JohnMcLoviin Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 Why is R* still owned by T2? Rockstar would have no problem managing themselves with the kind of money they pull in. I'm sure many R* fans can agree that what Take-Two is doing to the Online part of games from R* is just sad. Like milking the sh*t out of GTA Online and the constant drip-feeding stuff 5+ years after the game came out. Stuff like Arena Wars and After Hours should've been added years ago, and I'm sure T2 played a big part in cutting the Single Player DLC too. I have a feeling RDR Online will have drip-feeding already after this first update. Rockstar needs to break free from T2 or at least have Mr. Zelnick fired, because I think he's gone mad with greed. (If this topic has been posted before, please post a link below and lock this thread.) Link to comment https://gtaforums.com/topic/925236-why-is-rockstar-still-owned-by-take-two/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zello Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) Technically Take Two founded R*... https://web.archive.org/web/20000604162456/http://www.take2games.com/public/news/article.jhtml?articleid=30 Compared to other companies out there Take Two is great sure they do focus on microtransactions a lot but they also give them a lot of freedom. Imagine if R* were owned by EA or Activision It'd be worse. Edited February 21, 2019 by Zello Link to comment https://gtaforums.com/topic/925236-why-is-rockstar-still-owned-by-take-two/#findComment-1070653166 Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMcLoviin Posted February 21, 2019 Author Share Posted February 21, 2019 12 minutes ago, Zello said: Technically Take Two founded R*... https://web.archive.org/web/20000604162456/http://www.take2games.com/public/news/article.jhtml?articleid=30 Compared to other companies out there Take Two is great sure they do focus on microtransactions a lot but they also give them a lot of freedom. Imagine if R* were owned by EA or Activision It'd be worse. I know .. just wish they'd put less focus on microtransactions and more focus on more frequent good-quality content. Link to comment https://gtaforums.com/topic/925236-why-is-rockstar-still-owned-by-take-two/#findComment-1070653175 Share on other sites More sharing options...
just do it bob1 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 11 hours ago, Shluffee said: I know .. just wish they'd put less focus on microtransactions and more focus on more frequent good-quality content. Strauss would like a word with you there pal. Link to comment https://gtaforums.com/topic/925236-why-is-rockstar-still-owned-by-take-two/#findComment-1070653846 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 When it comes to single player Take-Two are really good IMO. They give their studios the time and budget to make the games they want, compared to say EA who can SP games constantly cause they can't be monetised. Multiplayer Take-Two.. not so much. But anyway yea, Rockstar is wholly owned by Take-Two, it'd be very difficult to become independent and it's not like Take-Two would willingly do that. I think there was some talk of the Houser's and Benzies wanting to do it at one point? It came out when the Benzies drama came out if I remember right, but it's clearly not been followed up if there was anything serious in it anyway. Len Lfc and Zello 2 Link to comment https://gtaforums.com/topic/925236-why-is-rockstar-still-owned-by-take-two/#findComment-1070653864 Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMcLoviin Posted February 21, 2019 Author Share Posted February 21, 2019 16 minutes ago, just do it bob1 said: Strauss would like a word with you there pal. Will he give me a lecture about how microtransactions are good for him as a major shareholder in the company? just do it bob1 1 Link to comment https://gtaforums.com/topic/925236-why-is-rockstar-still-owned-by-take-two/#findComment-1070653867 Share on other sites More sharing options...
just do it bob1 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 37 minutes ago, Shluffee said: Will he give me a lecture about how microtransactions are good for him as a major shareholder in the company? you just took the words right out of my f*cking mouth. Spot on. Micro transactions are great for consumers, and "free content" is better than no content at all! Link to comment https://gtaforums.com/topic/925236-why-is-rockstar-still-owned-by-take-two/#findComment-1070653918 Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSantader25 Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 (edited) As much as people like sh*tting on Zelnick I don't think he is the problem in take two. I mean he was aside R* right from the beginning and helped them with multiple lawsuits as well. I believe he is one of the pioneers of GTA's success. I think there are "other" investors we haven't heard of that are the main problem. Edited February 22, 2019 by TheSantader25 Link to comment https://gtaforums.com/topic/925236-why-is-rockstar-still-owned-by-take-two/#findComment-1070654583 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zello Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 (edited) Old blog post from a former R* employee who worked there during the 2000s things have probably changed now though. http://www.cgagamers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=35927 Quote A little digression. The names "Take 2", "Rockstar Games" and whatever else are just labels. It's all one company. Scott was in charge of all web marketing for all company brands. I worked with several other producers that each specialized in one brand or another, but we all worked right next to each other using mostly the same designers and dealing with the same product managers. This is not really a big company secret, but it's just a misconception some people have that there's any practical division within the company. The fact is what label gets slapped on a game - and how much of a marketing push it gets - is purely a function of what type of game it is. In my time, high-end PC games got the Gathering label. High-end console games got the Rockstar label. Everything else was Take 2. (Later, Take 2 decided they wanted to re-brand the "everything else" category as Gotham Games and then Global Star, so they could put "A Take 2 Game" on every game regardless of brand.) Quote The company was being run by twenty- and thirty-somethings who had neither a marketing nor a video game background. There was a large British contingent led by Sam and Dan Houser and Terry Donovan. I've honestly never been clear on their actual titles, but together they ran Rockstar and by extension Take 2 (yes, Take 2 has gone through a succession of CEO's; they all took a back seat, at least in those days, to Sam, Dan and Terry). I do believe Dan was company Creative Director - I interviewed with him before getting my job. Sam, Dan's brother, was one of the company's co-founders and never dealt much with us directly, but was active behind the scenes and at Rockstar North (the GTA developer). Terry was a childhood friend of theirs and ran Rockstar's day-to-day operations. Reporting directly to Terry was another Brit: Jenefer Gross, the company's beautiful but much-feared Marketing Director. Now, keep in mind I'm not "naming names" here - these people have all either appeared in public (via magazine interviews or whatever) or at trade events representing the company in an official capacity. That's the only reason I'm using their real names - no point hiding them. These four people made all of the major decisions at Rockstar and in fact at Take 2. They made most of the minor ones too. All department heads reported directly to one of these people. And that includes the game developers too, who all went through the same headaches we did. There was constant micromanagement of even the most minor issues. A splash page announcing the release date for a minor game like Max Payne for the GameBoy Advance would take days to get approved, going back and forth between directors and requiring multitudes of changes. Every project involved at least four different approvals - Scott, Jenny Gross, Dan Houser, and Terry Donovan. If any one of them requested a change, the project would be sent back. Often they didn't communicate and didn't agree with each other, so we'd do one change only to have someone else up the chain ask us to change it back. Then an argument would inevitably ensue. And when I say "argument", I mean "screaming at the top of your lungs and throwing objects around the office" type of argument. This was not a relaxing environment in which to work. Edited February 22, 2019 by Zello Len Lfc 1 Link to comment https://gtaforums.com/topic/925236-why-is-rockstar-still-owned-by-take-two/#findComment-1070654632 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 Yea I doubt it's run like that these days. Strauss Zelnick came in late 2000's and turned the company around pretty much. Before Strauss Take-Two was the GTA company, when they weren't selling a GTA they were haemorrhaging money basically. His goal when he took over was to fix that, which he's done for the most part. Link to comment https://gtaforums.com/topic/925236-why-is-rockstar-still-owned-by-take-two/#findComment-1070655284 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider-Vice Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 Take-Two did some pretty shady sh*t before Zelnick. IIRC their previous CEO committed securities fraud for a while, and he was caught. Link to comment https://gtaforums.com/topic/925236-why-is-rockstar-still-owned-by-take-two/#findComment-1070655502 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now