Famed Nintendo designer Shigeru Miyamoto (#73) and Activision Blizzard Chairman Bobby Kotick (#72) are the only two video game luminaries to make the Vanity Fair 100, writes Newsweek's N'Gai Croal:

[Miyamoto & Kotick's] respective rankings...sandwiched between architect William McDonough and the aforementioned cybergossip Matt Drudge--are a full 40 spots below where [former CEO Larry] Probst and Electronic Arts placed just a few years ago. (For what it's worth, EA CEO John Riccitiello did not make the list, which may provide more incentive to close that deal with Take-Two.)

 

And this despite the videogame industry tracking to record revenues for the year. We're not sure what the solution is--it's difficult to picture Vanity Fair's silver-haired editor Graydon Carter raiding in WoW, rocking out with Guitar Hero or working out to Wii Fit--but videogame's top talents can't outrank on-their-last-legs performers like Robert De Niro (#59) and Mick Jagger (#61), something's rotten at [deal-making restaurant] Michael's.
 

GP: On the other hand, Sony's Howard Stringer (#39) and Bono (#36), who owns a piece of Pandemic (Mercenaries 2) are also on the list. True, games may not be their primary focus, but still...

At #2 is Rupert Murdoch who owns the game-hatin' Fox News.

As expected, Electronic Arts has once again extended its deadline for Take-Two Interactive stockholders to tender their shares at $25.74. The new deadline is August 18th.

EA is apparently beginning to make some progress in its bid to acquire T2. The game publisher says that 11,741,339 shares have been tendered under the offer, nearly double the amount turned in when the previous deadline expired in late June. That is almost certainly related to T2's sagging share price of late. The stock has been trading below EA's offer price, making the deal more attractive to shareholders. TTWO closed on Friday at 25.04

This morning's EA press release links the extension to the Federal Trade Commission's review of potential anti-trust implications:

Extending the tender offer allows the FTC review process to continue. The proposed transaction is still subject to certain conditions that include regulatory approval. EA retains the right to terminate the offer if the conditions are not satisfied.

Coming up later today: Take-Two's obligatory press release explaining why, in its view, EA's offer is a bad deal for shareholders.

UPDATE: Wow, that didn't take long. In a press release which followed EA's by less than an hour, Take-Two, as expected, slams EA's offer. T2 chairman Strauss Zelnick alludes to "multiple" suitors, but does not name them (Activision? Ubisoft?):

We are fully engaged in a formal process to evaluate strategic alternatives that have the potential to deliver greater value than EA's inadequate offer. As part of this process, we continue to engage in meaningful discussions with multiple parties, a number of whom have been conducting due diligence.

UPDATE: In a lively interview wiith VentureBeat's Dean Takahashi, EA CEO John Riccitiello touches on the T2 deal:

Having clever verbal sword play about Take-Two doesn’t really matter. I’m not really playing for a headline in the New York Times...

 

I don’t think we’ve played a poker hand. We have expressed our interest. We have made a public bid. We are in the Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust review. All of the information has been disclosed. We’re playing it to the way we’ve said we would play it. There have basically been three moves and there have 6,000 articles on it. It’s sort of amusing. I feel a little bit like those strobe light things where it looks like a guy is moving a lot. The flash goes off but the body doesn’t move. Every time a flash goes off, somebody writes a story on it. To be honest with you, the last time there was news was a couple of months ago.

The New York Times' Deal Book blog speculates today that Activision Blizzard may be eyeing an acquisition of Grand Theft Auto publisher Take-Two Interactive.

Electronic Arts, of course, has been chasing T2 for most of 2008 and has a tender offer outstanding. EA's problem, however, is that T2 shareholders just aren't jumping on board so far.

Analyst Mike Hickey of Janco Partners told the Deal Book:

We absolutely believe Activision will take a look at Take-Two. If a competitor is for sale, you take a look, and if EA is your real rival, why wouldn't you stir the pot a little bit?

However, UBS Securities analyst Ben Schachter pooh-pooh any such deal:

It is highly unlikely that Activision would try to outbid EA. They have enough on their plate at the moment.

The oft-quoted Michael Pachter of Wedbush-Morgan had his own opinion:

There are only three players involved — EA, the FTC and the arbs. Is EA likely to withdraw or lower their offer? No, because they want Take-Two. The odds of the FTC not approving the deal on market concentration is virtually zero. And if the arbs want to sell the stock, they'll sell the stock — they don't care what [T2 chairman] Strauss Zelnick thinks the stock is worth.

Variety's Ben Fritz serves up some new info on Activision's recent departure from the ESA, although his interview with CEO Bobby Kotick raises as many questions as it answers.

While Kotick's comments to Fritz seem to indicate that Activision's departure from ESA is only temporary, actions always speak louder than words and the monolithic game publisher is apparently hiring its own exec to handle government relations. That would include things like lobbying and First Amendment issues. 

Here's what Kotick told Fritz:

I said don't view [pulling out of ESA] as anything but time off... With the combined companies [from the merger with Vivendi], the [ESA membership] dues went up enough that I said for it to make sense [to spend that money], we have to make a strategic plan. We don't have that because nobody owns it for us right now.

 

We have our own issues that are not the industry's issues. Our challenges are sufficiently different from other publishers' issues that we need our own point person. We'll have someone soon.

The Activision-specific issues reference by Kotick include Blizzard's enormous WoW subscriptions as well as substantial dealings in China. So, will Activision ever return to the ESA fold? Kotick said:

We'll consider it.

Mike Musgrove of the Washington Post reports that the Activision-Vivendi merger is now official, following a vote by 92% of Activision shareholders to approve the deal.

The new company will be known as Activision Blizzard. We hope to see a new logo unveiled, as opposed to mock-ups, like the one at left, which can found around the web.

Referring to EA's now-former status as the biggest kid on the game industry block, Wedbush-Morgan analyst Michael Pachter told Musgrove:

It's good to have a duopoly instead of a monopoly. This just makes the industry that much more interesting.

An attempt to block Activision's merger with Vivendi has ended with a ruling issued by William B. Chandler III (left), chief judge of the Delaware Court of Chancery.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, the judge has apparently taken notice of what World of Warcraft - one of the leading assets in the merger - is all about.

In denying a municipal pension plan's request for a preliminary injunction which would have put the Activision-Vivendi marriage on hold, Judge Chandler wrote:

In some ways, perhaps, the world of Mergers and Acquisitions is a massively multiplayer role playing game as well. Like in World of Warcraft... the participants in the M&A field take on certain roles, interact in their own community, hone specialized skills, and even develop a unique, somewhat curious vernacular.

 

One particular quest in the world of M&A is disclosure litigation. In the instance of disclosure litigation presently pending before this Court, the world of M&A meets the World of Warcraft.

 

In the role-playing game that is this disclosure litigation, both sides have played their respective roles well. Like any game, this one has rules, and the most essential rule of disclosure is materiality. Because the plaintiff could not establish the materiality of its final three disclosure claims, the motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. . . .GAME OVER.

GP: Very cool, indeed, your honor. Read the full decision here (31-page pdf).

Reporter Mike Musgrove digs into the ESA's recent difficulties in today's Washington Post.

Musgrove brings an interesting perspective to the piece, given that he wrote one of the early profiles of embattled ESA CEO Michael Gallagher last September. In response to Musgrove's questions about losing Activision, Vivendi, LucasArts and id as member companies, Gallagher said:

There are hundreds of trade associations in Washington and virtually all feature member turnover and the ESA is no exception.

Full Disclosure Dept: The ECA is the parent company of GamePolitics…

As reported by Silicon Valley Insider, Take-Two Interactive execs claimed in a conference call this week that they have potential suitors other than EA. Forbes speculates that, if such suitors really exist, they might be Activision or Ubisoft.

GP: Personally, I wonder if it might make some sense for Sony to go after Take-Two. That would make the GTA series a permanent PS3 exclusive, supercharge system sales, and they could sell off the rest.

Meanwhile, GameSpot reports that Evan Wilson, financial analyst with Pacific Crest Securities, told investors that once you get past Rockstar, there's not much to like about T2:

Rockstar has supported this organization for too long and it is right to spend every dollar that it can get from Take-Two for keeping the business alive. Unfortunately, management appears to be doing the same thing without it being nearly as deserved.

 

At the same time as its cost structure is deteriorating, management is telling investors that it is the most efficient organization in the business. That simply is not true. Management talks about having a lean sales, marketing, and corporate infrastructure behind its development talent. We disagree with this as well.

Wilson also dinged Take-Two for missing release schedules and recommended that investors take EA's buyout offer before it disappears:

If it appears that virtually every major game has been delayed, you would be correct.

 

It is starting to appear that the company is back to where it started. After the success of Grand Theft Auto [IV], it will be looking at a bloated cost infrastructure relative to its revenue opportunity, which will likely be further muted by game delays and underperformance.

 

We believe that the risk of EA dropping its bid for [Take-Two] is greater than the reward of EA coming back with a modestly higher bid, and we continue to recommend that investors take profits. EA's $25.74 offer is more than fair, in our view.

Game biz guru Keith Boesky offers his thoughts on last week's stunning news that Activision and Vivendi have pulled out of the ESA.

While the decision of Activision and several other publishers not to participate in this year's E3 got much of the attention of the gaming press, Boesky sees the ESA defections as the real issue - and we agree:
 

The ESA is this industry’s most important advocate. The organization’s impact as a lobbyist in Congress is effective, but not really tangible... We can however point directly to litigation efforts, which... beat, every legislative attempt to restrict or impair the sale of video games... If not for The ESA, video games would likely not be considered an expression of free speech...

...many are speculating about disappointment over [ESA CEO] Mike Gallagher... We can expect a less confrontational organization than the old ESA and again, it is too early to know whether it is a good thing. I don’t think Mike’s presence... drove the decision...

Activision... simply did not want to pay the fee. ESA membership fees are based on revenue. The soon to be largest publisher in the world will be paying more than anyone else, and it did not sound like fun. As far as the impact on lobbying... Activision... can pay a portion of the money they would otherwise pay in membership fees and target their own issues...

Moreover, we have yet to see whether this action is truly a withdrawal, and not a negotiating posture to revise the fee structure has yet to be seen. If it is a withdrawal, it could signal the end of The ESA as we know it.

Meanwhile, The Escapist offers its take:
 

[Activision's] walking away from a long-standing industry group like the ESA is not something done lightly... In light of the news that other industry majors are also dropping out of E3, it leaves the impression that the ESA is standing on some rather shaky ground...

An imploded ESA... leaves the industry without any form of organized political influence in Washington. With anti-videogame hysteria swirling around releases like Grand Theft Auto IV and Bully while the general public is subjected to a steady stream of misinformation... the lack of a unified voice speaking for the industry could be devastating.

The Entertainment Software Association, the trade association which represents US game publishers, is losing Activision and Vivendi as member companies.

UPDATE: We've just received confirmation from the ESA. Rich Taylor, ESA Senior Vice President of Communications and Research, issued the following statement:
 

While the Entertainment Software Association remains the preeminent voice for U.S. computer and video game publishers, we can confirm that Activision and Vivendi Games opted to discontinue their membership.

The ESA remains dedicated to advancing our industry’s objectives such as protecting intellectual property, preserving First Amendment rights, and fostering a beneficial environment for the entire industry. Our high level of service and value to members and the larger industry remains unchanged.

We began working on this story this morning after reading online reports that Activision would not be exhibiting at E3 in July. Beyond that information, GamePolitics observed that the ESA's new website lists neither Activision or Vivendi as member companies.

The two game publishers, of course, are in the process of merging into Activision Blizzard. The reason for their decision to leave the ESA remains unclear at this point. Also unclear is whether any additional game publishers may defect from ESA member ranks.

The loss of two of its larger member firms will likely have a significant impact on the ESA's revenue base. In addition to its own operations, the ESA funds E3, the Video Game Voters Network, the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences and the D.I.C.E. Summit. Any or all of those entities could feel the repercussions from the ESA's loss of member revenues.

UPDATE 2: We've got comment from Activision now:
 

After careful consideration, Activision has decided not to renew its ESA membership for business reasons and will not be participating in any official E3 activities.  We appreciate the work that the ESA has done over the years in promoting the interactive entertainment industry with state and federal governments and wish the ESA best of luck with the show.

UPDATE 3: Kotaku is reporting that four more publishers (NCSoft, Codemasters, id and Her Entertainment) won't participate in E3, although they are not dropping out of the ESA). Kotaku also has quotes from Wedbush-Morgan's Michael Pachter, who blames ESA president Mike Gallagher for the current issues with the publishers:
 

Lowenstein was a very savvy industry veteran who paid attention to the goings-on in the industry and cared what the community had to say. The new person... whose name completely escapes me because I've never met him or heard from him, is far less knowledgeable and sophisticated about this industry than Doug was and is going to make some rookie mistakes.

Doug used to be a very visible spokesperson in congress... when you'd get these [things like] Barack Obama saying videogames are corrupting our youth or MADD saying that Take-Two should pull GTA off the shelves, you would hear Lowenstein immediately shoot back. I would guess that Activision doesn't perceive the same value from the ESA as they did under Doug's leadership. I criticize [Gallagher's] lack of drive to learn about the industry.

1up has a story detailing the presidential campaign contributions made by a variety of video game industry employees.

Both big fish (like Activision CEO Bobby Kotick) and worker bee programmers and artists are listed.

It's worth noting that a fair amount of the money donated went straight into the black hole of failed campaigns.

Kotick and his wife, for example, each gave $2,300 to Republican Mitt Romney's ill-fated bid. Valve's Gabe Newell, creator of the Half-life series, gave Democrat Chris Dodd $2,300, while Spore designer Will Wright sent $3,500 Rudy Giuliani's way (and made us wonder what Will thought he saw in the irascible former Big Apple mayor).

EA exec Steve Schnurr shipped $4,600 to Hillary Clinton, which was no surprise. Longtime GamePolitics readers may recall that Schnurr and former ESA boss Doug Lowenstein organized a thousand dollar-a-plate fundraising breakfast for Clinton in September, 2005.