What should Sony's Acquisition Plans Be? *spawn*

[Shifty Geezer]

Rational arguments are the unbiased arguments. However discussions about exclusivity are inheretenly biased because most of the people prefer one or another platform. I have never seen a single person who would say that time exclusivity is better than acquisition while not having Playstation.

And I have never seen anyone suggest acquisition is better than timed exclusivity without being an XBox fan, but then I've only heard that from one person - you!

And really, this is where your perception fails. There are plenty of people capable of owning a box without being emotionally attached to the company that produces it. Sure, there are some people who'll side irrationally over the moves one company makes and oppose the similar moves from the other platform, but many gamers don't give a f***. We see this clearly in the PS360 era where XB360 was able to go toe-to-toe with PS3; many PS2 gamers jumped ship. And then jumped ship back again to PS for PS4, because ultimately there isn't a huge brand loyalty on account of a name. Brand loyalty is earned and lost, won over with good moves and value and marketing, and lost with exploitation and epic cock-ups. Every consumer bar a small minority are ready to flip brands when its best to do so.

But if you hear everything through a belief that every opinion is hideously skewed, you'll be oblivious to the rationale being offered. I have explained to you where the complaints are coming from. I have tried to clarify the differences between what you consider similar moves between Sony and MS and how other people see them. I have pointed out that your belief people treat MS differently is evidentially wrong by citing numerous first and second party exclusives which were well received by the gaming populace. It is what it is, If you can't/won't hear it, c'est la vie.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

but many gamers don't give a f***.

Many gamers don't play anything aside FIFA, COD and GTA and are not aware of the console wars, but go after the big shiny things.

We see this clearly in the PS360 era where XB360 was able to go toe-to-toe with PS3;

Well, Xbox 360 had two huge advantages - until they pivoted to mass market and completely forewent core gaming - at that time. Even three actually

• cheap
• came 1 year early
• easier to develop

If Xbox 360 and PS3 came out the same year, it would be slightly tougher for Xbox 360. It is hard to say how would the generation truly ended if Xbox 360 did not abandon core gaming and did not pivot to Kinect (I did like Kinect though, but well I bought X360 for Kinect and GTA5 so...).

I have pointed out that your belief people treat MS differently is evidentially wrong by citing numerous first and second party exclusives which were well received by the gaming populace. It is what it is, If you can't/won't hear it, c'est la vie.

I know everything I need to know about how people and media threat Microsoft simply from the reaction to RoTR exclusivity. It could not be more evident than that. So if media doesn't like any third party time exclusives from MS, then MS should just do a full frontal assault by acquiring studios and publishers. As much as how many people (including Sony) wanted Xbox to abandon gaming, it did not happen and MS went full force on gaming.

Brand loyalty is earned and lost, won over with good moves and value and marketing, and lost with exploitation and epic cock-ups.

I am not sure if loyalty can be lost via exploitation though.

 

[JPT]

I skipped a bunch of pages, so the data might be in this thread already.

1. How much of PS revenue/profit is 3rd party today?
2. How much was Activision and Bethesda of Sony 3rd party revenue/profit?
3. Can Sony survive on 1st and 2nd party only?
4. Its about plugging that 3rd party revenue hole, which I do belive will be more difficult if many of the major 3rd party titles skips PS.

Sony buying WB/EA or Take Two etc is just armchair quarterbacking, you need to have some data to make guesstimates on, other than butt hurt feelings about some franchise is going exclusive or not.

But I have the nagging feeling that MS acquisitions are not about Consoles/PC only, but mobile et al.

 

[eastmen]

For a game that's been announced and gamers are expecting to come to their console, only for it to be snatched away, yes. We see that same, consistent behaviour among gamers with Epic buying up a game and pissing of Steam users who are being forced to install EGS to access that game. Gamers don't like content they were expecting being paywalled to a platform, and who can blame them? And it's universal, although of course if you happen to have the platform that is getting the content, you are less likely to complain as you aren't directly affected. Life is unfair, but we rarely complain when it's unfair in our favour! That doesn't make the criticisms of the affected any less valid though.

And yes, Sony grabbing a multiplat and making it a PS console exclusive where it could and should come to XB is a crappy move. It'd be better if they didn't do that. But at least if it's a deal, it's only a title here and there. Buying up the studio and making everything PS only would be quantifiably a worse move for gamers. Sony's Square Enix exclusives are but a few titles among an entire library, or a frustrating timed exclusive - how dreadful would it be if Sony acquired all of SE and put all their games onto PS only? Love Final Fantasy? Well now you're forced to own a PS to play it.

I think Chuck had a great response to you. I will just say in earnest that I would rather know that If I want games from bethesda that I should buy this platform vs if I want games from bethesda I might have to buy all platforms because Sony could pay for doom to be exclusive and MS pay for starfield and nintendo for elder scrolls.

The cost of entry into the xbox eccosystem is game pass ultimate which gives you access to the first party games streaming on a multitude of devices. The price entry for sony is $400 for the ps5 and the price of the game or games. not only that but if you have a pc capable of gaming you just need to purchase the ms games on steam or windows store.

You position it as a negative when MS does things but it isn't always. Bethesda wanted to sell and MS bought them. Activision wanted to sell and MS bought them. MS didn't perform any hostile take overs. In each case other companies could have bought them. Imagine Bethesda only making VR games and only making them for oculus ? Imagine Acitivision only making games for Stadia ?

At this moment in time MS offers the easiest and most diverse ways to purchase their software line up. Xbox consoles for low cost dedicated gaming , Steam and Windows store for pcs capable of playing and finally Xcloud for any device capable of running the app or capable browser. Not only that but its all day and date on all these platforms.

 

[eastmen]

I skipped a bunch of pages, so the data might be in this thread already.

1. How much of PS revenue/profit is 3rd party today?
2. How much was Activision and Bethesda of Sony 3rd party revenue/profit?
3. Can Sony survive on 1st and 2nd party only?
4. Its about plugging that 3rd party revenue hole, which I do belive will be more difficult if many of the major 3rd party titles skips PS.

Sony buying WB/EA or Take Two etc is just armchair quarterbacking, you need to have some data to make guesstimates on, other than butt hurt feelings about some franchise is going exclusive or not.

But I have the nagging feeling that MS acquisitions are not about Consoles/PC only, but mobile et al.

Take 2 would be the best choice out of those. GTA is extremely popular but on the flip side GTA 5 has been the only gta for 3 generations now.

EA like i've said in the past is mostly tied up in other companies IP . major league sports / fifa / nascar and star wars. They do have a slew of great historical gaming ip but would require reboots for it. THe value goes away if those liscenses go away.

WB is in a similar situation. DC Comics ip is valuable as comics / movies/ toys not just video games so if those ips don't come you get some good studios and then I guess mortal kombat.

I think there are more companies down the pipeline that would be smarter buys like Konami , Capcom , Sega and Square

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

But I have the nagging feeling that MS acquisitions are not about Consoles/PC only, but mobile et al.

They have always been interested in mobile, but ATVI was a huge huge opportunity. I mean, they literally did not plan for it in October
I am pretty sure they delayed any other talks they had just to grab this opportunity.

I think there are more companies down the pipeline that would be smarter buys like Konami

Why people always bring Konami? They literally have nothing aside IPs. And their gaming division is really really small.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Sony can really only afford the smaller Japanese publishers and if it's true that MS won't be allowed to buy them, then Sony needn't bother. They would be wise keep with their moneyhats to Square etc... instead.

 

[eastmen]

They have always been interested in mobile, but ATVI was a huge huge opportunity. I mean, they literally did not plan for it in October
I am pretty sure they delayed any other talks they had just to grab this opportunity.


Why people always bring Konami? They literally have nothing aside IPs. And their gaming division is really really small.

Konami has some strong IPs some of which are closely tied to Playstation. Metal Gear Solid is closely tied and modern castlevania is tied to it also. I"m not the biggest fan of Konami games but I could see why they would purchase it.

Sony can really only afford the smaller Japanese publishers and if it's true that MS won't be allowed to buy them, then Sony needn't bother. They would be wise keep with their moneyhats to Square etc... instead.

I don't think its true that MS can't buy them. I think MS would have a hard time buying big studios but the smaller ones shouldn't be an issue. I would think Japan would just want assurances that MS will keep jobs in Japan and on that note if MS was to buy a Capcom or Konami then I am certain that MS would increase the size of those companies as that would be a good building off of point for studios in japan

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Konami has some strong IPs some of which are closely tied to Playstation. Metal Gear Solid is closely tied and modern castlevania is tied to it also. I"m not the biggest fan of Konami games but I could see why they would purchase it.

IP - maybe. But company no? Not to mention their pachinko business relies on their IPs so I don't think they will sell.

Sony can really only afford the smaller Japanese publishers and if it's true that MS won't be allowed to buy them, then Sony needn't bother. They would be wise keep with their moneyhats to Square etc... instead.

It is misinformation from incorrect understanding. The thing is that Japanese government categorized companies in groups. Like group 1, 2, 3. I don't remember what order but basically depending on the group they are important or not important. Full Sony acquisition is not possible due to important to the economy (in parts it is possible to buy it though). Capcom is possible for example.
The main problem is not this, but the fact is that a lot of japanese publishers have ties with various other industries that are not attractive to potential buyers (like arcades and hotels). That's why it is interesting to see where it is going with Sega who is performing restructuring.

 

[eastmen]

IP - maybe. But company no? Not to mention their pachinko business relies on their IPs so I don't think they will sell.


It is misinformation from incorrect understanding. The thing is that Japanese government categorized companies in groups. Like group 1, 2, 3. I don't remember what order but basically depending on the group they are important or not important. Full Sony acquisition is not possible due to important to the economy (in parts it is possible to buy it though). Capcom is possible for example.
The main problem is not this, but the fact is that a lot of japanese publishers have ties with various other industries that are not attractive to potential buyers (like arcades and hotels). That's why it is interesting to see where it is going with Sega who is performing restructuring.

I think Konami for their price is better than EA. As for the pachinko business , they could end up coming into an agreement with the purchasing company. Sony could liscense their ips to the spun off pachinko business .


For something like Sega I would imagine if MS was to purchase they would Split Sega Sammy into two again. MS would take the video game side while Sammy would continue to operate the rest.

 

[BRiT]

Sony acquisition of Bungie for $3.6 Billion discussion is happening @
https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/sony-game-studios-acquisitions-2022.62726/

 

[Cyan]

imho Sega, along Capcom, and very few others, is the company with he most talent.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1752276051734999043

https://twitter.com/x/status/1752280076643647971

 

[SmooTh]

Ah Rhytian

We're still waiting for the CDPR, Remedy and the other 13 Studio acquisitions.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Not sure if this deserves its own thread:

Concord reportedly cost £300m to make amid a culture of "toxic positivity"

PlayStation's delisted shooter Concord reportedly cost £300m ($400m) to develop.

www.eurogamer.net

Sony's big big big cross-platform MP shooter, Concord, fell flat and was pulled from sale after just a couple of weeks. Rumours are the studio was hopelessly arrogant. Sony bought Firewalk while mid game based on it just having an apparent 'A tier' list of execs, and it's reportedly the most expensive to run studio on PS's books.

They seem a bit clueless. They changed strategy in 2019 to Moare Acquisitions, including startups, versus their previous strategy of occasionally buying studios with an established portfolio from a proven track record of excellence, and so far it looks to have been a waste of money.

 

[Nesh]

The game does exhibit a lot of high quality work. Its a shame the artistic direction was such a mess that people were given nothing to relate with it or to be interested about.

 

[Scott_Arm]

The game does exhibit a lot of high quality work. Its a shame the artistic direction was such a mess that people were given nothing to relate with it or to be interested about.

People keep talking about the art direction, which I think was a big problem, but the game play looked pretty bad as well. I don't think there was a whole lot redeeming about Concord. Just a huge miss overall.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Some people liked it, but I felt it generic and unbalanced. Thing is, awesome gameplay is a really tight balancing act, and just a little wrong leaves you with a dud. All the core aspects were their but they weren't pulled together with panache. A suit made of all the right pieces but sewn together poorly, misaligned with wonky stitching. It should have been postponed and tuned into something worthy of the ambition. Another six months to make a success would have been a far better investment than cutting your losses. It's a colossal fail of management to allow it to release as it was, and clearly no-one in charge had the gaming understanding and creativity to try it and know whether it was done or not. Amateur chefs opening a themed restaurant with visions of being Cordon Bleu but not actually being that good and not investing in getting that good.

 

[Nesh]

People keep talking about the art direction, which I think was a big problem, but the game play looked pretty bad as well. I don't think there was a whole lot redeeming about Concord. Just a huge miss overall.

I didnt play it. Gameplay looked good in the videos. Of course playing it is likely a different story.
I feel that they hasted the release. Beta should have been open for longer periods and use feedback to fix issues. And maybe even release some lore episodes to wet the appetite.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

They shouldn't have invested so much into the lore until they had a game people were playing. Come up with a universe idea. Pencil it out. Then create a game. Test it up the wazoo until it's awesome and everyone loves it in blind tests. Release the game, possibly F2P or with a big demo, get millions of players, and then start expanding the story and monetisation.

 

[Scott_Arm]

They shouldn't have invested so much into the lore until they had a game people were playing. Come up with a universe idea. Pencil it out. Then create a game. Test it up the wazoo until it's awesome and everyone loves it in blind tests. Release the game, possibly F2P or with a big demo, get millions of players, and then start expanding the story and monetisation.

Shockingly a lot of studios don’t, or didn’t, prototype and play test heavily before moving into full production. I know this happened with Anthem . EA promoted Vince Zampinella specifically because Respawn has a history of heavily play testing their games early on.