Forbes details Take-Two's EA alternative: Ubisoft
by Christopher Grant 
{ Jun 10th 2008 at 12:35PM }
Forbes puts the partnership pieces together, arriving at either Activision or Ubisoft. Considering Activision is sorta busy with its own mega-merger, that leaves little ol' Ubisoft. Of course, by "little" and "old" we really mean "big" and "rich" – the publisher apparently has a $1.2 billlion acquisition war chest which still won't get them close to the price Take-Two is holding out for.
So, perhaps a partnership (which we'll immediately begin calling Take-Twobisoft) if not an outright acquisition? There's plenty of delicious corporate synergy to go around, what with Take-Two's stable of strong IPs and Ubisoft's total lack of a sports division. Oh, and remember back when EA couldn't keep its eyes off of Ubisoft? It actually controls close to 25% of the voting shares in the French publisher, making any outside partnership increasingly sticky. The drama!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
ThePerfectCompanion @ Jun 10th 2008 12:45PM
Hmm the lesser of 2 evils I guess...
I'd rather have Ubisoft than EA. Thats just me though.
DjDATZ @ Jun 10th 2008 1:18PM
same here. ubisoft over EA any day.
Jakka @ Jun 10th 2008 1:38PM
EA to Take Two:
Take Two? Taaake Two? Taaaaaaake Two!
NATO_Duke @ Jun 10th 2008 2:08PM
Yeah I like Ubi a lot more than EA. I can respect their practices more and they seem more open to new IP.
Ves @ Jun 10th 2008 7:31PM
My thoughts exactly
FSK405K @ Jun 10th 2008 12:51PM
Somehow they're all going to end up being subsidiaries of Taco Bell in the end.
Skunk Ape @ Jun 10th 2008 12:54PM
I like Ubisoft. I like Take Two. I don't like EA. Using that logic, I like this idea very much.
Chase @ Jun 10th 2008 12:58PM
I'm glad they chose Ubisoft 'cause, quite frankly, EA's games suck.
tactics @ Jun 10th 2008 1:46PM
yeah... and ubi's games are just so great, right? they seem to put out as many great games as ea these days. har har har.
oh well. at least they have a similar business strategy: "Shaft the Wii LOLZ CASUELZ"
-"superfan" tactics.
Chase @ Jun 10th 2008 2:00PM
I'd rather play Vegas 2 than Bad Company, so that's all that matters to me. In the grand scheme of things, Ubisoft is the lesser evil.
Chase @ Jun 10th 2008 2:08PM
Well, 2008 for Ubisoft looks pretty good with Far Cry 2, Prince of Persia, Harvest Moon Online, Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway, and the upcoming Beyond Good and Evil 2.
Oh, and Beyond Good and Evil is better than anything EA has ever put out.
qbix @ Jun 10th 2008 12:59PM
I'll take Ubi over EA any day.
Haggard @ Jun 10th 2008 1:08PM
Same, EA have started churning out fairly original, well made and non-bugtastic games recently.
Ubisoft have gone the opposite direction.
NATO_Duke @ Jun 10th 2008 2:09PM
Haggard, you agreed and then argued the opposite as reasoning.
NATO_Duke @ Jun 10th 2008 2:10PM
oops - didn't see your follow-up.
Haggard @ Jun 10th 2008 2:36PM
Yeah, I must have walked under a few ladders today, clicked the reply button for the second post and yet it still didn't class it as a reply.
Haggard @ Jun 10th 2008 1:10PM
Oops, read your post the wrong way round - therefore I'm changing my opinion to "I respectfully disagree"
lee @ Jun 10th 2008 1:11PM
GO Take-Two!!! viva la révolution!
PojoMofo @ Jun 10th 2008 1:11PM
Take 2bisoft???? I like it!!!
Assassins Theft Auto??? Yes Please!!!
At this point does Take 2 needs to merge??
Jakka @ Jun 10th 2008 1:40PM
Grand Theft Auto: Vegas with Rayman fighting against Big Daddies.
BEST GAME EVAR!
Korova *Pyro aspect* @ Jun 10th 2008 1:52PM
That's what I thought, too!
Grand Theft Horse: Jerusalem Stories FTW!
Benny @ Jun 10th 2008 1:19PM
I say Atari get in on this race. Bah!
PojoMofo @ Jun 10th 2008 1:54PM
Atari has a tough time buying toilet paper right now, let alone acquiring companies
matt247 @ Jun 10th 2008 1:27PM
Microsoft should make an offer since they have a lot of money to spend since Yahoo! didn't take the deal. The money spent would be well worth it to give the 360 a huge advantage in the console war and future ones.
Mr Khan @ Jun 10th 2008 1:59PM
Microsoft hasn't been all that aggressive in the outright acquisition of developer assets, not since they tried and failed to take over SEGA (as they were a major bidder, while SEGA eventually chose to go with Sammy)
None of the big three really have been all that aggressive. Sony has a large stable, but most of those were acquired at least a decade ago, and the last one Nintendo acquired was Monolith Soft, taking it from Bandai-Namco back in 06
Beyond the lack of manufacturer aggression, i don't see such a big multiplatform developer allowing itself to get shoehorned into one platform
Mr Khan @ Jun 10th 2008 2:01PM
A partnership might be more beneficial for creative control, but EA has been reforming itself lately. The only Take Two group that would REALLY suffer under EA's rule would be 2K Sports
MrGuru @ Jun 10th 2008 2:04PM
ubisoft a much better option, and creates a strong market place as a whole game market.
Lorem @ Jun 10th 2008 2:31PM
Screw those European bastards. PLEASE MORE TOM CLANCY BULLSHIT!!!
Activision... Activision...
BPM [MKWii: 2578 3585 8392] @ Jun 10th 2008 3:53PM
I know it's meant to be "Take Twobisoft," but I read it as "Take Two Bisoft." That lead me to thinking they'd be investing in bisexual games. Which would be a different angle, as people are talking about homosexuals are portrayed in games, but never bisexuals.
Someone needs to cater to those people who like both sexes!
googoogachoo @ Jun 10th 2008 11:50PM
How can Take Two choose Ubisoft when EA has a larger offer that they rejected? Seems like a tough sell to the shareholders who are in it ultimately for the money.