us gold- used to sell games for the Glorious Zx Spectrum, one of many Fab devices made by the Ace developer of the Super Sinclair C5.


This comment was edited on Apr 26, 18:43.

Who cares who owns the company, its not like that person has any say so in the companys direction. They just reap the rewards of being top dog, the underlings do all the work.

Tell me you are trolling. If not, you have no fucking clue how publicly traded [well, in this case, ANY] corporations operate.

I remember US Gold had a game called 'Crackdown' which was a fantastic top-down arcade shoot-em-up that required precision skills in order to beat the game. I also remembered trying to get my hands on the actual arcade machine and emailed Eidos about it. They had no clue.

Shawn Swift: "What do you mean by that? Can a company actualyl refuse to sell stock to anyone just because they don't want them owning a share? I've never heard of such a thing, but I'm not into trading stocks. Does something different apply if you buy enough shares?"

Selling is voluntary. They can't force you to sell. They can entice you to sell by offering more money of course. There are people, corporate raiders and the like, whom you would not want to own a piece of your company...

Shawn Swift: "Speaking of shares... Are shares like votes? When a company has a board of directors, do the shareholders vote them in, and for each stock option they own they get one "vote" thus the reason why someone can take over a company by buying enough stock? That's the way I always thought it was... That would explain why buying more than 50% means you get to kick everyone off the board and put your own people in place, as I saw in that move "The Secret of My Success" with Michael J. Fox."

There are various types of shares. Some come with voting rights, some don't (they just entitle you to a share of the profits). Generally voting stock is more valuable.

A link on stock types, etc.:

http://www.investorguide.com/igustocktype.html

This comment was edited on Apr 25, 21:03.

Haven't heard about US Gold since I sold my Atari 1040 STE some 12-14 years ago...

They put out some PC games in the early-mid 90s, then became part of Eidos...

http://www.depechemode.com

will any new owners revert back to the old name-
*Us gold* ?

Are you saying that Eidos is actually the former "US Gold"?

Haven't heard about US Gold since I sold my Atari 1040 STE some 12-14 years ago...


This comment was edited on Apr 25, 19:58.

.

This comment was edited on Jun 23, 2009, 16:15.

If my accounting lessons taught me anything thats very illegal.

Er, no. But it is confusing.

_____________________________
Insert funny quote here

"Who cares who owns the company, its not like that person has any say so in the companys direction. They just reap the rewards of being top dog, the underlings do all the work." -Nonicknameforme

Take it from someone who was in a company who had a new owner come in - the underlings do not call the shots.

This comment was edited on Apr 25, 19:09.

will any new owners revert back to the old name-
*Us gold* ?

jimmy dean sausage anyone?

Supporter of "The Only Good fredster Is A Dead fredster" fan club

The Former Leader and Victor of the rebel movement against the dark Lord Surewood and his fiendish cohorts(bunko)

Coooooooooool Video Game Company Hostile Takeover!

If my accounting lessons taught me anything thats very illegal.

Because it makes lots of money

They are mistaken, I bought eidos.... wait why would anybody want eidos?

THX
Guild Wars Chronicle
http://www.gwchronicle.com

You have to declare it if you purchase a significant amount of shares, I believe it's anything over 20%. Stops people making quiet takeovers, you don't want just anyone buying a controlling interest in your company.

Who cares who owns the company, its not like that person has any say so in the companys direction. They just reap the rewards of being top dog, the underlings do all the work.

bill gates

------------
Love,
Mayor Dan:
The mayor of your hearts <3

What I don't get is this:

"Last week GNI, the London-based derivatives broker, announced that it had acquired 7.2m shares shares [sic] in the computer-games company."

Why do that? Why not just go for the quiet takeover? By making this announcement, Eidos stock must go up due to the interest shown making for a more expensive buyout, mustn't it?

Thief. Deus Ex. Tomb Raider. Hitman. Commandos. Eidos has its stamp of a lot of legendary series that all peaked quickly before steadily declining into mediocrity or worse (Legacy of Kain had it's brief moment before Eidos hoovered it and dropped it off a cliff).

It's somewhat comforting to see these companies like Interplay and Eidos, that once stood out among the industry's elite, start to fall apart after bending over to marketing concerns.

It'd be nice to see smoke coming from the treacherous LucasArts/Films' direction next, but it'll be a good while before that monstrous tower crumbles under the dead weight of an endless succession of straight-to-compost game and movie titles. I'd settle for Sierra, though.
This comment was edited on Apr 25, 11:57.