EA Solicits Take 2 Takeover

[jeffbax]

Via Yahoo Press Release (http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080224/20080224005062.html?.v=1)...
The EA letter warned that further Take-Two delay in accepting EA’s proposal could prevent Take-Two’s shareholders and other constituents from realizing its benefits. “There can be no certainty that in the future EA or any other buyer would pay the same high premium we are offering today,” Mr. Riccitiello wrote. The letter added that timely completion of the proposed transaction would allow EA’s strong publishing and distribution network to positively impact the ongoing post-launch sales of GTA IV and support the new Take-Two titles scheduled for launch later in the year and during the holiday selling season.
They also created a website (http://www.eatake2.com/) as an "Open Letter" to Take 2
In a recent presentation, I told a group of developers that our industry is facing big challenges. Development costs are rising dramatically and games that aren’t big hits struggle to reach profitability. Most independent studios don’t have much margin for error. The result has been consolidation – large publishers are merging and independent developers are more amenable to being acquired. Unfortunately, our industry has a spotty record on integrating creative teams. We’ve all heard the stories about teams that got mismanaged in a merger – I know I’ve got a few.

I'm not sure why a merger is necessary all the time... diversity is the spice of life, and would 2k sports be dead?

Thanks to Hatchetforce for a similar submission

[Dr.Finger]

Wow. Just, wow. Although Take 2 was already in the process of annualizing their franchises anyway.

[Johan]

Why would anyone be surprised by this? EA needs to leapfrog over Activision, which will then do the same to EA...when growth alone doesn't cut it for shareholders, buying growth can, and often does.

Bye bye, 2K sports, if this happens...and unless a new competitor arises, the NFL will stand to see a drop in their licensing agreement when it expires in 2012 with EA. No competition means nowhere to shop the license for a comparable fee. Imagine how much money a television station could save on broadcasting football if there were no other stations, or only little ones, around to compete for the rights!

[jpublic]

Man, between this, their purchase of Bioware, their continuing attempts to take over Ubisoft, and other initiatives, if anyone is in doubt that EA is trying to become the only player in the gaming industry, they're blind.

[Codicier]

I didn't know you could purchase an entire industry. Congratulations EA, for proving me wrong.

Now fuck off.

[TrackZero]

Take Two can do just fine on their own without a buyout EA, fuck off.

[TheSolidHair]

In five years there will be two publishers, EA and Activision.

My worst nightmare.

[RMan]

I always love the phrasing developers use when talking about development costs rising, as if they are watching an astronomical event they have no influence over.

[jeffbax]

Another reason I don't like this, is that Rockstar is known for pushing things in terms of what is acceptable or risky in games... if EA owned them I doubt we would be seeing that quite as often.

[Wraith]

AN OPEN LETTER TO EA:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/wraithakamrak/1154365909464.jpg

[Doctor Setebos]

Take Two can do just fine on their own without a buyout EA, fuck off.Actually, they likely can't. T2 hasn't been doing well financially for some time. Their income statement (http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NASDAQ:TTWO) has looked like shit for years - despite the popularity of their various GTA titles. If Vice City and San Andreas couldn't save them, I don't see what GTA4 can do. If they're going to keep producing quality games, they need an influx of cash from a better source.

[digitalErich]

I always love the phrasing developers use when talking about development costs rising, as if they are watching an astronomical event they have no influence over.
Fucking hell I'm right there with you. Videogames are the only media where the producers consistently and publicly complain about costs. Note to devs: the consumer doesn't really care and that is reality.

I've said it before, but if you can't find a way to make money in a booming market, maybe you should get out of the market. Either way, with the rising cost of games and hardware this last gen, the last thing I want to hear is crying about how expensive it is to make a game.

Edit: on topic, I'm not really sure T2 could stop this from happening if EA really wants it to given how they've been doing, financially.

[Darkmatter]

This isn't a buyout. It's a fucking head-shot...

Goddamn EA....

[Dr.Finger]

Another reason I don't like this, is that Rockstar is known for pushing things in terms of what is acceptable or risky in games... if EA owned them I doubt we would be seeing that quite as often.
True, but Take Two has also been horribly mismanaged. And for all of EA's myriad flaws, they're very good at the management side of the industry. Where they sometimes come up short is the creative side of things.

[Azriel77]

Its like highlander in real life, "There can be only one!!!". In the end there will only be Activision and EA. I am putting all my money on EA, expect the quality of games to nosedive to nothing and to have nothing but clones of crappy games. This is the beginning of the end for original games and the start of the clone wars.

[jeffbax]

Its really baffling how 2k can release so many good games recently, and still be doing shitty.

Civ4, BioShock, The Darkness, Oblivion, Prey..

[aries100]

And finally John Riccitiello shows his true face --- eh - I mean - he is up to his old tricks again....

Didn't EA buy a lot game companies the last time John Riccitiello was the CEO of EA?
I think I read it somewhere...

It is clear to me that EA wants to be big conglemarate owning everything game-related in the world. EA also now seems to buy Take 2 and Ubisoft. Activison/Blizzard is still the biggest publisher now, correct...

Atari is still an independent (sole) publisher ? I ask because I worry for the D&D license which Atari currently has until at least 2015 or 2016, I thinks.

I really hope EA gets slapped with anti-trust laws before they gobble up another game studio (and publisher) I think John Riccitiello dreams of EA being the one big publisher in the whole wide world, wherein (or under?) whose umbrella creative dev teams such as Bioware, Pandemic, Ken Levine, Rockstar etc. can make great games with funding from EA, and at the same time use EA's wide distribution net.

I don't understand why EA would want the GTA franchise at all. The GTA franchise only serves to give the publishers grief and sorrow with all the controvery that is over it. Or maybe EA sees this as a final blow to certain lawyer....as John Riccitiello probably thinks that if EA takes over Take 2, EA can finally get a certain Jack to be not say anything anymore...at least when it comes to games...

On a final note, I remember seeing both Robocop and a tv-show called *edison carter* when I was younger. In both tv-shows, one or two global corporations owned everything in the world. It seems that what back in the 1980's still were considered science fiction now rapidly is becoming fact - unfortunately...

[jeffbax]

The GTA franchise sells like 16 million copies ;) thats why. But how long until EA is wearing the pants and decides to play platform maker?

[digitalErich]

Off topic: look up the zaibastsu; that stuff has already happened before. You can still see the remnants of it if you travel to Japan and pay attention.

[fitbabits]

The more things change (we're trying our best to do our best for the consumer), the more they stay the same (ooh, Take Two looks weak - let's buy them).

[Johan]

Off topic: look up the zaibastsu; that stuff has already happened before. You can still see the remnants of it if you travel to Japan and pay attention.

Same thing in Korea...called chaebol there. Interesting stuff.

If EA takes over Ubisoft, I'll be depressed.

I'll get over it, but it will be sad.

[Sl1pstream]

Why would EA care about Thompson?

[ElectricMonk]

holy mergers batman. Now blizzardvision and ea take 2 need to merge and gamers wildest fantasies will come true.

[digitalErich]

The GTA franchise sells like 16 million copies ;) thats why. But how long until EA is wearing the pants and decides to play platform maker?
If EA keeps gobbling up other corporations, I can actually see them eying the one last part of the chain they have no control over, licensing fees. Then again EA could, potentially, get to size where they start telling the hardware makes what they are going to pay in licensing.

I hope it never gets that far, but we're closer to it than I ever thought we'd be a few years ago.

[jeffbax]

The more things change (we're trying our best to do our best for the consumer), the more they stay the same (ooh, Take Two looks weak - let's buy them).

http://www.filmjunk.com/spacejunk/wp-content/images/movies/noescapefromearth.jpg

[donkeydrop]

Its really baffling how 2k can release so many good games recently, and still be doing shitty.

Civ4, BioShock, The Darkness, Oblivion, Prey..

Only one answer to that; because their management sucks.

[Itchyeyes]

Sweet, I just bought TTWO at $16.:D

[donkeydrop]

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/9/2008/02/publishers.jpg

Better EA than Activision!

[Itchyeyes]

Better EA than Activision!
Indeed. All the haters don't seem to have gotten the message. Activision is the new EA. Everything people hated about EA 5 years ago, that's Activision now.

[sflufan]

Atari is still an independent (sole) publisher ? I ask because I worry for the D&D license which Atari currently has until at least 2015 or 2016, I thinks.

Atari is still independent, but it is in desperate financial trouble.

[Johan]

Indeed. All the haters don't seem to have gotten the message. Activision is the new EA. Everything people hated about EA 5 years ago, that's Activision now.

I don't buy into the "EA is reformed. Really!" view though (not sure if you do). They're both far too big, with all the negatives that entails and not many of the positives.

I have a decent collection of games, and I can count on less than both hands the number of EA games I have EVER bought. I may extend that to Activision games as well. I haven't decided yet.

You buy it, you're to blame. Simple.

[Virtuoso]

And finally John Riccitiello shows his true face --- eh - I mean - he is up to his old tricks again....

Didn't EA buy a lot game companies the last time John Riccitiello was the CEO of EA?
I think I read it somewhere...

It is clear to me that EA wants to be big conglemarate owning everything game-related in the world. EA also now seems to buy Take 2 and Ubisoft. Activison/Blizzard is still the biggest publisher now, correct...

Atari is still an independent (sole) publisher ? I ask because I worry for the D&D license which Atari currently has until at least 2015 or 2016, I thinks.

I really hope EA gets slapped with anti-trust laws before they gobble up another game studio (and publisher) I think John Riccitiello dreams of EA being the one big publisher in the whole wide world, wherein (or under?) whose umbrella creative dev teams such as Bioware, Pandemic, Ken Levine, Rockstar etc. can make great games with funding from EA, and at the same time use EA's wide distribution net.

I don't understand why EA would want the GTA franchise at all. The GTA franchise only serves to give the publishers grief and sorrow with all the controvery that is over it. Or maybe EA sees this as a final blow to certain lawyer....as John Riccitiello probably thinks that if EA takes over Take 2, EA can finally get a certain Jack to be not say anything anymore...at least when it comes to games...

On a final note, I remember seeing both Robocop and a tv-show called *edison carter* when I was younger. In both tv-shows, one or two global corporations owned everything in the world. It seems that what back in the 1980's still were considered science fiction now rapidly is becoming fact - unfortunately...

Im sorry, and maybe im being naive here, but isnt this a good thing for all involved?

[Itchyeyes]

Im sorry, and maybe im being naive here, but isnt this a good thing for all involved?
I'm with you on that. Take Two is not some poor innocent indie developer that Big Bad EA is gobbling up. Take Two is huge publisher, with a great collection of developers, who's success has been hampered by poor, and sometimes downright corrupt, management. EA may not be everybody's ideal publisher, but anyone is better than the buffoons that have been running Take Two for the past couple of years.

[Sandman]

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/LeopardShark/whiteshark.JPG

[Talon-]

The GTA franchise sells like 16 million copies ;) thats why. But how long until EA is wearing the pants and decides to play platform maker?

Yes, absolutely but did EA buy them for only one game? Rockstar goes independent next year, I believe.

This either is good for the EA Sports team 'cause they'll bring in the 2K squad, or it just sucks hardcore. I'm going to go with the latter. EA now has the exclusive rights to the MLB as well now because 2K owned that. I'm going to assume that EA's going to retain that part of 2K sports, but I don't know about the rest of the team. Hopefully they bring in the work of the 2K guys on the basketball side.

[Nicodemus]

I hope Take 2 refuses. It's always better to have a degree of diversity in an industry.

Nothing but EA and Activision would yield some pretty impressive big budget, brand name titles, but would niche games and new intellectual property even stand a chance of getting published in that corporate megabrawl?

[gojira]

Actually, they likely can't. T2 hasn't been doing well financially for some time. Their income statement (http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NASDAQ:TTWO) has looked like shit for years - despite the popularity of their various GTA titles.

Huh? Am I reading that right? Tens of millions in profit, 100's of millions in gross revenue. How is that "shit?" I wish I had some shit like that....

[sflufan]

Yes, absolutely but did EA buy them for only one game? Rockstar goes independent next year, I believe.

This either is good for the EA Sports team 'cause they'll bring in the 2K squad, or it just sucks hardcore. I'm going to go with the latter. EA now has the exclusive rights to the MLB as well now because 2K owned that. I'm going to assume that EA's going to retain that part of 2K sports, but I don't know about the rest of the team. Hopefully they bring in the work of the 2K guys on the basketball side.

R* does not go independent next year as it is owned by 2K Games (who are owned by Take 2). Next year, the employment contract the Houser brothers (who founded R*) have with Take 2 ends. The rumor is that they will try to buy R* North back from Take 2 like Bungie did with MS, but nothing is confirmed.

The bottomline is that R* simply just doesn't become independent next year just because the Houser contract is up.

[sflufan]

Huh? Am I reading that right? Tens of millions in profit, 100's of millions in gross revenue. How is that "shit?" I wish I had some shit like that....

No, you're not. You're missing all the really big negative numbers in red. Look at the Yahoo Finance summary:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=TTWO

[Doctor Setebos]

Huh? Am I reading that right? Tens of millions in profit, 100's of millions in gross revenue. How is that "shit?" I wish I had some shit like that....You must not understand corporate finances. I don't pretend to understand everything, but this is what I do know.

Revenue is money coming in from sales. It means pretty much nothing.
Gross profit is the money you've made after you take out the costs associated with gaining your revenue (marketing, distribution, etc.)
Operating income is what you have after you subtract out R&D expenses and depreciation on fixed assets (amongst other things).
Net income is what you have left over after removing operational costs (creation of product, employee salaries, etc.)

So, knowing that, look back at T2's finances and try to tell me they're doing well. :rolleyes:

[Camtron]

You know, with as many devs as EA is going to have the way this is going, they could release their own console...

[sflufan]

You know, with as many devs as EA is going to have the way this is going, they could release their own console...

And do you remember recently EA saying that it would favor a one console future?

Hmmmm... ;)

[Doctor Setebos]

Take-Two has responded (http://gamepolitics.com/2008/02/24/breaking-take-two-fires-back-at-ea/):

After careful evaluation, the Board has determined that EA’s proposal substantially undervalues Take-Two’s robust and enviable stable of game franchises, exceptional creative talent and strong consumer loyalty.

We believe EA’s unsolicited offer is highly opportunistic and is attempting to take advantage of our upcoming release of Grand Theft Auto IV, one of the most valuable and durable franchises in the industry.Much more scathing content at the link.

[Hatchetforce]

Take 2 fires back:

http://gamepolitics.com/2008/02/24/breaking-take-two-fires-back-at-ea

It looks as if this fight could get ugly… GamePolitics has just received a press release from Take Two Interactive in response to Electronic Arts’ hostile takeover bid.

In the release, the Take Two board confirms EA’s offer and pronounces it “inadequate in multiple respects and not in the best interests of Take-Two’s stockholders.” From the release:

After careful evaluation, the Board has determined that EA’s proposal substantially undervalues Take-Two’s robust and enviable stable of game franchises, exceptional creative talent and strong consumer loyalty.

We believe EA’s unsolicited offer is highly opportunistic and is attempting to take advantage of our upcoming release of Grand Theft Auto IV, one of the most valuable and durable franchises in the industry.

Take Two Executive Chairman Strauss Zelnick is quoted:

Electronic Arts’ proposal provides insufficient value to our shareholders and comes at absolutely the wrong time… Thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our creative and business teams, Take-Two has made enormous strides in the past 10 months toward our common goal of being the most creative, innovative and efficient company in our industry…

Given the great importance of the Grand Theft Auto IV launch to the value of Take-Two, the Board has determined that the only prudent and responsible course for our Company and its stockholders is to defer these discussions until immediately after Grand Theft Auto IV is released.

Therefore, we offered to initiate discussions with EA on April 30th, 2008 (the day after Grand Theft Auto IV is scheduled to release). We believe this offer demonstrated our commitment to pursuing all avenues to maximize stockholder value, while we believe that EA’s refusal to entertain this path is evidence of their desire to acquire Take-Two at a significant discount, whereas we believe this value rightly belongs to our stockholders.

[Doctor Setebos]

I beat you by seconds, Hatchetforce - seconds. :D

[Itchyeyes]

No, you're not. You're missing all the really big negative numbers in red. Look at the Yahoo Finance summary:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=TTWO
He's also falling into the typical idiotic logic that states that any number ending in "illion" must be a lot. Tens of millions in profit is a lot if you're a single average American, it's not so much if you're a $1.8 billion company with thousands of employees and likely tens of thousands of investors to split that profit amongst. A company the size of Take Two making "Tens of millions in profit, 100's of millions in gross revenue" is essentially the equivalent of an average American (with a $100,000 net worth) living on about $11,000 a year and only managing to save about 1/10th of that if he wants to look at it in terms he can relate to.

[JockoIsWacko]

Evil Empire, it doesn't matter if you own the entire video game industry, you'll still make crappy games................

[RorschachCCCLX]

I'd argue that EA already had played console king maker, back in 2000 they screwed over Sega by refusing to develope for the platform, with the sole intention of trying to scuttle the system, leaving their new business partner Sony as the sole kid on the block, there was a good article to this effect by the last head of Dreamcast-IGN. EA attemps to end diversity in the market will be the death o the market, as it was in the 80's when Atari achivced market dominance and proceeded to strangle itself to death with bland mediocridy.

In my view, Microsoft needs to step in and pick up Take-Two, or maybe Activision does, Microsoft lost a bidding war for BioWare, they really shouldn't give up on this one.

In conslusion, Fuck EA.

[Hatchetforce]

I don't think Microsoft is the solution because no company should get Take 2 that is going to restrict the platforms to one console, particularly a company that would sidestep the platform beginning to show the most potential. The last thing I want is another GTA that I have to pay for DLC that should have fit on the disk in the first place.

[Mojopin]

Thanks for the link Hatchetforce, that was an excellent read. Good work Take Two for not taking their shit. It's ridiculous for EA to do this so close to GTAIV if they really care about the franchise.

[Johan]

The last thing I want is another GTA that I have to pay for DLC that should have fit on the disk in the first place.

Your fanboy is showing.

[EL CABONG]

I'd argue that EA already had played console king maker, back in 2000 they screwed over Sega by refusing to develope for the platform, with the sole intention of trying to scuttle the system, leaving their new business partner Sony as the sole kid on the block, there was a good article to this effect by the last head of Dreamcast-IGN. EA attemps to end diversity in the market will be the death o the market, as it was in the 80's when Atari achivced market dominance and proceeded to strangle itself to death with bland mediocridy.

In my view, Microsoft needs to step in and pick up Take-Two, or maybe Activision does, Microsoft lost a bidding war for BioWare, they really shouldn't give up on this one.

In conslusion, Fuck EA.

I would rather have Microsoft owning Take-Two or BioWare then EA.
EA isn't as bad as they use to be. But they still kinda suck.

[Mojopin]

Your fanboy is showing.
Why would that be? Because he doesn't like paying for DLC or because he likes good ol' fashioned competition between platforms? Thrall us with your acumen... /lecter

[Johan]

Why would that be? Because he doesn't like paying for DLC or because he likes good ol' fashioned competition between platforms? Thrall us with your acumen... /lecter

"...should have fit on the disk in the first place."

:rolleyes:

DLC is one of the biggest whines around for people (gamers) who look to whine no matter what. There's a simple solution with DLC content. If you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT. Vote with your dollars; buy the PS3 version. :D

[SpectralWolf]

You know, with as many devs as EA is going to have the way this is going, they could release their own console...

That's a scary thought.....but could be true. :eek:

[kaddar]

"...should have fit on the disk in the first place."

:rolleyes:

DLC is one of the biggest whines around for people (gamers) who look to whine no matter what. There's a simple solution with DLC content. If you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT. Vote with your dollars; buy the PS3 version. :D

That's not really an argument that it's fanboyism though is it? You originally said his fanboy was showing, but then you argued that he was a whiner, and therefore he was a fanboy? Confused.

[Johan]

That's not really an argument that it's fanboyism though is it? You originally said his fanboy was showing, but then you argued that he was a whiner, and therefore he was a fanboy? Confused.

Boo-ray..."should have fit on the disk." I thought that was patently obvious.

Even if that wasn't the intention, and it was a whine about DLC, that has been a complaint targeted mainly at MS by people who want shit for free, and somehow can't exercise their right to NOT PURCHASE stuff they don't want or don't like paying for.

Either way? Fanboy.

[bKangy]

Yay, more shitty take-overs.

[SpectralWolf]

I'd argue that EA already had played console king maker, back in 2000 they screwed over Sega by refusing to develope for the platform, with the sole intention of trying to scuttle the system, leaving their new business partner Sony as the sole kid on the block, there was a good article to this effect by the last head of Dreamcast-IGN. EA attemps to end diversity in the market will be the death o the market, as it was in the 80's when Atari achivced market dominance and proceeded to strangle itself to death with bland mediocridy.

In my view, Microsoft needs to step in and pick up Take-Two, or maybe Activision does, Microsoft lost a bidding war for BioWare, they really shouldn't give up on this one.

In conslusion, Fuck EA.

EA could be to the console wars what Warner was to the high-def format wars. However, it looks like Nintendo has managed to stay above the fray for now.

[kaddar]

Boo-ray..."should have fit on the disk." I thought that was patently obvious.

Even if that wasn't the intention, and it was a whine about DLC, that has been a complaint targeted mainly at MS by people who want shit for free, and somehow can't exercise their right to NOT PURCHASE stuff they don't want or don't like paying for.

Either way? Fanboy.

I am still not sure I get it, I classify a console fanboy as someone who trolls by making comments saying that only his or her console is good, and makes comments stating how bad other consoles are. I don't think that he fits this classification, unless he were, say, a dreamcast fanboy saying how lame it is that microsoft charges dlc. Is there some other label you could give which would be more accurate? What kind of fanboy is he?

Stealth Edit: Oh, I'm thinking maybe, your argument is that he's pro ps3 and he's pissed that the 360 content doesn't fit on the disc and we're getting charged? Ah, I read that when he said that that it was for DLC that "probably would have fit on the disk anyways"

[Talon-]

Boo-ray..."should have fit on the disk." I thought that was patently obvious.

Even if that wasn't the intention, and it was a whine about DLC, that has been a complaint targeted mainly at MS by people who want shit for free, and somehow can't exercise their right to NOT PURCHASE stuff they don't want or don't like paying for.

Either way? Fanboy.

Johan, honestly, I have a question for you. Are these micro-transactions good for us as the consumer? Now with the proliferation of DLC, we're being force to pay beyond the already relatively expensive $60 US per game for our chosen hobby.

I know you're probably going to respond with "If you don't like, then don't buy it." The thing is, this used to not be an issue. We used to get complete games when we bought the product.

I don't want to have to buy expansion pack after expansion pack like I used to with PC games if it's only going to add one mission (Mass Effect, I'm staring at you).

[Sl1pstream]

The last thing I want is another GTA that I have to pay for DLC that should have fit on the disk in the first place.

Maybe it'll come on the disc on PS3. It's not like they're doing anything else with that space.


Hint: It won't.

[Johan]

Johan, honestly, I have a question for you. Are these micro-transactions good for us as the consumer?

I'm sorry, but are you somehow operating under the false assumption that companies are supposed to give shit away?

I'm pretty sure their shareholders would be pissed in that case, but at least gamers would be happy, so there's that silver lining.

In other words, it doesn't matter if it's good for consumers, because they are COMPANIES trying to make money for their shareholders/owners.

I know you're probably going to respond with "If you don't like, then don't buy it." The thing is, this used to not be an issue. We used to get complete games when we bought the product.

You still get "complete games." Saying otherwise is baloney. If you don't accept that, then don't buy games you view as incomplete. Problem solved!

<snip>

Hatchetforce is upset because his beautiful Boo-ray machine isn't getting content that will be on the 360. That may be because he thinks it would have fit on the Boo-ray disk, or it may be because he's pissy about DLC through MS. Either way, he's having a fanboy pissathon.

I'm not donating to that charity.

[SpectralWolf]

Johan, honestly, I have a question for you. Are these micro-transactions good for us as the consumer? Now with the proliferation of DLC, we're being force to pay beyond the already relatively expensive $60 US per game for our chosen hobby.

I know you're probably going to respond with "If you don't like, then don't buy it." The thing is, this used to not be an issue. We used to get complete games when we bought the product.

I don't want to have to buy expansion pack after expansion pack like I used to with PC games if it's only going to add one mission (Mass Effect, I'm staring at you).

What I miss are the big expansion packs like the ones Blizzard used to release. I don't much care for these Microsoft-sponsored packs like the Mass Effect one.

[Sl1pstream]

I don't much care for these Microsoft-sponsored packs like the Mass Effect one.

Microsoft published the game, you tard. The entire game is "Microsoft-sponsored".

[SpectralWolf]

Hatchetforce is upset because his beautiful Boo-ray machine isn't getting content that will be on the 360. That may be because he thinks it would have fit on the Boo-ray disk, or it may be because he's pissy about DLC through MS. Either way, he's having a fanboy pissathon.

I'm not donating to that charity.

Johan,

To think that Sony is just gonna sit on the sidelines while Microsoft's console gets extra content is just naive. Remember Rockstar is bringing an exclusive franchise to the PS3. I don't know what it is yet, but it could be big. Besides, EA's recent hard-on for an acquisition is telling sign for Rockstar's value.

And guess what, "Boo-ray", as you originally call it, won the high-def format war. I'm thinking more consumers in the immediate future will be willing to buy movies on it than download it after performing a dollars to MS points conversion and then waiting a few hours.

[SpectralWolf]

Microsoft published the game, you tard. The entire game is "Microsoft-sponsored".

Dude, I know that. There's no need for your harsh comment. Perhaps, I should've made a more general comment concerning all Xbox 360 DLC, and not just Mass Effect.

[sflufan]

EA CEO writes a personal note to Take 2 shareholders:

http://www.eatake2.com/

[bapenguin]

It's going to be interesting to see as digital distribution becomes more prevelant how something like this affects the games industry. On one hand you'll have the Wal-Mart of games, and on the other side you'll have quality specialty stores.

[Talon-]

I'm sorry, but are you somehow operating under the false assumption that companies are supposed to give shit away?

I'm pretty sure their shareholders would be pissed in that case, but at least gamers would be happy, so there's that silver lining.

In other words, it doesn't matter if it's good for consumers, because they are COMPANIES trying to make money for their shareholders/owners.

I don't understand why you're on the side of the companies here. I don't want free content. What I want is for the user base to not be fractured by the haves and the have-nots. I don't want to see 4-6 maps released for a game, and then an extra 12 if you decide to pay 10 extra bucks. I like what Infinity Ward is doing by offering free maps in the next update because they know the consumer already shelled $59.99 on their product. If Activision is fine with doing that, as one of the largest publishing houses in the industry, then I don't see why it's wrong to wish for good content.

Now, of course, when you have people willing to shell dough for a couple average maps for Halo 3 just to get it a couple months early, that's not going to happen. If you have money there, why stay away from it?

I just wish we didn't have to make that choice to spend more on top of what we spent.

Again, Johan, why are you on the side of greedy publishers here? I'm not saying business is big and bad, but their mantra is profit. Thus, they want more money from our fingers. Wouldn't you like to not have to spend more money to get the "full" experience?

[Johan]

I don't understand why you're on the side of the companies here. I don't want free content.

Yes you do. Be honest with yourself. If it was free, would you complain?

I thought not...

What I want is for the user base to not be fractured by the haves and the have-nots.

That's already a reality; can't you see that?

Lots of people don't have high speed Internet access: Fractured base
Lots of people can't afford all three home gaming consoles: Fractured base
Lots of people can't afford the game itself: Fractured base.

"haves and have-nots?" Baloney...it's "choose and choose-nots."

I don't want to see 4-6 maps released for a game, and then an extra 12 if you decide to pay 10 extra bucks.

Then close your eyes; don't buy their game; don't buy the DLC; MAKE CHOICES!

I like what Infinity Ward is doing by offering free maps in the next update because they know the consumer already shelled $59.99 on their product. If Activision is fine with doing that, as one of the largest publishing houses in the industry, then I don't see why it's wrong to wish for good content.

The ONLY reason a company releases content for free as DLC is because they see a financial upside: Consumer loyalty for the next title; consumers on the sidelines see an extra value in free content and buy the game; or other reasons. They don't do it because they love you.

Now, of course, when you have people willing to shell dough for a couple average maps for Halo 3 just to get it a couple months early, that's not going to happen. If you have money there, why stay away from it?

Exactly...hence, companies will go for the extra revenue stream. It's called "business."

I just wish we didn't have to make that choice to spend more on top of what we spent.

Others view it as an opportunity to continue in a game they have loved, or to break up the larger price of a game to a smaller price, and avoid the DLC entirely!

CHOICES!

Again, Johan, why are you on the side of greedy publishers here? I'm not saying business is big and bad, but their mantra is profit. Thus, they want more money from our fingers. Wouldn't you like to not have to spend more money to get the "full" experience?

I'd love for money to rain from the sky, and everything to be free. That's not reality.

You're also already getting the "full" experience on the disk. Do you feel ripped off that the car you have doesn't have "the full experience" of $1,000 rims on it?

Enjoy the DLC if you choose it. If you don't like it, avoid games from the most egregious 'offenders' (if you like to refer to them that way), such as EA or Activision.

[Doctor Setebos]

I hate to admit it, but Johan's right.

And it isn't "siding with the corporations" when you claim that DLC is not only inevitable, but also not necessarily evil. It's simply called acknowledging reality.

[mister_slim]

Of course, it would be nice if platform-holders weren't an obstacle when companies decide to release free DLC as an investment in long-term customer loyalty.

[Shadowstorm]

Fuck Electronic Arts. Fucking piece of shit corporation.

[fitbabits]

Fuck Electronic Arts. Fucking piece of shit corporation.

But, but, but... This is the new, improved Electronic Arts - haven't you been paying attention?

[SpectralWolf]

But, but, but... This is the new, improved Electronic Arts - haven't you been paying attention?

Yeah, word on the street is that they also don't like metacritic scores in the low 70's. Their CEO's gettin' all steely-eyed and ball-fisted about changing that.

[Johan]

Of course, it would be nice if platform-holders weren't an obstacle when companies decide to release free DLC as an investment in long-term customer loyalty.

As a 360 owner, I'm not seeing an obstacle. :D

[SpectralWolf]

As a 360 owner, I'm not seeing an obstacle. :D

Oh come on Johan. Don't you remember the Epic/MS bitch-fest when the original Gears of War maps were gonna be released?

[Shadowstorm]

But, but, but... This is the new, improved Electronic Arts - haven't you been paying attention?

Meh ... it just amazes me that Mr. Riccitiello can cite rising development costs when this corporation is raking in huge amounts of cash from extreme franchise milking and otherwise.

If there is one thing I hate in the corporate world, it is the lack of competition. It's dangerous.

EA smiles at Take 2, but really, their face is nothing but daggers.

/Macbeth reference.

[Johan]

Oh come on Johan. Don't you remember the Epic/MS bitch-fest when the original Gears of War maps were gonna be released?

No. What was that all about? :D

*fans the flames*

they're face is nothing but daggers.

/Macbeth reference.

"their."

/grammar and spelling reference (sually called an "allusion" in literary circles). :D

[Hatchetforce]

Your fanboy is showing.

Damn right it is showing. When a game gets trimmed because of another platform's shortcomings then that is an issue for me. When the game could have been this or that but this or that was pulled and put into DLC (along with other featrures of course) then that should make anyone scratch their head.

Over the next couple of years you are going to see more and more multiplatform titles suffer because the 360 is showing it's age and inability to evolve. Now that last part isn't fanboyism, just sheer ugly fact.

[Johan]

Damn right it is showing. When a game gets trimmed because of another platform's shortcomings then that is an issue for me. When the game could have been this or that but this or that was pulled and put into DLC (along with other featrures of course) then that should make anyone scratch their head.

Would you like to offer some evidence that the content that 360 owners will have access to was originally intended for the GTAIV retail disk? And perhaps you'd back that up in terms of why R*/TT would direct that DLC at the platform you say is supposedly coming up short?

Or are you just shitting at the mouth?

Over the next couple of years you are going to see more and more multiplatform titles suffer because the 360 is showing it's age and inability to evolve. Now that last part isn't fanboyism, just sheer ugly fact.

You're looking for this thread. (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45198) You know, the one where at least one company has decided to screw over 360 owners because of the difficulties inherent in the PS3.

I was absolutely right in calling you out for the fanboy you are. It was obvious. Carry on, faithful soldier! :D

BTW: I'm going to really enjoy that content! Hell yeah, baby! :D

[Shadowstorm]

"their."

/grammar and spelling reference (sually called an "allusion" in literary circles). :D

"Usually"

/grammar and spelling reference

:P.

(P.S, in all seriousness, thanks.)

[Johan]

"Usually"

/grammar and spelling reference

:P.

HOLY CRAP! I FAIL!

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/pigeonfail.jpg

[Mal.Reynolds]

suprised that MS doesnt buy them and make GTA4 360 Exclusive

[Doctor Setebos]

suprised that MS doesnt buy them and make GTA4 360 ExclusiveMicrosoft doesn't have a great track record of buying companies these days. :D

[digitalErich]

Microsoft doesn't have a great track record of buying companies these days. :D
You say that like the event you refer to is over :)

[jeffbax]

I hope nobody buys anything, and especially not a major first party.

Gaming is too volatile from gen to gen for first parties to consolidate so much, and bad for gamers everywhere.

[Deadend]

So, Take2 wants to wait until after GTAIV comes out, which in that week is probably going to be one of the few times this year they are in the black. And so the Board can bail out with more money.

[kaddar]

Actually, one part of why I think I sorta totally agree Johan is:


Post-release free content additions to old games had the effect of lengthening the longevity of said game, and thereby causing more people to purchase it. In a way, free content was ancient viral marketing, QuakeWorld (An enhancement to quake1 to make multiplayer more playable) probably increased the number of purchases of quake, for example.


Additionally, I believe producing content for a old games cost less time and money than games with DLC today. It was cheaper to add content to a (pc) game 8-12 years ago. Also, the franchise cycle is so quick (2 years for GoW, for example), that if you spend time adding good multiplayer matching for your game, you reduce the differences between games in a franchise and cannibalize sales. Therefore, you gotta charge premiums.

The fact is, we probably did this to ourselves by moving games into the mainstream, where it was no longer as profitable to make money of free content used as viral marketing. One reason it isn't as profitable is because the income of some gamers has risen, I believe that prices are inelastic enough that the majority of those who would buy DLC will buy it for a dollar more, in other words, now-adays, a lot of mainstream gamers have disposable income, and only time to play a single favorite game, therefore, they are going to buy stupid stuff like horse armor.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I agree with Johan that the market is voting, but I sorta disagree with the conclusion, that it doesn't hurt consumers that viral marketing isn't as profitable a venture as premium content any longer. Well, it does hurt consumers, but yeah, maybe our expectations are too high in todays world

(stealth edit on conclusion)

[Xerxes]

This is bullshit. It's like if my ban on EA stayed on I won't be able to play games anymore. Although Bioware kind of screwed that up already.

[Yeti2005]

Doesn't Take Two lose Rockstar in a year?

[Talon-]

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

That's already a reality; can't you see that?

Lots of people don't have high speed Internet access: Fractured base
Lots of people can't afford all three home gaming consoles: Fractured base
Lots of people can't afford the game itself: Fractured base.

"haves and have-nots?" Baloney...it's "choose and choose-nots."

Honestly, you know those issues are completely different from what we're discussing.

Yes, you choose to buy content if you want it. Let's look at Burnout Paradise. It looks like there's an entire island that you can race on that's going to available only if you buy the DLC.

I'm just worried about the long run where there'll be Halo 5 with multi-player only available for an extra $14.99 unlock code.

The ONLY reason a company releases content for free as DLC is because they see a financial upside: Consumer loyalty for the next title; consumers on the sidelines see an extra value in free content and buy the game; or other reasons. They don't do it because they love you.

Obviously. I said nothing that made that assumption. Blizzard provides patch after patch reviving Diablo II. Like kaddar said, they release new content for free in order to maintain interest in the product itself.

I'd love for money to rain from the sky, and everything to be free. That's not reality.

You're also already getting the "full" experience on the disk. Do you feel ripped off that the car you have doesn't have "the full experience" of $1,000 rims on it?

Enjoy the DLC if you choose it. If you don't like it, avoid games from the most egregious 'offenders' (if you like to refer to them that way), such as EA or Activision.

I'll choose to buy what I like. I absolutely adored Mass Effect, but I refuse to buy that extra pack, 'cause I find enough replay value off of the game anyways.

I forget what game it was, but it was a smaller game that had content on the disk. The thing is that you had to pay extra in order to get all the content of the game. That's a precedent I hope developers won't build on.

Gaming's always been an expensive hobby. I would like it not to get more expensive. I like DLC in some ways. Extra songs in Rock Band? I like that. I don't like that it's $1.99 each, but some songs are worth it to me while some aren't. I just don't want us to move to an expansion pack after expansion pack model.

[jeffbax]

Even worse, I don't want to move to a model trapping everything I buy with DRM.

[ubartehbarbarian]

The future looks bleak my friends, very bleak. God help us.

[Talon-]

Even worse, I don't want to move to a model trapping everything I buy with DRM.

Johan can attest to this himself.

I hope this is just a civil discussion, Johan, 'cause I respect your opinion. I don't think we disagree too much. DLC is just where the industry is headed, and that's just a fact. I just hope that developers and publishers don't use it as a way to nickel and dime us all the way to hell. :(

[oldjadedgamer]

Damn right it is showing. When a game gets trimmed because of another platform's shortcomings then that is an issue for me. When the game could have been this or that but this or that was pulled and put into DLC (along with other featrures of course) then that should make anyone scratch their head.

Over the next couple of years you are going to see more and more multiplatform titles suffer because the 360 is showing it's age and inability to evolve. Now that last part isn't fanboyism, just sheer ugly fact.

Man, you must have REALLY hated the PS2 last gen considering that developers were making games for the lowest common denominator. By your logic, all games should have had the Xbox as the lead sku last gen.

[Xerxes]

I wish Shane Kim, or something other big dev was this forceful about spreading the dev houses. I mean everyone under EA is just... Wrong. Like there should be some trust busting or something.

[Headcase]

I forget what game it was, but it was a smaller game that had content on the disk. The thing is that you had to pay extra in order to get all the content of the game. That's a precedent I hope developers won't build on.

That was the Katamari Damacy 360 game. Edit: should mention the company responsible too. Namco.

The big issue I see with DLC is what you're talking about basically. Developers will make shorter games with less options and modes, then charge a bunch of money to get those things which we used to take for granted. So we might end up paying $80 or more just to have the game and DLC required to equal what used to be a regular $50 (not $60) game.

So basically, it's a correction in game prices; games rising in price, and perhaps significantly faster than inflation depending on where this trend goes. But why? There are more gamers than ever and it's an economy of scale (ie mostly fixed costs, the more people that buy, the more net profit per purchase). Some of the best games have the smallest budgets. And the "consumers are willing to pay more" reasoning, while true, shouldn't matter in a competitive market. And that's the problem, every industry is becoming more and more oligopolistic, and video games are no exception.

Except, notice how the Wii still has $50 games and no DLC (coming soon!)? And it's the best selling console? Sure, the waggle and console price are the main selling points, but that's food for thought.

[bjornbarspingvinen]

They want them for the rockstar games, and for NBA2k (which slaps EA sports mediocre at best NBA live every year and now in sales too)

EA sucks again. But of course EA shareholders love it. But as a gamer EA suck balls most of the time, killing of developers and brands as well as good games. Competetion in their book is just a matter of money. Not rising to the occation.

[Hatchetforce]

Would you like to offer some evidence that the content that 360 owners will have access to was originally intended for the GTAIV retail disk? And perhaps you'd back that up in terms of why R*/TT would direct that DLC at the platform you say is supposedly coming up short?

Or are you just shitting at the mouth?



You're looking for this thread. (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45198) You know, the one where at least one company has decided to screw over 360 owners because of the difficulties inherent in the PS3.

I was absolutely right in calling you out for the fanboy you are. It was obvious. Carry on, faithful soldier! :D

BTW: I'm going to really enjoy that content! Hell yeah, baby! :D

Shitting at the mouth? What grade are you in? Thanks for calling me what I already stated I was. You now have the right to drink and act like a man. Whoopty flippin doo. Some jerk on a forum called me a fanboy when I already beat him to the punch in stating my preference.

No one knows what had to be trimmed and where said trimmings went except the dev team. Here is what we do know. It was cut back. Period. Same thing with Bizarre Creations when they were asked about variations on the maps and they responded, "Well there wasn't room on the disk."

MS must actually love the DVD9 because it is a built in excuse to hold back material for DLC later. Then the developer and MS can argue over who made the decision to actually charge customers. I love the finger pointing that goes on when that occurs.

Unlike some people on this board I don't dodge the fact whatsoever that I support Sony over MS. No hypocrisy in my actions there. Some people here can't say that. Not even to themselves. I won't buy another item from MS in the form of DLC because like several other people I took the shaft on that going through 4 consoles. Once you have lost money to company that shrugs their shoulders about the DLC /DRM issue then you have to be a royal idiot to keep buying.

You haven't had that experience. Good on ya. Personally I am not concerned about the DLC for two reasons. No DLC for me ever was up to the snuff of the original game. Second, by the time the DLC hits I will be too busy trying to kill Liquid. That isn't a sour grapes jab it is a personal fact. That game has been my most wanted since being announced so it is somewhat difficult for DLC to compete in that arena. You can claim what you like and scream until you are blue in the face but your words have zero effect on personal preference.

[Headcase]

IMO, this is the key part of the letter:
Many of the people at Digital Illusions in Stockholm, Criterion in the UK, Mythic in Virginia, and more recently BioWare and Pandemic will tell you that so far, the experience at EA has been good. If you know people who work for these studios, I’d encourage you to talk to them.

Will such advice backfire? Who knows? But it's the only part of the letter I found interesting.

[Ancalagon]

Many of the people at Digital Illusions in Stockholm, Criterion in the UK, Mythic in Virginia, and more recently BioWare and Pandemic will tell you that so far, the experience at EA has been good. If you know people who work for these studios, I’d encourage you to talk to them.

Thats what happens when you become part of the collective.

[51|RandoM]

I'm not sure why a merger is necessary all the time...

Easy answer, the more studios(games) you have, the less revenue you need from each game to cover shared cost centers. That is why whenever you get a big merger lots of people lose their jobs in middle management on upwards and in sales.

[Crenor]

Take Two is failing as a company, but they do make good games.
EA wants them now before the next GTA comes out, since it will make Take Two almost 1bil and will increase the price of the company while it is selling. If they can wait 6-8months Take Two will figure out how to spend all that money and bring back down the value.

[Johan]

Shitting at the mouth?

Yes. Either wear a diaper, or wipe up.


What grade are you in?

The one just above yours! :D

Thanks for calling me what I already stated I was. You now have the right to drink and act like a man. Whoopty flippin doo. Some jerk on a forum called me a fanboy when I already beat him to the punch in stating my preference.

Whoopty flippin' doo! This is FUN!

No one knows what had to be trimmed and where said trimmings went except the dev team. Here is what we do know. It was cut back. Period. Same thing with Bizarre Creations when they were asked about variations on the maps and they responded, "Well there wasn't room on the disk."

Funny how "no one knows" and yet "we do know." :rolleyes: You sound like Donald Rumsfeld. Provide me with some facts, and not the dribble from your mouth, and I'll build a righteous indignation myself!

MS must actually love the DVD9 because it is a built in excuse to hold back material for DLC later. Then the developer and MS can argue over who made the decision to actually charge customers. I love the finger pointing that goes on when that occurs.

http://fascistpsychlaws.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/hillary_tinfoil_hat.jpg

Once you have lost money to company that shrugs their shoulders about the DLC /DRM issue then you have to be a royal idiot to keep buying.

How have you "lost money?" I'm no fan of the DRM, but you are able to play online. If you're not online, how did you buy the games and content off of Marketplace in the first place? By magic?

You haven't had that experience. Good on ya.

See the link in my sig. I'm no apologist for MS, but DLC and MS are no more the devil incarnate than Sony or Nintendo. MS/Sony/Nintendo are companies marketing their products to get the best return for their shareholders that they can get. PERIOD.

You can claim what you like and scream until you are blue in the face but your words have zero effect on personal preference.

WTF are you smokin'? :rolleyes: I don't give a shit what your preference is. I am, however, constantly amused by people who align themselves with a corporation as if it were their long lost mommy, there to love and protect them and provide them with milk and cookies. Too many people around here and elsewhere have a rather weird relationship with their gaming devices and the companies that make them.

Carry on, oh faithful one!

[atariv8]

Wasn't it EA games that purchased the developer who made Thrill Kill and then killed the game because the subject matter didn't represent something they wanted under the EA name? Would they try to take edge out of Rockstar? I'm not here to debate the Manhunt issue again, but I would find it highly unlikely that EA would have been supportive of those games.

[handsalad]

Would they try to take edge out of Rockstar? I'm not here to debate the Manhunt issue again, but I would find it highly unlikely that EA would have been supportive of those games.

They would change the name to Game Studio Hunt and you would be a CEO and hunt down smaller studios to acquire and then disembowel with a spoon.

Many of the people at Digital Illusions in Stockholm, Criterion in the UK, Mythic in Virginia, and more recently BioWare and Pandemic will tell you that so far, the experience at EA has been good. If you know people who work for these studios, I’d encourage you to talk to them.

Good thing he didn't mention Tiburon as an acquired studio with happy employees. That would have backfired on him.

[atariv8]

They would change the name to Game Studio Hunt and you would be a CEO and hunt down smaller studios to acquire and then disembowel with a spoon.

Or the choke with a roll of bills move.

[fitbabits]

Get this, EA has set up a website called (and this is just too funny) EATake2 (http://www.eatake2.com/).

[ElektroDragon]

Where the heck are all the anti-trust laws?

[ElektroDragon]

If EA takes over the industry, expect game manuals to completely disappear in 5 years as a cost cutting measure. Soon thereafter cases will go poof, followed by the discs themselves, and in a decade we'll be forced to do download only with heavy handed DRM. That's the future under EA.

[aries100]

It is not necessarily bad that EA wants future in which EA publishes everything in the game & video market with developers like Bioware, Rock Star, Ken Levine, etc. making (great) games under the EA franchise.

The point I was trying to make in my first post is this: A single owner of everything games could mean death to the competition in the market. And this usually means higher games for customers & fans. This wwould alsoprobably be the case of there's only 2-3 major players in the gaming market which fund and develop all games in the game.

As for EA making their own console, I think, I've seen some guy from EA hint at this sometime last year (2007). Maybe around december 2007 or so ?

[ElektroDragon]

Worse... it WILL mean an eventual single console future. Because what EA decides to publish on will be the voice of God.

[jeffbax]

It is not necessarily bad that EA wants future in which EA publishes everything in the game & video market with developers like Bioware, Rock Star, Ken Levine, etc. making (great) games under the EA franchise.

The point I was trying to make in my first post is this: A single owner of everything games could mean death to the competition in the market. And this usually means higher games for customers & fans. This wwould alsoprobably be the case of there's only 2-3 major players in the gaming market which fund and develop all games in the game.

As for EA making their own console, I think, I've seen some guy from EA hint at this sometime last year (2007). Maybe around december 2007 or so ?

Yeah, and its not bad that 1 in 4 goods sold in the US is sold by Walmart. Oh wait :rolleyes:

This is a horrible thing. Consolidation is not a necessity.

[AgtFox]

As an aside to this story, Take 2's stock is up 52% (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=TTWO) at the moment (12:58pm CT) and is now above the price that EA offered to buy it at ($26/share).

There has also been 30 million volume versus the usual 2 million per day. Maybe EA is purchasing stock for a hostile takeover. Market Cap is almost up to $2 billion.

[Xerxes]

Get this, EA has set up a website called (and this is just too funny) EATake2 (http://www.eatake2.com/).

Fucking monsters. Why couldn't somebody like Ubi join with Take2. :(

[oldjadedgamer]

MS must actually love the DVD9 because it is a built in excuse to hold back material for DLC later. Then the developer and MS can argue over who made the decision to actually charge customers. I love the finger pointing that goes on when that occurs.

So what is the excuse for the PS3 first party titles selling DLC later? If it's Blu-Ray, shouldn't it be on the disc? Look at the most recent example of Eye of Judgment for ass raping in the DLC department. Has nothing to do with DVD9

If EA takes over the industry, expect game manuals to completely disappear in 5 years as a cost cutting measure. Soon thereafter cases will go poof, followed by the discs themselves, and in a decade we'll be forced to do download only with heavy handed DRM. That's the future under EA.

This is already happening. Look at the COD4 manual, it's like 4 pages. Look at games like Warhawk. Fully downloadable game. Neither of these games are EA.

[jeffbax]

Warhawk has a retail version as well.. and a PDF for the digital version.