EA trying to take over Take-2

`DG`

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
99
Take-2's board have rejected a takeover bid from EA, so now EA are attempting to put pressure on them by letting shareholders know how much money they could make on the deal. To me it seems an unusual move, normally you go to the board and if they reject you do a hostile takeover (simply by buying a quorum of shares via the stockmarket).

Anyway it's a fair gain for the shareholders and EA seem pretty keen, it's looking like Firaxis is a few steps away from being an EA division.

Personally i'd expect the next Civ to be nerfed, and god knows what they'll do to GTA.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080224/20080224005062.html?.v=1
Spoiler :
Electronic Arts Proposes to Acquire Take-Two Interactive Software for $26 Per Share in Cash, or Approximately $2.0 Billion
Sunday February 24, 2:00 pm ET
Proposal Represents 64 Percent Premium to Take-Two's February 15th Closing Price and 63 Percent Premium to Take-Two's Closing Price Over the Previous 30 Days

REDWOOD CITY, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Electronic Arts Inc. (“EA”) (NASDAQ: ERTS - News) today announced that it has proposed to acquire Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (“Take-Two”) (NASDAQ: TTWO - News) in an all-cash merger valued at approximately $2.0 billion.

ADVERTISEMENT
EA’s proposal of $26 per share in cash represents a premium of 64 percent over Take-Two’s closing stock price on Feb. 15th, the last trading day before EA sent its revised proposal to Take-Two, and a 63 percent premium over Take-Two’s 30-day trailing average price over the thirty trading days ending on that date.

EA’s proposal was contained in a letter sent on Feb. 19th by EA Chief Executive Officer John Riccitiello to Strauss Zelnick, Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors of Take-Two. The Take-Two Board’s subsequent rejection of the EA proposal led to EA’s decision to release the letter and bring its proposal to the attention of all Take-Two shareholders.

Mr. Riccitiello said today: “Our all-cash proposal is a unique opportunity for Take-Two shareholders to realize immediate value at a substantial premium, while creating long-term value for EA shareholders. Take-Two’s game designers would also benefit from EA’s financial resources, stable, game-focused management team, and strong global publishing capabilities.”

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.

As noted in EA’s Feb. 19th letter, EA’s proposal is not conditioned on any financing requirement. It is, however, subject to certain customary conditions as set forth in the letter. EA’s $26 per share proposal is based on the current equity capitalization of Take-Two. Although EA indicated in the letter that its proposal was subject to negotiations commencing by Feb. 22nd, EA intends to keep its proposal open for the present to give Take-Two’s shareholders and Board of Directors further time to consider it.

The full text of EA’s letter to Take-Two follows:

February 19, 2008

Mr. Strauss Zelnick
Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
622 Broadway
New York, NY 10012

Dear Strauss:

Thank you for your letter of February 15, 2008. While I appreciate its courteous tone and value our ongoing dialogue, I am disappointed that you have rejected Electronic Arts Inc.’s (“EA’s”) $25 per share cash offer to acquire Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (“Take-Two”) and declined to engage in the friendly negotiations we proposed. We continue to believe that an acquisition of Take-Two by EA is in the best interests of your shareholders, employees and other constituents, and we remain interested in acquiring Take-Two. So, to further demonstrate our seriousness and encourage you to move forward now, I am writing to increase EA’s offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Take-Two to $26 per share in cash. This offer is subject to Take-Two agreeing by February 22, 2008 to commence negotiation of a definitive merger agreement and to permit EA to commence a limited due diligence review of Take-Two.

Our revised all-cash offer represents a 64% premium over Take-Two’s most recent closing price and a 63% premium over Take-Two’s 30-day trailing average price (based on prices as of market close on Friday, February 15th). We believe our offer represents a unique and compelling opportunity for Take-Two shareholders to maximize the value of their investment in the company, with materially lower risk than if Take-Two proceeds on a stand-alone basis.

We also believe that the transaction we are proposing represents a uniquely attractive opportunity for Take-Two’s creative teams and key employees. EA is a diversified leader with well-established franchises and proven intellectual properties, global reach, and significant financial resources. I know we both agree that Take-Two’s talented creative teams deserve a permanent home within a stable and growing publisher that provides these teams an environment to do what they do best – create great games. EA is organized in a four-label model that provides our creative teams the autonomy they need to fully realize their creative ambitions, while also providing a stable and supportive corporate and publishing infrastructure which allows them to best address the global marketplace. We have the resources to make the significant investments in technology and infrastructure needed for the most creative and innovative games in the industry. In short, a combination with EA would provide Take-Two’s studios and employees a combination of the right resources for investment and global reach, and the right environment to do their best work.

We believe that Take-Two’s shareholders would not be well-served by any further delay in negotiating and completing the proposed merger. While the videogame industry remains an attractive, high-growth business, the challenges and risks in the business are escalating, and the need for scale is becoming more pronounced. Despite steps taken since March 2007, Take-Two remains dependent on a limited number of titles, and has limited capital resources. In addition, Take-Two faces ongoing financial, legal and operating issues and a very intense competitive environment. Given these factors, we believe it will be increasingly difficult for Take-Two to create sustainable shareholder value and that Take-Two remains exposed to considerable risk of value loss.

We also believe that any delay in this proposed transaction works against the interest of Take-Two’s shareholders, because:

* There can be no certainty that in the future EA or any other buyer would pay the same high premium we are offering today. We place significant value on the ability to close the transaction relatively quickly so that EA’s strong publishing and distribution network, including our global packaged goods, online and wireless publishing organizations, can positively impact the catalogue sales of GTA IV and also the launch and sale of titles released later this year. We want to work with you and your team to complete the transaction in time to begin realizing its significant marketplace benefits in advance of this year’s holiday selling season.
* We believe Take-Two’s current share price already reflects investor expectations for a strong release of GTA IV as well as the longer-term issues that Take-Two faces. Once GTA IV ships, Take-Two will again be dependent on less-popular titles and face increasing challenges to compete with larger and better-capitalized competitors.
* With GTA IV shipping on April 29, development on this important title must now be essentially complete. We believe now is the right time to complete a transaction with minimal disruption for Take-Two.

We also believe the transaction we are proposing will create value for EA’s shareholders. In addition to the top-line benefits noted above, we can achieve bottom-line benefits by combining Take-Two’s and EA’s corporate and publishing infrastructures and by optimally supporting Take-Two’s creative teams and intellectual properties in EA’s decentralized label structure.

Considerable thought, time and resources have been put forth in developing this offer, and our Board of Directors unanimously supports it. Our offer is not conditioned on any financing requirement. It is subject to the satisfactory completion of a due diligence review of Take-Two, the negotiation and execution of mutually acceptable definitive transaction agreements, and the satisfaction of customary conditions to be set forth in such agreements. We are prepared to move forward immediately with formal due diligence and the negotiation and execution of a definitive merger agreement and believe that with adequate access to the necessary information and people, we can complete both in approximately two weeks. We believe that our due diligence review can be completed with minimal disruption, requiring only limited access to a small number of senior executives of Take-Two and its legal, accounting and financial advisors. We also have prepared a draft merger agreement that we can forward to you immediately.

Our strong preference is to conduct a private negotiation. If you are unwilling to proceed on that basis, however, we may pursue other means, including the public disclosure of this letter, to bring our offer and the compelling value it represents to the attention of Take-Two’s shareholders.

I am available to meet and discuss any and all aspects of this proposal with you and your Board. Again, we believe this proposal represents a unique opportunity to maximize value for Take-Two’s shareholders, and that the combined enterprise would be extraordinarily well positioned to build value for our respective customers, employees, developers and other business partners. We hope that you and your Board share our enthusiasm, and we look forward to hearing back from you by February 22.

Sincerely,

John Riccitiello
Chief Executive Officer


(P.S. wasn't sure where this thread should go, apologies if chose wrongly)
 
GREAT NEWS! Because this means we'll get to see a new Civ game every year with crappy booster packs of nearly no content every 2 months! While they're at it, they will also destroy any chance of modding the game to full potential and, of course, no more SDK releases!

:(
 
The SDK part of your statement isn't necessarily true. EA RTSs have included the same tool that the developers used for creating maps.
 
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Let's make a Petition to stop EA from taking Take-2 over!

I don't think Sid Meir like's this himself.
 
The only good I can see from this is... nope, not even a possible SMAC II ( EA stills owns the SMAC brand ,doesn't it? )....

Oh well ,it looks that Civ V will have 155485628625 x-paks.... :gripe:
 
The SDK part of your statement isn't necessarily true. EA RTSs have included the same tool that the developers used for creating maps.

Those aren't SDKs, it's just a map maker. In the same way that Crysis released its "Sandbox" map maker. It doesn't compile .dlls or allow access to them, it just makes maps. I'm up for learning things though, has EA ever given its developers permission to release an SDK?
 
Call it an SDK or don't. We made the new teams on Kane's Wrath using those tools (with a couple of exceptions where we needed to change the code to support new features - and needed the full source to do it).
 
Wow, EA has such a horrible track record of swallowing company's and ruining their products. Origin was a prime example.
 
They probably want to merge Civ with the Sims. :crazyeye:

-edit- Can't Activision-Blizzard perchuse them? Blizzard has an excellent record for making quality games.
 
Blizzard isn't a publisher anyway, just a studio (two, in fact).

I have no idea how much independence EA usually gives to their studios, compared to Take2. Another thing is support - many people complained about Take2 being too slow issuing patches for what they felt needed to be fixed immediately.
Does anyone know some examples of the respective EA publisher policies? It seems to me that there are lots of people crying out loudly, without having an idea what they're talking about.

I'm not saying EA would be an improvement, just as I don't want to condemn them. But I would be really interested if someone could share a qualified opinion with some reasons on the topic.
 
If EA publishes a game, I don't buy it.

If that means no Civ V, so be it.

There are enough games that have good publishing support.

Then again, Firaxis doesn't really support their games to the end anymore anyways- just to the last XP.
 
I won't buy a Civ game made under EA. They rush games out on a yearly basis and spit out crap 90% of the time. Civ 4 is such a game, Im pretty happy with it if EA decides to wreck the series.

just my opinion....
 
Yeah, I'm not a fan of EA in general, although only really basing that opinion on it's swallowing of Westwood.

The Command & Conquer games went downhill after that.
 
Well. One thing's certain, EA would help generate a lot of money from the Civ franchise. The gameplay might suffer, and the community certainly would... Because they will be spitting out a whole new core game every year or every other year. And they do have a track record of making things harder on modders... They would rather not have a game with some super long shelf life thanks to quality mods, because after a couple years they're usually selling the game for $20 or $40. The prefer to make minor tweaks to the engine, whip/draft (!) some new maps and release a totally new game quite regularly, making it very difficult for quality mods to take root. The core playerbase of their games moves on to the next generation of the game, and much of the modder's work is squandered due to the changes in the game engine. If the mod makers continue on working under the old engine, well then they have a vastly reduced playerbase to work with... And if they try and keep up with the iterations of the game, they can rarely succeed as they're modders... Not teams of paid programmers and level designers. The net effect is fewer, lower quality mods all around, however if you're the type that likes to ensure your games are using all the latest features on your video card, and don't care about free mod content, then this is a good thing for you. A new year, a new Direct X, and a new game from your favourite franchise to make use of it all. It's a very sound business strategy though, you can't argue with that... Regardless of the fact that the modding and replayability of an EA title will take a big hit due to their strategy.
 
Logging in I was bracing myself for at least 5 pages of "omg wtf EA sux", as there is pretty much everywhere else.

anyway, progress update on Bluesnews, the short version of his short version being the quibbling seems to be coming down to price and timing atm.
 
oh crap. I have seen so many of my favorite game companies get swallowed up by the EA black hole. After they swallow the company, they always ruin the game series. So, IF this happens, it is the end of the Civilization series. Oh, they might release v5, but EA will screw it up like they do everything else they touch.

The only good thing I could see happen from all this is that after EA ruins the civilization series, perhaps another company will step in and create a whole new version of a Civ like game that will be even more fun!

Maybe Sid Meier will form another company to do that!
 
They probably want to merge Civ with the Sims. :crazyeye:

LOL. The best quote of the thread.

-edit- Can't Activision-Blizzard perchuse them? Blizzard has an excellent record for making quality games.
I honestly wish they would but I am not holding my breath. It's about as likely as Cryptic purchasing it with some of the money left over from selling CoH/CoV to NCSoft. (but that would be awesome.)
 
Does take-2 own or just publish Firaxis?

If it's Publish- they should consider Stardock or something. They'd do well with that model, and the Stardock and Firaxis devs helped each other out with Civ4 and GC2.

I know some people here consider SDC evil, but it's a lot less evil then EA.
 
Does take-2 own or just publish Firaxis?

If it's Publish- they should consider Stardock or something. They'd do well with that model, and the Stardock and Firaxis devs helped each other out with Civ4 and GC2.

I know some people here consider SDC evil, but it's a lot less evil then EA.
I'm pretty sure 2K owns Firaxis. EA acquiring 2K would be horrible: imagine what Civ4 would be like with 1 or fewer patches.:cry:
 
Top Bottom