Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Entertainment Games

Take Two in Talks with Major League Baseball 129

Posted by Zonk from the hit-back-with-a-bat dept.
After EA's ESPN announcement yesterday, it hardly comes as a surprise that GamesIndustry.biz is reporting a possible deal between Take Two Interactive and Major League Baseball. The deal, first reported in the Wall Street Journal, appears to be for exclusivity rights similar to EA's arrangements. While the move wouldn't hurt EA's baseball franchise, it would squeeze out other competitors who have used the MLB license in the past.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Take Two in Talks with Major League Baseball More

Take Two in Talks with Major League Baseball

Comments Filter:

  • This would hurt EA (Score:2, Interesting)

    by crunk ( 844923 )
    the move wouldn't hurt EA's baseball franchise

    Why not? EA won't be able to use real players in their baseball games. That will definately hurt them.

    • A deal between MLB and Take Two wouldn't change EA's plans in the area, though, as EA doesn't use the MLB branding on its baseball title, MVP Baseball
      • Doh. Guess it does help to read the article. I assumed all EA sports games had real players. I own both NBA Live and Madden, both with all real players.

    • Re:This would hurt EA (Score:3, Informative)

      by mgs1000 ( 583340 )
      They would need an exclusive deal with the MLB Player's Association to keep EA from using real player names.

      A deal with MLB would just prevent them from using the Team names. Anybody remember Tecmo Baseball on the NES?

      • I remember the Hardball series didn't have an MLB license, so they just city names, but team logos (And colors) were different.

        It was no big deal to Hardball fans, as we had the real players.
    • I, for one, look forward eagerly to the day that EA promises, when a major league baseball gane pits a team of human pros against a team of robots controlled by WWW interfaces. Between the thrashing of the pitcher as various people all try to make him throw their favorite pitch at once, the outfielders dancing, and the infield insanity (catcher goosing the umpire, 1st baseman mooning the batter, etc.), ML baseball will become the hottest comedy around!

  • Yet another EA article (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @03:02PM (#11411775)
    Did EA crap in CmdrTaco's Wheaties or something?

  • Reactions... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bje2 ( 533276 ) * on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @03:03PM (#11411779)
    I don't know what the numbers are like, but i'm guessing this isn't as big of a deal as the NFL contract...something tells me that there are a whole lot more copies of Madden and ESPN2kX football being purchased then that are of MVP Baseball and it's cometitors...

    one thing i don't get though...the article says that
    "A deal between MLB and Take Two wouldn't change EA's plans in the area, though, as EA doesn't use the MLB branding on its baseball title, MVP Baseball - but smaller rivals in the sector would certainly be squeezed out, such as Sony's MLB range, the latest iteration of which is due out in March."
    ...but EA Sports [easports.com] titles would certainly be hurt, right? sure, they don't use the name MLB 2004, (like NBA Live and NHL 2004 titles) but they do use all of the players, and teams, and stadiums, etc...i would have to assume that if the exclusive deal went through, they would lose the right to all that content? right?...

    Somewhat related to this is the fact that just announced today [go.com] MLB awarded exclusive rights to fantasy games to MLB's own MLB Advanced Media that controls MLB.com...presumably this means that other baseball fantasy game companies (ESPN, Sandbox, CBSSportsline, etc) would have to buy licenses from MLBAM in order to run fantasy games...

    • Re:Reactions... (Score:2, Informative)

      by bucket74 ( 712690 )
      Depending on the details of the sports collective bargaining agreement - licensing of league properties (team names/logos, stadia) may be separate from that of the players names.

      I know this has been the case with MLB in other areas. Ever gotten those free baseball cards in a cereal box or something? You know, the ones with the team logos airbrushed off the players' caps. That was because the company producing the cards had permission from the players union, but not MLB.

      • Re:Reactions... (Score:3, Informative)

        by rlwhite ( 219604 )
        Generally in MLB, the players union controls licensing of player names, including for video games. Since Barry Bonds pulled out of the union to have control of his own licensing, video games have replaced him with fictional versions. Other players (like Kerry Lightenberg, formerly of the Braves) have long been replaced with fictional versions in video games because they were banned from the union. (Lightenberg and others crossed the picket line during the '94 strike, thus the ban.)
    • Somewhat related to this is the fact that just announced today MLB awarded exclusive rights to fantasy games to MLB's own MLB Advanced Media that controls MLB.com...presumably this means that other baseball fantasy game companies (ESPN, Sandbox, CBSSportsline, etc) would have to buy licenses from MLBAM in order to run fantasy games...

      Word is they won't be able to enforce that aspect of things, as fact-based information (like stats) has historically not been treated as part of an individual's "likeness." T

  • Is there such a thing and would this qualify?

  • It doesn't use MLB branding? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spotter ( 5662 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @03:04PM (#11411796)
    the article claims that, but EA's web page for the title, clearly has the MLB logo

    http://www.easports.com/games/mvp2004/home.jsp [easports.com]
    • The deal hasn't gone thru completely yet. I hate to see Take Two against the wall. They're not going to win this way.

      The only way they'll win is if they made a football game engine so superior even the lack of real players wouldn't matter.

  • In Other News... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Competitive gaming industries race to the NHL to work out a deal with them.

    Oh, wait, there needs to be a hockey season first.
    • actually...EA's NHL 2005 is about the closest thing you can get to a hockey season right now...

      i hear they're gonna just simulate a full hockey season, and award the stanley cup based on that...
    • Actually, the official game this year is called "2005 NHL Picket Line," in which players hold press conferences, consult with lawyers, and drink beer in front of the television. I don't know about you, but I predict a flop.
      • Hmm, I guess by EA's own marketing (If it's in the game, it's in the game.) then there should be a strike/lockout option complete with picket sign and scab studio. Yes! More realism! But like damage modelling in most racing games, I'll bet the respective leagues and players unions would never allow _that_ much realism.
    • Competitive gaming industries race to the NHL to work out a deal with them.

      I've played it. I put the the game in and it showed a rerun of the Simpsons.

  • Player Modeling (Score:4, Funny)

    by anonicon ( 215837 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @03:06PM (#11411815)
    That's fine and fancy, but the burning question for me is whether TakeTwo will put out a game with "Steroids-On" and "Steroids-Off" options.

    Chuck

  • This hurts consumers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by teiresias ( 101481 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @03:06PM (#11411819)
    I think this endrun to sign exclusive deals is detrimental to the sports electronic gaming industry (admittely not my favorite but I enjoy the occasional game of EA curling as much as the next person). Exclusive deals lead to single lines of games. Exclusive deals curtail the inventive process and remove competition. It's not that this hurts EA, it's how this hurts consumers.

    Perhaps every sports game that comes out of this will be great but my money is on the fact that they will become stagnant and boring.
    • How many baseball/basketball/football/etc. games with real players' names does the world really need?
    • IMHO, sports organizations like the NFL, MLB, NHL, etc. are probably going to ultimately care about the teams, players, fans, stadiums, and so forth, more than the video game industry. I doubt whether these sports organizations care if 1 or multiple companies make these sports games. They are going to get money from licensing either way. Besides, we are talking about sports with a set number of teams, players, rules, etc. Not an FPS where there are an infinite number of possible story lines, characters,
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Hockey on Mars would be pretty cool.

          yeah, that would be kinda cool. i guess i was speaking more along the lines of realistic sports games.

          </fan type='cardinals'>

          /me bows to fan of the team that utterly humiliated the team that I am a fan of
      • One place the exclusive rights have harmed the consumer is in racing games(Formula 1 in particular), since Sony got the exclusive rights you can't find a copy of EA's F1 Challenge, though there is a healthy mod scene adding new tracks and changing the cars as time goes on.

  • Whaaa! Mommy! He cheated! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by numbski ( 515011 ) * <numbskiNO@SPAMhksilver.net> on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @03:07PM (#11411837) Homepage Journal
    This is starting to sound like what I put up with anytime I go online to play football.

    No one likes losing, so a large group of people start cheating in order to win.

    So the people who don't like the cheaters wind up having to learn to cheat themselves in order to keep the cheaters honest.

    Outcome? No one wins. No one can get an honest game.

    This is degenerating into a rights-grab, and only one company per sport will have rights.

    I can hear the whiny-children in my head:

    EA: Wha! He beat me. I don't like losing. I know! I'll cheat!

    VC: Hey! I won fair and square!

    EA: *raspberry* I'm taking my ball and going home!

    VC: That's not your ball!

    EA: It is now!

  • Don't get upset, just usual /. double-standard (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @03:09PM (#11411868) Journal
    While the move wouldn't hurt EA's baseball franchise ...

    A lot of you are wondering why it wouldn't hurt EA any more than anyone else. Of course, it would, but remember - we're supposed to hate EA.

    If we admitted that this could "hurt" EA, in the same way EA's deals could hurt Take Two (et al), we're admitting that competition in the video game market is alive and well, and that exclusive rights are par for the course in the industry.

    Activision has exclusive rights to make Spiderman games, but you don't see any articles about that, do you?

    So basically, just think of EA as Microsoft, and Take Two as Apple.

    DRM in Media Player is an affront to our rights online, and threatens our very freedom. DRM in iTunes is a brilliant business strategy from a company that "gets it". Or, MSFT pursuing action againt mikerowesoft.com (even though they HAVE to defend trademarks) was evil, but Apple suing a kid for passing on a rumor about the mini mac, well that's different because, umm, iPods have neato little scroll wheel things.

    I hope this clears things up. Slashdot is best read and understood when peering through your navel, with your head shoved far up your ass.
    • Thank you for the unique perspective. You hit the nail right on the head.
    • Let's say Marvel had been allowing multiple companies to make competing spiderman games for years. Several games were improving year after year, drawing large fan-bases (we'll call it customer-bases for those only concerned with money) to each product, and a superior product every year.

      Now, this year, after being beat senseless by competitor X, Activision slaps Marvel with a wad of cash and basically says "we're tired of being beat senseless and actually having to work for our money, give us exclusive rig
      • It's exactly the same thing.

        Konami, Capcom, and others have all made Marvel games in the past. Now it's just Activision. Because Activision/Neversoft backed a dumptruck full of cash to their door.

        Every movie has a video game tie-in, and the maker of the game has exclusive video-game rights.

        Exclusive deals for characters, and branding, are pretty much the backbone of the video game industry.

        EA had exclusive deals with all the major leagues back in the 90s. So they got some new deals. Big whoop. It's
        • Make an XFL based game then.

          XFL - lasted one season and went under $35 million in the red. i don't see the publishing houses lining up to make an XFL game. Most football video game players and not video game nuts. they're football nuts. they want to play as their favorite team. they want simulation. they want the game to be as close to what they watch on sunday as possible. for major league sports video games licensing is key. why even try unless you're going to get that license.
          • Most football video game players and not video game nuts. they're football nuts.

            I disagree, I'd say at best it's an even mix. I like playing football games, and I don't think I could name more than three current professional players, and even then, I couldn't tell you who they play for.

            I like the game of football a lot, however I don't care for the NFL.

            There's a big market that just wants the best game, whatever that means to them (best looking, best playing, best online experience).
    • Its not so much the idea of an exclusive contract that bothers me. Its the end around they did to secure the market. I know, I live in a polyanne world, but I thought that a person||company could win the market by making a superior product.

      And competition is NOT alive and well in the football video genre. What insentive does EA have to improve? If you want a pro football game, you have to go to EA. The next version of Madden will probably be just a re-hash of this year's version, with roster updates.

    • From the article: "A deal between MLB and Take Two wouldn't change EA's plans in the area, though, as EA doesn't use the MLB branding on its baseball title, MVP Baseball - but smaller rivals in the sector would certainly be squeezed out, such as Sony's MLB range, the latest iteration of which is due out in March."

      Maybe you, and they, wouldn't be wondering about why it wouldn't hurt EA if you read the article before commenting. Way to totally call me on my summarizing, dude.
      • Wait a second, branding is the most important thing to a sports franchise. How could EA have ever survived without MLB branding in the past?

        EA is still selling an unbranded product, while the slashbot wisdom would say that Take Two has a "monopoly advantage" because they have a branded product. It still affects EA the same way it affects anyone else, in a very small and inconsequential way.

        Turns out, that official logo doesn't mean jack-shit when the games are on the shelves.

        Thanks for calling my atten
    • If we admitted that this could "hurt" EA, in the same way EA's deals could hurt Take Two (et al), we're admitting that competition in the video game market is alive and well, and that exclusive rights are par for the course in the industry.

      How are exclusive rights that prevent others from making games based on real sports teams indicative of competition being "alive and well"? EA has locked up football, and Take Two has locked up baseball. That sounds like a pair of monopolies in (slightly) different ma
      • How are exclusive rights that prevent others from making games based on real sports teams indicative of competition being "alive and well"?

        Um, you don't think there was competition to get those exclusive rights? You think that the organizations involved just said "oh, ok, sure" when one company came to them?
        • Um, you don't think there was competition to get those exclusive rights?

          Exactly. First they competed to sell more copies of their sports games, then they competed to get exclusive rights, and now the rights are aquired and there is no more competition. That is the death of competition. Vying for the exclusive rights was just the final struggle.
    • > when peering through your navel, with your head shoved far up your ass.

      Now I finally understand where the term "navel gazing" comes from.

    • Why,? Because last year I could by an NFL licensed video game, with actual NFL teams, players and stadiums, for $19.95 from Sega, who is COMPETING with EA. Next year, I'll have to pay 50 bucks for the same kind of game, because there will be NO COMPETITION. You see, the consumer looses with these types of exclusivity deals. That will not bother everyone, but it bothers me.

      -G
      www.g.pix.com [g-pix.com]
      • Well, then why didn't Sega pay for the NFL license? Perhaps because they had less money to offer? And perhaps they had less money to offer because they didn't make as much money off their NFL games than EA did?

        Not saying this is the case, just saying that the competition has been happening, and one company is debatably the short-term victor. Debatably, because most financial institutions are guessing EA overpaid for the NFL license.
  • I've never heard the kind of hype about baseball video games as about even basketball, which seems to me to be far behind football.

    Is this more of an "if you don't have one, you look bad, but having one does nothing positive for you" issue?
  • what i mean is, what happened to their first games? does this whole thing come down to one thing??..that is greed? i tell you this weekend i played Need For Speed III Hot Pursuit. the whole game is still fun, especially the hot pursuit mode. yes IMO its more fun than NFS Hot Pursuit 2 and NFS Underground. these are the games that made EA great. hell, the whole NFS franchise brought EA into existence. its sad when you have people like me who like games such as NFS 3 and think of it more than newer game title

  • /me doesn't care (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mr. methane ( 593577 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @03:13PM (#11411918) Journal
    ... since I've found that the presence of a high-recognition brand-name on any game almost guarantees that it's (A) boring, and (B) overpriced by about $20.

    • ... since I've found that the presence of a high-recognition brand-name on any game almost guarantees that it's (A) boring, and (B) overpriced by about $20.

      Same here. I find that SuperBaseball 2020 on the SNES more fun than any branded baseball game on that system. Probably because it has robot players. Funny how that works.
  • Remmber back when videogames didn't NEED a pro licence to be good? Those of us may recall games such as Double Dribble, Bases Loaded, Blades of Steel (otherwise known as boxing on ice) and the glorious Nintendo Ice Hockey?

    All of these games were great and didn't have one legit team.
    • they were great back then...but you can't expect to compete with "licenesed" games right now if you don't have a license...

      i did love nintendo ice hockey though, where you could build your team by picking out the number of fast/skinny, medium or slow/fat guys you wanted on your team...

    • Blades of Steel was awesome... but, three words.

      Mutant League Football.
    • I think the problem now is gaming is more mainstream. Back then, the only gamers were the nerdier type, who could use their imaginations to pretend they were playing as any team the wanted to be. You just picked a team that had similar colors, and wham, you're now the Red Sox. These days, it seems the market is much more geared towards the more casual players with short attention spans. Everything has to be spelled out explicitly for them. Some of this is also probably related to technology. Back then

  • Great! (Score:3, Funny)

    by doombob ( 717921 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @03:19PM (#11411990) Homepage
    We can only hope for more high-quality games like Outlaw Golf 2 [take2games.com]!

    Favorite Quote in Outloaw Golf 2 Promo:

    The shameless bunch from the Outlaw series returns to the repressed world of golf with their outrageously twisted antics.

    I love twisted antics!

  • It's probably just me, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipakNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @03:21PM (#11412009) Homepage Journal
    I think that sports and player stats should be Public Domain. Given that premise, I don't believe it should be possible for anyone to have "exclusive rights" to any simulator based said sports and player stats.


    I don't think anyone would consider it reasonable for Boeing to give Microsoft "exclusive rights" to simulate their aircraft. That would be stupid. Motor racing teams and racing tracks haven't set up "exclusive deals" on who can do what.


    I might not be able to call a simulator "official", but if I wanted to write a game based on the Silverstone track and the typical behaviour of the various Formula 1 cars, I don't think anyone would seriously complain. And that's for a sport with a turnover ten times that of major league baseball.


    Lock-ins are no good for the sport, as people are LESS likely to buy over-priced, over-hyped products in the long run, which means there's going to be a decay in interest over time.


    If games manufacurers are so lacking in confidence that they can compete, they need to spend more money on development and less on "special deals" with organizers.

    • It's not the player stats, it's the player names and likenesses that are being licensed. That being said, I don't think it's good for tha gaming industry to have any one company being granted exclusive rights to stuff like this but there's little that can be done about it and still remain fair to all parties involved.
      • Is this the beginning of the end for sports video games? So, now with each MLB and NFL video games with monopolies, does quality suffer eventually? The EA MLB offering from 2004 is quite good, and I would hate to see it just turn into Bad News Baseball. Each companies baseball and football offerings wouldn't be playing on level playing fields. (pardon the sports analogy)
        • Unfortunately, I can't see how it could do otherwise. In an exclusive deal, there's no competition -or- cooperation. There's one product, like it or lump it. So long as it's "good enough" to not actually harm getting a follow-on contract, there's little reason to make it any better. Quality costs money but doesn't necessarily produce more customers. If there is only one sports game to choose from, then they'd already have most of the potential customers.

          Exclusive deals are fine for the sorts of services w

          • So, would these video games keep improving over time without competition? Or is that a bit too idealistic of me? Secondly, would this go towards a video game update system with the new players and teams adding through a service pack? Would that make it too much M$ Windows? This could be made easier when all gaming consoles are online, but all of the fun is the new additional features. However, could this be covered with a service pack at a "nominal" fee? There is some good and some bad to this.
            • One way to do it would be to produce a wholly modular engine, where the company could replace components within the engine or issue supplementary extensions.

              This would be similar to the C&C "Secret Missions", MS Flight Sim's "Star Disks", etc., only it would allow components to be added/upgraded, rather than just relying on what was already provided.

              This would mean you can focus on developing those extensions, rather than rebuilding core components each time. (Actually, most game writers use some so

          • Take 2 and GODgames also forced the early release of FLY! II before it was complete, killing any chance that Terminal Reality could compete with MS in the flight simulation arena. FLY! II at the time was the most advanced sim with LOTS of potential, but the suits would not wait for it to be finished. Patches were released but the untimely passing of Rich Harvey ended any hope of the franchise growing. What is the rush to release early?
            • The only answer I can think of is that the sooner the game is released, the sooner they can quit paying for development and start earning. It's poor logic, because a game that doesn't work won't sell, but it seems that PHBs believe that a product that is 99% working will earn 99% of the revenue, even if the 1% missing stops it from working at all.
    • Motor racing teams and racing tracks haven't set up "exclusive deals" on who can do what.

      Oh yes they have. Formula 1, Ferrari, NASCAR, Collin McRae, etc. The names of the drivers, the colour of the track surrounds, etc. are certainly targets for lawsuits based on trademarks or "passing off".

    • IANAL, but I believe its not the stats that are at issue, its the names and likenesses. Use Barry Bonds numbers all you want, use his name and/or picture and you are infringing in trademarks and copyrights. These folks don't make their money playing a game, it's from media rights, endorsements, and all the other stuff that makes it more an entertainment event than sports event now. But that is another debate...
      • However, if you take his photograph, you can sell that all you like. Celebrities have no copyright over their likeness in those cases. Either the courts should scrap that or enforce it for these celebrity-style games.
    • Information like that can't be copyrighted. That's why you can download something like the Lahman baseball database [baseball1.com] for free.

      What's at issue is names and likenesses. There's nothing stopping Sega from producing a football game that plays identically and uses real stats but it would have to have differently named teams and players.

      I don't think anyone would consider it reasonable for Boeing to give Microsoft "exclusive rights" to simulate their aircraft.

      They probably could, actually. You'd probably be a
    • Why are player names restricted?

      Newspapers can use player names and photos without permission.

      Authors can write a book about a player and even put their name on the cover without permission. There are tons of unlicenced sports stat books as well.

      Movies, TV shows and radio programs can use player names and show pictures without permission.

      But video games... they can't use real player names?

      Thats crazy.
  • The time is now over-ripe for a MINOR league baseball game. It'll be just like a minor league game: score points for having your pitcher bean the batter in the head, have drunk umpires, rowdy fans getting on the field and sometimes even playing, mascots fighting the opposing mascot, opposing players, the fans, and their own team...I hope the guys who did Redneck Rampage eventually do something like this.
  • If anyone is interested in rotisserie baseball, check this article out. Turns out there are some legal snafus about licensing. I play for free on Yahoo, and last year Barry Bonds was called "Outfielder" or "SF Outfielder" or something because of a licensing issue. It looks like some places will potentially lose their rights to use the players names.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/sportsbusiness/news /story?id=1970454 [go.com]
  • This is one thing I've wondered. Would it exlude others from making "baseball" video games, or just using the team names, logos from the official leagues?

    One could still make a football/baseball game with fictional teams and players... hell it might even be better than using existing ones.
  • Ok, this'll probably just get modded off-topic, but I just started a web comic, and did a strip [perscrumption.com] about all the EA deals.

    Warning: The site is 100% Flash, and initial feedback is that it isn't funny. Enjoy Slashdot!
  • Other than EA and Take Two, who else is currently making baseball games that this deal might affect? Acclaim's All-Star Baseball 2006+ has other issues to deal with at the moment...
  • Why is ESPN the bees knees in sports broadcasting? What's stopping Take Two/Sega from doing a year-by-year partnership with Fox Sports Net? Or Sports Illustrated? Hell, SkySports (a stretch, admittedly, but it'd be fantastic if they picked up a deal w/ UEFA and SkySports to do a good football (read: soccer) game)? It would still give them a broadcast pool to draw from to keep that feature alive and kicking.

    All of this land-grabbing doesn't have to be the death knell to any one company or another, but r
  • The article mentioned nothing about an exclusive deal with MLBPA (Major League Baseball Players Association), which is (to my recollection) an entity wholly seperate from MLB. So, since EA hasn't ever done much beyond place the MLB and MLBPA stickers on their products, they can simply stop using the MLB sticker and keep using player names and associate them with generic, same color uniforms/city names and run-of-the-mill stadiums.

    Now, if Take Two reveals that they've inked the MLBPA to an exclusive deal t
  • 1. Make a better game than EA
    2. Allow importing of team names and player names and stats from outside sources (eg: fan sites)
    3. ???
    4. Profit.

    ----

    Remember all those NBA games that were missing Michael Jordan's name, yet there was a "super" player on the Bulls that looked just like him. Everyone just renamed him to MJ.
  • I'll sell them the rights to the Phillies for a nickel.
  • Am I the only slashdotter who feels that baseball is a) not news for nerds, and b) not stuff that matters? WTF is this doing here?

    Video game, smideo game, baseball games blow. Nothing worse than simulating sitting around for nine innings watching idiots run laps around a diamond shaped pit. Boooooooring!
  • If they get the deal with the MBL I can see EA buying them. Sounds like something Microsoft would do.

    I see all these deals as bad for the game industy. Why do they have to try to make things better, just when Sega was close to making a better game EA pulls the rug out from under them, thats just wrong.

    My dream used to be to make a company that Microsoft would buy from me for lots of money but now its to make one that EA would buy.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close