[RLacey]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Of course everyone in the industry will be against the transaction, but when it passes through, no one can do anything about it. Do you remember what Ubisoft's CEO's answer was at the very begginning? It was something like No way in hell would I sell. Now he says he is willing to do it. If the CEO himself says that, what can everyone else do?
Everyone was complaining and whining about the NFL licence, but then Madden sells like it never sold before this year. We are definitely not at a stage were EA is a monopoly, but at the rate they are going, they sure are not far from becoming one. They just bought the biggest publisher in the cellphone games market (Jamdat).

The Ubisoft CEO has no say in the sale of the company. After all, he isn't a majority shareholder.

I can understand your concern, meanwhile, but buying a mobile publisher is expansion into a new market, not domination of an old one.

As for being against huge companies that control large sectors of life, I'd be more worried about, say, Procter & Gamble or Unilever...

[Junkface]

Originally Posted by RLacey

Why does one need to beware of Vivendi? Or are people just going to go into a "BECUASE THEY DON'T MAKE ADVENTURE GAMES!!!!!1one!" rant?

Yeah, this is really something I don't understand. Vivendi may not be all that great, but they're not pure evil either, just pretty mediocre. And on the whole Sierra thing, Sierra was ****ed for a fair while before Vivendi got involved if I remember correctly. Those bastards at EA, on the otherhand, killed Origin (and others who I don't remember right now)...

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by RLacey

The Ubisoft CEO has no say in the sale of the company. After all, he isn't a majority shareholder.

I can understand your concern, meanwhile, but buying a mobile publisher is expansion into a new market, not domination of an old one.

As for being against huge companies that control large sectors of life, I'd be more worried about, say, Procter & Gamble or Unilever...

But the shareholders might want a takeover because it is of their interest. Same thing happened with peoplesoft a few months back, where the CEO actually did not want to sell, but the shareholders overruled him.

Originally Posted by article

"We are not safe from a hostile action from Electronic Arts, which it would be difficult to block if they make a genuinely interesting offer," Guillemot told the newspaper.

Suggesting that the company had "clearly demonstrated its value to industry players" and that any acquisition offer would not be a cheap deal, Guillemot added "I doubt that our shareholders could be won over by a cut price."

A successful takeover bid would certainly benefit shareholders and all employees who own company shares, as the price rose steeply based purely on the rumour and possibility of an EA acquisition deal. Share price climbed from EURO 1.36 and settled at EURO 42.40 at the close of business yesterday.

And I am not saying that there are no worse companies than EA in other industries, but in the video game industry, I think they are currently the most evil.

[Fop]

Awesome companies that EA ate and destroyed:
Origin
Bullfrog
Westwood
Maxis

When EA takes over a company, that's the end of that company.
When Take 2 takes over... Well, Civilization 4 is the best one yet. It may not be all puppies and butterflies, but it's not certain death.

[GED X-42]

There's an interview with Ken Levine of Irrational about the deal over at IGN

http://pc.ign.com/articles/679/679870p1.html

Anything that means that Irrational now have the money to make Bioshock even cooler sounds good to me.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

But the shareholders might want a takeover because it is of their interest. Same thing happened with peoplesoft a few months back, where the CEO actually did not want to sell, but the shareholders overruled him.

So the CEO wanting to sell - if he actually does, rather than simply saying that he will entertain offers - is entirely irrelevant .

And I am not saying that there are no worse companies than EA in other industries, but in the video game industry, I think they are currently the most evil.

Oh, I can understand the EA-hatred (though I'm not quite sure I'd describe them as "evil"). I am curious as to why people are so vehemently slating Vivendi, though ...

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by RLacey

So the CEO wanting to sell - if he actually does, rather than simply saying that he will entertain offers - is entirely irrelevant .

It was the second part of the article quote that I wanted you to read

Originally Posted by article

A successful takeover bid would certainly benefit shareholders and all employees who own company shares, as the price rose steeply based purely on the rumour and possibility of an EA acquisition deal. Share price climbed from EURO 1.36 and settled at EURO 42.40 at the close of business yesterday.

At the end of the day, if I'm a shareholder of UBISOFT and my stock will go up if EA buys them out, I would definitely support a hostile takeover. Most people buy the stocks of a company to make money and not for a noble cause or the good of mankind. I saw the same thing with Oracle buying Peoplesoft (since I work in that business). In that case, Peoplesoft CEO was actually strongly against a takeover but the shareholders overruled him, because they saw better potential with the Oracle stock. It's a business at the end of a day, and from a business perspective, an EA stock might be worth more than a Ubi one.

Originally Posted by RLacey

Oh, I can understand the EA-hatred (though I'm not quite sure I'd describe them as "evil"). I am curious as to why people are so vehemently slating Vivendi, though ...

When I say evil, I mean hurtful to the gaming industry, to smaller independent devs, killer of originality, sequel churner, killer of competition, monopolizing. "Evil" in the business sense if you know what I mean. Hell even their employees are suing them But they might be "good" for the execs in the company, and the shareholders of the stock.

[Lucien21]

Interestingly in related news.

EA RENEWS SYSTEM SHOCK TRADEMARK

More than five years after the last game in the series was released, Electronic Arts has renewed its ownership rights to the "System Shock" name.

EA's application to register the trademark made mention of the fact that it was to apply to "a computer game that may be accessed network-wide by network users" or "an online computer game accessed and played via mobile and cellular phones and other wireless devices," interestingly.

EA published System Shock 2 in 1999, but since then there's been no word of a sequel. That said, developer Irrational Games is currently hard at work on BioShock, which is billed as something of a follow-up. BioShock will be published by 2K Games on PC and next-gen consoles in 2007, following Take-Two's acquisition of Irrational.

So is EA planning to release a true sequel that will compete with BioShock? Or are they simply taking care of business and renewing the trademark just in case? Seems more likely that it's the latter, but no one at EA was available for comment at the time of writing. We'll keep you posted

Coincidence it happens on the same day.