Microsoft Rumored to buy IO interactive [2018-11]

[eastmen]

https://www.onlysp.com/microsoft-io-interactive/

same resetera guy who broke the obsidian purchase is now out saying IO is next purchase. Its interesting how much ms is buying up and I wonder if they will stop. But at this rate they will have a very strong stable of exclusives for pc/xbox next generation

 

[Deleted member 11852]

https://www.onlysp.com/microsoft-io-interactive/

same resetera guy who broke the obsidian purchase is now out saying IO is next purchase. Its interesting how much ms is buying up and I wonder if they will stop. But at this rate they will have a very strong stable of exclusives for pc/xbox next generation

He said, "it is being considered". I bet other acquisitions are being considered. I consider buying a lot of things I don't buy because I buy something else.

IO Interactive were most recently owned by Square Enix until 2017 who decided to sell. Having no buyers, there was a cheapish management buyout, i.e. the people being paid to run the company, bought the company. It's likely worth more now given Hitman 2 was fairly well reviewed and received.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

I hope they don't because I'd rather not *have to* buy an XBoxOne mini and subscribe to a month of Gamepass just to play the next Hitman. I'm probably going to do that within the next 2-3 years anyway, so it's no biggie, but I'd rather just have it sat on my PS5's HDD.

Also, I'm not sure IO being bought would be best for the Hitman series. It's only just come back after a years long hiatus, and I'd rather see it continue to ascend in popularity than risk it becoming a relatively obscure exclusive.

If the studio and, by extension, the IP are bought in readiness for next-gen, it risks being subject to the whims of Microsoft and their desires for the next generation. And that sort of thing doesn't tend to go well.

Just look at Driveclub and its touted social features. No-one really gave much of a shit about them, they got in the way of just developing a solid racing game, and when it resulted in a mess with fairly poor sales, Sony got rid. Evolution patched it into a solid racing game, and really the only one I've needed for the entire generation so far. But the whole thing was a complete farce.

If Microsoft do buy IO, I hope they have the wisdom to just leave well enough alone, and let IO keep beavering away. And I hope IO have the wisdom to stay independent and flexible i.e. Insomniac.

 

[Xbat]

They make the most sense to me out of all the devs Microsoft have bought recently.

 

[eastmen]

He said, "it is being considered". I bet other acquisitions are being considered. I consider buying a lot of things I don't buy because I buy something else.

IO Interactive were most recently owned by Square Enix until 2017 who decided to sell. Having no buyers, there was a cheapish management buyout, i.e. the people being paid to run the company, bought the company. It's likely worth more now given Hitman 2 was fairly well reviewed and received.

I believe they also laid off workers after the split. This hitman sequel is also not selling well apparently. So they might not have much of an option and if ms is offering development freedom and a influx of money for games it might be worth it for them .

 

[AlNom]

If Hitman isn't appealing to folks, maybe they could try something a little different. Joanna Dark stealth game, pls ? (with a lick of Cate Archer while they're at it too.)

 

[Nesh]

https://www.onlysp.com/microsoft-io-interactive/

same resetera guy who broke the obsidian purchase is now out saying IO is next purchase. Its interesting how much ms is buying up and I wonder if they will stop. But at this rate they will have a very strong stable of exclusives for pc/xbox next generation

If this goes on it will start looking like an aggressive strategy

 

[iroboto]

I hope they don't because I'd rather not *have to* buy an XBoxOne mini and subscribe to a month of Gamepass just to play the next Hitman. I'm probably going to do that within the next 2-3 years anyway, so it's no biggie, but I'd rather just have it sat on my PS5's HDD.

Also, I'm not sure IO being bought would be best for the Hitman series. It's only just come back after a years long hiatus, and I'd rather see it continue to ascend in popularity than risk it becoming a relatively obscure exclusive.

If the studio and, by extension, the IP are bought in readiness for next-gen, it risks being subject to the whims of Microsoft and their desires for the next generation. And that sort of thing doesn't tend to go well.

Just look at Driveclub and its touted social features. No-one really gave much of a shit about them, they got in the way of just developing a solid racing game, and when it resulted in a mess with fairly poor sales, Sony got rid. Evolution patched it into a solid racing game, and really the only one I've needed for the entire generation so far. But the whole thing was a complete farce.

If Microsoft do buy IO, I hope they have the wisdom to just leave well enough alone, and let IO keep beavering away. And I hope IO have the wisdom to stay independent and flexible i.e. Insomniac.

hmm.. if it's true I don't see it as a negative.
Game pass games for their first party studios can actually be quite different from the norm as due to game pass they don't have to adhere to the same problems that launching independently would.

I think MS have proven they are totally up for diversification of their library and that's well supported by everything being on game pass.

 

[iroboto]

If this goes on it will start looking like an aggressive strategy

Once upon a thread.
#204

 

[Jay]

If the rumors of hitman not selling well even though considered by many as a good game, then game pass could actually be very good for the IP although I think it's not owned by them.

The mechanics of game pass seems to allow such games to do better, easily good enough to download and play, but many people not wanting to go out and buy it any more.

As it stands I could see IO closing shop pretty soon.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I believe they also laid off workers after the split

Was that a result of the split or because the episodic-please of Hitman 2016 did so poorly? It could well have been the latter. I don't think that that release experiment did well.

This hitman sequel is also not selling well apparently. So they might not have much of an option and if ms is offering development freedom and a influx of money for games it might be worth it for them .

Hitman isn't my cup of tea so I'm not following it. Hasn't it been out for less than two weeks? What numbers have you seen?

 

[Nesh]

Once upon a thread.
#204

Exclusives arent necessarily a problem.
For example I dont thing Naughty Dog, Guerilla and Playground Games becoming first party had a negative impact in the industry (unless there was a way to predict a negative opportunity cost for the future which is impossible).
These developers were primarily supporting a specific platform and ultimately became part of the company that owns that platform. That doesn't change much. It only maintains the status quo or generates new exclusives for differentiation.
It is a problem thought when they are a result of massive buy outs of third parties that were originally supporting various platforms or used to develop for a competing platform. That creates differentiation by eliminating content on a competing platform. Thats a hostile movement that as an economist would not see positively.
The point of healthy competition (I despise the word healthy and competition in the same sentence ) is to encourage companies to create new technologies/products/services but not to eliminate/prevent access that was otherwise available to other businesses.
Thats against the conditions that allow an unregulated market to reach the maximum potential for the good of all.
These are similar phenomenons that Adam Smith despised in its time (but unfortunately many didn't comprehend including economists)

 

[iroboto]

Exclusives arent necessarily a problem.
For example I dont thing Naughty Dog, Guerilla and Playground Games becoming first party had a negative impact in the industry (unless there was a way to predict a negative opportunity cost for the future which is impossible).
These developers were primarily supporting a specific platform and ultimately became part of the company that owns that platform. That doesn't change much. It only maintains the status quo or generates new exclusives for differentiation.
It is a problem thought when they are a result of massive buy outs of third parties that were originally supporting various platforms or used to develop for a competing platform. That creates differentiation by eliminating content on a competing platform. Thats a hostile movement that as an economist would not see positively.
The point of healthy competition (I despise the word healthy and competition in the same sentence ) is to encourage companies to create new technologies/products/services but not to eliminate access/prevent access that would have otherwise been available to other businesses.
Thats against the conditions that allow an unregulated market reach the maximum potential for all.
These are similar phenomenons that Adam Smith despised in its time.

I think on that discussion point, my call was that there is only so much talent available in the resource pool. It's not like people are clamouring to join game dev.
Thus whenever people say, MS should get more 1P studios but not buy them, they are forgetting quite a few variables.

 

[Nesh]

I think on that discussion point, my call was that there is only so much talent available in the resource pool. It's not like people are clamouring to join game dev.
Thus whenever people say, MS should get more 1P studios but not buy them, they are forgetting quite a few variables.

Can you explain this a bit more? I am not sure if I comprehended fully

 

[BRiT]

What would people want?

Given a Game Studio isn't doing so well and is looking for additional financial help.

1. Game Studio shuts down because no company steps up to acquire them, such as Sony or Microsoft
2. Game Studio continues because a company stepped up to acquire them, such as Sony or Microsoft.

 

[iroboto]

Can you explain this a bit more? I am not sure if I comprehended fully

Whoops. That thread was from a long time ago so i was trying to put some context around my older post. A lot of people were upset that MS were trying to buy up studios and not building them.

But my counter point at the Time was that there wasn’t enough talent to build up new massive studios, I cited Ubisoft Toronto for instance is supposed to get up to 800 employees, and I believe they are barely over 300 maybe 400 now and it’s been years.

It’s really hard to build talent and so a lot of AA studios that get funding and support can quickly become AAA studios.

Thus I noted that if people did not want an escalation of studio purchases we should be against exclusives in the sense that if the main reason to purchase a platform is exclusivity, then it would drive this behaviour ultimately.

A couple more purchases like this and yes I do agree Sony would start responding by buying other studios.

In part I agree exclusive games are not the problem but if the primary reason to buy into a platform is because due to obtaining exclusivity, then there is a clear conflict of interest; the conflict of wanting to play all the games you want, but not wanting the system you didn’t purchase denied of the same thing.

Or... put plainly. Netflix was great until Hulu, soon Disney and others came along. It’s too costly to subscribe to all the services for your content so it’s back to piracy.

 

[Nesh]

What would people want?

Given a Game Studio isn't doing so well and is looking for additional financial help.

1. Game Studio shuts down because no company steps up to acquire them, such as Sony or Microsoft
2. Game Studio continues because a company stepped up to acquire them, such as Sony or Microsoft.

I didn't have this context in mind where a game studio is in danger for closure, but that can be either good or bad depending on other details.
For example lets assume EA is not doing well for whatever reasons but they own super licenses and super franchises like Fifa or Star Wars. Then Sony or MS steps in and make these franchises exclusive.
Or lets say that a company like Square Enix is in a temporary financial crisis and Sony or MS sees this temporary vulnerability to take advantage of.
Or lets say that these companies will close and are seized by MS or Sony. On one hand the company appears saved (which isn't always the case. Only name and franchises might be left intact) but on the other hand it destroys competition in the console market. So in this case you may get something positive but you also get something negative. So it is not such a clear picture.

But in the case of a small talented business that was saved by either MS or Sony, and that business didnt have a significant influence in the market, then it's easier to deduce the outcome was positive.

 

[Nesh]

Whoops. That thread was from a long time ago so i was trying to put some context around my older post. A lot of people were upset that MS were trying to buy up studios and not building them.

But my counter point at the Time was that there wasn’t enough talent to build up new massive studios, I cited Ubisoft Toronto for instance is supposed to get up to 800 employees, and I believe they are barely over 300 maybe 400 now and it’s been years.

It’s really hard to build talent and so a lot of AA studios that get funding and support can quickly become AAA studios.

Thus I noted that if people did not want an escalation of studio purchases we should be against exclusives in the sense that if the main reason to purchase a platform is exclusivity, then it would drive this behaviour ultimately.

A couple more purchases like this and yes I do agree Sony would start responding by buying other studios.

In part I agree exclusive games are not the problem but if the primary reason to buy into a platform is because due to obtaining exclusivity, then there is a clear conflict of interest; the conflict of wanting to play all the games you want, but not wanting the system you didn’t purchase denied of the same thing.

Or... put plainly. Netflix was great until Hulu, soon Disney and others came along. It’s too costly to subscribe to all the services for your content so it’s back to piracy.

Well yes I agree with the points. It is not necessarily black or white.

 

[Sigfried1977]

If Hitman isn't appealing to folks, maybe they could try something a little different. Joanna Dark stealth game, pls ? (with a lick of Cate Archer while they're at it too.)

Wasn't Nolf, and Nolf2 in particular, kind of a sales flop? It's just very difficult to make a niche title and succeed now these days I think. All the successful titles kind of dabble in just about everything now these days. Light rpg mechanics, light stealth, light combat, light crafting, and all of it preferably in an open world setting of course. The specialized games all seem to crash and burn unless there's a super popular ip attached.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Wasn't Nolf, and Nolf2 in particular, kind of a sales flop? It's just very difficult to make a niche title and succeed now these days I think. All the successful titles kind of dabble in just about everything now these days. Light rpg mechanics, light stealth, light combat, light crafting, and all of it preferably in an open world setting of course. The specialized games all seem to crash and burn unless there's a super popular ip attached.

Yes, much like the Thief series it was critically acclaimed and earned many GOTY awards, but didn't sell particularly well.

Part of that, a large part is that they were being published by Fox Interactive which wasn't very good or pro-active about advertising their games.

I'd imagine that if it were to have launched in an environment like today where the internet spreads information quickly that it likely would have done significantly better. But back then a game's success relied heavily on ad buys by the publisher. Those ad buys were even more influential than magazine game reviews. Especially in large retailers (where a publisher would buy shelf space for heavily promoted games). Endcaps and Window facing displays (like in Malls) being particularly expensive.

Again, something Fox Interactive weren't good at doing.

It's a shame as both the first and second game are easily in the discussion for Top 10 FPS games ever created, IMO.

Unfortunately the game (music, art assets, IP, etc.) are in legal rights hell. So there's almost no possibility of a re-release. The best that can be hoped for is a spiritual remake.

Huge shame as I'd buy it again immediately at a full 60 USD price point even if it was just a re-release of the original PC release with any compatibility fixes required to work on modern PCs. It's that good.

Regards,
SB