Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13

[eastmen]

Yes, but why isn't MS doing the same? You cite an example of a move Sony made. It's not like Sony can do this and MS can't. So yeah, you can list a bunch of Sony exclusive content. Over the past ten years, how many titles and DLC's can you name? How much did Sony spend to get them? Then why didn't MS? The fact Sony has secured content doesn't really mean MS should be able to buy a publisher. Only if it's impossible for MS to operate the same way would it then seem fair to let them buy larger than anyone else to make the difference.

......

1) Sony and MS aren't the same company they will do things at different times. MS and Sony both bought developers when entering the market. Sony and MS both continue to buy up developers through the generations of gaming. I think its funny that in a thread discussing the purchase and if it will go through various regulators you are stateding that MS can't do it. It's obvious that Ms is trying to do what sony is doing. MS is buying up developers to get more content just like Sony. People are really just mad because of the size of MS's acquisitions vs sonys.

If sony can buy developers and publishers why couldn't MS ? no one has presented a logical argument to this.

You say its better to secure 2nd party content but is that really a good thing ? I gave examples of Ms working closely with other developers for exclusive content and the issues that presented themselves in such a case. Also what is the difference between securing partnerships over the long term that lead to acquisitions ? You are just delaying the acquisition step.

2) Well if Sony closed 8 studios maybe we should bring up the oft repeated phrase that is used against MS. Perhaps better investment in their first party developers and organic internal growth is what Sony should focus on instead of dumping what isn't working and buying new studios ?

Do you not see the Irony here ? A bunch of Sony studios were misfiring and so sony dumped them and bought other studios that had found their own levels of success to help keep the playstation afloat. Now those new companies are making the games that stand out for Sony. But now we can't let MS do the same ? MS can't buy up a bunch of dev teams out there and have them become successful ?


Will it be one of those things in the 5th xbox gen that all these amazing games come out from MS but everyone says oh its only because MS bought that studio where as a bunch of sucessful games from sony's studios that they bought are simply credited to sony being amazing at first party ?

I mean you say it in your post MS acquired adn then lost/closed a notable number of studios and we all recognize that former xbox under por leadership didn't promote positive development enivorments. But the two paragraphs above you state that Sony close 8 studios and bought 7. Why are we not recognizing that sony lost/closed a notable number of studios and we all recognize that former playstation under poor leader ship didn't promote positive development enviorments ?

Why aren't we giving MS the chance that Sony had ?

3) I am not implying the insominac purchase was a power move. I am just using it as an example of why MS wouldn't want to invest in 3rd party exclusives anymore along with other examples. Why put in effort and money to help with IP you don't really own ? It may be an okay move in the short run but at any point one of those IPs you don't own but invested into and is associated with your platform can suddenly be on other platforms too or worse exclusive to one of those platforms.

Sony makes deals like bloodborne where they own the IP and so that wont happen or signs contracts to simply exclude content from other platforms and even timed exclusives. Sony also simply buys developers they want

MS has decided that just owning development studios is the better way to go.


I personally rather these companies just buy the developers they want. That way I know if I buy a playstation hey these games wont be on this platform. No starfield or elder scrolls. But I know that going in. Its better than buying a playstation and then getting starfield but this or that story line is exclusive only on xbox but I am still paying the same price. Or elder scrolls gets announced as a timed exclusive but I don't know how many years if ever I am waiting for the game on my playstation

4) compare and contrast what ? Sony has bought what 11 studios since the start of this generation ? You can romanticize as much as you want but anyone can do that for anything.

Remember the long history of Activision games being on ms-dos all the way back to the Little Computer people in 1985 . I mean its a relationship forged for almost as long as i've been alive. What is the issue with Activision / Blizzard folks wanting to be part of MS ?

Are you stuck on Activision being a publisher ?

Guess what Sony bought one of the Companies that Activison published games for (Bungie) and bought a huge stake in the other one (from software ). The other companies can continue to publish through Activision or go to other publishers for deals. Nothing has really changed. Doesn't Sony publish third party titles when needed ?

5) You think that is what MS has but Sony is already copying game pass and sony continues to buy up developers. So its obviously not enough. Sony already enjoys exclusives just by being the defacto market leader . Sony already puts out more first party exclusives than MS a year. So MS needs to at least match that.

You may not like what is going on but if MS goes out and buys activision or ms goes out and spends 70B on developers its still going to end up adding more exclusive content to MS and less to playstation. In fact isn't it better that MS ties up so much resources into Activision vs dropping 70B on smaller devs ? I think they would be able to buy up almost all of them for that moeny

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Yea I have no way to discern profit since they don't separate those things out in such a way.

Then you cannot prove or disprove your theory at all. I would say that when profitability by title isn't stated in financial statements or supplementals then you need to read transcripts of investor calls because investors do care about profitability margins and these are common questions that come up.

But when we look at profitability for the platform vs the specific service, if the network effects are great enough, perhaps it makes more sense to just look at whether profitability is going up for the platform as opposed to just singling out the different products and services offered.

That is absolutely mental. The perceived network effect of a business model or product has no direct correlation to its objective profitability. Just looking at whether profitability is going up (or down) is completely divorced from your theory about them being sustained by a small fraction of titles.

You sound like somebody who runs a MLM.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

1) I think its funny that in a thread discussing the purchase and if it will go through various regulators you are stateding that MS can't do it.

I don't understand. Are you saying that I'm saying MS are not allowed to, or that they are unable to?

MS is buying up developers to get more content just like Sony. People are really just mad because of the size of MS's acquisitions vs sonys.

This isn't buying a studio - this is buying a publisher. If this was MS buying a studio, no-one would be batting an eyelid.

You say its better to secure 2nd party content but is that really a good thing ? I gave examples of Ms working closely with other developers for exclusive content and the issues that presented themselves in such a case.

If it's inherently problematic, Sony faces those same problems. If Sony can make 2nd party work and MS can't, that's a fault of MS business. Anything Sony are able to do, MS should be able to do.

Also what is the difference between securing partnerships over the long term that lead to acquisitions ? You are just delaying the acquisition step.

Not necessarily. Kinda like the difference between an arranged marriage versus one that comes after a long relationship getting to know each other. It's possible to buy talent without being able to make it work and then that talent just leaves. If you have a few projects under the belt and know the relationship works, it means preserving the studio instead of killing it via the acquisition. This goes for any publisher or platform holder.

2) Well if Sony closed 8 studios maybe we should bring up the oft repeated phrase that is used against MS. Perhaps better investment in their first party developers and organic internal growth is what Sony should focus on instead of dumping what isn't working and buying new studios ?

I'm literally saying Sony shouldn't be buying studios! I'm pointing to Sony's behaviour as indicative of a change that doesn't make much sense.

Do you not see the Irony here

No nbecause that's not my argument. Never has been. My point is that Sony's behaviour has changed towards something that doesn't make much sense, doesn't fit a good model of how to acquire studios, and is motivated by MS's actions.

I mean you say it in your post MS acquired adn then lost/closed a notable number of studios and we all recognize that former xbox under por leadership didn't promote positive development enivorments. But the two paragraphs above you state that Sony close 8 studios and bought 7. Why are we not recognizing that sony lost/closed a notable number of studios and we all recognize that former playstation under poor leader ship didn't promote positive development enviorments ?

I don't understand what you'r saying about closing studios. The point was you said it is already an arms race. My point is it wasn't. Does my point provide it was or wasn't an arms race?? If you want us to say Sony management sucked because they closed studios, sure. Sony sucked. Now, back to my point about it becoming an arms race. Do you agree that Sony's behaviour has changed towards more aggressive acquisitions that don't fit their model prior to 2018?

3) I am not implying the insominac purchase was a power move. I am just using it as an example of why MS wouldn't want to invest in 3rd party exclusives anymore along with other examples. Why put in effort and money to help with IP you don't really own ?

Because that's the choice. Either buy one little studio, or buy second party content and not get the IP (or do if you negotiate well, like Sony owning BloodBorne IP after funding From). You're leaping from "2nd party is a poor to investment" to "buy an entire publisher" which goes against your claim you don't want megacorps. Invest in the production, get the sale profit, let the publisher keep the IP and make ongoing deals with the publisher/studio remaining independent. It's a system that works and spreads the love and the money. Why does that need to change?

It may be an okay move in the short run but at any point one of those IPs you don't own but invested into and is associated with your platform can suddenly be on other platforms too or worse exclusive to one of those platforms.

It wouldn't become exclusive if companies didn't keep buying studios or exclusives!

Sony makes deals like bloodborne where they own the IP

Right. So why can't MS do that? Don't buy studios, just negotiate independent contractors to produce a product with secured rights?

I personally rather these companies just buy the developers they want. That way I know if I buy a playstation hey these games wont be on this platform. No starfield or elder scrolls. But I know that going in. Its better than buying a playstation and then getting starfield but this or that story line is exclusive only on xbox but I am still paying the same price. Or elder scrolls gets announced as a timed exclusive but I don't know how many years if ever I am waiting for the game on my playstation

Is that a better situation that all consoles getting all games and not having to buy two if you want to sample all content?

4) compare and contrast what ? Sony has bought what 11 studios since the start of this generation ? You can romanticize as much as you want but anyone can do that for anything.

I honestly don't know what your saying. The fact you reply pointwise without quoting what text your responding too makes it hard to follow. Whatever I've 'romanticized' applies equally to Sony as MS. There is a clear qualitative difference between the relationship of publishing on someone's open platform and then being acquired versus working on numerous titles directly and then being acquired. Sony doesn't have a close relationship with every developer that pbulshes on PlayStation. They don't even necessarily have a close relationship with every 2nd party dev. There are clearly studios they've worked with and got along with resulting in numerous titles. aNd I'm not claiming every single one of Sony's acquisitions have a special relationship. Your argument here seems to be "Sony has bought at least one studio without a special relationship, ergo MS can buy a publisher, and/or MS has exactly as close a relationship with Activision because of a 1985 MS-DOS game Microsoft had nothing to do with."

There are so many pointwise arguments against that which I won't enter into because all this debate ends up being. Sooo many words.

5) You think that is what MS has but Sony is already copying game pass and sony continues to buy up developers. So its obviously not enough. Sony already enjoys exclusives just by being the defacto market leader . Sony already puts out more first party exclusives than MS a year. So MS needs to at least match that.

Aren't you exactly talking about the arms race that I'm talking about?! This makes no sense. You don't acknowledge that Sony's buying habits have changed, and then use Sony's new habits to justify MS buying a publisher, and say you're against consolidation but then keep using Sony acquisition as justification for the biggest acquisition ever, which would be the biggest move in an arms race of acquisitions.

Trying to avoid the endless pointwise tit-for-tat counterarguments, can we please just settle on one or two arguments to actaually resolve? pone we have settled us you agree consolidation is overall bad and we're better off with more smaller companies. What about the gaming arms-race. Do you think

1) An acquisition arms race is good or bad for the industry?
2) Acquisitions have or haven't changed with far more happening now then they used to, with a clear shift around 2018/2019?

My answers to these questions, 1, I think an arms race is bad, and 2, I think the buying habits have changed and are accelerating considerably, as evidenced by Sony buying more studios in the last two years than the previous 25 years.

 

[iroboto]

Then you cannot prove or disprove your theory at all. I would say that when profitability by title isn't stated in financial statements or supplementals then you need to read transcripts of investor calls because investors do care about profitability margins and these are common questions that come up.

I'm pretty sure we can just look at revenues for titles and the platform fee is 30%. How much of that 30% is profit, I dunno, but that is the rate for a game to be on a console platform. I don't think we need to go overboard here; we're not even talking about theory. It's very likely the case that a small handful of titles represents the majority of the revenue that is collected from these platform fees, and therefore represent the majority of the profits from the platform fees.

That is absolutely mental. The perceived network effect of a business model or product has no direct correlation to its objective profitability. Just looking at whether profitability is going up (or down) is completely divorced from your theory about them being sustained by a small fraction of titles.

You sound like somebody who runs a MLM.

This is a difference of approach. You write the following:

If Game Pass were really profitable I believe Microsoft would be keen to say how successful and profitable it is. The service's profitability, which is a factor of its long-term viability, is what is missing.

Which is non-sensical because you are at best looking at unit costs. Which makes no sense to do absolutely no sense. It is significantly easier if you look at the only 2 columns that matter, is money coming into Xbox exceeding the money leaving Xbox. If the run rate of Game Pass is 500M a year, then you only need to make over 500M revenue in game pass subs to break even regardless of how they are priced, and more than is additional profitability. If we look at it this way, we can quickly ignore the arguments around $1 conversions, or free months etc. We only care that the total subscriber revenue has pass the game pass expenses to know if the service is profitable.

You question if the service has long-term viability and that just comes down to capping the annual expense. That's it. That's why sales occur all the time. Because there is a quota to meet for the quarter, and if that quota isn't met, you drop the price and meet the quotas. There is nothing else to discuss on this point because M&A don't apply here.

What is mental here is that, in absence of transparency of numbers or statements by Microsoft, the only explanation you will accept is that they are lying.

 

[SmooTh]

Feels like as I have read the whole stuff here already 10 times...

 

[eastmen]

I don't understand. Are you saying that I'm saying MS are not allowed to, or that they are unable to?

[/QUOTE]
I am saying we are speaking to each other in a thread that has discussion in it about government agencies deciding the fact on if MS can buy activision. So can they or can't they do what sony is doing ? We have to wait and see what is decided.

This isn't buying a studio - this is buying a publisher. If this was MS buying a studio, no-one would be batting an eyelid.

What is the difference to you ? For independent devs that can shop around games to other publishers to release or self release. Sony bought bungie who used activision to publish and bought a huge chunk of from software who also uses activision to ship. Seems like Sony is just taking a round about way of making activation a smaller player in the market already.

If it's inherently problematic, Sony faces those same problems. If Sony can make 2nd party work and MS can't, that's a fault of MS business.

Doesn't that include buying studios ?
Not necessarily. Kinda like the difference between an arranged marriage versus one that comes after a long relationship getting to know each other. It
Do you think MS doesn't have any relationships with these developers or with activision ?MS has been part of the gaming space before Sony. Activision published on MS does since 1985. Like I asked does that not qualify as a long relationship where both parties get to know each other ?

Look at Bethesda , Ron howard talks about how supportive MS was and how it was because of MS that elder scrolls even came to consoles

I'm literally saying Sony shouldn't be buying studios! I'm pointing to Sony's be

Why shouldn't they ? Its what they have always done ?

No nbecause that's not my argument. Never has been. My point is that Sony's behaviour has change

You should recheck their history. This echos the ps2/ps3 generations where there were few purchases in the ps2 era and they bought triple the studios in ps3 generation. The ps4 generation there were just a few purchases and now in the ps5 generation there are already 10 purchases.

I don't understand what you'r saying about closing studios. The point was you said it is

my point is simple. People in this thread have said that sony should just make their own studios and the lack of good games and studio closings were MS's fault. But as you said Sony has been guilty of the same behavior and yet the response is completely different.

Because that's the choice. Either buy one little studio, or buy second party content and not get the IP (or do if you negotiate well, like Sony owning BloodBorne IP after funding From). You're leaping from "2nd party is a poor to investment" to "buy an entire publisher" which goes against your claim you don't want megacorps.

You don't seem to understand. I don't like mega corps but unfortunately I don't get to choose that there are none. My point is simple if one company is going to buy up studios and continue to be the market leader then why would I be against smaller competitors in the space behaving the same way ? You are asking why something that never existed needs to change. When have platform holders not bought studios ? I believe they have all done it

It wouldn't become exclusive if companies didn't keep buying studios or exclusives!

[/QUOTE]
Welp hope you got a tartus somewhere

Right. So why can't MS do that? Don't buy studios, just negotiate inde

Why can't Sony do that ? I mean listen to yourself. MS is who is in third place and sold half the consoles as sony did last generation , will go ahead and compete in the bidding process to get exclusives . All the while sony will continue to buy up more studios. Tell me again how MS is able to compete better with this plan of yours ?

Is that a better situation that all consoles getting all games and not having to buy two if you want to sample all content?

[/QUOTE]
When in this rainbow world of yours does Sony put their titles on the xbox and nintendo puts their titles on the xbox ? There is already division due to first/second party exclusives so you already have to choose.

I honestly don't know what your saying. The fact you reply pointwise without quoting what text your responding.......out a special relationship, ergo MS can buy a publisher, and/or MS has exactly as close a relationship with Activision because of a 1985 MS-DOS game Microsoft had nothing to do with."

[/QUOTE]
Hopefully you approve of my quoting here more then. Do you think that Microsoft doesn't have a long relationship with Activision ? MS had deals with activision for call of duty from 2005 to at least 2014

It's the same with Bethesda , Todd Howard already talked about the close relationship with Microsoft and how elder scrolls on console is because of MS's partner ship

There are so many pointwise arguments against that which I won't enter into because all this debate ends up being. Sooo many words.

Aren't you exactly talking about the arms race that I'm talking about?! This makes no sense. You don't acknowledge that Sony's buying habits have changed,

I don't acknowldge Sony's buying habits as being changed. Sony has been doing this for 30 years and some generations they buy more developers than others. Ps3 generation was one of those and now the ps5 generation is another. MS is buying up developers. Their next purchase is activision 1) because activision is in deep shit and is looking to sell so that the high ups and stock holders get a pay day. 2) it brings market share in mobile up drasticly for MS 3) there are strong IP that will help Ms expand their markets

MS is behind sony in exclusive content and sony is buying up more developers. So not only does MS need to purchase just as many developers to keep the status quo but they have to buy even more than sony to gain any ground on them. So MS went big instead of going home. Why would I fault them for that ?
Trying to avoid the endless pointwise tit-for-tat counterarguments, can we please just settle on one or two arguments to actaually resolve? pone we have settled us you agree consolidation is overall bad and we're better off with more smaller companies. What about the gaming arms-race. Do you think[/quote]
How would we settle anything when we don't agree on anything ?

1) An acquisition arms race is good or bad for the industry?
2) Acquisitions have or haven't changed with far more happening now then they used to, with a clear shift around 2018/2019?

1) It's neither good nor bad. Its just part of the market. Its actually funny since Activision was formed because there were no third party developers back in the atari days. Atari made all the games originally and some talent people from atari left to make what became activision. What is going to happen is that with Activision gone other companies can step in and fill the gap. There is even less of a need going forward for publishers as there is less of a need if any for physical media. A publisher used to take risks by handling the pressing and distribution of physical games. But now anyone can self launch on steam or make deals with ms/nintendo/sony to launch on their platforms. Even additional funding isn't always needed as there is kickstarter and early access options

2) I disagree. Just look at the ps3 example. Sony bought what 8 studios that generation ? That was prior to 2018/2019

If you want to talk about a perfect world then we need to reset back to Atari. Atari is the only one born without original sin now

Atari was founded in 1971 as Syzygy engineering and made computer space. They then bloomed into a console manufacturer. . They didn't have love hotels and playing cards , they weren't a huge electronics company using patented tech to get into the business and they weren't a computer OS super power getting into the market. They also weren't a kids toy brand or a huge leather company.

Well I guess It would be Atari and Sega. Those are the only two companies out there that can't really be said to have used any other side of the business to break into the market since they were only video game companies.

If we sit here and get into the mud about oh MS's market share in computer os's make it unfair that they are purchasing this company. Then we have to get into Sony using the fact that its the largest music publisher , second largest record label , has 55 percent of the image sensor market , largest player in premium tv market and so on and so forth. Its just a never ending down ward spiral of bullshit.

This is my point and you can agree or not

1) Sony has been buying studios since entering the market and continues to this very day
2) Sony sells more each generation than MS and in the majority of generations more than nintendo
3) Because of 1 and 2 then it is equally fair for MS to buy studios too
4) because of 2 , its also logical that for MS to catch up to sony in terms of exlusive content ms would need to purchase more studios to accomplish that.

Sorry I keep hitting the character cap

 

[see colon]

Look at Bethesda , Ron howard talks about how supportive MS was and how it was because of MS that elder scrolls even came to consoles

Wrong Howard, bro.

 

[Cardassian Bob]

Wrong Howard, bro.

It's an honest mistake. I mix up Clint and Ron all the time.

 

[fehu]

It happens to me with Howard the Duck too.

 

[mr magoo]

So to summarize Microsoft allowed madman Phil Spencer to run Xbox into black hole. Not only the game pass model is not profitable but cloud is deemed to fail becouse Sony is not doing that.

 

[Metal_Spirit]

Microsoft literally used poor Xbox One sales as an argument in their document as they cannot compete with Sony. Microsoft felt the sales were below expectations. This came from their own internal documents released to the courts.

I'm Sorry to barge in.

But was It Sony's fault that Microsoft crippled its console performance because of Kinect?
Was It Sony's fault that Microsoft presented its console speaking about TV and TV, and using the console as a set top box, and no games?
Was It Sony's fault that Microsoft placed a DRM requiring a 24 hours online check and used sales restrictions?
Was It Sony's fault that because all of this Xbox had a terrible reception and Microsoft even considered ending Xbox?
Was It Sony's who promissed the Power of Cloud to turn things around, what never happened?
Was It Sony's who said "we created DirectX we will never allow Sony to have an advantage"?
Was It Sony's who invested billions on UWP and Mixer, only to close them down, instead of using It on exclusives.
Was It Sony's who closed Victoria Studios, Xbox Entertainment Studios, Soho productions, Twisted pixels, Press Play, Lionhead Studios, Big Park, Good Science Studio, Leap Experience Pioneers, Function Studios, Team Dakota, SOTA and Decisive Games, leaving Xbox with about four Studios during the One era, and no First party support?

If not, what exactly are they complaining about.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I am saying we are speaking to each other in a thread that has discussion in it about government agencies deciding the fact on if MS can buy activision. So can they or can't they do what sony is doing ? We have to wait and see what is decided.

Ah, I'm not talking about the decision making process at whatever agencies, but what I consider is the right way to approach this, how it should be dealt with to produce the healthiest market and wider business landscape. The arguments from the perspective of whether the agencies will block or allow will likely be different to the arguments from outsiders weighing in with their opinions.

2) I disagree. Just look at the ps3 example. Sony bought what 8 studios that generation ?

I'm only counting 5

2006-2017 :

2006 - Zipper
2007 - Evolution
2007 - BigBig
2010 - Media Molecule
2011 - Sucker Punch

That was prior to 2018/2019

Even using you 8 figure, that's 8 studios over >eight years, versus 6 in 2021. From one a year to six a year. You don't think an increase of x6 isn't a change in behaviour? A person moving from drinking one pint a day to six pints a day isn't doing anything differently? And it's probably nearer an increase of 10x.

This is my point and you can agree or not

1) Sony has been buying studios since entering the market and continues to this very day
2) Sony sells more each generation than MS and in the majority of generations more than nintendo
3) Because of 1 and 2 then it is equally fair for MS to buy studios too
4) because of 2 , its also logical that for MS to catch up to sony in terms of exlusive content ms would need to purchase more studios to accomplish that.

Sorry I keep hitting the character cap

From the perspective of regulators, that's reasonable thinking to permit this, except point four. Sony has 19 studios and MS has 23. And 5 of Sony's studios are support studios that aren't producing titles, so that's 14 title-producing studios versus 23?

From the perspective of a gamer, I think this a bad direction and present my case that it shouldn't go ahead for the reasons I've stated. The market is presently healthy, there's a decent degree of choice and competition, all ecosystems are healthy, and this escalation of acquisitions is all round bad. I have nothing against these companies adding at the rate of a studio devery couple of years, particularly if that studio was already producing 2nd party exclusives for a few titles and operating like a subsidiary prior to being bought. Presently MS has enough studios to match Sony, actually exceed them going by the raw numbers, and doesn't need to add ABK to 'catch up'.

 

[eastmen]

Wrong Howard, bro.

Narrator " And that is when he knew he blued himself "

Anyway yes wrong Howard

 

[eastmen]

Ah, I'm not talking about the decision making process at whatever agencies, but what I consider is the right way to approach this, how it should be dealt with to produce the healthiest market and wider business landscape. The arguments from the perspective of whether the agencies will block or allow will likely be different to the arguments from outsiders weighing in with their opinions.


I'm only counting 5

2006-2017 :

2006 - Zipper
2007 - Evolution
2007 - BigBig
2010 - Media Molecule
2011 - Sucker Punch


Even using you 8 figure, that's 8 studios over >eight years, versus 6 in 2021. From one a year to six a year. You don't think an increase of x6 isn't a change in behaviour? A person moving from drinking one pint a day to six pints a day isn't doing anything differently? And it's probably nearer an increase of 10x.


From the perspective of regulators, that's reasonable thinking to permit this, except point four. Sony has 19 studios and MS has 23. And 5 of Sony's studios are support studios that aren't producing titles, so that's 14 title-producing studios versus 23?

From the perspective of a gamer, I think this a bad direction and present my case that it shouldn't go ahead for the reasons I've stated. The market is presently healthy, there's a decent degree of choice and competition, all ecosystems are healthy, and this escalation of acquisitions is all round bad. I have nothing against these companies adding at the rate of a studio devery couple of years, particularly if that studio was already producing 2nd party exclusives for a few titles and operating like a subsidiary prior to being bought. Presently MS has enough studios to match Sony, actually exceed them going by the raw numbers, and doesn't need to add ABK to 'catch up'.

1) What you consider the right way is for one company to handicap itself by not buying up ip and talent while allowing other companies to go out and buy ip and talent.
2) I added Guerrila from dec of 2005. But you are missing Sigil Games. they also purchased Gaikai during this time. in 2012 too

Also ooph "
Sigil Games Online had around 150 employees at the time they released their only game, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, on January 30, 2007. The development team continued to address the well-documented technical issues users experienced at launch for several months. On May 14, 2007, the staff of Sigil Games Online were told to meet in the parking lot at 4:30PM and to take with them what they would need for the rest of the day. The employees were told that the launch of the game had not gone well, the company was in financial trouble and they were selling the company to Sony Online Entertainment. Director of Production, Andy Platter, then told the employees "You're all fired."[15]

The following day, May 15, 2007, Sony Online Entertainment announced that they had acquired Sigil's "key assets", while further stating that Sony Online Entertainment would hire approximately fifty of Sigil's employees and that Brad McQuaid would be consultant to SOE as a creative advisor for Vanguard.[16] Sony Online Entertainment's President John Smedley communicated the announcement to "Vanguard's" playerbase via the game's official forums"

That has gotta be one of the shittiest ways to go.

3) Yes the numbers are different but again during the PS1 they bought Psygnosis in 1993 the year before the ps1 launched . During PS2 they bought Bend, Naughty Dog , Icognito. So there is already a progression leading up to the ps3 and through the ps3 generation. The only generation to deviate from that was the ps4 generation. The only video game company purchases came at the very end of the generation with 2019 seeing Audiokinetic and insomniac. Then we see them go back to their earlier behavior of buying a bunch of studios each generation. Seems like normal behavior to me esp as the amount of money spent on video games continues to climb each generation

4) Yes Ms now has more studios and ? MS has only recently bought the majority of these studios 4 years ago. Like I said MS would still need to turn out more content to make up for sony's ability to get exclusives just as the market leader. I also don't know what the amount of studios have to do with anything ? Are you against one company having more than the other ? What if Ms started 100 studios tomorrow is that then okay ? I don't get the point you are trying to make here.

5) You keep saying this is a bad direction. But you haven't given me any real reason why its a bad direction. If you are worried about gamers loosing access to titles that has already been happening with any 3rd party company. That was true in 1993 when sony first purchased a video game company and its still true to this day with sony owned companies.

At the same time the barrier to entry has never been lower to access games. With Ms you can just get a subscription to play any of thier games on any of your devices. If you own a playstation and want to play Starfield it could cost you just $15 for a months access. You already have a bluetooth controller from your playstation that you can pair with any phone / tablet / pc / tv stick / tv and play the game. MS's lowest entry machine goes as low as $200 on sale . You could even go on and play it on steam.

You say the market is healthy but do you really believe the state that Activision is currently in is healthy ? The allegations of sexual assault ? The continued doubling down on their few succesfull IPs ? The union busting ?

You say the market is healthy but do you think gamers buying a full priced game and getting only some of the content because one company paid for exclusive content is healthy ?

Where was your stance against Sony buying any of the last almost dozen game developers that were bought by them in the last 2 years ?

You say MS doesn't need Activision to catch up to sony. Did I miss them being equal ? did the xbox one and ps4 sell the same ? Is the xbox series and ps5 selling the same numbers? How do you know the xbox business itself is healthy with only 60m units sold ww ?


I am still waiting to hear from any of you exactly what is bad about Activision being bought vs any other developer being bought.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

1) What you consider the right way is for one company to handicap itself by not buying up ip and talent while allowing other companies to go out and buy ip and talent.

Except I've been consistent in criticising. Why do you talk as if I'm saying Sony can act differently. I'm saying both companies shouldn't by buying up large quantities of talent.

2) But you are missing Sigil Games.

That was Sony online Entertainment. They were a different division to Sony Computer Entertainment, an independent publishing arm founded in 1997.

3) Yes the numbers are different

So you don't consider a 6-fold increase a difference in behaviour? Fair enough. There's no changing you on this matter then. Clearly accelerating from 10 MPH to 20 MPH is exactly the same as accelerating from 80 MPH to 90MPh and therego driving 90 MPH is no different to driving at 20!

4) Yes Ms now has more studios and ?

You've said MS needs more studios to 'catch up' with Sony's output. MS now already has more studios, so no longer needs to catch up. Any growth on MS's part now is about getting ahead and producing even more content. That'll place Sony in need of catching up and acquiring more studios...

I also don't know what the amount of studios have to do with anything ?

Number of studios means amount of output. Or does MS need twice the number of studios as Sony to produce the same output?

5) You keep saying this is a bad direction. But you haven't given me any real reason why its a bad direction. If you are worried about gamers loosing access to titles that has already been happening with any 3rd party company. That was true in 1993 when sony first purchased a video game company and its still true to this day with sony owned companies.

Why do you keep going back to 1993? 1) MS's first acquisition was 1987 so it's not like Sony set the precedent. 2) Exclusives back then were significantly because of hardware. Now the hardware has homogenised, cross-platform compatibility is much easier. Indeed, it's the norm. Studios won't be making exclusives unless bought up and paid to create exclusives. If all studioes were independent, pretty much all content would be cross-platform, giving gamers more choice which hardware to own.

Where was your stance against Sony buying any of the last almost dozen game developers that were bought by them in the last 2 years ?

Here we go, the platform bias card! Because I didn't post against Sony acquisitions (which were done piecemeal, weren't considered by the regulators, and didn't generate threads discussing them), I'm clearly prejudiced! Ergo all my reasoning is bunk, which is probably why you say...

I am still waiting to hear from any of you exactly what is bad about Activision being bought vs any other developer being bought.

When I've been consistent about that this whole dumb discussion. What a ridiculous tirade of scattershot arguments. Sure, yeah, MS has to buy ABK to fixed sexual assault in the industry! It's not like another buyout and/or management replacement could do that. And how many effing times have I said it's unfair and wrong for Sony to secure content? Every time it comes up in a game thread where Sony does that if I post in said thread. But you can't hear it, my completely consistent stance, because you're lost in the arguments.

For the record, again, my completely consistent stance, exclusive content is bad. Consoles should be like TVs and DVD players. It's best if neither company has exclusive content. If there is going to be exclusives content, it's better that it's limited to a few studios and titles and 2nd party exclusives than dividing the industry up into large chunks.

It's basically an argument of scale which you seem unable to understand. As far as your concerned, if a console company can buy studio, they shoudl be allowed ot buy hundreds. I'm backing out of here again. Enjoy your discussion!

 

[eastmen]

Except I've been consistent in criticising. Why do you talk as if I'm saying Sony can act differently. I'm saying both companies shouldn't by buying up large quantities of talent.

I just found out I don't need to write [/quote] to make a quote here. I'm evolving !

Because I keep bringing up that this has been going on for decades , even before Ms entered the market. It is a part of why Sony continues to enjoy the success they do. If they didn't buy a bunch of studios in the ps3 era the majority of games that are associated with sony right now wouldn't exist. In 2 generations bethesda games may just be associated with Microsoft like those games are associated with Sony.

That was Sony online Entertainment. They were a different division to Sony Computer Entertainment, an independent publishing arm founded in 1997.

It's all part of Sony. do we not consider Mojang as part of xbox ?

So you don't consider a 6-fold increase a difference in behaviour? Fair enough. There's no changing you on this matter then. Clearly accelerating from 10 MPH to 20 MPH is exactly the same as accelerating from 80 MPH to 90MPh and therego driving 90 MPH is no different to driving at 20!

didn't we establish that they bought about 3 times the studios in the ps2 generation as the ps1 generation ? Wouldn't it make sense that as the gaming market continues to expand that sony would invest more in the market ?

You've said MS needs more studios to 'catch up' with Sony's output. MS now already has more studios, so no longer needs to catch up. Any growth on MS's part now is about getting ahead and producing even more content. That'll place Sony in need of catching up and acquiring more studios...

I've said that Sony has more exclusive titles than MS and that MS would not only need to catch up but to exceed Sony in order to get more market share than they have now. Even if MS matches Sony's output itself there are still all the timed exclusives that sony pays for or defacto exclusives that sony gets due to install base.

Why do you keep going back to 1993? 1) MS's first acquisition was 1987 so it's not like Sony set the precedent. 2) Exclusives back then were significantly because of hardware. Now the hardware has homogenised, cross-platform compatibility is much easier. Indeed, it's the norm. Studios won't be making exclusives unless bought up and paid to create exclusives. If all studioes were independent, pretty much all content would be cross-platform, giving gamers more choice which hardware to own.

I go back to 1993 because its sony's first purchase of a gaming company with the express purpose of entering the console market. MS didn't enter the console market until 2001 almost a decade after Sony.

Here we go, the platform bias card! Because I didn't post against Sony acquisitions (which were done piecemeal, weren't considered by the regulators, and didn't generate threads discussing them), I'm clearly prejudiced! Ergo all my reasoning is bunk, which is probably why you say...

Sony Game Studios Acquisitions [2022]

Sony Interactive Entertainment to Acquire Leading Independent Videogame Developer, Bungie (yahoo.com) Sony to acquire Bungie. Interesting. What an interesting path Bungie has taken. Independent -> MS -> Independent -> Sony. Apparently Bungie is going to remain a multiplatform developer with...

forum.beyond3d.com

I mean we had a whole thread about the bungie purchase and for at least the first 10 pages I don't see you in there complaining how console makers buying up developers is going to ruin market. Was it not true then?

When I've been consistent about that this whole dumb discussion. What a ridiculous tirade of scattershot arguments. Sure, yeah, MS has to buy ABK to fixed sexual assault in the industry! It's not like another buyout and/or management replacement could do that. And how many effing times have I said it's unfair and wrong for Sony to secure content? Every time it comes up in a game thread where Sony does that if I post in said thread. But you can't hear it, my completely consistent stance, because you're lost in the arguments.

I didn't say anything about MS buying activision because of sexual assualt. I am asking if you think the sexual assualt issues are a sign of a healthy industry. There are a lot there.

For the record, again, my completely consistent stance, exclusive content is bad. Consoles should be like TVs and DVD players. It's best if neither company has exclusive content. If there is going to be exclusives content, it's better that it's limited to a few studios and titles and 2nd party exclusives than dividing the industry up into large chunks.

It's basically an argument of scale which you seem unable to understand. As far as your concerned, if a console company can buy studio, they shoudl be allowed ot buy hundreds. I'm backing out of here again. Enjoy your discussion!

That isn't how the console market works. A ps5 wouldn't be $400/$500 if there was no exlusive content. The cost would be hundreds of dollars more. At that point the console industry would simply become the pc industry.


Again we reach an impasse. You are saying something that has been going on for 30+ years is bad for this industry. I am simply saying that is the industry. The industry seems to be growing and working just fine so far

Anyway have a good day

 

[Nesh]

If the industry is going so well and its normal for you, then you wouldnt be complaining about Sony since the beginning of the thread

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'm pretty sure we can just look at revenues for titles and the platform fee is 30%. How much of that 30% is profit, I dunno, but that is the rate for a game to be on a console platform.

How will revenue calculations adjust for digital (30% digital store cut) vs disc and that variable licensing model, or estimate the profitability of first party titles which could be more (or less) profitable than the 30% sale cut of digital titles - depending production cost. It seems like a like of flakey numbers to begin with, which isn't a robust place to begin calculations from.

I reckon the nearest approximation would be take a year for which full PS5 figures exist, like 2021, look at the G&NS services profit, carve out the published subscriptions and anything else not related to games, then perhaps work through the top 10-20 selling games for PS5 and see how it stacks up. Otherwise you may as well use a magic 8 ball!

I don't think we need to go overboard here; we're not even talking about theory. It's very likely the case that a small handful of titles represents the majority of the revenue that is collected from these platform fees, and therefore represent the majority of the profits from the platform fees.

It's the "small handful" that is statistically unlikely for reasons I said before. If you said >50% of the profit came from <50% of the titles I'd accept it because that seems likely given the range of pricing and sales of the hundreds of titles that are released each year on console platforms.
But whether that's 40/60 (40% of tiles driving 60% of profits) or 35/65 is going to depending on some pretty acute sales/profit distribution curves.

I honest don't think it's worth debating it if you don't want to try and look at the raw numbers. And I don't know blame you, nor do I. But let's accept that just tossing numbers in the air and calling it "likely" is a nonsense.

What is mental here is that, in absence of transparency of numbers or statements by Microsoft, the only explanation you will accept is that they are lying.

Woah.. how did you get that I said they are lying? I believe Phil Spencer (and I think it was Aaron Greenberg a few years ago) where they said GamePass is profitable, I only curious about how profitable. If subscriptions are the future then it's profitability versus the business model used by pretty much everybody else is a critical factor.

I think if Game Pass was very profitable - as in close the model they want to replace - Phil Spencer would have said. He was dropping all sorts of interesting info at the Tech Live event in October.

 

[SmooTh]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1608907700993404928

 

[Deleted member 11852]

@SmooTh Reuters have remembered that Nintendo exist.