With Vivendi Merger Complete, Will Activision Make a Run at Take-Two?
With Vivendi Merger Complete, Will Activision Make a Run at Take-Two?
July 10, 2008
The New York Times' Deal Book blog speculates today that Activision Blizzard may be eyeing an acquisition of Grand Theft Auto publisher Take-Two Interactive.
Electronic Arts, of course, has been chasing T2 for most of 2008 and has a tender offer outstanding. EA's problem, however, is that T2 shareholders just aren't jumping on board so far.
Analyst Mike Hickey of Janco Partners told the Deal Book:
We absolutely believe Activision will take a look at Take-Two. If a competitor is for sale, you take a look, and if EA is your real rival, why wouldn't you stir the pot a little bit?
However, UBS Securities analyst Ben Schachter pooh-pooh any such deal:
It is highly unlikely that Activision would try to outbid EA. They have enough on their plate at the moment.
The oft-quoted Michael Pachter of Wedbush-Morgan had his own opinion:
There are only three players involved — EA, the FTC and the arbs. Is EA likely to withdraw or lower their offer? No, because they want Take-Two. The odds of the FTC not approving the deal on market concentration is virtually zero. And if the arbs want to sell the stock, they'll sell the stock — they don't care what [T2 chairman] Strauss Zelnick thinks the stock is worth.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 01/06/09 at 01:54pm
Derovius: What did you call my little sister?
Derovius: What did you call my little sister?
Posted 01/06/09 at 01:38pm
DeepThorn: 'Security' additions, which means it protects the music, which you bought, and have the right to use. It doesnt stop illegal activity, and even copying the music onto 2 back up CDs isnt illegal. Giving one to your little sister is border line.
DeepThorn: 'Security' additions, which means it protects the music, which you bought, and have the right to use. It doesnt stop illegal activity, and even copying the music onto 2 back up CDs isnt illegal. Giving one to your little sister is border line.
Posted 01/06/09 at 01:36pm
CK20XX: What's it gonna take for JT to get arrested? It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
CK20XX: What's it gonna take for JT to get arrested? It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Posted 01/06/09 at 12:12pm
PHX Corp: Look on JAABLOG at his recent court filings he's starting to post pictures again http://www.megaupload.com/?d=DB5ODRNE
PHX Corp: Look on JAABLOG at his recent court filings he's starting to post pictures again http://www.megaupload.com/?d=DB5ODRNE
Posted 01/06/09 at 11:51am
CMiner: It's the same as the controversy over Sony's rootkits in their music CDs, as far as a separation of the issues of cd content and the security additions.
CMiner: It's the same as the controversy over Sony's rootkits in their music CDs, as far as a separation of the issues of cd content and the security additions.
Posted 01/06/09 at 11:27am
Vake Xeacons: But there does need to be a limit on DRM. I mean, CD check's okay, but spyware? That's an invasion of privacy!
Vake Xeacons: But there does need to be a limit on DRM. I mean, CD check's okay, but spyware? That's an invasion of privacy!
Posted 01/06/09 at 11:00am
Krono: @insanejedi: DRM isn't an aspect of the game. Unless you can make an argument that Securom is an intregal part of Spore that the game would be an incomplete experience without.
Krono: @insanejedi: DRM isn't an aspect of the game. Unless you can make an argument that Securom is an intregal part of Spore that the game would be an incomplete experience without.
Posted 01/06/09 at 10:57am
insanejedi: It's asking the government to regulate aspects of a game. Their just going to use this as a backdoor to regulate other aspects.
insanejedi: It's asking the government to regulate aspects of a game. Their just going to use this as a backdoor to regulate other aspects.
Posted 01/06/09 at 10:53am
Krono: @insanejedi: DRM = trade practice, Violence in games = speech. I'm not seeing the similarity here.
Krono: @insanejedi: DRM = trade practice, Violence in games = speech. I'm not seeing the similarity here.
Posted 01/06/09 at 10:40am
insanejedi: Guys, Regulation of DRM is fudementally the same as regulating violence in games...
insanejedi: Guys, Regulation of DRM is fudementally the same as regulating violence in games...
Posted 01/06/09 at 10:13am
sortableturnip: He's in full swing now, asking for all expenses paid by the Florida Bar.
sortableturnip: He's in full swing now, asking for all expenses paid by the Florida Bar.
Posted 01/06/09 at 09:51am
sortableturnip: @ Simonbob: isn't it better to read the comments, LOL wise?
sortableturnip: @ Simonbob: isn't it better to read the comments, LOL wise?
Posted 01/06/09 at 09:41am
SimonBob: You could've mentioned it's close to the bottom, although it's good to know he's actually got an okay golf swing.
SimonBob: You could've mentioned it's close to the bottom, although it's good to know he's actually got an okay golf swing.
Posted 01/06/09 at 09:41am
PHX Corp: @Sourtable T JT's brain acts like a cookoo clock, It never stops Cookooing
PHX Corp: @Sourtable T JT's brain acts like a cookoo clock, It never stops Cookooing
Posted 01/06/09 at 09:23am
sortableturnip: In his latest filing, JT claims he is still admitted to practice as an attorney in the Southern District of Florida: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2007/09/04/pardon-our-appearance.aspx?pg=3&view=threaded
sortableturnip: In his latest filing, JT claims he is still admitted to practice as an attorney in the Southern District of Florida: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2007/09/04/pardon-our-appearance.aspx?pg=3&view=threaded
Posted 01/06/09 at 09:13am
SimonBob: Or the falsified usernames of gaming company CEOs. :P
SimonBob: Or the falsified usernames of gaming company CEOs. :P
Posted 01/06/09 at 09:07am
Alevan: Yeah, he doesn't use the shoutbox... then again, he doesn't like to confront his problems head on. He hides behind the "law"
Alevan: Yeah, he doesn't use the shoutbox... then again, he doesn't like to confront his problems head on. He hides behind the "law"
Posted 01/06/09 at 09:05am
SimonBob: It's funny, Alevan, I've never seen him respond to anything in the shoutbox. I think he's got tunnel vision.
SimonBob: It's funny, Alevan, I've never seen him respond to anything in the shoutbox. I think he's got tunnel vision.
Posted 01/06/09 at 09:05am
DeepThorn: I think he just likes the attention.
DeepThorn: I think he just likes the attention.
Posted 01/06/09 at 09:04am
Alevan: Y'know... If your gonna RickRoll JT, wouldn't it best to speak of it privately? I mean... doesn't JT read GP? He'd know.
Alevan: Y'know... If your gonna RickRoll JT, wouldn't it best to speak of it privately? I mean... doesn't JT read GP? He'd know.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
"If a competitor is for sale"? Last I checked, this was a hostile takeover. I don't recall Take-Two ever being for sale. Not too mention, with EA already acquiing a portion of the stocks anyways, I think it'd be a bit harder for anyone else to just barge in and join the hostilities.
I'm going to have to agree with Ben Schachter on this one. Activision Blizzard has an aweful lot of work to do in completing all things concerning their merger, couple this with them stepping out of the ESA and trying to get something like that set up internally, i think they'll have enough on their plates at the moment.
I would much rather see Activision Blizzard take over Take2 then i would EA, but it's not really up to us. Shareholders are the only ones in power.
There are only three players involved — EA, the FTC and the arbs. Is EA likely to withdraw or lower their offer? No, because they want Take-Two. The odds of the FTC not approving the deal on market concentration is virtually zero. And if the arbs want to sell the stock, they'll sell the stock — they don't care what [T2 chairman] Strauss Zelnick thinks the stock is worth.
Correction, there are three players, EA, the FTC, and Take Two. Take Two has recommended to it's shareholders that the current offer be rejected as undervaluing the company. Contrary to what Mr. Pachter says, obviously the majority of the "arbs" do care what the chairman that they appointed thinks, as they haven't lept at EA current stale offer.
Really, at this point I'm starting to wonder what axe Pachter has to grind with Zelnick. Everything he's said thus far amounts to "Zelnick's wrong/making it up/full of it and isn't going to matter, Take Two's gonna cave."
Which is contrary to some notable stubborness on Take Two's part, and skeptism by other analysts.
-Gray17
yes once again, stop quoting patcher. only way the guy will no longer be relevant is if he stops getting quoted.
It'd certainly be better than EA getting them.
The odds of the FTC not approving the deal on market concentration is virtually zero.
The FTC has already telegraphed that it's focused on the sports market and, whether or not one agrees that the "sports game market" is the relevant one, I believe EA will have more than 80% if it swallows Take Two. That's the sort of number that this entire pre-approval process is supposed to prevent. The FTC has run its second request and the process will play out, but the existence of a second request is a good sign that things are going to be expensive and time consuming, regardless of the outcome, thus testing EA's devotion to the deal. It would be most interesting if the FTC requires a spin off, but that's a little too textbook to actually happen.
As for Activision "making a run" at Take Two, maybe they could do some sort of white knight offer; however, I can't imagine their existing shareholders (or lenders) being too pleased with two acquisitions in quick order in this climate.
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6193619.html?part=rss&tag=gs_news&subj=61936...
Interesting article here about Activision/Blizzard. Particuarly the last paragraph.
Personally, I think it's a bit too soon to get hopeful, there's a lot of organizing needed after a merger, but the ball isn't quite out of the court yet...