EA's Take-Two Takeover Bid on Hold Pending Government Review

June 5, 2008 -

According to Reuters, Electronic Arts has reached an agreement with the Federal Trade Commission to delay its attempt to acquire Take-Two Interactive while FTC investigators address regulatory [i.e. - monopoly] issues.

What might the FTC be looking into? Newsweek's N'Gai Croal covered this in great detail recently, including mention of my fears that consumers will suffer if EA is successful.

Cnet's Daniel Terdiman wrote yesterday "that [EA is] losing its credibility with each new extension." Frankly, however, I can't see Terdiman's point. Credibility is a non-issue here. The dollars - and government regulatory clearance - will ultimately dictate whether this deal gets done.

Meanwhile, on his Anti-Tust Commentary blog, attorney Matthew Wild offers some legal insight into the EA's strategy:

Under the agreement, EA must give the FTC 45 days’ notice of its intention to close.  Parties often grant the Antitrust Division and FTC more time to review their transactions with the hope of convincing the agencies not to challenge the merger or to allow them to negotiate a remedy.

The most important take-away here is that EA is obviously worried that the FTC may have some concerns about the deal. As a game consumer, it's reassuring to know that regulators are taking a good look at the proposed merger.

As I've pointed out before, EA's track record with the Madden franchise demonstrates that the game publisher is willing to lower prices when faced with serious competition. The Madden case also shows that EA will take agressive steps to eliminate its competition and, if successful, will raise prices in a non-competitive landscape.


Comments

Re: EA's Take-Two Takeover Bid on Hold Pending Government Review

I'm glad to see some people are relising that with this takeover EA will be killing a brilliant company and will run it dry then toss the EA-molested left overs aside. EA have had names on some games such as Crysis and Hellgate: London, but unlike some uncivilised people (not refering to anyone here) I see past the big 'EA' logo that you can never skip and look at the REAL designers of the games such as 'Flagship Studios' and 'Crytek'. Admittedly, I do enjoy C&C series, but I have a bad feeling that is going to go downhill soon. The sooner this deal is chucked into a hole and hid away from the world the better.

--------------------------------------

SAY NO TO THE EA TAKEOVER!

Cafalump

Re: EA's Take-Two Takeover Bid on Hold Pending Government Review

Ugh.... After the whole DRM mess with Spore and Mass Effect (which I am still pissed off about to this day) EA can take a flying leap into a pit of rabid badgers. I'm just so bloody sick of EA destroying so many good companys. In otherwords, keep your dung stained hands off of Take-Two!

Re: EA's Take-Two Takeover Bid on Hold Pending Government Review

They killed Need 4 Speed. You Bastards!!!

 

As far as I care, Take-Two are gods.

Re: EA's Take-Two Takeover Bid on Hold Pending Government Review

EA bought Hell and then closed it down after interfering with its work which resulted in a sudden drop in quality and sales.

Re: EA's Take-Two Takeover Bid on Hold Pending Government Review

EA can go to hell.

 

Thats pretty much all I need to say.

Re: EA's Take-Two Takeover Bid on Hold Pending Government Review

"Cnet's Daniel Terdiman wrote yesterday "that [EA is] losing its credibility with each new extension." Frankly, however, I can't see Terdiman's point. Credibility is a non-issue here. The dollars - and government regulatory clearance - will ultimately dictate whether this deal gets done."

I do, every time EA extends it's offer after a deadline, it makes the next deadline much less credible. Thus shareholders won't be in a rush to decide to sell, and are even more likely to hold out for a better offer.

Basically EA said "Here's our offer, take it or leave it, but it expires while you wait." They've keep showing that the "expires" part is false. Now people will be expecting the "take it or leave it" part to be false as well.

Re: EA's Take-Two Takeover Bid on Hold Pending Government Review

First, EA ends up buying every video game company, then they flop and go out of business, now we will have another video game crash of 1983.

 

If EA buys T2, I will eat my hat.

Re: EA's Take-Two Takeover Bid on Hold Pending Government Review

It's entirely possible that this may be the end of EA sports domination. They gotten to the point where very real damage to the consumer is occurring and competition is not steep enough between the two parties for them to pull a Coke-Pepsi deal.

Re: EA's Take-Two Takeover Bid on Hold Pending Government Review

EA, you tried to take them over and they don't want it.  By continuing to find excuses to extend a bid they don't want, you're looking foolish.  You lost, deal with it.

Re: EA's Take-Two Takeover Bid on Hold Pending Government Review

"Indeed, we've been down this road before with EA, and it was a train wreck for gamers. Some Joystiq readers will recall the NFL 2K series from Visual Concepts. It was a very good pro football game franchise that originated on the Dreamcast but later migrated over to the PS2 and Xbox. Some reviewers actually came to prefer NFL 2K to EA's Madden series. What's more, Take Two, in a competitive effort to win market share in later years, priced it very aggressively ($19.99). Declining to go that low in price, EA was forced to reduce Madden to $29.99 just to stay competitive (there's that word again).

So what happened next? EA secured an exclusive license with the NFL and NFL Players Association. Quicker than a LaDainian Tomlinson sprint to the end zone, the NFL 2K series ceased to exist. The next edition of Madden, no longer facing competitive pressure from NFL 2K, jumped up in price to $49.99. EA's revenues, of course, shot up. Gamers, however, had to plunk down twenty bucks more than the previous year and lost the opportunity to choose their pro football game based on a competitive comparison of features and price. You either played Madden – at EA's price - or you went home."

'nuff said.
----
Papa Midnight
http://www.otakutimes.com
http://www.thesupersoldiers.com

 

----
Papa Midnight

Re: EA's Take-Two Takeover Bid on Hold Pending Government Review

I know I'm old but I'm sure I can't be the only person here who remembers when EA used to be THE company when it came to top class creative boundary pushing games (Filled polygons on a C64? Barely anyone else used polygons at all and none of them were FILLED!). Nowdays they're still determined to be THE company but only beccause there's no alternative.

It's especially sad given their recent drop in quality output. They got where they are by making stuff that was so good everyone bought it (and this was in the days when piracy only needed a double tape deck) but now they seem to have turned their backs on creativity entirely. It's a sad reversal, like a jedi turning to the dark side or the shop no longer stocking those biscuits you like

Re: EA's Take-Two Takeover Bid on Hold Pending Government Review

Compeition is good for consumers as it encourages lower prices and better products.

It speaks volumes that instead of improving it's product to make it more appealing they're trying to eliminate competition so they can price their half assed product how they see fit. Someone doesn't like it, they can say "You have no choice, haha!!!" which would likely actually hurt EA in the end.

And honestly ,giving all this, if I were a Take Two stock holder, I'd have decided not ot sell long ago.

-kurisu7885

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Did Microsoft pay too much ($2.5 billion) for Minecraft developer Mojang?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Michael Chandrawould clearly not apply, since they weren't used as shield. It's more "hey, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm CISWASP."09/18/2014 - 5:08pm
Michael ChandraIn comparison though, the more extreme views would be fairly countered with "you don't speak for me". But the batshit crazy people tend not to even use others as the shield to defend their batshit crazy ideas and insults, so at that point #notyourshield09/18/2014 - 5:06pm
Michael ChandraWhich is of course real silly because when there are so many horrible stories and statistics too, it's utterly irrelevant whether some don't mind.09/18/2014 - 5:00pm
Michael ChandraIn this context it would be women claiming they don't see a problem with the stuff, so stop claiming women don't like it!09/18/2014 - 5:00pm
Michael Chandra"You don't speak for me. I am not your shield. You cannot use me to defend your own opinion."09/18/2014 - 4:59pm
Michael ChandraAE, if we leave aside the falsehoods some use with the term, the idea is regarding minorities and such.09/18/2014 - 4:58pm
Michael ChandraKrono did just a bit earlier in the shoutbox prh99.09/18/2014 - 4:56pm
Andrew EisenI still don't get the what #notyourshield is supposed to mean. Who is unfairly using who as a shield for what?09/18/2014 - 4:43pm
prh99Didn't said anything about #notyourshield or it's origins. Assuming your comment was directed at me.09/18/2014 - 4:28pm
prh99Leigh Alexander is right though, no one has to cater to them (trolls). I think a lot of them would likely continue playing even if scantily clad women were omitted or protagonist was female.09/18/2014 - 4:21pm
Michael ChandraSo no, normal gamers feeling attacked was not what sparked #notyourshield and only a fool would suggest otherwise.09/18/2014 - 4:21pm
Michael Chandra#NotYourShield was kickstarted by 4chan people, so don't go and make nonsense claims about that.09/18/2014 - 4:20pm
prh99those toxic individuals conduct their trolling under. It could have easily been under the Men Rights banner etc, they are just generally unpleasant and angry people who can't stand people disagreeing with them. 09/18/2014 - 4:00pm
prh99The whole gamer identity is the scapegoat some have latched onto in the wake of gamergate. I am sure it will fade, only to be replaced with the next thing, it always is. I am not so sure removal of identity will fix the problem, it's just the banner..09/18/2014 - 3:55pm
E. Zachary KnightAs for the whole "death of gamer" thing, I am personally patiently waiting for the day when being a person who plays games is as much of an identity as a person who reads books, watches tv/movie, listens to music. It will happen.09/18/2014 - 2:42pm
E. Zachary KnightThought I would share this io9 article as a bit of a rebuttal to the earlier Spider-man/Spider-woman comparison: http://io9.com/10-stupid-arguments-people-use-to-defend-comic-book-sex-163638182409/18/2014 - 2:41pm
Papa MidnightKyle Orland's response: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/addressing-allegations-of-collusion-among-gaming-journalists/09/18/2014 - 12:41pm
Papa MidnightJames, I say this as a person who has managed a gaming press website before: This article is horrendous sensationalism: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite09/18/2014 - 12:41pm
Krono@james I never said you did. I was responding to Andrew's statement that he'd seen a mere two articles suggesting that the term gamer was tainted, by pointing him to a list of the articles that were more or less the orgin of the idea.09/18/2014 - 12:09pm
E. Zachary KnightBut james, you replied to my tweet when I tweeted about one of those articles. That is basically the same thing as writing an editorial on GP in support of it. ;)09/18/2014 - 12:04pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician