EA Launches 'Hostile' Bid for GTA Publisher [Slashdot]

[DP ServBot]

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."Read more of this story at Slashdot.
</img>


More...

[Poofta!]

ea needs to get out of my life.

[mailman187666]

ea is what is going to ruin videogames within' the next 10+ years.

[heybtbm]

Get ready for:

GTA '09
GTA '10
GTA '11

...etc.

3rd party competition in the game industry was nice while it lasted. Who's even left now...Activision and Ubisoft?

[kaedesdisciple]

More direct news link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7294812.stm

I LOVE some of the quotes out of this one:

"What we are attracted to is what we value in our own studios: great developers and great intellectual property."
-That we can exploit until they don't sell anymore, dump, buy the next hot franchise, wash, rinse, repeat...

"In case of Rockstar I would point out that the leaders are young, vibrant, they're talented and committed."
-And we have no problem going right to their shareholders to pull the rug out from under them and take the money.

"And what we have got right now is a corporate issue that has nothing to do with the people who build these games."
-Did you hear that right? Corporate issues have nothing, NOTHING to do with the people who build these games. Um, last time I checked, employees need a company to work for, and that company is presided over by management. If you make changes at the top, changes WILL happen all the way down the line.

We're not idiots, don't claim that you're coming in to improve the company and help the franchise. You're doing it because GTA IV is about to sell 10 million + copies and you want your stock price to rise from the sweat of someone else's brow.

[TonyTheTiger]

Will everyone get off the damn soapbox?

EA isn't doing anything wrong here. They're making an offer to buy stock and they're offering a premium for that stock. They aren't putting a gun to anyone's head. If Take-Two wants to recommend against accepting the offer then great. If not, so be it. Either way, the stockholders determine whether or not this deal goes through. Not EA. I don't remember anyone whining when Enix bought out Squaresoft. Or when Disney bought Pixar. Did fire and brimstone rain from the sky after those events? Well, considering a good number of Square-Enix's current games...maybe. But there isn't anything sinister going on here. Clearly people want to buy something that's going to make them money in the future. Does anyone really expect EA or anyone else to buy something guaranteed to lose money?

If Bill Gates offers you $1,000,000 for your car what are you going to say? "Oh, my. What a greedy bastard that Gates is. Pushing me around with his money to take my precious car." All that despite you having the power to just say no. If you really can't bring yourself to say no to a million bucks then that's a choice you made. The guy making the offer isn't the villain unless he somehow gets your property without you really assenting to it or realizing what you're assenting to in the first place. Or in a lot of cases, if he somehow makes you a raw deal. None of which is happening here.

Instead of running EA through the ringer, why not point the finger at Take-Two stockholders and say "They better not accept"? It would be a much more appropriate reaction.

[miaandjohnrule]

Will everyone get off the damn soapbox?

EA isn't doing anything wrong here. They're making an offer to buy stock and they're offering a premium for that stock. They aren't putting a gun to anyone's head. If Take-Two wants to recommend against accepting the offer then great. If not, so be it. Either way, the stockholders determine whether or not this deal goes through. Not EA.

No shit. We just don't like what EA has been doing to gaming and would hate for it to be on an even grander scale. Fuck EA

[TonyTheTiger]

Then why not place your ire toward Take-Two's stockholders should they sell? People's thinking here is ass-backwards.

[heybtbm]

Will everyone get off the damn soapbox?

Pot, met kettle.

Capitalism, profits, doing nothing wrong, blah blah blah. This isn't Gamefaqs. Most of us here are adults. We get it.

We're reacting to this from a gamer's perspective, not investors. This isn't a financial message board...it's for video games.

Anyway, it can't be disputed that less competition is always a bad thing for consumers.

[Melf]

I don't remember anyone whining when Enix bought out Squaresoft. Or when Disney bought Pixar.

Did those companies go around buying up all the competition? Would you like it if your only choice for animation was Disney? The video game industry is heading in a direction where pretty soon, only a handful of mega publishers will be left. That would suck big time.

Clearly people want to buy something that's going to make them money in the future. Does anyone really expect EA or anyone else to buy something guaranteed to lose money?

How many of the studios EA has bought out over the years still exist? Of those that do, how many still retain most of their original staff? Very few, if any. EA buys a company, milks it to death, and then discards the carcass. This is what pisses people off.

If Bill Gates offers you $1,000,000 for your car what are you going to say? "Oh, my. What a greedy bastard that Gates is. Pushing me around with his money to take my precious car." All that despite you having the power to just say no. If you really can't bring yourself to say no to a million bucks then that's a choice you made. The guy making the offer isn't the villain unless he somehow gets your property without you really assenting to it or realizing what you're assenting to in the first place. Or in a lot of cases, if he somehow makes you a raw deal. None of which is happening here.

No one has ever said that what EA is doing is illegal. What everyone is saying is that it sucks, plain and simple. I personally don't want to see every franchise under the EA label, and this sale would mean that it would get ownership of GTA, Bioshock, and a bunch of other franchises. It would also mean the end of 2K Sports. Try to look at the bigger picture here.

Instead of running EA through the ringer, why not point the finger at Take-Two stockholders and say "They better not accept"? It would be a much more appropriate reaction.

What was your whole Bill Gates example referring to then?

If EA throws them a shitload of money, do you think they'll say no?

[TonyTheTiger]

You spelled "meet" wrong.

And, by the way, this is sadly exactly like GameFAQs. There's no thought put into it anymore. An article says "EA...blah blah" and without even commenting on the article itself, 10 posts string together with "EA sucks." No theory behind it. No thought. No nothing. It's just regurgitation of the last time 10 posts string together to say the same thing. It's just tiresome, really. Everyone gets it already. How about actually talking about the article for a change?

I never said you had to like the idea of the buyout. I don't. Surprise. But it's a headache when every time I try to have a rational conversation about something involving EA any valuable posts are split up by a bunch of "EA Sucks" comments. It makes me want to side with the company just out of spite.

[noname11]

Anyway, it can't be disputed that less competition is always a bad thing for consumers.

i think this argument is what we're all trying to express. If you dont like EA games, fine, dont buy them. But what if they're all EA games?

[Fuyukaze]

Will everyone get off the damn soapbox?

EA isn't doing anything wrong here. They're making an offer to buy stock and they're offering a premium for that stock. They aren't putting a gun to anyone's head. If Take-Two wants to recommend against accepting the offer then great. If not, so be it. Either way, the stockholders determine whether or not this deal goes through. Not EA. I don't remember anyone whining when Enix bought out Squaresoft. Or when Disney bought Pixar. Did fire and brimstone rain from the sky after those events? Well, considering a good number of Square-Enix's current games...maybe. But there isn't anything sinister going on here. Clearly people want to buy something that's going to make them money in the future. Does anyone really expect EA or anyone else to buy something guaranteed to lose money?

If Bill Gates offers you $1,000,000 for your car what are you going to say? "Oh, my. What a greedy bastard that Gates is. Pushing me around with his money to take my precious car." All that despite you having the power to just say no. If you really can't bring yourself to say no to a million bucks then that's a choice you made. The guy making the offer isn't the villain unless he somehow gets your property without you really assenting to it or realizing what you're assenting to in the first place. Or in a lot of cases, if he somehow makes you a raw deal. None of which is happening here.

Instead of running EA through the ringer, why not point the finger at Take-Two stockholders and say "They better not accept"? It would be a much more appropriate reaction.

First off, your examples are poor at best. When Enix bought out Square, we saw it as a good thing because when one of the most respected gaming companies decided to merge with another loved one, it only made sense. Why should the two companies who've time after time released games we know and love fight over our money? When Disney bought out Pixar, no one bitched again because the two worked so damned closely together that for most people they were already one in the same. It was only a matter of time in both of your examples before one bought the other. The problem people have with EA isnt that they are doing something illegal, which they are not, but that they have proven time and time again to have a poor record when concerning the properties of the companies they buy out. They milk them for what they feel they are worth rather then encouraging new and improved concepts for the franchises. They literaly killed off entire series of games. Is it legal? Yes, as the owner of the rights in question, they have every right to do how they please. Is it right by gamers? No. Ask anyone who grew up playing Ultima, Wing Comander, or even Populous how they like the new games in that series. Go ahead, I'll be waiting for the laughter. Now ask any Nascar fans how they like the selection in Nascar racing games how they like their selection each year. While your asking them, ask any NFL football fans how they enjoy their current selection.

If Bill Gates wanted to buy my car for 1,000,000.00 I'd gladly sell it to him but that's an even worse example because of one big thing. When share holders sell out, their choice has an effect on those who work for the company. When I sell a used car, it has no effect on anyone beyond myself.

[Niku-Sama]

You spelled "meet" wrong.

And, by the way, this is sadly exactly like GameFAQs. There's no thought put into it anymore. An article says "EA...blah blah" and without even commenting on the article itself, 10 posts string together with "EA sucks." No theory behind it. No thought. No nothing. It's just regurgitation of the last time 10 posts string together to say the same thing. It's just tiresome, really. Everyone gets it already. How about actually talking about the article for a change?

I never said you had to like the idea of the buyout. I don't. Surprise. But it's a headache when every time I try to have a rational conversation about something involving EA any valuable posts are split up by a bunch of "EA Sucks" comments. It makes me want to side with the company just out of spite.

its in the past tense grammar queen. i am gonna mis spell all i can possibly mispell after this though.

EEA IZ TEH CRAPEST COPANY! TEY NED TO DYE!

tey rooin garming fro waht ti iz adn aregh en et fer ali teh monies!

[TonyTheTiger]

If it were in the past tense the comma wouldn't have been there.

The shame of being an English major. What do you want from me?

[Niku-Sama]

he was saying you, the pot tony, had met the kettle miaandjohnrule

[heybtbm]

You spelled "meet" wrong.

That's the best you got? Give me a break. This is the internet equivalent of arguing children calling someone "ugly" on the playground. Weak.

And, by the way, this is sadly exactly like GameFAQs. There's no thought put into it anymore. An article says "EA...blah blah" and without even commenting on the article itself, 10 posts string together with "EA sucks." No theory behind it. No thought. No nothing. It's just regurgitation of the last time 10 posts string together to say the same thing. It's just tiresome, really. Everyone gets it already. How about actually talking about the article for a change?

I guess you're going to see whatever you want to see. I'd like to think both of my comments (for example) were a little more clever than just saying "EA sucks".

I never said you had to like the idea of the buyout. I don't. Surprise. But it's a headache when every time I try to have a rational conversation about something involving EA any valuable posts are split up by a bunch of "EA Sucks" comments.

Then why don't you just say that the first time instead of finessing your argument after the fact.

It makes me want to side with the company just out of spite.

Real mature. Stay classy, Tony.

[TonyTheTiger]

1) You're taking the "meet" thing way too seriously. I used it in jest. A menial comment in response to a serious one. It's a comedy archetype. A cop says "This man was murdered" and his partner responds, "You've got a milk mustache."

2) Your point wasn't really that well articulated.

3) My first post was based on my assumption that the posts before were akin to the GameFAQs variety. You wouldn't believe how often I hear about how "EA stole football from Sega." If I jumped the gun, I apologize. But you have to concede that it's hard to tell the difference these days.

4) You've never been frustrated by something that is almost inevitable? I won't apologize for being cynical of how people handle EA related news.

[Streetball 21]

First they mess up the Madden series, now whats next?

[neuropolitique]

You spelled "meet" wrong.

And, by the way, this is sadly exactly like GameFAQs. There's no thought put into it anymore. An article says "EA...blah blah" and without even commenting on the article itself, 10 posts string together with "EA sucks." No theory behind it. No thought. No nothing. It's just regurgitation of the last time 10 posts string together to say the same thing. It's just tiresome, really. Everyone gets it already. How about actually talking about the article for a change?

I never said you had to like the idea of the buyout. I don't. Surprise. But it's a headache when every time I try to have a rational conversation about something involving EA any valuable posts are split up by a bunch of "EA Sucks" comments. It makes me want to side with the company just out of spite.

EA sucks