As Electronic Arts continues to pursue its hostile takeover of Take-Two Interactive, EA Chief Executive John Riccitiello made some interesting comments to The New York Times recently. In particular, when asked about Rockstar and what effect a buyout would have, he asserted, "We, in many ways, represent a white knight." The argument is that EA could offer Rockstar a stable company that can distribute the blockbuster GTA franchise and other titles to a broader audience.

But does Rockstar even need a white knight? Given the developer's pedigree, couldn't they survive just fine on their own? GameDaily BIZ chatted with a few leading game industry analysts to get their thoughts on the matter.

Janco Partners' Mike Hickey was pretty strong in his assessment of Riccitiello's latest commentary. "My belief is Rockstar would be perfectly happy if EA never put a bid in at all. White knight commentary is total bullsh*t, and disrespectful to both the developers at TTWO and the new management team that has already achieved success," he told us.

DFC Intelligence's David Cole seems to agree. Rockstar doesn't exactly have trouble reaching a large audience with its hugely successful GTA franchise. "I would think with how successful the GTA games have been the issue hasn't been getting them to a wider audience. The issue is really more about shareholder value and whether EA is a white knight for Take-Two shareholders by offering to pay them the maximum value they feel they can get," he said.

Wedbush Morgan Securities' Michael Pachter took a more direct approach, explaining that Riccitiello is misusing the word: " 'White Knight' usually signifies rescue from a hostile suitor (the connotation is to a damsel in distress). I think Riccitiello's use of the term was incorrect, and perhaps a misplaced attempt to sound clever. They are in no sense a White Knight."

Pachter added, "Yes, Rockstar could go it alone, but they don't own GTA. TTWO owns the IP, and it passes to whoever controls TTWO stock."