Talk:Take-Two Interactive

Need Help
So, I was reading some Annual Reports and, in 1996, TTWO bought GameTek UK. They also bought TDK. Both those companies «published» video games and, since we inserted Jack of All Games and Take-Two Licensing, I think we should put TTWO Europe in there and insert in the Games list all games published by each one of them. What do you think? Should we do it or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouHateThePlayer (talk • contribs) 19:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To your question: I think we should only include games (or, specific franchises) that are key to the company, and were published under their ownership. If TDK Mediactive (the TDK interactive division) or GameTek UK released any notable franchises under TTWOs management, those should be added. Also adding to your acuqisition statement, around the same time, TTWO acquired GameTek's Canadian subsidiary which is now known as Rockstar Toronto. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. YouHateThePlayer (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Subsidary suggestion
Two things on the subsidiary table :
 * First, we should have the table basically have three main rows: Rockstar Games, 2K Games, and Private Division. The divisions after that are all hierarchical, as I read it (eg: Firaxis reports to 2K Games, not to Take-Two; Rockstar North reports to Rockstar Games, etc.). These other studios can be rows underneath it. EG have the first column be the main divisions, use rowspans to group the other studios as necessary.
 * In the Notes column, or in a new column, a brief summary of watch each division is known for should be given.

This last point should be replicated in the defunct studio list too. --M asem (t) 00:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

New Edits
First of all, I would like to thank everyone who's been editing Take-Two Interactive Software's page, especially since I've «cleaned» the subsidiaries section. I like the way it is now, but I think we should do some changes: 1. In the «Formally Called» section, should only be the names after TTWO's acquisition (i.e: 2K Australia - Became 2K Marin in 2010, etc...) 2. Should add the studios logos. I don't know why, but when I go the Rockstar Games page, I love to the the studio's logo in the column, but unfortunately we don't have the rights to most of the logos. 3. I know Social Point has studios in Japan and Parrot Games, but there are zero articles refering to them, so please try not to add them. Once again, thank you all for the edits. This community is amazing and it's only because of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouHateThePlayer (talk • contribs) 00:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem with logos is that not all of them are free. Rockstar's logo is too simple for copyright (in the US) just being a letter and simple shapes. On the other hand, logos like Irrational's, Firaxis, and Ghost Story are creative for copyright so those logos are free. We can't include them in a table (that's just considered decorative use and fails NFC policy). It's possible to include the other free logos, but that's going to leave those others blank, and that's going to either be an eyesore, or draw editors to try to add them (which they aren't support to do). It is better to leave them out.  That said, if you go with what I suggest above, dividing TT into its three principle divisions, those top three divisions all have free (too simple) logos that could be included. --M asem  (t) 00:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ghost Story Games
GSG is under the 2K umbrella, though they are otherwise self-publishing. Here is a June 2018 (the latest I could find) that confirmed GSG is founded under 2K. --M asem (t) 13:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While I agree Ghost Story should be listed under 2K, I belive the corresponding section from the source you linked talks about how Ghost Story was founded by Take-Two, not 2K. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 13:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I meant, it is a Take-Two owned company, their relationship with 2K Games is a bit less clear. But all the removals of it from this article are improper. It should be listed as a development studio (let's not assume publisher at this point). --M asem (t) 14:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, well the high talking point appeared to me as whether Ghost Story is to be listed indepdenently (like Social Point) or as part of 2K. I also assumed you were addressing this given from your introduction "GSG is under the 2K umbrella". Removal was out of question at all times. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 14:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was trying to figure out what the editing war going on here was - it was being removed from the infobox, added to publishers, removed alltogether. I would reasonably expect it does sit under 2K at Take-Two since 2K Games is the umbrella for non-Rockstar, non-Sports studios, where Irrational sat when it was legit. --M asem (t) 14:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out, you can literally send an email to Ghost Story's community manager, he will tell you that they're a self-publishing studio for T2. Even their official website and Twitter account says they're a self-publishing studio. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Self-publishing does not mean that they are not part of a corporate structure. E.g. Thunderful encapsulates two development studios and a publishing office, all three act independently but at organized under that company. Irrational Games had been part of 2K since 2006 so it would only make sense that Ghost Story Games (same legal entity, renamed) is also part of that, even if they publish themselves. Aside from that, they have not self-published anything thus far to support their statement. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Long standing issue with editors of video game companies is this idea that publishing relationships are the same as corporate reporting structures. Whether Ghost Story Games publishes themselves, or 2K publishes them, is irrelevant to the corporate reporting structure. -- ferret (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Until Ghost Story announces their next game, we should remove Ghost Story from T2's subsidiaries list, just for a little while. Yes, Ghost Story is a T2 developer, not a 2K developer, but if you guys won't accept that fact, it's best to just remove it. There's no mention of Ghost Story being a 2K developer, so the information is plain wrong regardless. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Removing it outright sounds rather irrational. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How is leaving it without direct evidence that it's a 2K studio rational? UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See above arguments. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 09:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I already did, and none of them are logical at all. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

So this is flaring up again (See UnknownAssassin1819's talk page). Is there any consensus to change the corporate parent (The legal reporting structure of the company, not who publishes their games), from 2K to Take Two? I'm not seeing this discussion favoring Take Two at this time, but UnknownAssassin1819 is arguing otherwise. I again caution against the idea that "published by" and "self-publish" have any bearing on the legalities of corporate reporting structures. How the company reports is not the same as how it's games are published. -- ferret (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Studios and Offices
Don't worry, we don't have to implement this information into the main page, but I will list all of the confirmed studios and business offices under the T2 umbrella, just so everyone knows:

Take-Two Interactive (New York, New York) (Main Headquarters) 2K (Novato, CA) (Main Headquarters) Ghost Story Games (Westwood, Massachusetts) Private Division (New York, New York) Rockstar Games (Rockstar New York / Rockstar NY / Rockstar NYC) (New York, New York) (Main Headquarters) Social Point (Barcelona, Spain) Business Offices (Most names are made up, but they're close to their originals names)
 * Take-Two Interactive Software Europe (Windsor, England) (European Operations)
 * Take-Two Asia (Singapore) (Asian Operations)
 * 2K International (Windsor, England) (International Publishing Headquarters)
 * 2K MoCap (Petaluma, California) (Motion Capture Studio)
 * 2K Games (Novato, California) (Division)
 * 2K China (Chengdu, China) (Quality Assurance Studio)
 * 2K Silicon Valley (Name: TBA) (Location: TBA)
 * 2K Vegas (Nevada) (Quality Assurance Studio)
 * Firaxis Games (Sparks, Maryland)
 * Hangar 13 (Novato, California)
 * Hangar 13 Czech
 * Hangar 13 Brno (Czech Republic)
 * Hangar 13 Prague (Czech Republic)
 * Hangar 13 UK (Brighton, England)
 * TBA (Novato, California) (Parkside Team / New Bioshock Studio)
 * 2K Play (Novato, California) (Division)
 * Cat Daddy Games (Kirkland, Washington)
 * Mass Media Games (Moorpark, California)
 * 2K Sports (Novato, California) (Division)
 * Visual Concepts (Novato, California)
 * Visual Concepts Asia (Korea & China Studios consolidated)
 * Visual Concepts Korea (Seoul)
 * Visual Concepts China (Shanghai)
 * Visual Concepts Hungary (Budapest)
 * Visual Concepts LA (Agoura Hills, California)
 * Visual Concepts South (Foothill Ranch, California)
 * Ghost Story International (Oxford, England) (Speculated) (T2 is leasing land in Oxford)
 * Private Division (Las Vegas, Nevada)
 * Private Division (Munich, Germany)
 * Private Division (Seattle, Washington)
 * Rockstar MoCap (Bethpage, New York) (Motion Capture Studio)
 * Rockstar Studios (Global) (All studios consolidated)
 * Rockstar India (Bangalore, India)
 * Rockstar Leeds (England)
 * Rockstar Lincoln (England) (Quality Assurance Studio)
 * Rockstar London (England)
 * Rockstar International (London, England) (International Publishing Headquarters)
 * Rockstar New England (Ballardvale, Massachusetts)
 * Rockstar North (Edinburgh, Scotland)
 * Rockstar San Diego (Carlsbad, California)
 * RAGE Technology Group (Division)
 * Rockstar Toronto (Oakville, Ontario)
 * Parrot Games (Barcelona, Spain)
 * Social Point International (Tokyo, Japan) (Speculated) (Social Point has an office in Tokyo)
 * Take-Two Asia (Singapore)
 * Take-Two Boston (Massachusetts)
 * Take-Two Interactive (New York, New York)
 * Take-Two Interactive Australia (Sydney)
 * Take-Two Interactive Australia (Auckland, New Zealand) (T2 is leasing land in Auckland, T2 Australia handles business in New Zealand though)
 * Take-Two Interactive Benelux (Breda)
 * Take-Two Interactive Canada (Toronto)
 * Take-Two Interactive China (Shanghai)
 * Take-Two Interactive Espana (Madrid)
 * Take-Two Interactive France (Paris)
 * Take-Two Interactive Germany (Munich)
 * Take-Two Interactive Japan (Tokyo)
 * Take-Two Interactive Korea (Seoul)
 * Take-Two Interactive Software Europe (Windsor, England)
 * Take-Two Interactive Switzerland (Lucerne)
 * Take-Two Interactive Taiwan (Taipei)
 * Take-Two Seattle (Washington)
 * Take-Two Vegas (Nevada)

UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

As an holding company, Take-Two classify Rockstar Games, 2K, Private Division, and Social Point as "Principal operating offices" meaning their main divisions while the Take-Two branded entities are regional offices known as "corporate headquarters".217.114.161.20 (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I know. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

2K
Alright, I see a little dispute going on about what to with the 2K section, let me clear it up.

2K is the actual publisher, 2K Games, 2K Play, and 2K Sports are merely labels. You can Google the cover art of any new 2K game and you'd see that the plain 2K logo is only present. Those 3 divisions are simply for dividing up their studios, they're not meant to be more than that (i.e. not publishers).

Lordtobi, just because you know more about the rules here on Wikipedia, doesn't mean you're always correct on most of the information you edit into certain pages. I'm not trying to start a dispute with you, but you're just plain wrong here, you're exerting pretenses.

UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For one, I'm not sure why you had to start a new discussion for this after seeing an active one. The topic has been discussed in excess there and I'm getting tired of it. As the IP user, you failed to provide any kind of source apart "look at the covers". So you are telling me that there are two labels used by the publisher, yet the publisher's logo (2K) is printed on the box. Next you'll be telling me that the labels are those publishing under the publisher's name? No, this is incorrect and merely original research mixed with assumptions, as already in the other discussion. 2K Games is the legal publishing entity, 2K Sports a division of that entity and 2K a nrand used to unify both. Things you can easily verify:
 * All sources from January 25, 2006, (can be found in 2K Games' article) outline the foundation 2K Games and 2K Sports, not a single entity called 2K. Similar applies to all other sources in that article's History section.
 * 2K Games, Inc. and 2K Marin, Inc. are the only T2-owned and 2K-branded corporate entities that are active in California (there was a 2K, Inc. once, but it dissolved in 1989). This can still be checked via their register.
 * T2's annual reports, even the most recent one, still lists 2K Games and 2K Sports and "principal offices" as located in Novato. Guess which one is not listed? 2K.
 * As direct response to your "source": Most if not all cover backs up to the brand simplification a few years ago say "Published by 2K Games, Inc."; ever since there is only "2K", the copyright notice has been changed to a generic "[brands and logos] are trademarks of Take-Two Interactive, Inc.", nothing near "Published by 2K, Inc.".
 * Even MobyGames, the kings of original research, side with me on this one. If they acknowledge that 2K is just a brand and 2K Games a company, I'm sure we can too.
 * You don't need to personally attack me to get sided on a point in which you are wrong. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan blog, so we have to strongly suit secondary sources to get the most accurate public image of a topic, not assume something and then hope that readers agree. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see we continue to confuse brands and logos with "corporate entities". I see Lordtobi repeatedly providing the legal documents that back up the current way the articles are organized, and the other side just saying "But the logo". -- ferret (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I wish they can be a vote to resolve this 2K or 2K Games dispute. I agree with Lord that 2K Games, Inc. and 2K Sports, Inc. are legal entities- since the the two 2K entities and Rockstar Games, Inc (Rockstar Games) are their divisions "Principal Operating Offices (Units)"- however i also agree and it everywhere that it should be simply 2K. 217.114.161.20 (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

On Google Play is say 2K Inc. which is very interesting.Of Course Take-Two is a bonafide holding company pioneering the structure that even inspire the Activision Blizzard merger, and even Zenimax structure. BBMatBlood (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

with this https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4427168-Nysd-127022151307.html i think we should just leave it as 2K a trade name of 2K Games, Inc or 2K Games, Inc. (2K).BBMatBlood (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I do believe that 2K Games and 2K Sports are just corporate divisions rather than actual publishers. Many retailers even use the plain 2K name as a publisher. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is what I mean. When you say "actual publishers" and act like that's some sort of legal corporate entity. Whether a company is standalone, a fully owned subsidiary, or a corporate division, has no bearing on whether or not they are a publisher. What a retailer uses is BRANDING, marketing labels, not legal corporate entities. -- ferret (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Here it mentions the four publishing subsidiaries (principal businesses): For Online Services offered by Rockstar Games, 2K, or Private Division used by residents of the European Union, the company Take-Two Interactive Software Europe Limited, ICO Registration No. Z1336431, is the data controller responsible for your personal information. For Online Services offered by Social Point, Social Point S.L. is the data controller responsible for your personal information.So it should just be 2K a trade name of 2K Games Inc. similar to Comcast Cable (Xfinity). A vote should be allowed to clear this dispute.78.16.82.179 (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to vote on here, really. It has been established that a) 2K Games is a legal entity that publishes games and b) 2K Games uses the 2K brand in advertising and PR. Your above statement does not contradict these two points. 2K Games' article already states that, in short, the company sometimes is referred to as 2K. Yet, 2K Games is still the appropriate place for the article, as it is the way it is referred to in reliable sources (we're an encyclopedia after all), still listed as Take-Two's publishing office (not brand), and has been the primary name, even before the branding consolidation, for most of its lifetime. It also still helps to seperate it from semi-independelty managed 2K Sports, which also publishes under the 2K brand but has a seperate portfolio and set of executives. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 12:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Great stuff. And thanks. Off topic but Interestingly Devolver Digital state this on twitter: "Best Video Game Label Ever" And it an independent company. It means Sierra have been dead longer than 2004 since labels- independent and subsidiary- are publishing companies with their execs, infrastructure, franchises etc another best example is Private Division which is a new publishing label subsidiary of Take-Two headed by Michael Worosz albeit not incorporated (yet) like Devolver or it sisters Rockstar Games, 2K (2K Games, 2K Sports), and Social Point.78.16.82.179 (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't take adspeek too literal, Devolver Digital, Inc. is incorporated and active under Texan law. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

True it is incorporated and independent and still calls itself a label same way Take-Two calls it principal subsidiaries- Rockstar Games, 2K, Private Division (yet to be incorporated), and Social Point and their development studios and offices- labels. What i am trying to say is that Sierra died along time ago i doubt it became in-name in 2004 plus the 2014 revived brand is no more.78.16.82.179 (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Y'all haven't proved how 2K is just another name for 2K Games, or that 2K Sports and 2K Play are divisions of 2K Games and not 2K. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I just stumbled on this page, which identify Rockstar Games and "2K" as it's labels, with Rockstar having the various Rockstar studios under it, while "2K" the label has 3 divisions under it, 2K Games, 2K Sports, and 2K Play. Now we know that Private Division is also a label, as well as Social Point. So a simple heirarchy that we should be working from is:
 * Take-Two (company)
 * Rockstar Games (label/publisher)
 * Rockstar North (developer)
 * (Etc.)
 * 2K (label/publisher)
 * 2K Games (division)
 * Firaxis (developer)
 * Ghost Story Games (developer)
 * Hanger 13 (developer)
 * 2K Marin (developer)
 * etc.
 * 2K Sports
 * Visual Concepts (developer)
 * 2K Play
 * Cat Daddy Games (developer)
 * Private Division (label/publisher)
 * Social Point (label/publisher/developer)

Basicly, "2K" is not always the same as "2K Games", one much read context to understand if it is "casual" speak from journalists, which when they say "2K" they probably mean "2K Games" or "2K Sports", while if it is more corporate, then 2K is strictly the label, and "2K games" the publishing division under that. --M asem (t) 05:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But then what exactly is 2K if 2K Games is the publishing entity? A shell corporation? It is also not reflected like this in reliable sources. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look at any of Take-Two's investor reports, their organization seems very flat; Firaxis, GSG, etc. are all directly owned by Take-Two, not 2K Games, etc. (Heck, checking it now, "2K", "2K Games", etc. are all individual subsidaries under Take-Two. This I think it where understanding that Take-Two follows how Hollywood works and uses an additional layer of "labels" that discribed the publishing, distribution, and marketing activities. "2K" for Take-Two is akin to Touchstone Pictures for Walt Disney Studios, and as we also have divisions of 2K like "2K Games", Touchstone has various divisions for television and video games. A better example may be that 2K Games is as to Dimension Films as 2K is to Miramax and Take-Two is to Disney. (when Miramax was owned by Disney, at least).
 * It is helpful to look at TT's investor statements. From their 2017 annual: --M asem  (t) 17:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about Firaxis? After all Take-Two stated that "Firaxis Games joins the 2K Games publishing label of Take-Two Interactive" when it acquired the developer. Their subsidiaries list also still includes lots and lots of long-defunct companies which's legal entities still exist. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You're mostly right, Masem. You're right about 2K being the parent company to all 3 divisions, not that 2K Games is the parent company, and 2K is just another name for it. As for Ghost Story, they've already stated that they're independent, not a 2K studio. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I still disagree about GSG. I know they say they self-publish, but nearly all RS at the time they were announced said they were a rebranding of the Irrational studio (which would have significantly reduced paperwork overhead), which was under 2K Games at the time. Yes, they could have been moved out of 2K Games at some point, but we have nothing to indicate where they are now, only where they were. --M asem (t) 14:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Guys i think we are getting into a confused ball right now. Take-Two pioneered the "label" structure which we can now find with Activision-Blizzard (Activision, Blizzard, and King all three also incorporated), Zenimax, Koei-Temco using a different version, and EA under Riccitiello (all these were EA-branded though). Take-Two is currently a company made up of four wholly owned incorporated publishing labels (Private Division call it Publishing division on their careers center page) with their respective development studios or offices, infrastructure, marketing, distribution, Q&A, Backend etc. With Take-Two only a handling sales and marketing solely and cooperative. All four labels have their management teams, p&l guiding etc. As of right now Rockstar Games and 2K are the two biggest and also constitute the "principal operating businesses" taht yet to include to other two- Social Point and Private Division. If you want to get more fascinating how they have evolve theis innovative model look at the latest business wire releases of any of them except Social Point which is a secret company and does soft launches of it mobile titles. Then check their mobile apps. Take-Two is so "bonafide holding" company that Strauss Zelnick does not even know what goes around in the Legal department but all these goes back to 1997-1998 according to rivals EA and Ubisoft who both hates the structure that now influencing even Warner Bros. with Portkey Games. Lastly, check support page for Take-Two, EA, Activision Blizzard, Ubisoft, Zenimax etc. are you will see how Take-Two and Activision Blizzard tells us to go to their respectively publishing subsidiaries. Thanks. (To add: EA Sports was a in-name only label until 2008)BBMatBlood (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

from the careers section of their website "The Company develops and publishes products principally through its wholly-owned labels Rockstar Games and 2K, as well as its new Private Division label and Social Point, a leading developer of mobile games." Great one Masem. All hail the Greatest Holding (structure and model) company in History! (Note: I think they can still shut down the labels though as they did to Gathering, Talonsoft, Global Star, Gotham, and the Take-Two branded publishing labels division/subsidiaries many years ago. The four of today are just more succesfully).78.16.82.179 (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Rockstar Games, Inc., 2K (2K Games, Inc., 2K Sports, Inc.) are the Principal Businesses. Their base in New York and Regional offices are Corporate Offices i.e. Take-Two Interactive Software Europe Limited stores the online services of the Principal Businesses: Rockstar Games, 2K, Private Division (yet to be added to the Principal business structure). With Social Point S.L. stores it own data (also yet to join the structure). Nonetheless all are 4 are incorporated are their main divisions. Since 1997-1998 when the company pioneered such structure it been a little asymmetric with Rockstar Games having a bit more independence than any other labels past or present but all still independent with their resources, subsidiaries, etc. No synergies (unified strategy since all labels are autonomous with their own revenue strategy) or many overlaps. This is literally diversification as well if one label is doing well and other is not. Here is hoping Bethesda Softworks becomes their 5th label on this era (i can only dream). 78.16.82.179 (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Take-Two pioneered: labels in the gaming industry https://venturebeat.com/2008/07/21/qa-chairman-strauss-zelnick-on-the-future-of-take-two-interactive/ and now we can see it influence with Activision Blizzard, Zenimax, Koei Tecmo, WB Interactive etc. https://venturebeat.com/2008/07/21/qa-chairman-strauss-zelnick-on-the-future-of-take-two-interactive/ I think through Rockstar Games they also pioneered DLC/Expansion but that could be disputed. 78.16.82.179 (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ZeniMax works vastly differently, all of their subsidiaries report directly to them, and there is no 'label' corporate structure. They have X developers and X publishers for various operations, just like CUC Software already did in 1996. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 06:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Only just inspired to look more, we can track that in 2004, TT was calling 2K games as a label with 2K Sports under it but then by 2008 2K Games, 2K Sports, and 2K Play were all labels at the same level as Rockstar  and then by 2009, there was the general 2K label alongside Rockstar . So some point in 2008-2009, they decided to group those as all one label "2K", but that label as "2K, Inc." isn't actually listed as a division until 2014 in their filings.  (There's also an interesting disappearance of 2K Play as one of the divisions of 2K and from the addresses on the back of the reports after 2013.) There's a lot of collaboration we can get from these investor reports, though there's still details missing here. --M asem  (t) 06:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I kind of agree Lord but on Google Play it says 2K Inc. (10 Hamilton Landings). Plus Koch Media with Deep Silver is inspired by the "label" structure as well same as WB and Portkey Games and Leyou creating Athlon games with different versions of the "label" structure. Anyway i noticed every publishers (incorporated or not) have a support page, EA Sport redirects to EA. And all four Take-Two's publishing label division/subsidiaries have their own respective support page same with Activision Blizzard's Activision, Blizzard, and King. 78.16.82.179 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I still do not get why the "autonomous publishing label subsidiaries" was omitted after provided two sources one from Social Point interview. Here is from 2K interview with Venturebeat https://venturebeat.com/2018/06/15/take-twos-2k-games-expands-on-all-fronts/. BBMatBlood (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The new updates looking great however I think Massem was absolutely right in that the company is a bonafide holding company with the "label" structure not only becoming so innovative but also unprecedented (rivals are using different versions are getting it wrong with Activision-Blizzard being an exception and even EA copying it from 2008-2013 still did not emulate it right). Here is an article https://www.janefriedman.com/book-pl/ To add to that Take-Two killed it namesake publishing label subsidiary many years ago so it a holding company of game publishers who owns everything and have no synergy in between except for same owner and some shared revenue goals. R* have a COO and General Counsel, 2K have a COO and General Counsel, Social Point have two CEOs, and Private Division have an Head. The only time we know they are owned by Take-Teo is in the trademark words and privacy policy for average consumer and for us here we can see that on the Annual reports, Websites, About us, the Support page redirects to each entities own and each does have their own P&L strategies even though it can be align to parent Take-Two's sometimes. What A fantastic structure. BBMatBlood (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * My main concern on this right now is being reasonably assured that "2K" and "2K Games" are different "entities" within Take-Two. From their investor document and other sources, when 2K Sports was created, the same day as 2K Games, it was a division under 2K Games. Today, everything readers that both are equal divisions under the 2K label. But we have very few third-party sources that seem to recognize that - 2K and 2K Games are often used interchangably in the gaming press. (It probably doesn't help that "2K" has no products itself.) I'm also ... concerned? that 2K Play has seemingly vanished as part of the 2K label - it makes sense if Social Point is their point for family-friendly games, but no one has documented this. It's less about the admiration of the company and more so making sure the stories are straight. --M asem (t) 14:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Great comment Masem, I totally understand the concern myself- check their press releases on business wire like this -. On Social Point i think they publish free-to-play mobile and social games- Lord put them as developer since they do both the developing and publishing themselves-. BBMatBlood (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The thing with publishing your own games is that you don't really fullfil the classical image of being a publisher. Their products are entirely digital, they do little marketing apart from their socials, and they only publish their own games, no third-partying. This exact formula applies to literally every indie dev that did not publish through Devolver/tinyBuild/etc., such as Grinding Gear Games (Path of Exile), Studio MDHR (Cuphead) and Zachtronics (various games), all of which have developed and released (read "published") their own games, but are not quite publishers. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Great points Lord, however Social Point have a P&L strategy overseen by one of it co-CEOs that make it a publisher in every sense like sisters Rockstar Games, 2K, and Private Division or Activision, Blizzard, EA, Ubisoft etc. It to Take-Two how King is to Activision Blizzard. And So it not an indie like these studios...you missed Epic Games and Riot Games then (just kidding). And lastly every publisher must have a QA and market department/division/studio and all Take-Two publishing subsidiaries have these along with their own resources, technologies, management, infrastructure (either share with parent or not) and again P&L strategies. Take-Two essentially only does some sales and marketing while everything from publishing, distributing and development are the incorporated publishing labels and the time you see them is on things like privacy policy and trademark words. With all that said, like i said before Social Point is a developer and a publisher like it sisters and other rival companies (looking at King and Zynga) BBMatBlood (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Well since King also do development and publishing itself then i think it fair to not change Social Point to "publisher" on their page. Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

With Take-Two's excellent, innovative and unmatched "label" structure here is what Mr Zelnick had to say about rivals EA and Ubisoft and to add there was never synergy or anything between labels (past and present) meaning fiefdoms (which i do not like with Time Warner but do with Take-Two). Long Live Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc (TTWO). Here is the original interview. BBMatBlood (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Take-Two is a natural gaming holding company infact i will say gaming conglomerate. Lainie Goldstein the CFO breaks down the labels revenue on conference calls like this one (Q1 2019): "We expect the net bookings breakdown from our labels to be roughly 55% Rockstar Games, 40% 2K and 5% Social Point and other (Private Division yet to be incorprated but one of four principal businesses- all gaming- and a publisher in every sense) but the labels esp. Rockstar Games like to be secretive so the reason we will not see them on filings like Activision Blizzard do to break down Activision, Blizzard, and King. And i love the fiefdom between the labels and the zero synergy and the overlaps as well it gives Take-Two alot of diversification i.e. one label is doing good and the other is doing not good. Interesting fact i was on mobygames and it seems like Zenimax now copying Take-Two structure albeit a different version and there also do the trademark wordings and privacy policy for their only label- Bethesda Softworks, and many studios... Take-Two is the Best! 87.35.247.2 (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

With everything now sorted (from a detailed history to it holding structure (the innovative "label" structure) etc.) and the page looking great thanks to Masem, Unknown Assassins, and Lord. I think we should use 2K's social media and press release leaving it as 2K Games trading as 2K or combine both 2K Games, 2K Sports, and 2K Play under a new 2K page like how Masem mapped it out and i want to add, Great points 87.35.247.2, it already become facts here. Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * There's nowhere close to enough information for a separate "2K" page, we have no idea when it was officially created, only that its how presently Take-Two groups some of its divisions - whereas with Rockstar there's a lot more details about that to support the standalone, as well as 2K Play and 2K Sports individually. --M asem (t) 21:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean the conference calls breakout out the revenues from the 4 labels (Rockstar Games, 2K, Social Point, and Other being Private Divsion) and the filings, forms, press release, even on app stores it simply 2K (2K Inc on Google Play), Rockstar Games, and Social Point (Private Divsion is yet to be seen to publish mobile games...time shall tell). The social media pages are also simply 2K @2K on Twitter, 2K on Facebook et.al the only place is still says 2K Games is on the publisher's forum 2K Forums. I understand that it will be a big task combining all 2K-entities into a new page simply 2K. With that said I think GSG is independent from 2K but wholly owned by Take-Two apart from that 2K owns the other studios including Firaxis and Visual Concepts, Rockstar Games have 9 studios (North, San Diego, New England, Toronto, Leeds, London, Lincoln, India, and as of 2013 New York City which was quietly spunn off into it own little development studio headquartered in same place and yet to be incorporated), Social Point have one location split into 12 sections with 360 people, and Private Division have 4 offices (New York, Las Vegas, Seattle, and Munich). I think we should vote on a name change for 2K not necessary a merger of 2K Games, 2K Sports into a new 2K Page. If anything we merger 2K Play into 2K Games then rename the page to 2K while 2K Sports remain it own page. Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Rockstar NYC"/"Rockstar New York" is not a new studio, it refers to the main Rockstar Games office since it is located in NYC, and has been found in game credits since the early 2000s. Their careers page also lists common publishing capabilites (including PR et al.) under this name. To clear up this confusion, I already added the sentence, which you edited this morning, to Rockstar Games' article. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright...because on a Take-Two form years ago pre-PD formation and Social Point acquisition, Rockstar NYC was added as an unincorporated division for Rockstar Games and Hangar 13 was added as unincorporated divsion of 2K (Hangar 13 UK Limited t/a Hangar 13 Brigton is now part of Hangar 13). Thanks BTW. BBMatBlood (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The name dates back to at least 2002. It is evident that Rockstar NYC = Rockstar Games. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 11:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Cool...It like an unincorporated subsidiary studio based in same house as it parent publisher- Rockstar Games which then own another 8 incorporated development studios. Take-Two "label" structure is a phenomenal (Note: Rockstar NYC today have it one game development team, online service team etc. and is currently contributing to GTA Online). I wont be surprised if they finally incorporate it as Rockstar Games New York City Studio Inc. Thanks Lord. 78.16.82.179 (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I typed out all of T2's studios and offices in a section right above this one. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Unlike Masem's excellent mapping, you made a slight mistake Unknown Assassins which i think you acknowledged and that good- since the Take-Two-branded offices are either Corporate Headquarters of Take-Two or it regional offices subsidiaries- i.e Take-Two Interactive Europe, Take-Two Asia, Take-Two Australia, Take-Two Korea, Take-Two Vegas etc.- while the principal businesses "principal operating offices" are again the phenomenal "label" structure that make it act as an holding company- Rockstar Games Inc. (it studios, technologies, etc.), 2K (2K Games, Inc, 2K Sports, Inc., studios, tech, etc.), Private Division, and Social Point S.L.- Interestingly since the labels are incorporated principal businesses that do everything from developing, publishing, distributing, marketing etc. Strauss Zelnick just got a holding company dealing with some sales and marketing, legal (that itself is also autonomous) handling trademarks and direct reports from Rockstar Games' Housers, 2K's David Ismailer, Private Division's Michael Worosz, and Social Point's Martos and Bou. Hence his active involvement which is said in the Venturebeat interview. What A Company and a Fantastic structure. Thanks. 78.16.82.179 (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I want to stress that everything I've been asking is only to get clarity on the structure of Take-Two and specifically the 2K side because it is absolutely not clear from third-party sources. However, I read a lot of the above as trying perhaps a bit too much at faint praise towards Take-Two, which should not be our goal here. Eg, no one that I have seen has put any type of emphasis or weight on Take-Two's label structure or how that label approach influenced the VG industry; it is principally only useful for trying to figure out the company's internal structure, that's all. --M asem (t) 14:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the way you excellently mapped it out ("label" structure, subsidiaries etc.) plus comments from ediotrs like Unknown Assassins, BMBatBlood, and anoymous like 85... are enough in my personal opinion to change 2K Games to simply 2K and do a little more cleanup edits to Take-Two Interactive. Thanks. 78.16.82.179 (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

All sources provided by Lord, Unknown Assasins, myself and the anoymous editors already tell us about everything Take-Two Interactive from it history to the "label" structure to past and present investments etc...the remaining issue is will 2K Games become 2K or should we put a vote discussion to solve that. Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

"Irrational Games is a 2K Games studio. 2K Games is a division of 2K, a publishing label of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (NASDAQ: TTWO)." (2013). BBMatBlood (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I also noticed from 2008 to 2013, Take-Two re-organized their long-standing innovative "label" structure i.e. in 2008, the labels did not have their own separate communications team for PR and five years that changed, and from 2008-2018 the labels got more responsibilities including distribution before that it was developing and publishing with their own studios or in 2K's case outside studios. Each labels also have their own legal department that works with parent i,e Rockstar Games have a General counsel -even Blizzard does not have that- i noticed a little flaw though even with the big credit for such structure there is a little flaw like i all it "Assymetric Holding structure" Rockstar Games and Social Point have it own policies separate from 2K and Private Division, while in corporate titles the brothers use EP and VP at Rockstar Games, two CEOs at Social Point, Head at Private Division, and a President an COO at 2K. I am a big fan of the company even more than 85... and 78... however i think another re-org will finally turn them into a holding company acting like one wit such structure (which have a little flaws) since 1997-1998. I envision 4 CEOs all reporting directly to Strauss Zelnick (all 4 label heads already do that(hence is activeness) i don't just like the different titles). BBMatBlood (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Another note: The "a publishing label" byline is only recent like 5 years now, before that it only on games covers we find them, 2K relinquish that now in exchange for the byline on every press. And lastly 2K Games should become 2K a trading name of 2K Games, Inc a division of 2K Publishing. Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

again note the "labels" are also divisions, just adding. 87.35.247.2 (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Only Private Division is referred to as division, which is probably correct given that it is not incorporated. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 13:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The Principal operating units: Rockstar Games, 2K (2K Games, 2K Sports), Social Point, and Private Division- all four currently owned labels are divisions [Here from 2005: "Rockstar Games, a division of New York based Take-Two Interactive." https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/rockstar-london-establishes-new-development-studio]78.16.82.179 (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Take-Two inventing the "label" structure in the gamming industry aside, it also seems like they make it a popular word in the industry, here on Zenimax description of Bethesda Softworks : "Titles featured under the Bethesda label include such blockbuster franchises". BBMatBlood (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The word "label" dates back to the Proto-Indo-European language.. Take-Two also did not "invent" calling their subsidiaries labels; CUC Software already did that in 1995. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 14:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean the hierachy "label" structure and each publishing subsidaries of Take-Two and Zenimax's Bethesda and even indies like Devolver being called labels that what they [Take-Two] did in the game industry. Anyway great to know it been around for a while. Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

"I just stumbled on this page [2], which identify Rockstar Games and "2K" as it's labels, with Rockstar having the various Rockstar studios under it, while "2K" the label has 3 divisions under it, 2K Games, 2K Sports, and 2K Play. Now we know that Private Division is also a label, as well as Social Point. So a simple heirarchy that we should be working from is:

Take-Two (company) Rockstar Games (label/publisher) Rockstar North (developer) (Etc.) 2K (label/publisher) 2K Games (division) Firaxis (developer) Ghost Story Games (developer) Hanger 13 (developer) 2K Marin (developer) etc.           2K Sports Visual Concepts (developer) 2K Play Cat Daddy Games (developer) Private Division (label/publisher) Social Point (label/publisher/developer)"

Masem i think this video confirms this structure  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aphyy2zEcj8 (credit to the title below). 78.16.82.179 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As I already outlined, "The Biz Doc" is not a reliable source, and I would go as far as to say that it is biased as he is "The Biz Doc" and only regards the financiability of the company. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 06:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A 21 minute video from a professional knowing about the company (and more likely owns their stock price) is totally unreliable? What wrong with wikipedia? And Take-Two as a holding company (according to Investopedia definition) is more proven since it publishing labels do not have synergy, relations, shared assets i.e. Rockstar Games or it studios have never worked with 2K and it studios or Social Point vice versa they all just have one thing in common share same parent company. Basically, Take-Two is a holding company in every sense as say Berkshire Hathaway or IAC albeit game-centric. You cannot just totally dismiss a video source. And lastly, The company's value it around $14-15 billion right now. 78.16.82.179 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A professional, maybe (who knows), but definetly not in journalism. Like you said, he "more likely" owns stock in the company, so there is more than enough reason for him to talk biasedly (everytime something bad happens, he plays it down or makes jokes—case and point: "no-no that's not so nice of you Mr. Brant [chuckles]" when the number manipulation came to light, or "lol, that's a game I don't to play [chuckles]" when Brant plead guilty—while every time something good comes along, he exaggerates heavily—case and point: 25 seconds into the video, he shouts "[...] we have Sports on the 2K side, LEGENDARY!"; similar stuff like "the SEEDS OF GREATNESS" and "gifted" can be heard multiply throughout the video as well).
 * It is furthermore not given that his "research" (and he is partially just reading off Wikipedia—case and point: he regularly quotes Wikipedia and lists Rockstar's studios in the exact same order as we did when we still listed the RAGE engine team, cf. this revision) is actually accurate (case and point: He claims Take-Two bought BMG, the billion dollar music company, which is no accurate; case and point: He claims Take-Two acquired the rights to ESPN games, which is not the case).
 * Also, just listen to how his voice starts cracking when he reads aloud the increasing gross margin numbers and ends it with "there is just one word for this: DANG!". This video is clearly his personal territory, not his professional one. It is evident that "The Biz Doc" produces semi-educational entertainment content (not to mention that his channel name ends on -tainment), not professional reportage. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No Problem Lordtobi, I also want say i am sorry...We all know Take-Two is an holding company of multiple development and publishing labels with zero synergies with each other (they don't even have a namesake operating unit-R*, 2K, PD, and SP) i just wanted to use the video to prove the meaning of the "holding" definition and update their market cap. Thanks. 78.16.82.179 (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel like Thomas got his information from Wikipedia. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I second that UnknownAssassin1819 even the way he was taking about the publishing labels and subsidiaries. BBMatBlood (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Take-Two Interactive (Oxford, England)
So I've been going over T2's 2018 Annual Report, and I was glancing at their properties section (leasing properties) and noticed that they're leasing some property in Oxford, England. What do you guys think it is? UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Likely nothing of interest for an encyclopedia that relies on secondary sources. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 05:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd assume it's Ghost Story Games' international publishing headquarters, just like I assumed Social Point's Japan office was the same thing. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, we have a policy against making assumptions. -- ferret (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, I just wanted to read what you guys thought the location could be, not that I was going to implement it into the main page. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that article talk pages are used to discuss changes to the article. You are free to chat with others, but please not on articles' talk pages per WP:NOTAFORUM. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 05:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's literally nowhere else to discuss this. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the founder left in 2006 not 2008
Here: http://archive.fortune.com/2008/06/03/news/newsmakers/boyd_brant.fortune/index.htm. Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

And since this month is their birth month, Hppy 25th Birthday Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Here is to another 25 years! of Greatness, Innovations, Pioneering spirit (mentality), and Growth. BBMatBlood (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The article presently says that he left in October 2006, backed by a source published on October 18. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 05:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Other Holdings
Excellent addition/retooling Masem. I think in future it could be expanded a little more but this is great. Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

2K has acquired Mass Media Games
On 2K's careers site, they have Mass Media listed among their studios, which indicates that the studio was acquired by 2K. Still waiting on T2 or other social media outlets to officially confirm this: https://chp.tbe.taleo.net/chp04/ats/careers/v2/searchResults?org=GAMES2K&cws=68

Remember, Mass Media assisted Hangar 13 with the PS4 version of Mafia III, and they're currently developing a new entry in the Carnival Games series, which releases next week, so this acquisition is no surprise. Mass Media will most likely become a 2K Play subsidiary. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

cool fndings but it need confirmation.BBMatBlood (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, so I researched a little bit and found out about this person, David Todd, that says on his LinkedIn profile that he is the Studio Manager at Mass Media Games, 2K Games: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-todd-619a033/ Does this confirm that Mass media is a 2K subsidiary since June of last year?YouHateThePlayer (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Mass Media does not appear on Take2's subsidiaries list (this one from their 10-K filed in March), and David Todd's LinkedIn statements (just saying "2K Games", that is) are merely vague indications. Might well be that 2K acquired Mass Media sometime last year, but without clear (verbatim) claims on the matter, we should not jump to any conclusions. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 10:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

So, I was reading Take-Two's Annual Report and, on page 38, it says that the newest Carnival Games title was developed by an internal studio. I really don't know if it is a 2K studio or not... https://ir.take2games.com/static-files/15f375ba-76b8-471d-a0ca-f2561b86c4a8YouHateThePlayer (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Take-Two Interactive moving development of KSP 2 to in-game division Intercept Games Controversy
Should this be adressed on the main article, on History > 2008–present: Continued growth > 15th paragraph? How should it be adressed?

[https://www.pcgamer.com/after-ditching-the-original-kerbal-2-studio-take-two-reportedly-tried-to-poach-all-of-its-employees/#:~:text=In%20late%202019%2C%20publisher%20Take,%2C%20and%20March%2031%2C%202021. PC gamer article] - forbes.com article - YongYea video report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.173.36.59 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * YongYea and Forbes (contributors) are not reliable, but we would probably use the original Bloomberg article anyway. That said, though, this already detailed on Private Division, Star Theory Games, and Kerbal Space Program 2, so I'm not sure whether we need a fourth copy here. IMO, label-specific controversies should be organized to the respective articles. If we did include it here, we would have to expand the scope to all major controversies from all labels. Not sure how to go about this right now. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 04:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And outside the brief repeating of the Bloomberg article, I've not seen much else on this story, so to call it a "controversy" would be wrong. People went "Hmmm, maybe the devs were poached" but that was it. So we really can't go much more into it without further commentary from reliable sources. --M asem (t) 04:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)