EA Abandons Efforts To Take Over Take-Two

Erik J writes "Electronic Arts has abandoned plans to absorb Grand Theft Auto IV publisher Take-Two Interactive, the company announced earlier today. Following over half a year of hostile buyout offers by EA, the pair went into talks under a confidentiality agreement in late August. From the official announcement: 'EA continues to have a high regard for Take-Two's creative teams and products, [but] after careful consideration, including a management presentation and review of other due diligence materials provided by Take-Two Interactive Software Inc., EA has decided not to make a proposal to acquire Take-Two and has terminated discussions with Take-Two.' The announcement caused Take-Two's stock to drop by 30%, and analysts expect a bidding war to ensue for employment of the GTA creators."

Comments

All I have to say is

[4D6963]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster be praised! Hallelujah and Allahu Akbar!

Thumbs up

[renegadesx]

Good move, you know EA would have populated the market with yearey (or twice yearley) low quality GTA's and Bioshock's with Spore DRM (SecuROM).

They would figure most would just buy them anyways = more profit for them.

One thing that is really good for the industry out of all this, is this prevents EA Sports from monopolizing the sports genre.

EA recently spoke about trying to win back our hearts and shed this negative image people have about EA. However I must say that they are not doing it right. Yes they are introducing new interesting IP's such as Spore, Mirror's Edge and Dead Space. However they wont win any heats with hostile takeovers and horrible DRM!

Re:Thumbs up

[Pyrion]

FYI, BioShock also has SecuROM.

Re:Thumbs up

[philspear]

You know, if GTA had been cloned after san andreas, I think a lot of people would have been happy. Not to say that innovation is bad, just pointing out that changing up your cash cow is a risky move that doesn't always work out best for everyone.

Of course, I liked the new GTA even if I did miss some of the elements of san andreas. It's also worth noting that the transition from 2d GTAs, which were great for their time but got old fast, to the 3d sandbox with cutscenes is a risk I don't see EA taking ever.

Yes they are introducing new interesting IP's such as Spore, Mirror's Edge and Dead Space. However they wont win any heats with hostile takeovers and horrible DRM!

Tsk tsk, PC gamers are so self-centered and idealistic sometimes. The lesson they're going to take from the DRM issues this round is "Making games available on the PC is more trouble than it is worth, consoles only from now on." It's reasoning like that which makes me want to kick them in the face, but their security guards always stop me.

Meh.

[morari]

Take Two hasn't done anything really worthy of praise in recent memory. People may think some of the products are groundbreaking or artistic, but its really just been squeals pop culture junk. They probably would have fit in perfectly at EA.

Re:Meh.

[QuantumG]

hehe, they ship. That's what makes them different to EA.

Re:Meh.

[Idiomatick]

EA could destroy GTA.

coder: We are thinking of adding a mission where you have to beat up a hooker for a pimp. You know be the muscle.

EA: lets send you to our committee

com1: Sounds wicked, but do you have to beat her?

com2: You know figures show that hookers offend some of our market, how would you feel about taking them out?

com3: Do you really NEED to say pimp? Cant he just be a .... mechanic.... that needs his wrench.

com4: Yeah the girl can be a valuable employee and she gives you the wrench, then you bring it to him.

com: Thanks for this great idea put it in right away.

Trust me, EA can take ANYTHING and make it crap.

Good

[unity100]

EA has a bad habit of screwing everything they put their hands on. look at spore and how did it end up.

Re:Good

[Garridan]

Don't worry. They'll be back for Takover of Take Two, Take Two. In fact, they had to give up once, for precisely that.

Thanks

[unity100]

i'll wait for the abridged version, collector's exclusive edition, uncut.

Baffling: Market Response

[Bob9113]

The market responded by punishing the stock price of both companies. There could be little more clear evidence that the market is not efficient. How stupid does one need to be to think that EA + Take Two would be better than the two independently? Or, perhaps, how broken must our "free" market be for that combination to make sense?

EA pumps out extremely polished, but hopelessly formulaic titles. They treat their employees like interchangeable cogs. And they count every bean as if it were their last. It's not everyone's style, but it works for the products they create.

Take Two creates lavish works that are expressions of a borderline mental artistic genius. They treat their employees like, well, Rock Stars. They blow through cash like a 1999 dot-com. They are constantly bouncing from rags to riches and back again, but when they hit they move the industry.

The idiot investment analyst looks at that and thinks, "Imagine Take Two's brilliant artistry with EA's money management and product-focus." But, that is why you are called an "idiot" investment analyst, idiot. These are not compatible business models. EA is no more capable of nurturing artistry than Take Two is of being efficient. They are specialized, and they excel because they are specialized. Their flaws are facets of the strengths that make them great.

Geee Couldn't be a Credit Crunch Could it?

[phantomcircuit]

Just maybe this story has something to do with the complete fallout of the credit market... just maybe

JUST MAYBE?

corporate date rape

[Mr_Blank]

EA decides to buy their competitor, Take Two. Take Two opens its books for EA. After completely digesting the business model, plans, culture, and product line up EA changes its mind and walks away. Take Two then has to continue competing with EA as if it never happened; all the while knowing that EA has a leg up now that it has seen "the books" and knows the next few moves in advance.

      EA needs a shower after that groping.

     

Re:Good

[hairyfeet]

As long as we have jocks and EA has Madden they'll keep dumping junk,because the jocks buying Madden by the truckload can cover the bills. I know one guy who already has a deal in place with a friend at gamestop who sends him Madden for the PS3,PSP,PS2,and Wii the second they get them and just charges his CC. The guy even pays some crazy shipping fees so he gets it the same day. As long as there are guys like that,who don't even care if EA does squat but update the rosters,then EA will have a license to be asshats. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

How would you know?

[Moraelin]

How would you know? Was there a Spore before and after being owned by EA, or wth? Because from where I stand, it kinda looks to me like Maxis was owned by EA for a long time now.

Speaking of which, have you noticed how nobody else funded a Spore or a The Sims? I don't have much love for EA as a corporation or for their DRM, but when was the last time anyone _else_ brought a new genre to the mainstream? I can't think of anything before or after The Sims, all the way to when Id made Wolfenstein 3D. Ok, ok, there was also Ultima Online which brought us the graphical MMO... also published by EA. If you look back for two decades or so, there are exactly two companies which blessed us with new genres: Id and EA. Hmm. Maybe it says something.

Or even a new take on an existing genre? Well, Spore sure feels that way. Or the only PC single-player RPGs this decade which _weren't_ yet another medieval theme? Well, blimey, I can only think of two publishers: LucasArts publishing yet another title in their StarWars franchise (but cancelling almost anything else than SW titles) because they already knew it sells, and EA taking a chance with MassEffect. You know, at a time where everyone else was rationalizing their risk-aversion via convoluted armchair-psychologist conjectures about how players only relate to swords and can't get in-character with a gun.

The average publisher these days seems to be more about cloning whatever sold well last year. Or maybe feeling bold and trying to mix two. "I know! We'll make a Grand-Theft Battlefield Tycoon! That'll sell."

EA might not be perfect, but it seems far less risk-averse when it comes to trying new things.

So did EA screw Spore? Or maybe Spore wouldn't even have existed, if not for EA? As I was saying, I can't imagine many other publishers even trying that. New unproven game type with creatures evolving? Nah, we'll make yet another wannabe HalfLife clone.