they just won't give up :(

Has anyone ever heard of good old fashioned competition? Why is it that EA absolutely needs to buy this company, or any company for that matter. Why don't they just better their products instead of buying and implementing someone else's.

@Mr Fortitude: Well EA has tried copying and pasting game ideas (failed) so now they are going to try and simply borg it out. Can't make a Mass Effect quality game? Buy the people who made it! Can't make a freeroaming world like GTA that violent wanna-be gangster kiddies will lap up? Buy the studio that's an expert at marketing to ganster wannabes and kids who like punching virtual grannies in the face!

Maybe JUST maybe if this was the orginal date the thing would not have gotten so ugly. But knowing EA they just want to milk out the GTA and TakeTwo's other big games.

I wonder if it's possible for Take Two to sell off the rights to GTA as a last ditch effort to screw EA before they get consumed.

Launch that little Krypton baby into space Take Two.

Its funny that I am going for a buisness degree because once I get into my core classes, or the 'nitty gritty' as I like to call it I know this stuff will make much more sense to me, because as of now all of this hurts my head.

@Mr Fortitude: Have you ever seen the anime "Code Geass"? The Emperor of Britannia believes competition is the only means for humanity to progress. Equality to him is just a hindrance. I'm saying EA believes...actually EA is quite the opposite since they only believe in buying the competition to increase thier portfolio. Innovation is just a hindrance to them. However, they both share the same quality, "Narrow Mindeness" (i don't know if that's a real word or combination of words but the intent is there and therefore comprehendable). It's too bad though; 10 years ago, i was a big EA fan.

Every time I read one of these EA-T2 stories, I keep thinking of Fat Bastard saying in his thick Scottish accent: "Git In Ma'h Belle'h!"

Unlike others here and elsewhere among gamers visiting sites like kotaku i´m not all anti EA, of course among the many studios they have they also release lots of awesome games in between next to some turdy ones. And yes, having seemingly unlimited money compared to other companies of course also helps financing big creative visions like Spore.
As long as there is strong competition one can´t just rely on the usual moneybringer yearly updates of some series, one has to also try to shape new games and game series and work harder to have the running in series ones stay attractive compared to the compettion.
So yeah, there´s lots of potential for EA to do great stuff, as long as there´s eough competition to make them be into competing propperly.
I wish em healthy growing and for us them bringing out lots of cool games, all as long as they don´t buy out all the compeition.

I don't understand how EA can say the deal is better for both parties. It can only be better for one. EA perceive T2 is in the position of making a lot of money, that's why they want to acquire it. T2 thinks so also, that's why they don't want to sell it, they think they can get more money. EA should tell the truth at least and say. Hey, we can afford to buy you off, besides we have no one taletend working right now that's why we have to buy off the competition. It's easier than making new stuff.

There are big companies in this world that built themslves up. I was EA fan in the 80, but no more. I was an apple fan too. Now I can't afford Apple products, but I don't hate them like I hate EA.

Found it! Here's the real EA!

+ Watch video

@nxp3: I disagree, and here's why:

First, EA and T2 aren't themselves very much in the business of making games, they're in the business of publishing games.

Granted, both EA and T2 own development studios that feed them with games: but to say that EA hasn't published anything good lately, and for that reason they must buy T2, is wishful thinking I'm afraid. We can make the distinction between "good" and "popular" later, but EA will be releasing both Spore and Warhammer Online this year, among others (including C&C 3, which should be freaking awesome, btw).

None of those are exactly GTAIV, but I suspect you may have heard of them. EA has also released Crysis, the Battlefield series, and had a hand in Rock Band.

EA doesn't *need* T2 for good games, but it *wants* T2 for more good games, and it can probably offer something to its shareholders in the way of cutting costs and boosting revenue (and added value of brand, I suppose) that will increase overall profits.

Even at last night's meeting, T2 seemed to take the stance of "it's only a matter of time, so let's get as much money out of this as possible." T2 hasn't been desisting because it's EA trying to buy them; they've been desisting because their CEO is a greedy man.

This has never been a case of "if", just "when" and "how much."

I really don't want to see a big 'ole EA right beside the Rockstar logo.

@nxp3: Because it can be better for both parties. Actually, any purchase or barter should, otherwise there would be no economy at all.

It's in T2's shareholders best interests because EA is paying a lot more than what the company was actually worth before the offer. It's on T2's employees best interests because T2 is surviving on GTA, and Rockstar become free agents soon. And it's in the best interests of EA because they manage to transform some of their cash reserves into a rather sizeable increase in their operational capacity.

It's not in the best interest's of T2's board of directors because they were basically giving themselves ridiculous benefits and raises that in no way reflect the company's performance - along with that, quite a bit of shares that would increase 60% value if they got them before the EA offer went public. That's why they weren't willing to tell the shareholders about the takeover bid for as long as possible, and that's why they didn't want a hostile takeover.

@kylo4: Why not?

A friend of mine and I have decided that if worse comes to worst, T2 should simply sell all their major franchises to Rockstar and shift over, thereby losing the Take Two identity but not their IPs.

Alternately? Merge with Ubisoft. They have no real overlap.

@Grive: Why would you want it?

EA is notorious for rushing homogenized annual sequels for any popular title, as well as rushing developers to fit their timetables.
Look at the launch of HellGate London. Being pressured to launch at Halloween obviously wasn't the wisest decision - but they were forced to work around the publisher's mandatory timetables.

Take-Two clearly isn't the godsend, but they've fed every resource the creative minds needed to complete a game to their own high level of satisfaction.

Publishers should be providing the developers - the creative minds - with the tools they need to create new and innovative ideas. Instead, we're seeing more and more restrictions and guidelines.
This is not the way to evolve an interactive art form, but a seemingly guaranteed way to stifle it.

@Milihpen: Amazing comment.

This is hilarious. I guess EA noticed they looked ravenously desparate at this point, so they want to seem less urgent, and also bring doubt to the shareholders by offering LESS.

pfft... Someone said the other day that Blizz-ac was just as big or bigger and wasn't being considered for antitrust - I think it really depends on what they do with the power. EA is by no means the only publisher, but they're using - ok - trying to use their power to force and bully an already pretty big company into being swallowed whole. Maybe they wouldn't be seen as such a threat if they could just learn to take "No... NO. I SAID NO. NO NO NO NO. NO! FUCK OFF, I SAID NO. NO MEANS NO. NO. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. GTFO. NO." for an answer.

Just freaking abandon EA. I don't want to see GTA EA