Gamers, let me direct you to slide 24 of Zelnick's presentation, "Potential Untapped Opportunities."

• Next to "MMOG/Online Gaming" we've got "Civilization" and "BioShock" listed under the column "Potential Take-Two Opportunities.

• Next to "Traditional Media (Film/DVD)" we've got "BioShock" as a "Potential Take-Two Opportunity."

So... should those opportunities remain untapped, "BioShock" and "Civ" fans? Or do you want Take-Two to tap away?

The release states:

The Board also confirmed that it will explore alternatives to maximize value for stockholders, which may include a business combination with third parties or with EA, remaining independent, or other strategic or financial alternatives that could deliver higher stockholder value than the current EA offer.

One interesting bit identifies what Take-Two actually would expect out of a combined EA-TakeTwo:

Potential synergies related to a proposed combination include: realizing a sales uplift as a result of a broader reach of distribution infrastructure; leveraging investments in online, wireless and other evolving platforms; optimizing sports offerings; and reducing sales, general and administrative costs significantly.

Take-Two goes on at much greater length about the rejection in this official press release.

Ken Levine, lead creator of the original will have a hand in 2009's "BioShock 2." Primary development of the game, however, won't be done by Levine's team at 2K Boston, but by the newly formed 2K Marin.

"Ken is a terrific asset in the company," CEO Ben Feder stated. "He's a brilliant game developer. We're really excited to have him. He will be working on 'BioShock 2' and he will be working on a new IP. A lot of the work will be done at 2K Marin, but that's not to say that Ken is not involved. We think he's critical to 'BioShock' and he's critical to new IP in the company."

On 2K Boston and 2K Australia, the studios behind the first game: "They're working on another game."

Other news from Take-Two's earnings call, including bits about Rockstar and the EA buy-out attempt follow...

Take-Two chairman Strauss Zelnick reiterated that EA's proposal "undervalues the company" and "wasn't in the best interest" of Take-Two's stockholders.

Zelnick explained that the company was willing to talk to EA after the release of "Grand Theft Auto IV" on April 29, but EA refused to comply and went public with the offer last month. Other than that, no new information was given.

However, there was information offered on some upcoming titles from Take-Two:

• A question was asked about Rockstar's pipeline. With two titles out this year, one being "GTA IV," we can expect "at least one major triple-A title sequel coming out of Rockstar in 2009."

• Other titles for Fiscal 2009 include, "Borderlands," "Mafia 2," "GTA IV" episodic content for the Xbox 360, several Nick Jr. titles and recurring sports titles.

• Key titles in the 3rd quarter of 2008: "Sid Meier's Civilization Revolution," "Top Spin 3," "Don King Presents: Prizefighter" and "Carnival Games" on the DS.

• Key titles in the 4th quarter of 2008: "Midnight Club: Los Angeles," "NBA 2K9," "NHL 2K9," "Carnival Games: Mini-Golf" for the Wii and "GTA IV" episodic content for the Xbox 360.

The blogosphere has been digging deep into EA's public attempt to purchase Take-Two Interactive, but while most of the world is wondering "what's next?," Multiplayer figured it was worth a trip into the past, too.

How did a company responsible for some of our industry's most influential and controversial video games become a source of financial instability and a revolving door of managerial problems?

Take-Two emerged in 1994 with FMV-heavy adventure game "Hell: A Cyberpunk Thriller" (a project we're sure Dennis Hopper was quick to forget) and 3D space combat title "Star Crusader." Both actually appeared on the ill-conceived 3DO platform.

Their first notable move -- in retrospect, at least -- came during the release of 1996's "Grand Theft Auto" from then-DMA Design (who they eventually purchased in 1998, when picking up BMG Entertainment's games division). Knowing how big the series would eventually become, the box art's description of the game is especially funny:

"Grand Theft Auto -- Murder, road rage, pimping, bank raids, hijacking, armed robbery, extortion, adultery, smuggling, petty thievery, drug busts, police bribes, unlawful carnal knowledge and double parking!"

I wonder if they'll bring back pimping in "Grand Theft Auto IV"?

While Take-Two is best known for "GTA" these days, that hasn't always been the case. Read on for more about how Take-Two became the Take-Two of today, and a look at the strangely simultaneous rise of "GTA" and corruption within the publisher's upper echelons.

The PC realm would prove one of Take-Two's strongest assets in the early years; in 2000, they acquired Gathering of Developers after more than a year of flirtation. GoD's track record was mixed. Gamers did see "Max Payne" and "Mafia" come from the outfit. Then again, so did "K.I.S.S.: Psycho Circus." D'oh.

Between the release of the original GTA and the sequel that would forever put the series on the map, Take-Two was also responsible for working alongside one of the industry's biggest present-day shakers, Bungie Studios. Take-Two published beat 'em up "Oni" in January 2001; less than six months later, Microsoft purchased Bungie to work on "Halo" for Xbox's launch.

In October 2001, however, everything changed: "Grand Theft Auto III" was released. The release itself came and went without much fanfare, but it didn't take long for word of mouth to springboard the open-world crime fest to the top, with the game going on to sell over 12 million copies worldwide, establishing itself as one, if not the, most important IPs in gaming.

Not-so-coincidentally, this parallels periods when Take-Two's financials headed into shady territory. As reported in the excellent post-Hot Coffee Fortune magazine article "Sex, Lies and Videogames," Take-Two's publicly reported sales figures didn't match with those of the NPD Group. In the months and years to follow, as company shares skyrocketed with every new GTA, more and more disturbing financial issues and management shakeups cropped up.

The highlights include the obvious dollar signs around the releases of "GTA: Vice City" and "GTA: San Andreas," but also a seemingly never-ending revolving door in upper management. This includes ex-CEO Ryan Brant pleading guilty to stock backdating and not only receiving five-years probation but incurring a fine to the tune of $7.26 million. Jeff Lapin left the CEO spot in April 2004 for no discernible reason. Paul Eibler, voted worst CEO of 2005 by MarketWatch, held the position until last March, when the shareholders fired him and replaced him with Benjamin Feder, who remains the head of Take-Two today, albeit Executive Chairman Strauss Zelnick is traditionally seen as the figurehead of the company.

Yet, none of those issues even touches on the Securities and Exchange Commission investigation pressing Take-Two to restate financial results for the seven quarters prior to February 2002, and later forced to restate everything during 1999 to 2003. Oh, and there was that whole Hot Coffee scandal in the summer of 2005, where an Entertainment Software Ratings Board inquiry and looming governmental action had Take-Two restocking shelves with modified versions of "GTA: San Andreas," and spending millions refunding customers.

Now, EA is making a move towards a buyout, but this is little shock to Take-Two. They've been at the negotiation table with EA before, and the primary reason Eibler was ousted was a failure to find someone to acquire the company. Soon, shareholders may finally get their wish, but the implications are vast. Multiplayer has been exploring these implications since news broke on Sunday, including a look at EA's past acquisitions, what analysts think of the move and EA's surprisingly open conversation with consumers.

It's certainly been a bumpy road for Take-Two. So far, BioWare and Pandemic Studios seem to be happy under the EA's corporate umbrella. Do you think the rebellious Rockstar North will, too?

Oh, and we should point out the most overlooked implication of this deal: EA would be responsible for publishing "Duke Nukem Forever."

First of note for gamers is that Riccitiello said "I wouldn't change a line of code in 'BioShock' nor would I in 'GTA' or 'Max Payne'... what we would do is sell more of it." He said EA's distribution network could get those games in places Take-Two doesn't reach.

He also said the purchase was enticing for EA because his current company is "underrepresented in M-rated content." Getting the creators of "GTA," he noted, would suddenly give EA the top M-rated content in the world.

Riccitiello also name-checked Sid Meier of Firaxis and Greg Thomas of 2K Sports studio Visual Concepts and as valued members of Take-Two. Regarding the potential combination of EA and Take-Two's sports business, Riccitiello said that he thought highly of Thomas but that "in terms of the sports business, from any sort of organizational perspective, we think it is way too early to comment." He also shot down the idea that the purchase would leave EA without competition in sports, naming "Wii Sports" and "Hot Shots Golf" among the company's apparent rivals.

The lion's share of Riccitiello's praise during the call was for the top men at Rockstar Games, whose distinct publishing labels were cited as an inspiration for EA's current structural division. Financial analysts on the call tried to get Riccitiello to address their feelings that it would be expensive to bring Rockstar Games' management into the EA fold, but the EA CEO said the conference call wasn't the proper forum to discuss how EA could pull that off.

Riccitiello did reveal that EA's interest in Take-Two goes back quite a bit. He said that his first inquiry into Take-Two began last summer and noted that he put the brakes on an attempt by EA to buy Take-Two when he took his CEO spot at EA last April. "At the 11th hour I recommend the board not to pursue it," he said. He felt his own company needed to shift its own structure into its current four-division set-up before taking on Take-Two.

Riccitiello and CFO Warren Jenson also stated on the call that they were surprised at Take-Two's rejection of EA's offer. "It is our objective to make this a friendly deal," Jenson said. They said they expected someone to buy Take-Two, whether it's EA or not.

(On a side note, tomorrow will mark one year since Riccitiello was announced as the next CEO of EA, though he didn't assume the position until April. The executive has written quite a first year for himself at the publishing giant. )

EA has also put up a website answering some of our questions about what it would do with Take-Two; we also got Wedbush Morgan Securities analyst Michael Pachter to comment on what he thinks is an inevitable purchase.

Clearly, this possible merger concerns gamers. EA has been criticized for buying small development studios with successful IPs, only to have them produce second-rate titles following the acquisitions. The company has also been known to close down acquired studios if their titles don't sell well.

In fact, at the DICE Summit held in early February, we reported that EA CEO John Riccitiello admitted that EA "blew it" when it came to keeping top-notch studios such as Origin, Bullfrog and Westwood prosperous; all three studios are now defunct.

With that in mind, we decided to put together an overview of EA's previous development studio purchases:

• 1991: Distinctive Software (now EA Canada); purchased for $11 million

• 1992: Origin Systems (now defunct)

• January 1995: Bullfrog Productions (now defunct)

• 1996: Manley & Associates (became EA Seattle, now defunct)

• July 1997: Maxis (folded into EA Redwood Shores)

• 1998: Tiburon Entertainment (now EA Tiburon)

• August 1998: Westwood Studios (now defunct); purchased for $122.5 million

• November 1999: Kesmai (now defunct)

• February 2000: DreamWorks Interactive (now EA Los Angeles)

• June 2002: Black Box Games (now EA Black Box/EA Canada)

• October 2003: Studio 33 (now EA North West)

• February 2004: NuFx (became EA Chicago, now defunct)  [Thanks, guest.]

• August 2004: Criterion Software; purchased for a rumored 40 million pounds ($79 million)

• July 2005: Hypnotix (now part of EA Tiburon)

• December 2005: JAMDAT Mobile (now EA mobile); purchased for $680 million

• June 2006: Mythic Entertainment (now EA Mythic)

• August 2006: Phenomic (now EA Phenomic)

• October 2006: Digital Illusions CE; approx. $24 million

• November 2006: Headgate Studios (now EA Salt Lake)

• January 2008: BioWare Corp./Pandemic Studios; purchased for $620 million

Is Take-Two Interactive next?

Who is this EA-Take Two deal good for? What would happen with sports and the cost of sports games? And why does he think Rockstar won't necessarily be a part of the deal?

Pachter broke it down for me…

Multiplayer: Is this a good deal for EA? Good for Take-Two?

Michael Pachter: Probably yes and yes.

The EA side is a little more complicated… Take-Two is a company that hasn't made money in a couple of years. It doesn't have a lot of cash and I think it was a stretch to earn the money they earned this year… They [ultimately] earned about a dollar a share this year. EA is offering them 26 times that. It would take a lot of time to turn that around. They make a lot of money when they make 'Grand Theft Auto' and they don't when they don't make 'GTA.' Their delusion that they will compete in sports -- and the reason I say delusion is because EA's done everything they can to put the squeeze on them -- ultimately I think Take-Two would have to get out of that business. 'GTA' is a great asset. 'Civilization' is a great asset. The Irrational guys, 'Midnight Club.' And the rest of the guys, who knows…

Multiplayer: So what about sports? How would getting that part of Take-Two help EA?

Pachter: EA looks at this business and says, 'We could make two basketball games, two hockey games, two baseball games... [but] we're just going to make one of each. … We have a better marketing machine so maybe we can do $300 million instead of $200 million.' I think that's rational …

Take-Two does $200 million in sales. EA does a billion-plus. If you combine them together EA sales will go up more than that combined number because they won't cut price -- you won't see basketball games come down [in price] before Christmas ever again.

Multiplayer: How do you see it playing out? Is it inevitable that EA will buy Take-Two? Or can Take-Two effectively block them?

Pachter: EA started talking to them a long time ago, a year ago, they told me today. EA and Take-Two had a discussion about the acquisition in December. EA made an offer on February 6. [A second offer was made on February 19.] There won't be another offer because there's no other video game company that gets the sports position. There's no media company that will see sports as possible.

Multiplayer: So is there any way for Take-Two to stop EA from getting their way?

Pachter: I don't really think so, unless Take-Two shareholders think the stock is worth $40. But nobody is going to offer to buy it at $40.

Multiplayer: What role do you see Rockstar playing in this?

Pachter: 'GTA' is clearly a wonderful asset, worth a ton. The problem is that to make 'GTA' the way it has in the past you need to engage the Rockstar North guys. They're not going to want the same deal as what they have now.

Multiplayer: So is Rockstar a dealbreaker?

Pachter: It's not a dealbreaker. EA would love to hire them. But it's a separate negotiation. I think the 'Civilization' -- Firaxis guys -- will work with [EA].

Multiplayer: Can you explain what it means that EA would be going public like this? Is that a sign of strength or desperation or something else?

Pachter: It's quite similar with what Microsoft did with Yahoo… You go public when you want the court of public opinion to make a decision. I think EA is saying, '$25 was a fair offer. We'll go to $26 but we're not going any higher.' I think the vast majority of Take-Two shareholders will jump at this. I don't see a white knight. I don't think Take-Two will be able to do anything to block this.

Multiplayer: Thanks for taking time out of brunch to talk to me today. Enjoy the rest of your Bloody Mary.

Pachter: I'm eating celery now…

Multiplayer: Cool. Well let me know the next time you're having brunch at that yacht club. I'll clear my schedule to do some work.

• Would this deal mess with the makers of "Grand Theft Auto"? EA asks and answers as follows:

Do you intend to kill or restrict any of the R* franchises?
We strongly believe that behind all the controversy is a core of great intellectual property and development talent. These titles don’t sell millions because they’re controversial; they sell because they’re great games. We have no plans to change that.

• But doesn't EA already have a sports division? So wouldn't this crush Take-Two's baseball, basketball and hockey franchises?

Would you kill 2K Sports?
Any integration starts with our respect for the teams and people that make great games. Beyond that, it’s too early to discuss plans for managing Take-Two.

• EA just bought Pandemic and BioWare, so why reach for Take-Two now?

Why now?
We’ve waited to ensure that our proposal did not disrupt development on GTA IV. The game is scheduled to launch in about two months, which means the core development should be essentially complete.

At the same time, the reorganization of the EA Labels is basically done and our newest studios – BioWare and Pandemic – are settling in. Under the reorganization, creative teams at EA have a new sense of freedom and responsibility. There are more brand-new titles in development today than at any time in our history.

Finally, this is a good time to align our publishing strengths to Take-Two’s game roster. A timely integration would give a big boost to Take-Two’s games that are scheduled for release later this year and for their entire catalog leading into the holidays.

Okay, gamers, time for you to weigh in. Which games' fates and which studios' futures are you most curious about?

Video game publisher Electronic Arts announced today that it is attempting to buy Take-Two Interactive, publisher of "Grand Theft Auto," "BioShock" and the 2K Sports line in a stock purchase valued at $2 billion.

The announcement stems from a post-Valentine's Day February 15 rejection by Take-Two Interactive executive chairman Strauss Zelnick of EA's initial offer and a subsequent rejection of a second one offered on February 19.

As a result EA is taking the issue public. CEO John Riccitiello said in today in a press release detailing the deal: "Our all-cash proposal is a unique opportunity for Take-Two shareholders to realize immediate value at a substantial premium, while creating long-term value for EA shareholders. Take-Two’s game designers would also benefit from EA’s financial resources, stable, game-focused management team, and strong global publishing capabilities."

EA's attempt to purchase Take-Two Interactive comes less than three months after Activision and Vivendi announced their plans to merge into a company called Activision Blizzard in a deal valued at $18.9 billion.

We've put in requests for comment to Take-Two and Rockstar. EA will be holding an 8AM eastern time tomorrow to further discuss the company's hopes for its planned purchase.

[UPDATE: Feb 24, 5:11PM ET]

In response to EA's online charm offensive seemingly aimed at Take-Two Interactive's stockholders, the Board of Directors at Take-Two has issued a press release detailing their rejection. Calling the $26 per share offer "inadequate inadequate in multiple respects and not in the best interests of Take-Two's stockholders," they say that EA's proposal "substantially undervalues" their company.

Regarding "GTA IV" Take-Two's Zelnick stated: "We offered to initiate discussions with EA on April 30th, 2008 (the day after 'Grand Theft Auto IV' is scheduled to release). We believe this offer demonstrated our commitment to pursuing all avenues to maximize stockholder value, while we believe that EA's refusal to entertain this path is evidence of their desire to acquire Take-Two at a significant discount, whereas we believe this value rightly belongs to our stockholders."