Rumor: Activision Hungrily Eying Take Two
- Thread starter Scott Bullock
- Start date
I'm sorry, but that was just stupid. You can do better.Autofaux said:
To quote Tim Minchin's famous beat poem "Storm":
"Science adjusts it?s beliefs based on what?s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
You may now go back to discussing the original topic.
(Does anyone here actually know what economic incentives these two have for becoming partners? Or is this thread forever derailed into Activision hate? Not a bad thing, mind you.)
And yet one can have faith in science.klasbo said:
Although science adjusts its beliefs based on what's observed, people will believe whatever they hell they want regardless of what is fact or not. Thus, why science, or really anything, can be religion. Maybe not organised religion, but still.
Of course, you could quote someone else's poem, if you wish.
Wait, if Activision takes Take Two, that means... Civilization....is going to be owned by Activision.
We cannot let this happen!
We cannot let this happen!
You can, but it is simply not needed. That is the core of why the current paradigm works so brilliantly in explaining the world around us.Autofaux said:
Because people are - on average - ignorant. Noone can have perfect information about anything, and noone can ever hope to understand that information if they had it. We're human. This is why we use a method which does its best to eliminate human interaction and biases: science.Autofaux said:
Science would not be the religion, if that were the case. The faith would be a logical fallacy of the "Argument from Authority" type (Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true). This is not faith in science, this is blind faith in people who do science. This is ignorance.Autofaux said:
I don't think this is the correct thread. Send a PM or start a new thread somewhere else.
It's interesting that through all of this, you didn't think that the original post was not intended to be serious, at all, in the slightest regardless of my thoughts on the issue.klasbo said:
I know it's not the correct thread. You know it's not the correct thread. Why tell me?
He is evil incarnate. Bear witness to the face of the endtimes, we are doomed!Enkidu88 said:Look into those eyes and know the doom of all mankind!Scott Bullock said:
OT: Stay away from T2! You force us to spend enough money your games as it is, why must you try and make us fill your coffers with even more!
That was not pleasant to read. Yeech. And I like Take Two...too. Considering Activision's reputation, I would think this conglomeration would be...too...bad.
Look I can't keep up this commentary if that's going to happen...too...often.
Look I can't keep up this commentary if that's going to happen...too...often.
Honestly, if Take-Two gets bought out, I'd say it's safe to say that we are well into the "games are not an art form, they're a business" route. End of the road will be soulless games that never push the envelope or try to risk their money on something new and exciting. I'm not saying video game publishers should disregard basic business rules, but what I am saying is that maybe they should let rivals be rivals and stop just trying to make money.
Take-Two is successful mainly because they publish games that are risky in some of the more violent things they do, and they're willing to publish new things. With Activision leading the way, things like L.A. Noire in more recent years (and Manhunt in older) would never happen because they don't appeal to the majority gamer market (gun fights in a military setting). I'd say the same thing will happen to Take-Two as what happened with Red Octane: Activision did bad things, ruined the Guitar Hero series, blamed it on Red Octane instead of the actual developer (who hasn't made a good game in years) and then abandoned the series after disbanding the company. It's EA all over again.
Take-Two is successful mainly because they publish games that are risky in some of the more violent things they do, and they're willing to publish new things. With Activision leading the way, things like L.A. Noire in more recent years (and Manhunt in older) would never happen because they don't appeal to the majority gamer market (gun fights in a military setting). I'd say the same thing will happen to Take-Two as what happened with Red Octane: Activision did bad things, ruined the Guitar Hero series, blamed it on Red Octane instead of the actual developer (who hasn't made a good game in years) and then abandoned the series after disbanding the company. It's EA all over again.
That's the beauty of incorporation. It sounds like the head of Take Two has been positioning the company for a buyout by forcing others off the board. When that buyout happens, he'll make a nine-figure profit. And then he's done. That's it. The company he was supposed to be "running" ends up in the clutches of Activision, who will gut employment and run all of their IPs into the ground. Everyone working for Take Two who wasn't also a major shareholder will suffer greatly.Woodsey said:2K is owned by Take Two.raxiv said:I think I'm quite sure Take Two is not 2K.. http://www.take2games.com/ // http://www.2kgames.com/#/Troublesome Lagomorph said:
OT: I can't really see this - if things are going well for your company and you've got a great line-up, would you really sell (for no real reason) to a company who's famous for sucking up companies and IPs, bleeding them dry and then letting everyone go?
That means we'll have an LA Noir 2, 3, 4, and 5 by 2014, and they'll all be carbon copies of GTA4.
Nah, I'm good, thanks.
Nah, I'm good, thanks.