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

[Nesh]

I completely agree. It is a little sad that it's preferable to buy entire companies than grow your talent internally, but that does take time. It seems like nobody has the patience to organically grow capability anymore.

Sony of the past did in a way that. They could spot small talents in small studios that didnt have much future, and then invest in them and bring out incredible work. Bend and Guerilla games are such studios. Nobody was giving any attention to them and their work was mediocre to Ok'ish. Bend's game on PS1 was Bubsy 3D, one of the worst games ever on the Platform. Guerilla's game before they were purchased was Killzone 1, a mix bag of incredible achievement, bugfest and inconsistent performance. These guys pushed the PS3 all the way to PS5 in ways that they set new standards. Alone they would have probably not existed or rely on smaller projects. These guys wouldnt have lasted long. Other studios like Evolution were assigned by Sony to make specific projects and received assistance. Again they didnt appear like anything significant. Until Sony bought them and funded them. Naughty Dog's work was passable and was pretty much ignored until Sony published Crash Bandicoot on PS1 which took advantage of the hardware in unique ways. Then Sony helped them grow and become the juggernauts we know.

The majority of PS studios were never missed or given much attention until Sony made them what they are

 

[Johnny Awesome]

As I've said before: There's no virtuous difference between buying companies with people/IP and paying people to grow organically, just emotional reactions. Sony mostly pays artists to create and MS mainly buys artists creations. Either way the artists are getting paid and gamers are getting the games.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Sony of the past did in a way that. They could spot small talents in small studios that didnt have much future, and then invest in them and bring out incredible work. Bend and Guerilla games are such studios. Nobody was giving any attention to them and their work was mediocre to Ok'ish. Bend's game on PS1 was Bubsy 3D, one of the worst games ever on the Platform.

I feel this way about most acquisitions. Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Sucker Punch and Bend were pretty much PlayStation exclusive studios at the time of acquisition. Console competitors lost little. I feel the same about Bungie, Lionhead, Rare and Undead Labs, who had no real console presence. Microsoft buying them make no difference to the console landscape.

Part of it is about expectation, i.e for some titanic IPs users expect those to be available to all platforms. There is no definitive list but titles like GTA, Red Dead, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Assassin's Creed probably fall into this basket. Nobody expects Sony to release Ratchet & Clank, Horizon or Uncharted on Xbox, nor for Microsoft to release Halo or Gears of War on PlayStation.

This is where acquisitions get complicated. When an owners has one particular console no longer has access to IP it did previously. Games like Spider-Man make this more complicated. Sony aren't denying Xbox users of Spider-Man games, Activision did that by release shit Spider-Man games for years which caused Marvel to cancel their Multiplatform licence. The same would be true if Microsoft got a licence for a cool Iron Man game that they didn't release on PlayStation.

Owning all platforms I miss out on nothing.

As I've said before: There's no virtuous difference between buying companies with people/IP and paying people to grow organically, just emotional reactions.

There can be quite a big difference. When you acquire a whole company you buy technology, workflow/pipeline and IP. When you recruit individuals, you're bringing in elements of expertise. For example, I think Sony would have really struggled to bring more PlayStation games to PC without a few quick acquisitions of entire companies, e..g Nixxes, who's experience was doing that.

Sometime you cannot lure a few key employees over, you need to secure the whole shebang.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I said "virtuous difference". Nothing you said addressed what I wrote. I generally agree with your posts about MS/Sony just out for their bottom lines.

 

[Nesh]

As I've said before: There's no virtuous difference between buying companies with people/IP and paying people to grow organically, just emotional reactions. Sony mostly pays artists to create and MS mainly buys artists creations. Either way the artists are getting paid and gamers are getting the games.

The companies don't do anything out of virtue and nobody talked about virtuosity. You omit a key difference, that MS has recently bought existing big multiplatform companies with their huge multiplatform titles that were historically popular on every platform. When MS bought Rare or Playground or Ninja Theory and other studios (besides Zenimax and ABK) they also bought their franchises too but that was a fine move, not out of virtue, but because they aren't potentially taking away significantly from other platforms. They are only creating a new and healthier competitive ecosystem. So they are very similar to what Sony has been doing up until just before those super big acquisitions.

So your point "Sony just buys talent, MS just buys franchises" says nothing by itself.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I said "virtuous difference". Nothing you said addressed what I wrote. I generally agree with your posts about MS/Sony just out for their bottom lines.

I didn't follow the use of the adjective 'virtuous'. Can you explain? This seems entirely subjective and I've spent too many years on these forums to even consider debating something subjective.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

def: Neither activity is more virtuous than the other.

 

[Nesh]

The subject has never been about virtue. I am baffled by your argument,

 

[eastmen]

The subject has never been about virtue. I am baffled by your argument,

it's all rearranging deck chairs on the titanic to try and position the argument better. At the end of the day what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If its been already for Sony to buy up companies and keep exclusive content for their platforms then it's okay for MS or Netflix or Nintendo or Apple or whoever to do the same. We obviously all have bias when it comes to who we would want to buy up companies. I for one would never want to see a company bought by Tencent. But at least I am open and honest about it.

 

[PSman1700]

Theres no difference in how these companies have become exclusive-game developers, the end result is the same for the end-user/market.

 

[Nesh]

Theres no difference in how these companies have become exclusive-game developers, the end result is the same for the end-user/market.

Many are similar. Now explain why/how there is no difference between every single case.

 

[PSman1700]

Now explain why/how there is no difference

It doesnt matter for the end-user, for all those console gamers out there. I highly doubt their going to resource on as to why Spiderman doesnt land on Xbox but on PS for example.

 

[Nesh]

It doesnt matter for the end-user, for all those console gamers out there. I highly doubt their going to resource on as to why Spiderman doesnt land on Xbox but on PS for example.

You havent explained anything. You just repeated your conclusion. Also as everybody knows Spiderman was pitched by Marvel to MS but apparently they werent interested. And Spiderman games can arrive to XBOX just not those produced by Sony.

 

[eastmen]

You havent explained anything. You just repeated your conclusion. Also as everybody knows Spiderman was pitched by Marvel to MS but apparently they werent interested. And Spiderman games can arrive to XBOX just not those produced by Sony.

Do you have a link to the contract Sony signed with Disney in regards to spiderman video games? Or is this simply an empty talking point?

 

[Nesh]

Do you have a link to the contract Sony signed with Disney in regards to spiderman video games? Or is this simply an empty talking point?

Do yòu? No?

You know Sony doesnt own Spider Man, you know that MS rejected the offer, you know that Spider Man is finding his way on other XBOX games.

And most of all you know perfectly well it was Marvel's decision to request an exclusive game when they approached MS and later Sony.

So you should better whine at Marvel and MS why you cant play Sony's internally produced Spider Man

 

[PSman1700]

And Spiderman games can arrive to XBOX just not those produced by Sony.

Gears of War, Halo, Starfield and Forza can arrive on PS just not those produced by MS studios. If CoD becomes exclusive to Xbox/PC somehow, CoD can still come to PS just not thuse produced by MS owned studios.
And yeah, i highly doubt the end consumer market is going to care as to why certain games are exclusive to certain platforms. Like Johnnnyawesome mentioned its all emotional based nothing more nothing less.

And most of all you know perfectly well it was Marvel's decision to request an exclusive game when they approached MS and later Sony.

So you should better whine at Marvel and MS why you cant play Sony's internally produced Spuder Man

Studios generally want their games available on as many platforms as is viable. Konami expressed this when he was free'd from Sony, with employees from other studios mentioning the exact same thing. As a developer you want to reach as many gamers as possible, obviously.

 

[Nesh]

Gears of War, Halo, Starfield and Forza can arrive on PS just not those produced by MS studios. If CoD becomes exclusive to Xbox/PC somehow, CoD can still come to PS just not thuse produced by MS owned studios.
And yeah, i highly doubt the end consumer market is going to care as to why certain games are exclusive to certain platforms. Like Johnnnyawesome mentioned its all emotional based nothing more nothing less.

You expect to be taken seriously now?
Go to a mirror and ask yourself who owns those franchises. One by one

Also still have not answered to the previous post

 

[Nesh]

And yeah, i highly doubt the end consumer market is going to care
Studios generally want their games available on as many platforms as is viable. Konami expressed this when he was free'd from Sony, with employees from other studios mentioning the exact same thing. As a developer you want to reach as many gamers as possible, obviously.

So konami was a Sony exclusive company and Sony forced them?

You should have a word with Marvel. Did Sony force them too?

 

[see colon]

Should be

“What makes the last couple of years different is the number, size and calibre of the independent studios that Microsoft, Sony, ea and tencent have expressed an interest in acquiring. “

Microsoft, Sony acquisitions are just the start of massive video game industry consolidation

You forgot Embracer. They've been the silent sharks gobbling up all of the talent and IPs lately. Sony and MS own studios numbering in the 20s. Tencent owns less than 10 IIRC, they just invest in tons and it gets a lot of press. It might be more than 10 if you count companies that have multiple teams as different studios, but it really isn't that many that they own outright. Ubisoft owns 20 something studios. EA owns 10 game studios and 12 mobile ones according to their website. Activision owns 9.

Embracer owns more than 70. Let that sink in for a sec. They about as many studios as Microsoft, Ubisoft and Sony combined. You can swap out Ubi for EA (and include mobile) if you want there. You can add Tencent in and change that sentence to read "slightly less than".

Or, after MS absorbs Activision, Embracer will still have twice as many studios.

 

[AzBat]

This whole debate about Microsoft's acquisitions being bad just seems like a waste of time. It's a free market economy. If people get better services or content out of the deal quicker & faster than growing them organically who cares? I certainly don't & I'm sure most people don't either. Companies better "git gud".

Tommy McClain