EA's Next Big Move: Take-Two? ***YES***

by **Beatboxer** on Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:52 am

Hey, will this be true ?!?!

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/featu ... two/71239/

If yes, will it be good or bad ?!?!

:roll:

YouTube · by **JaoSming** on Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:29 am

Look how awesome Madden is now with no competition......that's sarcasm. I play NFL 2k5 with updated rosters and the current NG maddens can't even hang with it. Buying out the competition brings down the quality of games, especially sports games that are released annually. Even if the entire 2k team starts making Live, it won't matter. If we as a community can do a better job of updating the current gen game than the programmers that get paid to do it, it's not the programmers fault, its their bosses.

basically, this would be the worst thing that could happen to the NBA video game franchise.

by **benji** on Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:24 am

Good darko, can't you people ever read?

GameDaily BIZ speaks with four top game industry analysts who look into their crystal ball to see how EA might react to Activision Blizzard. One analyst sees Take-Two as a good fit.

I mean, don't like, read past the headline or anything:

EA has no interest in TTWO, too much to turnaround, and no guarantee of keeping the talent.

If only someone smert was able to explain this before:

Let's be clear that this isn't even A RUMOR. It's "analysis" from Michael Pachter of Wedbush Morgan Securities, who said that Take Two's stock was low and their finanical situation (being kept afloat by GTA) made it a perfect time for EA to try and buy it. He didn't have "sources" or anything, he was just pontificating (gleefully) on the idea of EA buying out their only real competitor in the sports business.

Too much of all this useless market analysis is being blogged and forumed into rumors anymore.

It's like if Kobe Bryant had a couple bad games, Stephen A. Smith says the Knicks should trade Quentin Richardson for him, then the blogs and forums whip it into "Quentin Richardson for KOBE????" thinking it's something really being discussed.

by **JWL3** on Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:40 am

EA's got deep pockets but shit programmers and developers. They also work them to the bone each year to churn out a new product as opposed to other game developers who allow the programming to dictate the release date and not the date to dictate how much programming to do.

The solution (just like the solution to Isiah Thomas) is to stop freaking buying the game. When they start losing money, perhaps then they'll look at why.

by **Chris_23** on Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:59 am

JWL3 wrote:EA's got deep pockets but shit programmers and developers.

Opinions like yours are the ones that immensely manage to annoy me with their 'expert inside analysis'.

Electronic Arts has amazing development teams among them. EA has likely more talent and people to use than in all of game development. Problem is not the quality of their developers and programmers.

Problem is project management. They disassemble development teams that work on a successful project and move some of them to other - more important for them - projects. This means that EA is able to come out with good mainstream games, but very often they might end up being a hit and miss.

And hit and miss is something EA can afford since even if ten games end up bad, their sales will be 'good enough' and then the eleventh title ends up selling alot and being quite good, and they end up still with more money and on a plus side. Since EA very often deals with mainstream games, they are always bound to sell alot regardless of reviews and opinions.

That's a corporation tactic, nothing we can do about it. The reason why smaller developers are able to produce games of more quality at times is because their team stays together for a longer periods of time and smaller developers need to be very careful about their project funding and development since one failed big-name project means a likely downfall financially. If you're talking about a game project where you are paying around three thousand dollars per month for a small development team (which is a fraction of all potential costs) and at the same time work on publishing and finance testing, then a few years of development will end up with racking up the investment bigtime, making it a risk.

That's a risk EA doesn't have to take, and frankly, they don't really care since they are above that. Yes, we as the fans of NBA basketball will suffer, but it doesn't affect them at all. Boycott buying their games? Won't work, you have no idea how small a fraction NBA Live franchise is for Electronic Arts.