Microsoft rumored to be buying...... [2020-04, 2020-07, 2020-11]

[eastmen]

Looking at the current Yakuza numbers - I bet on PS it would be at least in the top 10, unlike the current top 20.
Not everything can be bought with money. Like Zune or Windows Phone. Just money is not enough.

Except it can. If MS continues to put out titles that appeal to a fan base then the fans will adopt it.

Let me ask you something. If MS bought Square would fans of Final Fantasy stop buying Final Fantasy games ? Or would they pick pc or xbox to play those games ?

You picked two things that have nothing to do with this.

Zune is a product MS made from the ground up that had no existing fan base and apple had over 80% of the market.

Windows phone was a new product in a market that both andriod and ios had over whelming market share.

For both products it required constant investment from MS.

IF MS bought Square (since i used it as an example already) they would be buying already established money making games with fans who will follow the franchise because they did so before (nintendo to sony). So whatever they lay out in the purchase will eventually be made up by MS through sales of the established games

 

[see colon]

Except it can. If MS continues to put out titles that appeal to a fan base then the fans will adopt it.

Let me ask you something. If MS bought Square would fans of Final Fantasy stop buying Final Fantasy games ? Or would they pick pc or xbox to play those games ?

You picked two things that have nothing to do with this.

Zune is a product MS made from the ground up that had no existing fan base and apple had over 80% of the market.

Windows phone was a new product in a market that both andriod and ios had over whelming market share.

For both products it required constant investment from MS.

IF MS bought Square (since i used it as an example already) they would be buying already established money making games with fans who will follow the franchise because they did so before (nintendo to sony). So whatever they lay out in the purchase will eventually be made up by MS through sales of the established games

Devil's advocate a little here, but Windows Phone wasn't MS first mobile OS. There were phones that ran PocketPC and Windows Mobile before Windows Phone. None of them had a huge percentage to the smartphone market, that was a segment that Microsoft was somehow too early and too late to. Windows Phone was actually pretty great, because crossbuy existed for apps on phone, PC and Xbox, and it's media play was essentially Zune. I still have a windows phone that I use as a media player when I go on trips. Not that I've need doing much of that lately.

Comparisons to other media is never going to be quite right when talking about video games, though, because the games industry is somehow in love with exclusivity. You see it a little in the video streaming platforms now, but the expectation that you will only ever be able to watch a certain movie or TV show on one platform would be met by failure in that industry. HBO, Netflix and all other "premium" content producers still release their content on DVD or Bluray, or license it out in syndication. And that isn't look at as an indication of failure, but of success. If you can get a TV show to 100 episodes it will almost certainly be rebroadcast on another network, and the residual revenue can often exceed it's original run.

 

[liams]

I wonder if we will see Bethesda as a subsidiary of Microsoft acquire anyone? I have to imagine that the studio management system at xbox game studios is running on the thin side currently, expanding so rapidly. It helps that they are acquiring well seasoned teams, but it still adds to the management load.
Giving the existing leadership of Bethesda some more teams to manage might be an idea.

 

[liams]

Devil's advocate a little here, but Windows Phone wasn't MS first mobile OS. There were phones that ran PocketPC and Windows Mobile before Windows Phone. None of them had a huge percentage to the smartphone market, that was a segment that Microsoft was somehow too early and too late to. Windows Phone was actually pretty great, because crossbuy existed for apps on phone, PC and Xbox, and it's media play was essentially Zune. I still have a windows phone that I use as a media player when I go on trips. Not that I've need doing much of that lately.

Comparisons to other media is never going to be quite right when talking about video games, though, because the games industry is somehow in love with exclusivity. You see it a little in the video streaming platforms now, but the expectation that you will only ever be able to watch a certain movie or TV show on one platform would be met by failure in that industry. HBO, Netflix and all other "premium" content producers still release their content on DVD or Bluray, or license it out in syndication. And that isn't look at as an indication of failure, but of success. If you can get a TV show to 100 episodes it will almost certainly be rebroadcast on another network, and the residual revenue can often exceed it's original run.

I think what is most important is that bethesdas games have mindshare. For the same reason some no name game company could time travel to after the elder scrolls 6 is out, grab a copy, time travel back to now, change the name and sell it. It 1000% would not do as well as elder scrolls 6 from bethesda, even if it was functionally identical. If theres a cool game coming out on a platform that you dont have access to you dont get yourself invested in it. I dont care about god of war because I have never had a playstation, and me caring about god of war isnt going to change because im not emotionally invested, sure it looks cool, but im not buying a console for it.

mindshare is the reason things like zune and windows phone failed, when you say mp3 media player no one was thinking of zune, they just thought ipod. (mindshare =/= marketshare btw)


Thats why bethesda makes sense for microsoft, there are tons of people who do care about elder scrolls, fallout, doom, wolfenstien, etc. A single title might get them to consider going to xbox, but not enough to convince them, mulitple titles might win them over though.


Thats why I think from here on microsoft will be more interested in big IP names, things like wasteland and the outer worlds are awesome, but they dont hold a candle mass public wise to the elder scrolls

 

[eastmen]

Devil's advocate a little here, but Windows Phone wasn't MS first mobile OS. There were phones that ran PocketPC and Windows Mobile before Windows Phone. None of them had a huge percentage to the smartphone market, that was a segment that Microsoft was somehow too early and too late to. Windows Phone was actually pretty great, because crossbuy existed for apps on phone, PC and Xbox, and it's media play was essentially Zune. I still have a windows phone that I use as a media player when I go on trips. Not that I've need doing much of that lately.

Comparisons to other media is never going to be quite right when talking about video games, though, because the games industry is somehow in love with exclusivity. You see it a little in the video streaming platforms now, but the expectation that you will only ever be able to watch a certain movie or TV show on one platform would be met by failure in that industry. HBO, Netflix and all other "premium" content producers still release their content on DVD or Bluray, or license it out in syndication. And that isn't look at as an indication of failure, but of success. If you can get a TV show to 100 episodes it will almost certainly be rebroadcast on another network, and the residual revenue can often exceed it's original run.

I had multiple windows mobile phones up to 6.0 with my htc touch pro . So i know its not the first mobile phone os for them. The problem is android and ios were radically different . Apple also used their dominance of the mp3 player and more importantly itunes dominance to pull people into its ecosystem. MS was late to that because of anti trust restrictions.


I think however we miss the point.

If MS bought Square or atlas or another successful Japanese studio why would that studio stop being successful ? When Square decided to forgo Nintendo systems after 6 successful final fantasy games did Square fail ?

So again . Lets say MS pays 10B for square (made up number dunno what they cost of the top of my head.) are the fans going to say no to the games ?

Thats the only answer you really need to figure out. Will the gamers not buy the games because MS bought them. If the answer is no that they would either buy an xbox or pc to play them then Yes MS can afford to buy them even if it never results into in roads in japan. They still have massive million unit sellers world wide.

 

[Nesh]

If MS bought Square or atlas or another successful Japanese studio why would that studio stop being successful ? When Square decided to forgo Nintendo systems after 6 successful final fantasy games did Square fail ?

SE was releasing on the platform that held the highest marketshare by a landslide in an industry whose market has increased beyond what everyone thought possible. They also had free reigns to release games on every other platform whenever they wanted. And they did.
Sony was rewarded for making the right choices with PS2 and PS1 and was penalized for making the wrong ones with PS3. Thats a lot different from a company buying off developers like SE or Zenimax and deciding when, what, how and if they would release an P on another platform.
Whatever MS says or however people try to spin this, this is a form of undesirable competition.

The consumer is forced to make a choice he previously didnt have to make when games are forcibly locked to one platform or release in limited form on another.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

If MS bought Square or atlas or another successful Japanese studio why would that studio stop being successful ? When Square decided to forgo Nintendo systems after 6 successful final fantasy games did Square fail ?

It would make it less successful because at that time Playstation was rivaling Nintendo in Japan.
MS has close to zero presence in Japan. Unless/until XCloud turns into a juggernaut, no big japanese company will limit itself to MS only.

None of them had a huge percentage to the smartphone market, that was a segment that Microsoft was somehow too early and too late to.

It is actually an interesting observation. In early 2000s MS missed a lot of opportunities in general.

 

[eastmen]

SE was releasing on the platform that held the highest marketshare by a landslide in an industry whose market has increased beyond what everyone thought possible. They also had free reigns to release games on every other platform whenever they wanted. And they did.
Sony was rewarded for making the right choices with PS2 and PS1 and was penalized for making the wrong ones with PS3. Thats a lot different from a company buying off developers like SE or Zenimax and deciding when, what, how and if they would release an P on another platform.
Whatever MS says or however people try to spin this, this is a form of undesirable competition.

The consumer is forced to make a choice he previously didnt have to make when games are forcibly locked to one platform or release in limited form on another.

Whats the bigger platform PC+ xbox or ps5 ?


FYI sony spent money buying up exclusives back in the day. They paid for RE exclusives , they paid for tomb raider 2. They continue to pay for content now. I don't see Microsoft buying studios and releasing games from them on their platform as wrong. Its up to the developer to sell just like its up to the developer to create exclusive content or games for a platform holder.

 

[Nesh]

Whats the bigger platform PC+ xbox or ps5 ?


FYI sony spent money buying up exclusives back in the day. They paid for RE exclusives , they paid for tomb raider 2. They continue to pay for content now. I don't see Microsoft buying studios and releasing games from them on their platform as wrong. Its up to the developer to sell just like its up to the developer to create exclusive content or games for a platform holder.

Sony never bought Resident Evil or Tomb Raider. MS buys the IPs

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Nothing wrong with it. It's just business. All the platforms have exclusives. Sony bought their IPs too, by buying the studios or developers who made them. This is just faster.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Sony bought their IPs too, by buying the studios or developers who made them. This is just faster.

I'm struggling here, which IP did Sony obtain by acquiring a publisher/developer? It feels like all of their AA/AAA IP was developed in-house after they acquired developers, or where they owned the IP (Insomniac - Ratchet & Clank) before the acquisition.

 

[itch]

I'm struggling here, which IP did Sony obtain by acquiring a publisher/developer? It feels like all of their AA/AAA IP was developed in-house after they acquired developers, or where they owned the IP (Insomniac - Ratchet & Clank) before the acquisition.

The only multi-platform title I can think of is Wipeout, which was originally on PS1, Saturn, and PC before they bought Psygnosis. And that was forever ago.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Sony never bought Resident Evil or Tomb Raider. MS buys the IPs

Read it again, it doesn't say what you thought it said.

FYI sony spent money buying up exclusives back in the day. They paid for RE exclusives , they paid for tomb raider 2. They continue to pay for content now.

Sony paid to make those games exclusive to their platform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_Raider

A month before release, Eidos finalised a deal with Sony Computer Entertainment to keep the console version of Tomb Raider II and future games exclusive to PlayStation until the year 2000.

But somehow people blew a gasket when MS did the same with Rise of the Tomb Raider. A bit fitting, it was basically Tomb Raider II for the reboot.

Evidently it's OK for Sony to do some things, but not OK for other companies to do it.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

The only multi-platform title I can think of is Wipeout, which was originally on PS1, Saturn, and PC before they bought Psygnosis. And that was forever ago.

Good memory, sir!

 

[eastmen]

Read it again, it doesn't say what you thought it said.



Sony paid to make those games exclusive to their platform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_Raider



But somehow people blew a gasket when MS did the same with Rise of the Tomb Raider. A bit fitting, it was basically Tomb Raider II for the reboot.

Evidently it's OK for Sony to do some things, but not OK for other companies to do it.

Regards,
SB

Thats what i'm saying. I loved Tomb Raider on my saturn , played the hell out of it. Then nope sony money hatted it. Now though its an evil practice because its happening to Sony fans.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Thats what i'm saying. I loved Tomb Raider on my saturn , played the hell out of it. Then nope sony money hatted it. Now though its an evil practice because its happening to Sony fans.

All that moneyhatting + exclusives + MS underperforming for the last generation and at the end of another generation made Sony fans feel "entitled" to all the games.

 

[Nesh]

Read it again, it doesn't say what you thought it said.



Sony paid to make those games exclusive to their platform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_Raider



But somehow people blew a gasket when MS did the same with Rise of the Tomb Raider. A bit fitting, it was basically Tomb Raider II for the reboot.

Evidently it's OK for Sony to do some things, but not OK for other companies to do it.

Regards,
SB

I think you are confused. Sony doesnt own any of the IPs and has no control over them. Hence why they exist pretty much everywhere. MS owns them and has control indefinitely. Claiming that they are the same is absurd
Resident Evil was released on the Saturn and N64 btw, and I dont see how it made any sense to release Tomb Raider on cardridge or a console that was dying

 

[eastmen]

All that moneyhatting + exclusives + MS underperforming for the last generation and at the end of another generation made Sony fans feel "entitled" to all the games.

A lot of those sony fans should consider this. Sony was a giant company in a tiny pond but over time the pond grew to a great lake with MS entering and then into a giant ocean and there are giant whales as big as MS out there or bigger that want in.

So does a sony fan want to play X title only on xbox or pc or only on facebook gaming or stadia or amazon ?

To me even if you hate MS at least they are giving you a choice between console , pc or streaming . The other big fish are just streaming

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I think you are confused. Sony doesnt own any of the IPs and has no control over them. Hence why they exist pretty much everywhere. MS owns them and has control indefinitely. Claiming that they are the same is absurd
Resident Evil was released on the Saturn and N64 btw, and I dont see how it made any sense to release Tomb Raider on cardridge or a console that was dying

No one said that Sony owns them. Sony bought console exclusivity to Tomb Raider 2 just like MS did for Rise of the Tomb Raider. Neither Sony nor MS own anything related to Tomb Raider.

Just like Eastman stated.

Regards,
SB

 

[Nesh]

No one said that Sony owns them. Sony bought console exclusivity to Tomb Raider 2 just like MS did for Rise of the Tomb Raider. Neither Sony nor MS own anything related to Tomb Raider.

Just like Eastman stated.

Regards,
SB

Check the title