EA Abandons Efforts To Take Over Take-Two 98
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."
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Why do I get the feeling that it's always the same pathetic loser madly hammering the refresh button just so he can make a post like this every single time? Surely his MAC ID can be banned or something...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could at least ban the text of the first post trolls. They're not usually unique text.
Could also have a probation period for each story where any posts that happen say within the first 10 minutes of a story being posted, very blatantly obvious trolls will be deleted by an administrator or something like that. Maybe a post made in the first 2 minutes if it gets modded troll or off topic a certain number of times, it will be automatically deleted. Is anyone really going to be upset if the running troll
Re: (Score:2)
It's tricky ground to walk, on a site like this. Obviously the first post was a blatant troll, but with so many stories decrying the evils of censorship, how can we actually censor trolls? I had a thought that maybe moderators could send posts below -1 at double the cost of mod points (to try and curb abuse). Something that gets to -10 would require a total of 20 negative mods, and would most probably be a troll; this is hardly a perfect idea, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, no one likes censoring, but for months someone would write "Frosty piss" or some variant as the first post. Say you can't post that phrase in the first 10 minutes.
Matter of fact, why let ACs post immediately after a story is posted anyway? They already have a tiering system to encourage subscribers.
Re: (Score:2)
And just right now, I looked at the new story about another Mars mission, and lo and behold: the first post is yet another troll posting as AC. I'd probably go so far as to say no more AC posting. I already say to trolls that if they don't want to own up to something they've posted then the obviously think it's not worth reading... Problem is, it's not just trolls who post anonymous, and I'd rather not see the many punished for the actions of the few.
No ACs within X minutes of story going live (Score:2)
So how about no ACs within X minutes of a story going live? That makes sense to me. It seems this particularly odious and obnoxious variety of AC is mostly just obsessed with getting the first post, so any reasonable delay before allowing AC posts would head this annoyance off at the pass, so to speak.
Cheers,
Re: (Score:2)
I tried to get one to talk to me once, to no avail. They just like to screw around - probably kids. One day he'll get a girlfriend and give up the stupid shit, then his little brother will disco
Re: (Score:2)
I'd really prefer they leave it as it is. I can use my preferences to assign ACs an automatic -6, I can't do that so well if they constantly log in under throw away accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Immediately Mod-Trolls would start deleting real posts, and there would be no way to correct for it by later up-modding.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Although sometimes John comes on but that's infrequent.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I get the feeling that it's always the same pathetic loser madly hammering the refresh button just so he can make a post like this every single time?
Don't worry. Soon he'll find craig's list and won't want to solicit on Slashdot anymore. ;)
All I have to say is (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I think he was expressing an emotion that often is characterized by people saying "Thank the lord" but was, uh, oddly religious? I don't think anyone is actually honestly pastafarian, and I don't care if that offends anyone.
I think he was hoping to provoke angry outbursts from the same socially conservative christians who got upset about walmart saying "happy holidays" maybe. A noble goal, but of course few of them browse on slashdot, and couldn't figure out how to respond (assuming they can read), so it'
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
oblig (Score:2)
Jebus, Buddha, Allah, I love you all! -- HJS
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Good (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
We need EA to start caring about more than the bottom line. Again too much to hope for. Would be solved by gamers not spending money on crap games released year after year with just a different number and no actual improvements. Again...
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Good Riddance. (Score:2)
Good Riddance I say.
Thumbs up (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
FYI, BioShock also has SecuROM.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm yeah because XBox 360s use x86, don't they? Oh wait, no they don't. Perhaps you could run the games on suitably modified PPC Macs (apparently the dev kits were based on G5 Macs?), but what exactly is the point when the 360 is cheaper and faster?
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, as opposed to the DRM that makes the DVD only play on a PC with the Windows OS installed even if the DVD could be read just fine by a DVD player or a Linux computer.
Re:Thumbs up (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Tsk tsk, PC gamers are so self-centered and idealistic sometimes
I'm a console gamer mostly these days, "limited installs" DRM has pretty much made me almost give up on PC gaming, as someone who likes to re-image his machine every 3-6 months.
Yes I know consoles have DRM too, but at least its not the type that goes out of its way to annoy me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know... Charging you to play online with your own hardware (you hosting a server) on software you have already bought with the internet connection you've already paid for would annoy me (I'm looking at you, xbox).
Thats not a DRM, thats another annoyance. It does look like with PSN catching up, Live will have to become free (or significantly cheaper) sooner than later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's blocking your digital rights from running your own server without paying. I'd say that's a DRM. With xbox live providing practically everything, but online play for free.
Point
I also don't see why Microsoft should consider lowering their prices, xbox owners will pay, they have no other choice when it comes to online gaming with the xbox.
Yes they have no other choice when it comes to online gaming with xbox but that does give some incentive snub the Xbox in favor of the PS3. They wont get all of em but they will get some, and that equals Microsoft losing customers and business to Sony.
Yes Xbox Live is superior to PSN but PSN is catching up.
Re: (Score:2)
FIRST POST... oops I mean you never see non-anons making trollish posts like that, similarly anyone who pulls equivalent crap on Xbox Live gets their account banned. Since it actually costs them if they want to keep doing it, it stops pretty quick. If Xbox live goes free, you can expect to see a barrage of fresh accounts getting made daily with trolls
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The 2ds were even more sandboxy
Re: (Score:2)
The 2ds were even more sandboxy
Perhaps my memory is not serving me well but I disagree.
I quite liked setting up a blockade/defences and getting into a fight with the never-ending supply of police, then trying to leg-it to safety.
I don't think that was so possible or 'free' (for want of a better word) in the 2d editions. Nor could you just fly around like the 3d editions.
Re: (Score:2)
The 2d ones were so limited in what you could do that I'm prepared to say it was not sandbox. In GTA 2 you could steal cars that were of varying speeds, listen to really horrible radio (an entire channel of 1 minute looped chinese in a high female voice) pick up aproximately 4 weapons, run over strings of elvis impersonators, and collect "GTA" logos. And then do the missions. I suppose the 2d ones had vehicle jumps, but how could you tell?
There was more freedom with just the sniper rifle in GTA 3 than an
Re: (Score:2)
"if GTA had been cloned after san andreas"
It was. They called it "Saints Row."
Thank you folks, I'll be here all week. Be sure to try out our all-you-can-eat potato bar.
Re: (Score:2)
As has been mentioned, Bioshock used the same DRM that Spore used, and used a year before Spore came out. I believe GTA4 for PC will use it as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Meh. (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Funny)
hehe, they ship. That's what makes them different to EA.
Re:Meh. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should try being a postman then - you'll be laughing all day!
Re: (Score:2)
That actually sounds funny to me. I'd play a game for such humor.
The game that you would play wouldn't be the committee meeting. It would be fetching wrenches for mechanics. ...Unless you want to make a game where you're an employee in a large video game company.
Re: (Score:2)
EA could destroy GTA.
Rockstar seems to have done that well enough on their own. The move to 3D has done very little but water down the experience so as to better carter to the frat boy demographic.
Re: (Score:2)
Take Two hasn't done anything really worthy of praise in recent memory
I guess it depends on your definition of "Recent", but ...
TES IV: Oblivion?
Civilization IV?
Manhunt?
(Yeah, I know, BioShock, too, but I played the old System Shock's and agree that BioShock is just "pop culture junk".) And besides... if EA eats up Take Two, Duke Nukem Forever might be *gasp* published! Think of the earth-numbing anti-climax as a Quake III lookalike narrated by Madden and with ~ 2 hours of gameplay appears from the darkness... *shudder*
Re: (Score:2)
Oblivion was infinitely inferior to the greatness that was Morrowind however. Outside of the much improved journal system, Oblivion was dumbed-down for a console release and was not better for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good (Score:4, Funny)
Thanks (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
*head explodes*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
im wondering why you post anonymous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, that's amazing.
Who knew that not everyone likes the idea of every game ever thought of.
Next you'll be claiming some people prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you know? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
spore idea was on his mind for a long time. but it didnt mature into fruition until lately.
ea didnt take any chances with mass effect. it was funded by microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
EA taking a chance with MassEffect.
Bzzzzzzt, wrong. Bioware took the chance, EA just bought Bioware. Mass Effect was released only a month after EA purchased Bioware for a whopping 860M$. (I know people who'd sell their soul for much much less) EA basicly bought a winning ticket with Mass Effect, and with it yet another franchise they can milk. The actual risk was on the side of Bioware at the time, but they knew since E3 2006 that they'd won the lottery.
The only thing EA has done so far (that I know of) with anything from Bioware is port Ma
Re: (Score:2)
Spore is far from a new genre. It is, at best, a bunch of other genres thrown together in a very unflattering manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Baffling: Market Response (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair I invested in Take-two last year and sold 3 months ago because people are stupid and make me money by investing like sheep. Either i'm smart and making money from this or just stupid faster than everyone else. But possibly someone did this before me ... prempting me i mean i wasnt quite peak to peak ..... My point is, pretty much people dont care about companies at all they just want to get in first and out first. This causes wild fluxuations because there is lots of money to be made while its sw
Re: (Score:2)
*note to self reinvest in take-two in 2-3days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've heard, Take Two's stock wasn't "punished" per se. It was artificially inflated by the EA buyout offer, with many people betting heavily that EA would eventually cave in and significantly raise their offer. When EA announced it wasn't interested anymore, those investors that were making those bets had to get out ASAP, hence a glut of availability, and a consequent lowering of the price. Take Two's stock was overvalued by definition, because of the premium offered by EA. Now it's finding a
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh - yes. You make a very good point. These were not investors who were buying the stock because of the long-term potential. These were gamblers. Good point.
Not really... (Score:2)
This isn't surprising at all.
The market is there to make money, not to promote games as art, independence, or consumer interests. If the acquisition of Take Two would have made the investors a lot of money, you can expect a negative market response when the deal falls apart.
Geee Couldn't be a Credit Crunch Could it? (Score:4, Insightful)
JUST MAYBE? [washingtonpost.com]
MOD Parent UP (Score:2)
GTA Creators? (Score:2)
The last sentence of the summary - and the article it links to - are incorrect. Sam and Dan Houser did not create GTA, Dave Jones did. DMA Design was not affiliated with Rockstar in any way when that game was created.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've read, the Housers are responsible for the huge emphasis on 'realism'. DMA's original 2D GTAs were set in a completely absurd world, with gangs like the Loonies or the Mad Scientists, and secrets like occasionally seeing a whole crowd of Elvis impersonators who'd give you a point bonus for getting them all.
When the Housers got involved, they pushed it towards the emphasis on glorifying the Mafia movies that all the gangbangers, and the wiggas following the gangbangers' cultural lead, were into
corporate date rape (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
It's like a big game of texas hold em. Their own interest in Take Two drove the price up some 30%, now they have to feign disinterest to drive it back down. But, at 30% off it'll probably look ripe for acquisition again.
Gotta love free markets.
Oh, and spore is awesome up until the tribal stage. It's pretty obvious Will Wright ran outta creative genius right there. As fun as it is to blame EA, I don't think they had much to do with it.
Creepy customizable pacman/flow game -> Innovative genre shattering
nothing to see here (Score:1)