1) I'm just replying to what you said here
https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/2180420/
"If you took at the acquisitions of Amazon, Apple and Google, they've only ever acquired companies for technology, not for the people, nor non-technology patent IP. If they want in on gaming they will be able to recruit good talent by being able to pay more."
I'm saying if Amazon, apple google want to recruit and start companies it will take a long time and looking at amazon who did such a thing and announced games in 2016 well it didn't go well for them did it ?
And Microsoft's first Xbox flopped commercially? So what. Almost nobody goes from zero to instant success it a single try. You said
that Microsoft should be acquiring companies before Amazon, Apple and Google start doing so and I said that traditionally none of these companies have bought companies for the talent of the workforce which is critical to making games. Buildings, furniture, dev systems, tools and engine licences are not a barrier to a large organisation - what is critical is personnel.
Where as if they bought a company that was already making successful games they would be in a better postion. For example if they bought Bethesda they would have some of the largest IPs to launch under the amazon and luma brands thus ensuring the fans of those series would buy their product.
I don't disagree that that acquiring an effective studio may mean you can get up to speed quicker but I do disagree that this is necessarily "
easier" - which is what you said
. Companies may own assets, technology and IP but they don't own people and I'd argue that's the most complex dynamic because even with the most talented people under one roof, it'll take a while to build a rapport and for that collection of individuals to become an effective team, develop a work culture and produce good results and that's the time saver of acquiring an existing studio.
That said, my personal experience of having been in organisations that have been acquired, and acquired other organisations, is that the change can make individuals rethink whether they are in the right job. Sometimes you're in a role and it's "fine" or "good" ( but not great, not bad) but when you something changes it causes you to re-evaluate things and you may decide it's time for change. Even the most minor changes in terms, conditions and perks can cause this so acquiring a studio - even if you make no material changes to the way it's run - can result in a wave of introspection and people deciding to leave after their contracted periods, which in the games world are generally quite short. In which case, are you that much better off?
Most large organisations (like Apple, Amazon, Google and Microsoft) generally don't buy companies for personnel/talent for a reason.
Ok, Sony's PS4 profit is Q3 2013 and Q2 2020 is $11bn. But so what?
The what is your state was ludicrously false, but if you're "so what" is a sign that facts and reality aren't important...
8bn profit for the whole year and MS paid that in cash for Bethesda basically. What company can throw its whole yearly profits over a single publisher? Of course it is possible but still.
So how can Xbox afford to buy a single publisher? Assuming, and based on the broadly accepted reality that PlayStation's profits vastly exceed those of Xbox?
