EA tried it years ago, and it didn't pan out then.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
| alrightiwill said: The video games industry. Having a few, massive conglomerate companies is always bad for competition. How can any small company compete against the colossal amounts of money that a giant company like this would have? |
The same way they do now? Great content is coming from many different developers and being funded by many different publishers. A merger or buyout between Activision and Take-Two bascially ensures yearly revenue growth which usually leads to bigger dividend yields (which activision offers) and also helps the maintenance of the smaller company (Take-Two) who has typically maxed out in market capitalization and can't take the business any further. This is why buyouts are good, there are bad angles to buyouts as well but I don't see how this particular butout would hurt the industry in any dramatic form.
Take Two is my favorite publisher. They are willing to take chances. They did so with X-Com and they have Battle Born which is very unique. They are the only major publisher that is willing to take any big chances and as far as i'm concerned, they have the best track record. I don't think they will be bought out though.
| archer9234 said: GTA would end up sucking. And be a small game. Acti would never allow the game to take 5 years to be made. |
Blizzard IP's say hello. If Activison give Rockstar the same leeway as Blizzard it wouldn't be so bad but 2K and it's games and IP will probably be shut or sold to other companies piecemeal.
Noooooo.
gergroy said:
If activision wanted to annualize gta, they would just so what they do with call of duty. Hand it off to several different studios instead of just one. Call of duty is actually on a three year dev cycle right now with three different studios working on three different games. It wouldnt be very hard at all to annualize gta.
activision is horrible at driving franchises into the ground. Tony hawk and guitar hero are prime examples of their approach to franchises. Push them hard until every last drop of profit is gone, then drop them. Call of duty is in an obvious decline largely due to franchise fatigue, but do you see activision resting the franchise? Skylanders is also another franchise that is seeing yearly updates and will probably start declining soon. |
I stand corrected as far as ownership of destiny goes.
Lots of franchises end up in the ground due to whatever reason, Activision is attached to two big ones so they automatically don't know what they are doing? Come on, CoD was the biggest gaming series of last generation and the last CoD sold well over 20 million units, not bad for "franchise fatigue". WoW, even with all its lost subscriptions, is still the biggest MMO by far and even more profitable. We could go on and on but until the acquisition takes place we won't know what happens to GTA but I can guarantee you Activision understands that alot of GTA's sales come years after its release. Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero are the only examples of their approach. Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero were mildly upgraded games. Activision somewhat helped the CoD situation by expanding the dev cycle to 3 years instead of two.
If I owned a game that sold over 20 milliomn copies, I sure as shit wouldn't stop releasing it.
elazz said:
Don't think that is possible, some real creative accounting they have. Or some crazy stuff is happening in the company. wouldn't be the first time big corporations would waste their money although I hoped after multiple crisis situations that companies would stop. Nevertheless I think take two is fine, hopefully |
Take Two just lost $35 million for the quarter ending 30th June.
Take Two has not been a healthy company for years sure GTA sells well but 1 game can't keep a multinational running on it's own ans sports games have large licensing costs that make them less profitable on a sales bases than there own IP would be which they don't have much off.
Bioshock Infinite lost money and Borderlands is a Gearbox IP that Take Two publishes but does not own.
kumagawa said:
|
Activision and Blizzard were pretty much co-equal entities in the merger, and they're still largely autonomous entities within the same corporation, which is why the company has both of their names. The Activision side does not have authority over the Blizzard side, and vice versa. Take-Two is far smaller than either company and would not have the same autonomy.
lol if Activision is successful it'll almost be like a Monopoly.
Activision, Blizzard and Take Two are working together
All that's left is really Ubi and Bethesda.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
