years. In all this time I worked 9-6 and had to work 3 weekend over the whole time. I enjoy working here because the people I work with are nice. I also worked in a couple other game companies and worked much harder I think EA gets a lot of flaq because of past issues and because they are big. Also most people who say EA sucks are not actually the target audience for most of EA games.

just my 2c

Very Generous

[eldavojohn]

At first I though, hey, their stock is at $25.54, $26 a share is not so generous. Then I went on to see that before the $2 billion bid it was bouncing between $16 & $18 for months. In fact, it hadn't seen $26/share since 1999. I can only assume the $2 billion bid was what caused it to spike, nothing else indicates that.

So the reason it's so generous is because EA is paying their own price that was the result of them inflating Take Two's stock prices. They want this company. Badly. Desperation or good business move? I'm not sure. Maybe it's just the big dog gobbling up the competition or EA expanding to other types of games and gamers? In my eyes, it's a shame for the sake of diversity though. EA would never take the risks Take Two has.

Re:Very Generous

[Yvanhoe]

Isn't that a regular maneuver when buying a company ? Anticipating a rise due to the huge ask volume of a buyout is common I think.

Re:Very Generous

[EastCoastSurfer]

EA offered to buy them a couple weeks ago. Take Two refused. So now EA is pissed and wants in before the next release of GTA. IMO, this is a bad move for EA. GTA has been a good franchise, but it is all TT has. Plus, how many times can you rehash the same thing (whoops that's what EA is famous for lol). I'm not so sure I would value GTA in it's current state at 2B. The GTA franchise has sold 66M game to date. At $50/each that's 3.3B over the life of the franchise. You have to assume the franchise will continue to grow for a 2B price tag. Speaking of growth, will Nintendo even let a game like GTA on the wii?

Re:Very Generous

[ivan256]

I'm wondering what chart you're looking at. The Chart you lined peaks at $10.87 in 1999. It was over $28 in 2005.

Take Two was really undervalued because on one round of poor selling titles, and various lawsuits. EA realized this. It would be irresponsible for them to bid more than they thought the company was worth. This offer is the same as the previous one. $26/share == $2billion.

The analysts (who may be full of crap, of course) all seem to be saying that they expect it to take $29 - $31/share to get a deal done. Will EA pony up another $500mil? If you ask me, people who like video games should hope not.

Re:Very Generous

[forsey]

Manhunt 2 is a far more violent game than GTA and it's on the Wii. Nintendo, like Sony and MS, only refuse games rated AO.

Re:Very Generous

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm wondering what chart you're looking at. The Chart you lined peaks at $10.87 in 1999. It was over $28 in 2005. You're completely correct, I mistakenly looked at the dates as the bar slid over and misread them to be labeling the graph above instead of the graph below. Please replace 1999 with 2005 in my original post.

Re:Very Generous

[Itchyeyes]

IMO, this is a bad move for EA. GTA has been a good franchise, but it is all TT has. It's the biggest franchise they have but it's not even close to "all they have". Just to name a few they have Bioshock, Civilization, and all of the 2K Sports franchises.

Re:Very Generous

[quantumplacet]

While GTA is certainly Take Two's biggest franchise, its far from their only valuable property. Rockstar has also developed both Manhunt games, Midnight Club and Bully, all of which were quite successful. Take Two also owns 2K, which includes 2K sports, EA's only real remaining competitor in the sports gaming market. Gathering, TalonSoft and Jack of All Games are also under the Take Two umbrella and all have had their successes. Not to say GTA isn't EA's primary interest in the takeover, but obviously the single franchise isn't worth $2B.

Re:Very Generous

[Marcosll]

Yeah, if EA buys out Take Two it will really be the beginning of the end for that franchise. Although, to be quite honest, them removing planes already was a huge step back. I don't think the game will be delayed because it's pretty much ready though. Estepona Apartments

Re:Very Generous

[sapphire wyvern]

GTA has been a good franchise, but it is all TT has.

Hardly. You may or may not be aware that Take Two owns 2k Games and 2k Sports. Thus, all of the following have been published by Take Two. Any of it familiar?

• Bioshock
• Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion
• Civilization IV

In fact, not only were Civ IV and Bioshock published by Take Two, they were developed by studios that are currently owned by Take Two (Firaxis and the creatively-named 2K Boston/2K Australia, formerly Irrational Games).

Re:Very Generous

[eldavojohn]

You're right about EA wanting a piece of the next release but I don't think it has to do with GTA, it has to do with the upcoming BioShock 2.

Re:Very Generous

[Tritoch]

Don't forget about Globalstar/2K Play. Carnival Games was a huge success on Wii (now coming to DS), and they have a number of properties like Dora the Explorer that are cheap to develop and sell well to the casual crowd. Games like that don't give TT any cred with hardcore gamers, but they're cheap and easy ways to make a lot of money. They should also integrate well with EA's own casual initiatives, which have only gained steam recently with EA's rebranding efforts and focus on the Wii and DS.

Re:Very Generous

[shlepp]

I have a feeling this whole buying thing has to do with 2k sports, EA's only rival in the sports games.

Re:Very Generous

[NeutronCowboy]

Personally, I think EA has two reasons to acquire Take Two: Remove 2k Sports as competitor, and get GTA in the process. 2K Sports was a major thorn in EA's side, as it forced EA to reduce the price of its sports game to 19.99 for a little while. That's $40 per game in lost revenue. Not all games would have sold, but I can guarantee you that this was a serious hit to EA's bottom line. I'd even argue that this deal, contrary to the one that paid nearly $1B for Bioware and Pandemic, will have a positive ROI within a few years, based on nothing but GTA profits and lack of competition from 2K Sports.

Re:Very Generous

[uep]

That isn't "all TT has." EA also gets a bonus from this by eliminating the competition. 2k sports happens to be another big sports franchise. Not to mention 2k games that released a relatively unknown game named Bioshock last year...

Re:Very Generous

[Rhone]

Speaking of growth, will Nintendo even let a game like GTA on the wii?

I'd say the existence Scarface, The Godfather (GTA-like games, one of which goes overboard with verbal profanity), and Manhunt 2 (also by Rockstar--and far more disturbingly violent than any GTA) on the Wii make the answer to your question obvious.

The question, then, is simply whether Rockstar wants to make a GTA game for the Wii, and the answer is apparently "no".

Re:Very Generous

[philspear]

Okay, I think we've covered extensively that take two has other games. About 10 times in fact. The original point was that GTA is probably why EA is making this move right now. At the very least, Take two's stock will be much higher AFTER the release than before, possibly even more than this hostile takeover bid. They aren't making this move entirely to get GTA, but it's probably the reason the blob is moving now.

Re:Very Generous

[killbill!]

will Nintendo even let a game like GTA on the wii?

The Godfather: Blackhand Edition? Made by EA by the way... and arguably one of the most fun games on the Wii.

Re:Very Generous

[Bud Dickman]

"The original point was that GTA is probably why EA is making this move right now."

The original point was that Take Two only has GTA and since GTA is coming out shortly, EA wants to get in on it. That argument comes from an incorrect premise. The original poster hasn't apologized and admitted his error. This discussion cannot continue until that apology is received.

Re:Very Generous

[Austerity Empowers]

I'm not sure about that. Creative people don't need EA to make great games, they just need money...wherever it comes from. Once you've brought your creation as far as it can go, and it becomes a "release a new version every year before christmas"...it's really time to move on anyway. It's just hard to walk away from a paycheck. EA buying out TT, and then the inevitable fallout of people smart enough to know they can do better, might actually improve things for gamers.

Re:Very Generous

[Teufelsmuhle]

And, don't forget that 2K Sports owns the exclusive 3rd party rights to Major League Baseball. This would certainly valuable to EA.

Re:Very Generous

[KidKadaver]

On January 9, 2006, Electronic Arts renewed its trademark protection on the System Shock name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Shock_2#System_Shock_3

Come on EA, make it happen. SS2 had that basketball easter egg, so its already mildly in keeping with their domain.

Re:Very Generous

[Mongoose Disciple]

You're right about EA wanting a piece of the next release but I don't think it has to do with GTA, it has to do with the upcoming BioShock 2.

Nah, I don't think so. Bioshock was great and all, but I'd surprised if it sold anywhere near the volume of, say, GTA 3 across all platforms.

(I could be wrong.)

Re:Very Generous

[Anonymous Coward]

The 360 and Wii ports of that Bully game for the PS2 came out recently, that might have caused a spike in their stock prices.. I don't know if it's worth an 8 dollar increase, but it's something to think about.

Re:Very Generous

[CodeBuster]

2K Sports was a major thorn in EA's side, as it forced EA to reduce the price of its sports game to 19.99 for a little while. Hmmm, I remember reading that EA had won the rights to all of the NFL sports teams, player names, logos, and other trademarks and that they had paid other leagues for the same privileges by outbidding their competitors (i.e. 2K) for the same naming rights in baseball, hockey, and just about every other professional sports league of consequence. Now, would you rather play Madden 200x from EA with Madden voice overs, the real NFL team names, player names and statistics, venues, jerseys, etc OR would you rather play "Championship Football" from 2K Sports with fake team names, fake players, fakes statistics, and some C-List actor that you have never heard off doing the voice overs? So how much of a competitor was 2K sports really? Is $19.99 vs $59.99 enough of a difference that you wouldn't be willing to pay a bit more for Madden 200x over "Championship Football"? For most people the answer to that question is probably "no"...

Re:Very Generous

[petermgreen]

I just wish they would do a better job of making sequals after the original developer quits.

Take spyro for example, not really my sort of game but my brother loved the three titles by the original developers.

Then insomniac games moved on (to create ratchet and clank, another great series at least for the first three games I haven't played gladiator, size matters and tolls of destruction yet) and whoevever owned the rights to the series got some other developers to create "enter the dragonfly". This games features total control change (and they didn't have the excuse of a different control pad, the dualshock and dualshock 2 are virtually identical), major storyline inconsistancies and horrible load times.

Re:Very Generous

[PopeGumby]

I dont think it's a big step back. There's still going to be helicopters, plus, with the entire game now played out inside a single city rather than across multiple cities, it seems to make perfect sense - planes just aren't needed.

Re:Very Generous

[DKlineburg]

*CRY*

Just to name a few they have Bioshock, Civilization, and all of the 2K Sports franchises.

I don't want to civilization die an EA death after how much I enjoyed 4.

Re:Very Generous

[DKlineburg]

5+ Year Graph

1 Year Graph

5 Day Graph

Today

The company has only gone up as far as I can tell. IT also apears that the graph shows high points after launches of GTA titles. They don't exactly mach in some point, but I feel are close enough. I would have to graph all the other games released by them, and assume that high tradeing is in regards to good sales of one game.

This Interactive graph lets you easily see where there high points are. If nothing else, on there last trading day, the 13th, they jumped up to match the offer of EA. This means, IMHO, the market does not want EA to buy them. What is the point of getting bought out at market price? I'm not a stock guru or anything, but just my thoughts based on what I see. Take Two will make a lot of profit on the next GTA release, and EA made bad timeing if they did want them for 2K and not GTA.

Re:Very Generous

[Itchyeyes]

For what it's worth, an EA buyout of T2 would reunite Firaxis with the rights to Alpha Centauri.

Re:Very Generous

[Itchyeyes]

Oblivion was merely published by T2, it was developed by Bethesda which retains the rights to the IP. Bethesda is a subsidiary of Zenimax Media. Thus, TES would not be a factor in the EA acquisition of T2.

Re:Very Generous

[Edgewize]

Bioshock sold around 2 million units. GTA: San Andreas sold over 20 million units. It's not even close.

Re:Very Generous

[Edgewize]

Maybe the stock would go higher, but maybe not. The rest of their finances are a disaster. The investment firms and stock analysts surely know how much of a hit GTA IV will be. You could argue (and EA has said) that this is why the stock was at 16 instead of 10 or 5; the value of future GTA earnings is already factored into the market price.

Jacked

[JavaLord]

Sounds like take 2 is gonna get JACKED.

doesn't ea have enough publishers?

[OrochimaruVoldemort]

they own bioware and pandemic. now they want take-two? this is becoming a monopoly on game publishing. the only real competitor is activision, and they are flailing right now.

Re:doesn't ea have enough publishers?

[cthulu_mt]

Activision was recently purchased by Vivendi Universal and is being rolled up with Blizzard Entertainment. Blizzard's properties are a license to print money so Activision should be able to get their bearings again.

Re:doesn't ea have enough publishers?

[Jaysyn]

They are no EA, but Stardock makes/publishes great games too. And they are very profitable & not going anywhere for a while.

That's gotta hurt!

[SoundGuyNoise]

I'd love to hear John Madden do color commentary over GTA.

Re:That's gotta hurt!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'h-I'h-If he steals that car.... it's a felony.

Re:That's gotta hurt!

[UMEngin]

"BOOM - where'd those 4 wanted stars come from?"

Re:That's gotta hurt!

[mattack2]

...and if you can't get/don't want to pay Madden, get Frank Caliendo to do Madden.

(Destroy All Humans has a decent Jack Nicholson imitation as one of the main voices. I haven't checked the manual for a disclaimer.)

Oh boy!

[acehole]

I just can't wait for GTA: Livin' Large, GTA: Hot Date, GTA: Makin Magic and GTA: Vacation.

Re:Oh boy!

[poetmatt]

What about GTA: Hot Coffee?

Oh wait.....

Re:Oh boy!

[stiggle]

What about games for girls?

Grand Theft Pony & Grand Theft Barbie.

Got to mix and match those licenses and franchise.

cue the jokes

[Speare]

I'm expecting plenty of jokes about EA paying the fee, taking Take Two for a "ride," robbing Take Two of all its money and professional services, then firing a cap into the business before driving off.

Re:cue the jokes

[esocid]

I think they would be more along the lines of:

1. EA picking up TT, pulling into a secluded area (cue squeaking suspension).
2. Run them over for all the money they just paid TT.
3. Profit!!

Re:cue the jokes

[seer]

I was thinking more along the lines of EA saying, "I NEED this!" as it rips open T2 and burns out with only a one star rating.

Take Two Responds

[JeanBaptiste]

R1, R2, L1, R2, Left, Down, Right, Up, Left, Down, Right, Up, GTFO.

Re:Take Two Responds

[u8i9o0]

TakeTwo already did say that.

Management rejected the hostile offer. Insiders hold 12% in TakeTwo which, is not an insignificant amount, but it is far from a majority.

EA announced this almost three weeks ago so that outside investors holding shares of TTWO would potentially sell the company to them.
Due to the rejection, one such investor has sued.
Others have sold off much of their stake, cashing in on the rise in price while (I presume that) everything else in the market is tanking.

This time, EA is just stating that they are committed to the original offer.

I've been following this since before the original announcement - super pissed at myself that I didn't set up the brokerage account a week earlier than I did (initial funding delay absolutely killed this one). +50% ... man, I hope I learned my lesson. Anyway, all I needed to know was: (1) I'm buying GTA4 when it comes out (a very unusual practice for me), and when reflecting on the Activision/Blizzard deal (2) a similar move by a software giant seemed obvious, and (3) nobody in financial news was talking about TakeTwo's highly anticipated sequel.

...super super pissed...

Surrender.

[SpaceDreamer]

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

An oldie but goodie

[sesshomaru]

I loved this comment from a while back when they were trying to by Ubisoft:

What's going on indeed...

NO!

[Grimbleton]

This can't happen. EA has fucked over too many franchises already.

Re:EA Takeovers aren't as bad as you'd think.

[Pojut]

EA has already been acting like a bitch by buying out exclusive licensing deals with the NFL. They seem to be attempting to get their only remaining competition in the sports market out of the way by simply buying them.

I understand that the video game industry is like any other industry in that most companies exist solely for earning as much money as possible...but you know what? There are still some people that take pride in their work, and many of the folks that work under Take Two fall into that category. If they wanted to be owned by a big publisher like EA, they would have accepted the offer. They obviously don't want it, and EA is an even bigger asshole for trying to muscle their way in after they had the door slammed in their face.

As a person with high respect for those that create not just for profit but to make their creative vision a reality, I find EA's deal to be a slap in the face to gamers all over the world. EA has pissed off a LOT of people, and they seem to be content with adding to that number. Fuck EA, fuck their underhanded business practices, and lastly fuck you for supporting and defending them.

Re:EA Takeovers aren't as bad as you'd think.

[Grimbleton]

You realize of course that EA has owned Origin Systems since 1992, and has been running Ultima Online since 1997, right? ...right?

EA is the grandfather of the MMO.

Re:EA Takeovers aren't as bad as you'd think.

[sesshomaru]

Also doesn't EA own the rights to System Shock?

So, Bioshock exists because the studio that created System Shock left EA but couldn't take their IP with them. So what happens when EA buys Take2?

Will there be a need for a "spiritual successor" to Bioshock?

EA Crap coding

[phorm]

Indeed. Every time I think of EA's acquisitions, I think about my more recent experience with C&C 3. I actually bought about 3-6 months after the release, so there were already patches, but still tons of bugs. Netplay was particularly horrible.

Forward to today, EA is touting the release of the addon to C&C3, but many bugs still exist in the game. I think the worst part is their online service, which seem to tie in all users regardless of location, which in many case pretty much guarantees a game with lag and dropouts. They've certainly got little on competitors like Blizzard, which - despite various other complaints about battle.net - generally has a reliable online experience, and has separate servers for the various world-regions.

EA is a bubblegum gaming company, and they turn all the companies they buy into such with little regard to quality or customer satisfaction.

Re:EA Takeovers aren't as bad as you'd think.

[Pojut]

Will there be a need for a "spiritual successor" to Bioshock?

Doubtful, at least not for the next game in the series. It's already been confirmed that an official sequel is in the works.

Re:EA Takeovers aren't as bad as you'd think.

[Tritoch]

Yeah, and EA also killed one of the greatest RPG franchises in history at the same time. Don't get me wrong, I played UO for 4.5 years after launch, but the mess that was Ultima IX undid a lot of goodwill generated by UO... Of course, I'm sure someone will point out that Meridian 59 was out well before UO and therefore should be the "grandfather of the MMO", but UO really popularized the genre and paved the way for titles like EverQuest and WoW to follow.

Monopoly

[gpalyu]

If this was to go through, it would pretty much mean the end of major sports games competition, eh?

Buy them with their own money

[Aggrav8d]

Just like AOL did with Time Warner. Seriously, if EA is willing to pay 2B then they're willing to go for more, so get concessions in that put TT management at the top of EA and voila!

How big does EA have to get before a government forces them to split up, like the phone companies? Ok, sure, it's not an essential service. (What is that howling sound?) It is, however, so large that ownership of TT would mean nobody could seriously compete with them. That's an effective monopoly. Ms. Indie gamer isn't going to influence shelf space at Best Buy or tell MS what the XBox Live price point will be.

Fuck EA

[jollyreaper]

There are two games I want to see: a new Wing Commander and a modern update of Syndicate. Neither will get made.

As far as Wing Commander goes, to hell with the FMV. Sure, if you want to do video scenes, animate the 3D models but no more live action! The gameplay went to crap with live action. I want quality along the lines of Wing Commander 1 and 2. The flight models in those games were based more on WWI than the way Star Wars did it, cribbing from WWII. I don't care, it looked gorgeous and was a frickin' blast to play. Neat-looking ships, big explosions, plenty of eye-candy. Bring back the Kilrathi, give them proper symmetrical ship designs, make the Dralthi look like a deadly flying pancake again. Give me a proper joystick and this would be a hell of a game. There just hasn't been any decent space combat stuff out there. Yes, there have been a few attempts, mainly from indie publishers, but the games just haven't been good, the controls feel all crummy and the dogfights just aren't fun.

As for Syndicate, we have the technology to simulate those full city-scapes in 3D. When agents walk behind buildings, we could have little "transparency bubbles" pop up so we can see what's going on on the other side. With modern particle effects, these firefights could be epic. With deformable terrain, we could see whole city blocks destroyed. Ladies and gentlemen, that would be some quality entertainment.

And while I'm pining away for the wonderful games of yore, I'm seeing a banner ad for a nintendo DS game of insect bukkake. This must be the latest EA abortion.

Re:Fuck EA

[walshy007]

you, my friend, need to play syndicate wars, the sequel to syndicate, released by bullfrog many years ago, city is all 3d, only agents and people are sprites, completely destructible terrain, etc, walk behind buildings they do become transparent, basicly every feature you wish for is in it, but it's not that pretty as it's designed to run on a pentium 133 smoothly, but still a great gfame.

Re:Fuck EA

[jollyreaper]

Hmm, I'd skipped it because 1) my computer couldn't run it and 2) I heard it was a disappointment, much in the same way X-Com 2 was a disappointment compared to the original.

The Syndicate expansion, American Revolt, that was just evil. It's the video game equivalent of End of Evangelion. I have no idea what the fans did to piss those devs off!

Re:Fuck EA

[AdamThor]

I remember not loving Syndicate Wars nearly as much as I did Syndicate. I don't quite remember why though. I'd buy another Syndicate game almost instantly.

I remember American Revolt. I remember lots and lots of rocket launchers, but that's about it...

Ah, syndicate. Populous too.

Re:Fuck EA

[Jaysyn]

If you want a new X-Com, give this a try.

Re:Fuck EA

[dave562]

I remember American Revolt. I remember lots and lots of rocket launchers, but that's about it...

And air strikes, and I think it might have satellite bombardment too. American Revolt was brutal, it required a real mastery of the game. Syndicate Wars was too good, but not quite the original. They focused more on the story which was a nice twist, but it felt like you lost some of the free form, do whatever you want control that the original had.

Re:Fuck EA

[Buelldozer]

Oh yeah?

Someday I am going to find the person responsible for the death of "Darklands" and I am going to kick them in the balls. Hard. Repeatedly. For a long time.

EA's motivation

[iamghetto]

EA's main motivation for this acquisition is to regain the old price point for their flag ship sports titles. Take-Two publishes basketball, basebeall & hockey games (and to a lesser degree football) games that are direct competitors to EA's flagship sport titles. However, Take-Two at times has priced these titles as low as $29.99 which causes EA to drive it's own prices down.

Therefore, buying Take-Two would rid EA of there sports-related competition and all them to price their games at whatever they want. EA is one record saying that this is their intention, and that GTA is just icing on the cake.

After GTAIV is released Take Two will be worthless

[jrhawk42]

Well worthless for a couple more years until GTAV is released, or Bioshock 2. If you look at the company's history their projects have a tendency to run fairly long which give the company financial droughts from year to year. Right now take-two's profits are looking pretty good with bioshock, manhunt, and GTA, but they really don't have any money makers on the horizon until 2009 (if bioshock 2 releases in 09). It's tough to see what EA wants from Take-Two since GTA, and Bioshock are hardly worth 2 billion it doesn't seem likely they plan on stripping these franchises and closing down everything else, and there's not too much else profitable at 2k.

Kids

[BigJClark]

Don't hate on EA for making decisions that increase the total value of its own company. Instead, pity the poor game programmers. Kids, I have friends who work for that disaster of a company, and I had my own chance at it. The office in Vancouver is decked out to the 9's, but you'd better be ready to sacrifice your soul to the devil. Don't even bother applying if you have a family.

Seriously, think of the programmers.

..and the AI guys, although, they don't really do any work :)

Re:EA Takeovers aren't as bad as you'd think.

[The Analog Kid]

EA has already been acting like a bitch by buying out exclusive licensing deals with the NFL

Blame the NFL for that, they are the ones that wanted the exclusive deal. EA had no recourse but to get it. (Madden is a cash cow for them, they wouldn't give the up willingly)

I can almost guarantee that if EA buys TT, most of the development staff is going to quit, and reform elsewhere. That's how it done in the gaming industry.

How long until...

[Powercube]

The EA's new GTA project manager demands his team of programmers to put in a psychotic turtle named Dwight to win back his estranged son?

Re:How long until...

[fair_n_hite_451]

jPOD FTW!
 
I love that show.

Re:After GTAIV is released Take Two will be worthl

[jjohnson]

I think you answered your own question. Take Two has several extremely profitable properties, they just take too long between releases to provide consistent profitability. That's exactly the sort of situation that an EA executive can look at and say "Hmmm... if we marry those properties to our slave ship mentality, we can make huge bucks!"

Instead of GTA IV, it'll be GTA 2008, 2009, 2010...

10 days!

[KiwiCanuck]

That's insane. How are you supposed to value a growing software company in 10 days. WoW! The people who write these laws have no business sense.

Re:EA Takeovers aren't as bad as you'd think.

[citylivin]

Wikipedia agrees with you(albiet with no source) but I really dont remember it that way. I remember distinctly, when the bitching about UO turned from fuck OSI to fuck ea. Maybe they just gained more control over the games structural decisions, but there was definitely a point where EA took over UO and ruined the shit out of it, (around year 2000?).
I was there, I remeber.

Electronic Arts

[Schmapdi]

EA - Actively trying to ruin your favorite hobby for a good 20 years now. I mean really - are they not going to be happy until they own every game developer in existence and can charge 60 bucks a year for an incremental update to every franchise and brand under the sun?

Re:EA Takeovers aren't as bad as you'd think.

[Grimbleton]

OSI was formally dissolved soon after Richard Garriott left EA/OSI, which is when it was a sudden revelation to some that EA had been in charge the whole time.

Women and Sims

[QuoteMstr]

Oddly enough, I've noticed that while my female friends couldn't care less about most games, they go absolutely crazy over The Sims. Perhaps this effect has something to do with that game's popularity.

Nice timing

[ecavalli]

The offer is a clever move by EA, and if this particular offer isn't accepted, another one like it will be very soon.

As a company, Take Two is simply falling apart. They're being sued by shareholders for not accepting EA's original $2 billion buy out offer, the company is constantly under attack by politicans, parent's groups and religious leaders and aside from the temporary stock price hike attributed to EA's lust for the firm, the company's shareholders are jumping ship and dumping stock faster than you can say "GTA made me do it."

EA has foreseen the collapse of the Take Two and has decided it wants to salvage Grand Theft Auto -- not for any altruistic reason, but for the hundreds of millions of dollars each new game automatically earns. They may not be able to create an original football game, but EA certainly has the cash and the legal know-how to absorb Take Two.

Prediction: EA will own the firm by the release of GTA4.

Re:Nice timing

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

Prediction: EA will own the firm by the release of GTA4. My Prediction: EA will NOT own the firm by the release of GTA4.

well... one of us will win ;)

Re:Nice timing

[PopeGumby]

They're not being sued for rejecting the offer, they're being sued for keeping it quiet, and giving themselves payrises.

You linked to it, you should at least read it.

I second the prediction that EA will NOT own the firm by the release of GTA4.

6 weeks and counting....

Re:Nice timing

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell you why they did that too. It's actually a very sneaky but smart move- they know they have no chance in hell of staying out of EA's clutches forever. They know how it works in this industry- if you get bought by EA, everyone with a soul quits and starts a new company. What this does is, the instant they get bought by EA, they get a huge cash payout which they can then use as seed money to start that new company. They had to reject EA's initial offer in order to make that amendment though. And if by chance they don't get bought by EA- then it's just business as usual.

EA: The MS of games.

[Vexorian]

1. Acknowledge you can't innovate.
2. Buy company that innovates.
3. Charge a heck load of money for prior innovation.
4. Company stops innovating.
5. Repeat.

Re:EA Takeovers aren't as bad as you'd think.

[sexconker]

Submitted for your approval, the case of Westwood Studios.

Oh fucking great!

[Chas]

I can give you a timeline here.

1: EA buys
2: EA institutes a new work model
3: Shit falls INCREDIBLY far behind
4: EA shepherds it along at the pace of a stunned snail, making promises left and right.
5: Shit falls IMPOSSIBLY far behind (to the point where there's NEGATIVE development on a project)
6: EA plays major catchup and gets the product into a semi-usable beta which it'll release
7: EA finally just closes the project down, stating that it can no longer work on it.

This has been EA's pattern for EVERYTHING but their stupid sports sims from DAY NUMBER ONE!

They've killed dozens of companies and projects this way.

Re:EA Takeovers aren't as bad as you'd think.

[dave562]

And Bullfrog. I want my next Syndicate fix, the bastards!!

Madden commentary?

[MDiehr]

As long as it's not DJ Atomica.

Re:FRIST POEM

[easyTree]

Make my grave shape of heart so like a flower be free aired
              & handsome felt,
Grave root pillow, tung up from grave & wigle at
              blown up clowd.
Ear turnes close to underlayer of green felt moss & sound
              of rain dribble thru this layer
              down to the roots that will tickle my ear.
Hay grave, my toes need cutting so file away
              in sound curve or
Garbage grave, way above my head, blood will soon
              trickle in my ear -
              no choise but the grave, so cat & sheep are daisey
              turned.
Train will tug my grave, my breath hueing gentil vapor
              between weel & track.
So kitten string & ball, jumpe over this mound so
              gently & cutely
So my toe can curl & become a snail & go curiousely
              on its way.

Peter Orlovsky
1958 NYC

http://boppin.com/orlovsky.html

Sigh

[malkir]

TT has issues a notice to their shareholders, you cand find it on their website under the 'corporate' tab. I really hope EA never gets their hands on TT, you can kiss any further decent development from them goodbye... http://eattake2.com/

Man i I had the money...

[nanowired]

There needs to be a general counteroffer: "To all Shareholders of EA: Quick, dump your stock! sell it as cheap as you possibly can, to other game companies not associated with EA!"

Did a fantastic job with DICE ....

[BulletMagnet]

Pre-EA DICE had a fantastic thing going - BF2 was the last decent product of the Battlefield Series - EA comes along and we wonder why 2142 is a heap of shit....