Kotaku
Think EA were the only big publishers interested in snapping up Take-Two? Nunh-unh. Activision thought about it too. They mulled it over, clicked their tongues, asked a few friends what they thought, then decided against it. Why? Because they eventually decided Take-Two just weren't worth buying. Activision boss Bobby Kotick:
I think we've had - as we've said for a very long time, now - well-stated criteria for what we're interested in in an acquisition.Can we still get away with saying "oh snap?" No? Well, for now, it'll have to do.We've said that we need a history of profitability, good management, the proprietary technology for a franchise, history of multimillion unit sellers. They would have to be non-dilutive and operating margin accretive.
And, for us, Take-Two didn't fulfill those requirements. Maybe it does over the long-term for EA, but it doesn't for us.
Activision: Take-Two didn't fulfill our acquisition requirements [GI.biz]
Comments
Well, Activision doesn´t fulfill those requirements either and I woudn´t ever buy it if I could.
What you´re going to do, fire yourself?
Maybe i'v been drinking too much limeade, but i don't think Activision has too many million sellers othe rthan tony hawk. I honestly cannot think of an Activision brand besides tony hawk. Again, the limeade, but still.
Atleast Take Two has GTA, the 2k Sports series and Bioshock among other things
+ Watch video
@ArmyofJuan:
They also have JT :)
Maybe Activision thought it isn't worth fighting with numbnuts.
Don't forget that Activision also has COD4
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
COMING FROM ACTIVISION - IT'S FUNNY ON SO MANY LEVELS
HAHAHAHAHA
Good, in some way.
I just don't see Activision making GTA nor Bioshock. PG-13 Bioshock & GTA? Nah...
I'd trust EA more on this matter I think. A few years ago I might have thought Activision would do some really gore or violent games, but now... I see EA more willing.
@chip5541: And Guitar Hero 3 now, no?
@ArmyofJuan:
Guitar Hero, World of Warcraft, Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft, Call of Duty
Yup! that too
@chip5541:
JT? Jack Thompson?
But they wernt fighting over Take Two before. According to the above article they thought it over, and then decided that they were some how better. I guess merging with Vivendi/Blizzard has made them think they are god.
And as for COD, i wouldnt bank on that franchise because every other one is shit. They have COD4 now, but when COD5 comes out and everyone finds out the people behind COD3 were behind it they'll all explode
Nothing but good can come from this.
@Coldbrand: You can't count Warcraft/Starcraft/Diablo because they wernt activisions to begin with now are they really activisions now.
Take2 have a ridiculous number of highly profitable games. GTA are the most profitable games in the history of the world, for instance.
The only criteria they don't meet there is the good management one. Because even with all of their ridiculously profitable games, they are always knee deep in financial troubles, for some unfathomable reason. Any smart company though would buy T2 and then promptly fire, and hopefully slap, the current management.
Anyway Activision suck. They're down their with Ubisoft in world's worst video game companies. (Atari/Infogrammes/whatever will always be #1 though, obviously.)
@ [KU]Shindokie: Kotaku's Whore: That was great!
I think EA is just trying not to be #2 anymore. Pure an simple.
@ArmyofJuan: Oh god. *and they arnt really activisions now* is what its supposed to say
"We've said that we need a history of profitability, good management, the proprietary technology for a franchise, history of multimillion unit sellers."
Odd that QUALITY wasn't one of their qualifications.
Why the hell would you care about a history of good management? Just fire the old managers when you take over. And just GTA alone is worth like what hundreds of millions.
@Klaymen: Of course, cause they are only concerned with sales. Which is why we see a new Guitar Hero games every year.
The merger with Blizzard has really gone to their head.
@ArmyofJuan: COD and Guitar Hero are the main things they have right now(plenty of money in those 2 alone), but Activision has been publishing hits for a very long time. Doom and Quake for example. You could go all the way back to Pitfall.
[en.wikipedia.org]
@ArmyofJuan:
the JT -> Jack Thompson thing was funny and I can't stop laughing!
anyway, Activision only has tony hawk(suck nowadays! ass kicked by EA's Skate), CoD(only CoD4 was great!) and GH series(bettered by (again!) EA's rock band). really, that's it! others are average or else crap!! but right after CoD4 and Vivendi merge, they somewhat became big headed and acting like the're the best! I still don't think they are that good! they are saying things like this to make them look good and EA looks bad! but there's no way Activision will propose $2b for the acquisition of T2. in terms of money, I still think EA has more in their account!
Merging rival rich companies to crush the competition is agaisnt the rules of capitalism. this breaks economy. I hope that in a few years every single company belongs to Microsoft, just to see the system crumble.
With this "I'm too good for getting you guys" I"ll prefer EA buy T2,at least EA give some respect to Take two.
It's been a big corporate pay out fest since this whole thing started.
@Wyld: ...
oh no...
I can see it now...
Super Smash Bros: Halo Edition!
Viva Piniata: Pokemons!
Then again, if the industry colapses, we may see a new golden age of gaming... as in SNES era ;)
@QC8472: I think the new golden age of gaming began this past year. No collapse required.
Burn! 1 to nothing Activision
Those words coming from Activision? LAWL.
I dislike Activision almost as much as I dislike EA. I hate supporting both of these publishers, although EA moreso than Activision.
@Figroti:
QFT.
Activision is total shit. Guitar Hero III might as well have been called shoddy-guitar-sell-out.
III.
Kind of a shame. If I wanted any publisher to swallow up Take Two, it would have been activision... just so competition can remain in sports game.
OK sure, I don't buy or play sports games, but that doesn't mean I don't care.
Activision might be a sell out, but it seems like they didn't buy take two because they didn't think they were gonna be a good addition.
EA just wants to grab the name, and then fire half the staff and incorporate the rest into whoring out the franchises.
@QC8472:
I think we're already in the new golden age of gaming.
1997-2003 was pretty weaksauce. But things have only been good from there. The problem is, you need multiple platforms now to get all the rich awesome experiences.
Just look at the amount of amazing indie hits to pop up in the last few years, that would have been completely ignored as pc freeware before.
Take Two indeed have a history of very poor management.While they have some truely great developers, they suck as a company.
Activision doesn't have the sports titles. Thats the ONLY reason EA wants Take-Two.
You got triple AAA devs, then just ridiculous powerhouse. Blizzard is the latter..
Activision pushes some of the finest games period, but Blizzard is a household name :/
I wish Take-Two would just stay TT with R* subsidiary.
You know, fuck corporates and lets try to keep it under one house.
@Wyld: Except this isn't really a monopolistic move, as there are a whole host of developers out there who could just as easily make sports games as EA/2K Sports
This is like arguing that Mills & Boon have a monopoly on cheap romance novels. While they might be a major player others are free to do it without them.
Activision wants more money than EA, that says a lot especially when you mention the Rockband / GH3 patch for PS3. Yea take two is crap when they produce higher selling and higher rated games than you in-house divsion of activision. PS: GH Aerosmith is gonna suck balls, Steven Tylers Balls that is
The big hooks for EA is sports games - since Activision doesn't do them - its actually buying a large segment they don't do and have no experience with. It makes a lot more business since for EA.
@badz149:
Only CoD4 was great? You clearly never played CoD2 (IW) then.
@dowingba:
Not only has WoW made several times more than GTA, Wow made more money than every GTA combined. (Regarding comment that GTA are the most profitable games in the history of the world)
@Tiberian:
Don't forget it's a business. Money is the first priority. The stockholders could careless about gaming.
It's worth nothing that 2K doesn't *make* most of their games, or EA for that matter. They publish them. Like how EA published Orange Box. They do make some games in-house, but most of those were purchased, the same way Vivendi purchased Activision and merged them with Blizzard. It's funny how clearly non-EA and non-2K series are now considered EA and Take2 games. It wouldn't have happened if those games had stronger branding like Blizzard's games, which is probably why EA would never buy Blizzard (if offered for sale) - they like to erase branding and rebrand series as their own.
Take2 at least chose to keep the Rockstar brand when they bought it in the 90's. The way Rockstar is managed, it's Rockstar that made GTA, Take2 is just the investor. Not unlike the Vivendi/Blizzard/Activision combo.
From the consumer's point of view, it's basically brand name and the individual games they know. From the business side, it's investment, synergy, and the benefits of being a bigger player.
I think some ppl are confusing revenue with profitability...sure GTA prints cash, and Bioshock was critically acclaimed and sold well, but in terms of profitability, historically, T2 has *only* had GTA to stand on. 2K Sports is an entire division where it's been around for years and it *might* make a profit with this year's versions.
It's hard to make actual money off games because the costs involved in developing them are enormous nowadays. FYI, T2 hasn't actually made money since 2005. I think that might have been when the latest GTA came out.
I still think Activision is letting their success with CoD4 and GH get to their heads...but what Kotick said is somewhat accurate.
Oh and EA only distributes Rock Band,so it makes puny royalties off of its sales while MTV keeps the majority.
@Wyld:
Yeah I'm with you, Activision doesn't really fulfill their own standards.
But then again, it's always better to acquire someone better than you than someone worse.
Thing is I'm not sure if Activision is really out there wanting to "de-throne" EA as the largest most dominating publisher - they might just be looking to be the most profitable company. Which is always good...
Breaking! Bob hates Steve! Here's the latest quote that proves it!
-Steve: Hey man, feel like swingin by?
-Bob: Nah, I'm good. Thanks.
OOoooh snizap!
I don't see how T2 doesn't "meet their standards". They'd get Bioshock, Elder Scrolls, GTA, 2K Sports, etc.
How is that not a good acquisition?
Activision has been around for almost 30 years and has been profitable for most of them. They were the first ever third party developer. During some of those years (and recently, in fact), they have been the #1 third party developer and publisher in the world, in both sales and profit. No, EA has not been #1 forever, and they aren't #1 all the time even now.
You guys are really going to hold Take 2 up to that and say the two companies are even comparable?
Can somebody refresh my memory a bit? I try to remember I did boycott activision products a few months ago because of something that I can't remember. Some nasty thing they did.. uurrghh can't