Big Changes Coming to Take-Two?

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
Big Changes Coming to Take-Two?


The next few days could be very interesting for Take-Two Interactive [http://www.take2games.com/] as shareholders elect three representatives of investor Carl Icahn to the company's board of directors, which could herald some major changes to the way the company makes games.

second-largest shareholder [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Icahn] in December 2009 and quickly moved to consolidate his position. In exchange for agreeing to vote for the company's nominated board of directors at the 2010 shareholder meeting, three current members agreed not to stand for re-election so that Icahn's people, including his son Brett, could take their place.

That meeting is now just two days away and so, quite possibly, are big changes for Take-Two. The company has a problem: It only earns a profit in years when a new Grand Theft Auto is released. During the 2008 fiscal year, which saw the release of Grand Theft Auto IV [http://www.rockstargames.com/iv], the publisher had a net income of $97 million on revenues of $1.54 billion; the following year, it lost $138 million on sales of $969 million and another loss, albeit it small, is expected this year.

"We have a worldwide distribution and publishing footprint, and in a GTA year that cost basis is fine, but in a non-GTA year it's too high," Chairman Strauss Zelnick said in an interview with the L.A. Times [http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-taketwo13-2010apr13,0,2531760.story]. "We need to get bigger."

It needs to get faster, too. Take-Two is famous for building quality games and franchises, and for taking its sweet time in doing so. "We can make quality video games and release them in a somewhat more orderly fashion than we have done historically," he continued. "We'll stop short of a strictly annual schedule, however, because I think that is the enemy of pushing the envelope creatively."

This is where Icahn becomes a factor. Hardcore gamers are looking forward to the upcoming L.A. Noire [http://www.rockstargames.com/reddeadredemption/] but while they may be excellent, their development times far exceeded that of "typical" games, leading analysts to predict that they will never be profitable. Likewise, Take-Two itself cannot be profitable until it shortens those development cycles.

Will Icahn's people settle for a "somewhat more orderly fashion," or will they push hard for a more rigid (and successful) annual release schedule akin to that of industry rival Activision [http://www.activision.com]? Take-Two's boardroom has seen more than its share of drama in recent years and for better or worse, it doesn't look like it's going to end anytime soon.


Permalink
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
Are they saying that most of their games do not make a profit or that GTA games are so expensive that they drag down profits in every year apart from the ones where they are released? Hopefully games like Civilization are profitable and will not be canned just because their budget is smaller than GTA games.
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
Well, change is not always a bad thing. I just hope at the end of it the bloodshed is kept to the min...and, if anything it makes it get better and better.

Nothing worse than a reshuffle which caused more trouble than it cured
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
More Fun To Compute said:
Are they saying that most of their games do not make a profit or that GTA games are so expensive that they drag down profits in every year apart from the ones where they are released? Hopefully games like Civilization are profitable and will not be canned just because their budget is smaller than GTA games.
The GTA games are so hugely profitable that they can carry the company in the years they come out. Games like BioShock, Manhunt, Bully, Midnight Club, etc., are excellent games and popular with core gamers, but they take so long to make that they can never recoup their cost. It took five years to make Red Dead Redemption; it may be a great game but in business terms, that's just way too long.
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
The GTA games are so hugely profitable that they can carry the company in the years they come out. Games like BioShock, Manhunt, Bully, Midnight Club, etc., are excellent games and popular with core gamers, but they take so long to make that they can never recoup their cost. It took five years to make Red Dead Redemption; it may be a great game but in business terms, that's just way too long.
It's just I remember that they said the budget of GTA4 was something like 100 million so the GTA team burns through something like, I guesstimate, 20-30 million a year in years when there is no GTA release. I think that they would have to release a lot of normal size hit games to cover for that so they can post a profit in every quarter. Seems like a bit of a curate's egg for an investor so I'm worried that they would do something like kill Civ 5 and make GTA annual.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
The trouble is that a "normal" hit doesn't cover the bill when you've spent half a decade or more creating a game. The less time it takes to make a game, the less it costs to make it; so for someone like Activision, who can churn it out in two years, a three-million selling game will probably make some bucks, whereas Take-Two, who blew six years on it, can't get by on that. The problem for gamers is that Take-Two's commitment to quality above all just isn't sustainable, so corners have to be cut; releases come more frequently but they maybe don't have quite the depth or polish that we're used to. But a line has to be drawn somewhere.
 

T'Generalissimo

New member
Nov 9, 2008
317
0
0
It seems like the only way for a developer to be able to finance the sort of attitude that produces awesome games that are ready when they're ready is by having some continuous money making machine. Like Blizzard have with WoW or Valve have with Steam. So, a Grand Theft Auto MMO, maybe?
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
WoW gives Blizzard (and, I suppose, Activision)a LOT of room to play. Steam isn't going to give Valve nearly that degree of invulnerability but I'm sure it provides a degree of flexibility most other studios can only dream of. I hate to admit it and I'm sure others feel the same way, but when it comes to triple-A game development, business considerations have to have equal footing with the creative side. Otherwise, eventually, the bottom drops out.

I think Take Two is fantastic. I love the way Zelnick literally spent years trolling Jack Thompson. And I worry that Icahn is going to seriously crack the whip and force some sweeping changes on the company. But I also have to think that maybe, at this point, it's the right move. What's better, a slightly reduced, more conventional Take Two, or no Take Two at all?
 

Antari

Music Slave
Nov 4, 2009
2,246
0
0
"We need to get bigger." I don't know, I'm fairly wary of this sort of comment. It smells like EA's initial dreams for world domination and chaos. I guess only time will tell.
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
Sticking with Firaxis, they release new titles pretty frequently even if they don't release a major version of Civ every year. They make decent sellers like Civ Revolution that don't have a 100 million dollar budget. Bioshock and Mafia, I have no idea if they have a problem there but I would have thought that Bioshock was profitable at least.

There is something fishy to me about where the money is going to lose them so much and why they say they need to concentrate on GTA scale games. I think that they might have a very expensive marketing, management and PR setup that is right for a major GTA release but is very inefficient for a Civ, Bioshock or Borderlands release.