Why Didn’t Activision Go After Take-Two?

Please wait...

This article was written on an older version of FileFront / GameFront

Formatting may be lacking as a result. If this article is un-readable please report it so that we may fix it.


Published by GameFront.com 11 years ago , last updated 2 months ago

Posted on February 27, 2008, Chris Why Didn’t Activision Go After Take-Two?

bobby-kotick.jpgWe know that Take-Two is a hot commodity in its own way (you have to keep in mind the company’s inability to generate a profit recently), so why is Activision not challenging EA with a Take-Two buyout proposal of their own? Speaking at the Goldman Sachs Technology Investment Symposium 2008 Conference (phew), Activision’s chairman and CEO Bobby Kotick explained that the company didn’t meet Activision’s criteria.

“I think we’ve had – as we’ve said for a very long time, now – well-stated criteria for what we’re interested in in an acquisition,” he said.

“We’ve said that we need a history of profitability, good management, the proprietary technology for a franchise, history of multimillion unit sellers. They would have to be non-dilutive and operating margin accretive.

“And, for us, Take-Two didn’t fulfill those requirements. Maybe it does over the long-term for EA, but it doesn’t for us.”

Kotick believes that his company’s competitors might be reacting to Activision’s merger with Vivendi. (Similar to what NBA fans might have seen happen in recent weeks.)

With the potential for Rockstar to jump ship in 2009 and Take-Two’s struggles, I can’t say I blame Kotick or Activision for being uninterested. With the merger they’ve made with Vivendi, Activision Blizzard seems to be poised to dominate the industry as it stands.

via GamesIndustry.biz

Comments on this Article

There are no comments yet. Be the first!