|
Electronic Arts makes another bid for Take-Two
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...&dist=printTop
By Benjamin Pimentel, MarketWatch Last update: 5:10 p.m. EST Feb. 24, 2008 SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Electronic Arts Inc. on Sunday unveiled a $2 billion unsolicited bid to buy Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. -- its second offer in recent weeks. Electronic Arts (ERTSElectronic Arts Inc is proposing to purchase Take-Two Interactive (TTWOTake-Two Interactive Software at $26 a share in cash. The offer follows an earlier offer from the video- game maker to buy the company for $25 a share. That offer was rebuffed by Take-Two, prompting Electronic Arts to send a revised proposal with a strong suggestion that the Redwood City, Calif.-based software company was prepared to take more aggressive steps to merge the two firms. In a letter to Take-Two Chairman Strauss Zelnick, Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello urged the company, which is known for its Grand Theft Auto video-games, to accept the offer. He also warned that rejecting the proposed deal would not be in the interest of Take-Two's shareholders. Riccitiello said EA was raising its offer "to further demonstrate our seriousness and encourage you to move forward now." "We believe that Take-Two's shareholders would not be well-served by any further delay in negotiating and completing the proposed merger," he said. "While the videogame industry remains an attractive, high-growth business, the challenges and risks in the business are escalating, and the need for scale is becoming more pronounced." He added: "There can be no certainty that in the future EA or any other buyer would pay the same high premium we are offering." EA noted that its $26 a share offer represents a 64% premium on Take-Two's closing price on Feb. 15. Riccitiello said EA would prefer to negotiate the terms of the proposed merger, but he also strongly hinted that his team may take their offer directly to Take-Two's shareholders. "Our strong preference is to conduct a private negotiation," he wrote. "If you are unwilling to proceed on that basis, however, we may pursue other means, including the public disclosure of this letter, to bring our offer and the compelling value it represents to the attention of Take-Two's shareholders." Benjamin Pimentel is a MarketWatch reporter based in San Francisco. Chris |
|
They just can't take being second fiddle to Activision. I hope they continue to refuse the offers.
|
Overall I don't care if this happens or not... except...
What happens to 2K Sports if EA buys Take Two? |
If a merger means that EA would be allowed to start their MVP Baseball series again then I'm all for it.
|
http://www.eatake2.com/faq.htm
I hope this doesn't happen. I have nothing against EA unlike a lot of people here, but I'd prefer to see plenty of competition. |
MVP Baseball would be cool but what about stuff like 2k sports, Bioshock, GTA, and the like?
I think this is happening, the question is when? |
The stock holders were so excited for this too :lol:
|
As far as 2K sports goes, the only thing we would "lose" is the NBA 2K series. EA bought the rights to the College basketball game, so 2K8 is the last of that series.
I think NBA 2K would be rebadged NBA Live and MLB 2K and NHL 2K could be merged with EA's brands. Alas, we would have one option for football, hockey, basketball and baseball (for those with a 360). Looks like it is time to steer away from sports games...I look forward to GTA '09, '10, '11, etc. |
I fear that corporate pride would make NBA 2K go away in favor of NBA Live... even though I think 2K has been the better game for years now.
|
Originally Posted by nickdawgy
MVP Baseball would be cool but what about stuff like 2k sports, Bioshock, GTA, and the like?
I think this is happening, the question is when? |
Originally Posted by Goat3001
I can't imagine anything would happen with games like Bioshock and GTA series. EA is well aware that they are great the way they are. For better or worse they may make some tweaks here or there but I doubt there will be any noticeable differences. You will see the EA logo on the cover and before the game though. EA just wants to cash in on these games.
|
I thought it was funny the way that the letter to Take Two said something to the likes of "after GTA, you have nothing that is going to make money."
|
Originally Posted by hail2dking
It won't take long. EA bought Criterean right before Burnout 3 was released. Now look at the direction Burnout Paradise has gone.
|
Man, I remember back in the 80's when they were one of the tiniest consoles out there
|
Will EA not be happy until they've bought every company?
|
Originally Posted by fumanstan
I don't see how you can blame EA for that.
(Actually, if EA had any say in Burnout, we would be playing Burnout 3 - '08 with updated paint jobs) |
Originally Posted by hail2dking
I blame EA for everything;)
(Actually, if EA had any say in Burnout, we would be playing Burnout 3 - '08 with updated paint jobs) |
http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/02...quire-ubisoft/
Rumor: EA looking to acquire Ubisoft Posted Feb 26th 2008 1:15PM by Richard Mitchell Filed under: Rumors After an unsuccessful bid to take over Take Two, it looks like Electronic Arts may be setting its sights on Ubisoft. Followers of the game industry will remember that EA raised its already hefty 20% stake of voting shares in Ubisoft to nearly 25% in August of 2007. This wasn't long after Ubisoft president Yves Guillemot stated that the company was "still considering" an EA acquisition earlier that year. GameCyte reports that the same proxy registration company that registered eatake2.com, a site used in an attempt to convince shareholders of the merits of an EA acquisition, also registered eaubisoft.com on the same day. Naturally, there's no way to prove that EA is responsible for the registrations -- it was made by proxy after all. Still, given the circumstances and EA's obvious interest in Ubisoft, it certainly makes sense. Stranger things have happened, right? Chris |
EA's ultimate goal is a unified platform, a single console for every game. If they buy up enough companies, they might have the muscle to make it happen.
There's valid arguments on both sides of a single-console debate, but the last company I'd want to spearhead it is EA. |
I don't want one single console EVER!
|
Sheesh.... EA is monopolizing the gaming industry.
|
Originally Posted by slop101
EA's ultimate goal is a unified platform, a single console for every game. If they buy up enough companies, they might have the muscle to make it happen.
There's valid arguments on both sides of a single-console debate, but the last company I'd want to spearhead it is EA. EA = Evil Alliance |
I can't even imagine how EA would go about forcing one platform. Sony, Nintendo, and even Microsoft are still strong first parties that will not (not anytime soon, at least) be sold to EA. I guess you can point to Sega, but it seems like three platforms are sustainable in the current market.
Where did this "EA wants one platform" stuff come from anyway? An article? Or just speculation? They may very well want to be the only third party publisher of any significance, but even then they haven't bought up any Japanese companies to my knowledge. |
Originally Posted by fujishig
I can't even imagine how EA would go about forcing one platform. Sony, Nintendo, and even Microsoft are still strong first parties that will not (not anytime soon, at least) be sold to EA. I guess you can point to Sega, but it seems like three platforms are sustainable in the current market.
Where did this "EA wants one platform" stuff come from anyway? An article? Or just speculation? They may very well want to be the only third party publisher of any significance, but even then they haven't bought up any Japanese companies to my knowledge. |
I've heard them talk about it in interviews - and it would be a platform not unlike, say, a dvd player, where you have many different models, but they all play the same dvds, and no dvd is exclusive to one player. While it might not be the best thing to happen to the industry, I seriously doubt it'd kill it either. I mean, heck, the 360 and the PS3 are virtually identical, and share many of the same games already. It would be easier on developers, and the millions that are poured into making games now would be easier to get a return on. It could make games cheaper even. But yeah, EA does suck, so let's hope it doesn't happen under their watch.
|
Originally Posted by fujishig
I can't even imagine how EA would go about forcing one platform. Sony, Nintendo, and even Microsoft are still strong first parties that will not (not anytime soon, at least) be sold to EA. I guess you can point to Sega, but it seems like three platforms are sustainable in the current market.
Where did this "EA wants one platform" stuff come from anyway? An article? Or just speculation? They may very well want to be the only third party publisher of any significance, but even then they haven't bought up any Japanese companies to my knowledge. If they were to also buy up enough third party companies, then all of those companies would only develop games exclusively for the EA console. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo would then only have their own first party titles to fall back on and whatever third party companies EA doesn't manage to acquire. A console can not do well just on first party games alone. Look at the N64 for example. Many, many third party companies abandoned Nintendo during the N64 days, and Nintendo suffered very badly as a result. |
Originally Posted by slop101
I've heard them talk about it in interviews - and it would be a platform not unlike, say, a dvd player, where you have many different models, but they all play the same dvds, and no dvd is exclusive to one player. While it might not be the best thing to happen to the industry, I seriously doubt it'd kill it either. I mean, heck, the 360 and the PS3 are virtually identical, and share many of the same games already. It would be easier on developers, and the millions that are poured into making games now would be easier to get a return on. It could make games cheaper even. But yeah, EA does suck, so let's hope it doesn't happen under their watch.
And unlike DVD players, where you can sell a $30 player and still have $100 and $200 DVD players that largely do the same thing, I can't see that happening with a console where everything has to work/look/play the same. Otherwise you get *gasp* the PC, where low end machines can play this and that at lower quality then a more expensive system. As far as EA trying to put out their own console, I actually don't think their resources stretch that far. Microsoft had enough trouble and EA isn't anywhere close to being that loaded with money. And I really think the more EA trys to buy up other studios and companies, it would just spur more and more upstart developers and studios. |
I'm just saying what they want, and how it fits in with their ultimate goal which is an exponential growth of their company, not what will or should happen.
|
If EA bought all these companies, made their own console, and then published only for that console, wouldn't they be in trouble too because all of their games would then be "only 1st party" games? They'd be hard pressed to enter a market where Nintendo has been rejuvenated, and both other parties, though they've faltered in their own ways, are well-entrenched. Also, unlike Sony or MS, they have no hardware division that I know of.
I believe they tried this multi-branded stuff with... the 3D0 was it? I don't remember. However, I thought that companies usually lose money on the consoles and make it up by game sales, mainly through 1st party games and licensing costs for 3rd party games. |
Originally Posted by fujishig
If EA bought all these companies, made their own console, and then published only for that console, wouldn't they be in trouble too because all of their games would then be "only 1st party" games?
All these companies make far more money on the games than the consoles anyways. |
Originally Posted by joystiq.com
Pachter prognosticates that EA will continue working angles for a takeover and is doing so to stop Take-Two's sports franchises, which he estimates will cost EA $150 million in operating profit this year.
|
Didn't 2k buy the sports division FROM Microsoft?
Everyone stop saying EA SPORTS is a monopoly, thats like saying New Line has a Monopoly on the Lord of the Rings Movies or WB has a monopoly on Harry Potter. |
EA does want to have control over the sports video game market. They want to be able to force you to buy their product if you want the real NFL, College or other pro teams. They want to be able to shovel out shit and have you eat it because you have no other choice. I bought last year's NCAA 08 and was extremely disappointed. I will not be making that same mistake again.
|
Originally Posted by DVDChris
Didn't 2k buy the sports division FROM Microsoft?
Everyone stop saying EA SPORTS is a monopoly, thats like saying New Line has a Monopoly on the Lord of the Rings Movies or WB has a monopoly on Harry Potter. EA Sports has a monopoly on NFL Football games. As it's been shown with All-Pro and Blitz... non-NFL games won't sell. EA Sports now has a monopoly on college basketball and football games. No one else can make a licensed college game. And like the NFL, in this day and age, non-licensed games won't sell. EA won't have a monopoly on MLB games if they buy 2K Sports, since the license allows for first parties to make their own titles. So it'll be Sony and whatever EA decides to do. NHL - Someone else could step up and make a new NHL game if they wanted to, but starting from the ground up at this point would be incredibly difficult. |
Don't forget NASCAR.
EA is already completely control of NASCAR license, no one else have license. |
That is all true. I think the term monopoly has a negative connotation:
mo·nop·o·ly - 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. I don't think EA is going to raise the prices if they control all sports games. As an example, I love Batman. But I don't complain about the monopoly WB has on all the Batman movies. They sometimes make bad movies (Batman & Robin), but the latest one was good. You can choose to watch it or not. |
The difference between sports games and movies is that rights for movies have always belonged to one studio or production company. Same with movie based games. I don't think that's the issue. The issue is that we've gone from anyone being able to make a sports game to only one company being able to do it. If sports licenses had always been exclusive, like say the rights to Spider-Man, we wouldn't care as much.
|
Originally Posted by slop101
That's not what they want to do at all. I don't think they even want to make a console - they just want to develop for one console - one console that Sony, Nintendo, MS and EA would all develop for together, whatever that may/could be.
All these companies make far more money on the games than the consoles anyways. |
If EA buys and owns Take Two we can expect more GTA sequels at a quicker rate but with little innovation. I give a big thumbs down to this notion. EA can't even make great games for the licensing that they already have.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:22 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.