<![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish - Kotaku Comments]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish - Kotaku Comments]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> The first thought that came to me when I heard EA wanting to buy Take-Two was 2K Sports. By buying 2K Sports, they no longer have much competition in the market of sports games, thus no need to buy any exclusive lisences. I could only think of two franchises that are not completely dominated with the merger if it does happen. (Winning Eleven-Konami and Virtua Tennis-Namco)
Now as a comsumer. I do not want this to happen. You see what competition did to the NHL series? My guilty reason for not wanting this to happen is that I do not want them to mess with the NBA 2K series which is so much better than Live. I could see it now NBA Live 2K9, same everything-just roster updates.


Deathstrike

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> hmm last time i checked Activision was number one publisher...

[www.gamedaily.com]

EA shouldn't spend anymore money, and it should be against the law to buy out your ONLY competition!

60Hz

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> The first glance of this article, feels like some propaganda for Take2 to consider selling. Since the other big bad publisher thought it a "bad move". Either way, I like the competition. Absorbing Take2 would just narrow the source.

ghidra

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> www.rockstargames.com

Be Calm and Carry On GAMERZZZZZZ

surferboi

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> Better than with EA.

KM91

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> LMAO, wow. Oh snap.

Gagamus

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> Activision doesnt have balls.

mandarin

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @jgw: Holy crap someone who knows what they are talking about.

testmunky

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @Burguois: I'd argue that the barrier to entry in making 2K/EA-level sports games is prohibitive for most companies at this point. The cost to even develop a realistic sports engine from the ground-up is astronomical, to compete with a long-established franchise like EA would be suicide. Look at the level of scrutiny that the realistic sports games are subjected to: lighting and shadow, tackle impact, detailed stadiums, player faces, play calling, weather, franchise modes, etc. This is all without the cost to license player names from the player's union and marketing expenses to compete with the juggernauts. At this point, the only feasible entry into this market is through acquisition. If EA swallows 2K Sports, they'll have an effective monopoly on sports games, and it will likely be overlooked or approved by regulators since it wouldn't be a valid enough reason to stop an acquisition.

jgw

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @Doomstink: Lets go through their standards and see how T2 compares

history of profitability: No
good management: No
proprietary technology for a franchise: not sure but guessing no
history of multimillion unit sellers: Yes
non-dilutive: not sure guessing no
operating margin accretive: No

T2 isn't that attractive of a company to acquire EA just happens to be in a unique position, that or they are making a big mistake which is what their shareholders think.

testmunky

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> These executives are in the business of running a company to maximize shareholder profit; they're looking at numbers first. The GTA franchice brings in a lot of revenue and builds the brand, but is extremely costly to develop. The sales volume is huge, but the net margin is low relative to other games. Not to mention Take-Two is putting a lot of eggs into Rockstar's basket each time they push out a GTA. Each GTA has to be a runaway success to justify its expense. Rockstar has done a fantastic job so far and their relationship with Take-Two is a good one, but not all companies (especially public companies that are under a lot of investor scrutiny) are willing to knowingly buy into that much inherent risk.

It's easy to let passion for video games justify a dubious acquisition. Just because they "have" Elder Scrolls, Bioshock, GTA doesn't guarantee that Activision/EA sees future benefit. Oblivion and Bioshock have arguably reached the long-tail portion of their sales. Their profitability would only be reflected on the new company's pro forma historical financials, barring costly-to-develop and timeline-uncertain sequels. They're looking towards future value-added. An analogy is starting Joe Montana as your QB. Yes, he did amazingly in the past, but his current relevance and future benefit is of serious question.

Take-Two's willingness to enter discussions after GTA comes out is indicative of their desire to sell. They're going to point at GTA's sales to justify a much higher purchase price. As Take-Two is publicly traded, EA's early move is to perk the interests of shareholders, bring pressure on Take-Two's board and hopefully avoid the substantially higher premium they'll be forced to pay post-GTA.

jgw

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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 remember

Playstation3

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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?

badasscat

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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?

Doomstink

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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!


amazinglarry

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @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...


Noc

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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.

Noc

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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.

royaljester

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @Tiberian:
Don't forget it's a business. Money is the first priority. The stockholders could careless about gaming.

FtGF

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @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)

royaljester

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @badz149:
Only CoD4 was great? You clearly never played CoD2 (IW) then.


beem

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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.

Limafoxtrot

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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

DevonTheDude

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @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.

Burguois

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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.

Fyren

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> Activision doesn't have the sports titles. Thats the ONLY reason EA wants Take-Two.

AnonymousFinger

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> Take Two indeed have a history of very poor management.While they have some truely great developers, they suck as a company.

Casual_Hardcore

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @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.

Komrade_Kayce

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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.

Scuba Steve

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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.

Demaar

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @Figroti:

QFT.

Activision is total shit. Guitar Hero III might as well have been called shoddy-guitar-sell-out.

III.

Komrade_Kayce

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> Burn! 1 to nothing Activision

Thoas

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @QC8472: I think the new golden age of gaming began this past year. No collapse required.

Spartan1308™

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> It's been a big corporate pay out fest since this whole thing started.

Sabre_Justice: Okay, no more long name.

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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.

OT79

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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.

Wyld

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @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!

badz149

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @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]

Spartan1308™

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @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.

Walker

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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.

gamadaya

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> "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.

Klaymen

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @ArmyofJuan: Oh god. *and they arnt really activisions now* is what its supposed to say

ArmyofJuan

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @ [KU]Shindokie: Kotaku's Whore: That was great!

I think EA is just trying not to be #2 anymore. Pure an simple.

Thassodar

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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.)

dowingba

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @Coldbrand: You can't count Warcraft/Starcraft/Diablo because they wernt activisions to begin with now are they really activisions now.

ArmyofJuan

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> Nothing but good can come from this.

Sailorcancer

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @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

ArmyofJuan

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> Yup! that too

chip5541

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @ArmyofJuan:
Guitar Hero, World of Warcraft, Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft, Call of Duty

Coldbrand

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @chip5541: And Guitar Hero 3 now, no?

Ampillion, Dayman. Fighter of the Nightman.

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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.

QC8472

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> HAHAHAHAHA

Aurom

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

COMING FROM ACTIVISION - IT'S FUNNY ON SO MANY LEVELS

Aurom

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> @ArmyofJuan:

They also have JT :)
Maybe Activision thought it isn't worth fighting with numbnuts.

Don't forget that Activision also has COD4


chip5541

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]>


+ Watch video

FP Shindokie

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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

ArmyofJuan

]]> <![CDATA[Activision Didn't Buy Take-Two Because They Thought They Were Rubbish]]> 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?

Wyld

]]>