The machinations of the corporate video game world have become a soap opera of unwelcome attention, would-be suitors, potential partnerships and, of course, undead vampires. While EA's restless pursuit of Take-Two continues (and continues and continues), the latter publisher isn't simply lapping up all the attention. No, Take-Two is on the lookout for potential partners, and have their "eyes open to anything to maximize stockholder value, including remaining independent."
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 (30)
Posted: Jun 10th 2008 12:45PM (Unverified) said
Hmm the lesser of 2 evils I guess...
I'd rather have Ubisoft than EA. Thats just me though.
Reply
I'd rather have Ubisoft than EA. Thats just me though.
Posted: Jun 10th 2008 1:38PM (Unverified) said
EA to Take Two:
Take Two? Taaake Two? Taaaaaaake Two!
Reply
Take Two? Taaake Two? Taaaaaaake Two!
Posted: Jun 10th 2008 12:51PM Keithustus said
Somehow they're all going to end up being subsidiaries of Taco Bell in the end.
Reply
Posted: Jun 10th 2008 12:54PM (Unverified) said
I like Ubisoft. I like Take Two. I don't like EA. Using that logic, I like this idea very much.
Reply
Posted: Jun 10th 2008 12:58PM (Unverified) said
I'm glad they chose Ubisoft 'cause, quite frankly, EA's games suck.
Reply
Posted: Jun 10th 2008 1:46PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
oh well. at least they have a similar business strategy: "Shaft the Wii LOLZ CASUELZ"
-"superfan" tactics.
Posted: Jun 10th 2008 2:00PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
Posted: Jun 10th 2008 2:08PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
Oh, and Beyond Good and Evil is better than anything EA has ever put out.
Posted: Jun 10th 2008 1:40PM (Unverified) said
Grand Theft Auto: Vegas with Rayman fighting against Big Daddies.
BEST GAME EVAR!
Reply
BEST GAME EVAR!
Posted: Jun 10th 2008 1:52PM Korova Pamplona said
That's what I thought, too!
Grand Theft Horse: Jerusalem Stories FTW!
Reply
Grand Theft Horse: Jerusalem Stories FTW!
Posted: Jun 10th 2008 1:59PM Mr Khan said
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
Reply
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
Posted: Jun 10th 2008 2:31PM (Unverified) said
Screw those European bastards. PLEASE MORE TOM CLANCY BULLSHIT!!!
Activision... Activision...
Reply
Activision... Activision...
Posted: Jun 10th 2008 3:53PM BPMOmega XBL PSN Steam said
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!
Reply
Someone needs to cater to those people who like both sexes!
Posted: Jun 10th 2008 11:50PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.
Featured Stories
The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- Vita 'UMD Passport' won't be offered in US 224 comments
- Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning review: A tempting fate 162 comments
- Blizzard taking Valve to court over 'DOTA' trademark 117 comments
- David Jaffe leaves Eat Sleep Play, layoffs hit developer [Update] 107 comments
- Don't call it a remake: Final Fantasy X is a 'remaster,' to be clear 95 comments









