Sony Game Studios Acquisitions [2022]

[Deleted member 11852]

I feel like you’re placing way too much importance on the novelty of creating ground up studios and IPs.

I don't know what the metric is for "importance" but being able to foster the creation of successful teams seems kind of important when you exist in a creative industry. If you cannot create successful teams yourself, then you are at the mercy of having to acquire them, which restricts your growth because not everybody is for sale, the price may not be right or somebody else may get something you have your eye on.

I'm not saying this is where Microsoft are, but it's just on the importance of building your own capability. If you after a particular IP. then you have to pay. Either a licence or through acquisitions.

 

[see colon]

Overall Mortal Kombat was not an exclusive and Ultimate was not on PS1. So....

A timed exclusive is still exclusive for a time. Vanilla MK3 was console exclusive to PS1 for the 32bit generation. Other variants of MK3 were not. This was a deal Sony and Midway worked out at the time, and not just happenstance. It was published by Sony on PS1.

 

[Nesh]

A timed exclusive is still exclusive for a time. Vanilla MK3 was console exclusive to PS1 for the 32bit generation. Other variants of MK3 were not. This was a deal Sony and Midway worked out at the time, and not just happenstance. It was published by Sony on PS1.

From a generational exclusive, it is now a timed exclusive where one of the newer Mortal Kombat 3 games didnt even come on PS1 and was exclusive on Saturn.
You are jumping from generational, to timed, to full generational of the old version.
I mean, surely if you want to provide a strong argument you should try to find a better example.

 

[PSman1700]

I don't know what the metric is for "importance" but being able to foster the creation of successful teams seems kind of important when you exist in a creative industry. If you cannot create successful teams yourself, then you are at the mercy if having to acquire them, which restricts your growth because not everybody is for sale, the price may not be right or somebody else may get something you have your eye on.

If a million copys sold of a port to a new platform in just some weeks doesnt provide any positives for Sony then ye, what does. lol.
tells me enough that Sony Playstation PC exists now.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

From a generational exclusive, it is now a timed exclusive where one of the newer Mortal Kombat 3 games didnt even come on PS1 and was exclusive on Saturn.
You are jumping from generational, to timed, to full generational of the old version.
I mean, surely if you want to provide a strong argument you should try to find a better example.

Tekken was also exclusive to PSX. In fact Tekken 1-5 were exclusive to PlayStation consoles. The first game was a launch title for PSX.

Metal Gear Solid was exclusive to PSX (PC version of the first game came out 2 years after release).

There were quite a few 3rd party games that were exclusive to PSX. To deny that seems a bit strange.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

If a million copys sold of a port to a new platform in just some weeks doesnt provide any positives for Sony then ye, what does. lol. tells me enough that Sony Playstation PC exists now.

I'm really lost. What has this got to do with what I posted? I didn't mention Sony or PCs.

 

[PSman1700]

I'm really lost. What has this got to do with what I posted? I didn't mention Sony or PCs.

We might have had a mismatch in communication there.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

We might have had a mismatch in communication there.

If by "we" you mean you, then yes.

 

[Nesh]

Tekken was also exclusive to PSX. In fact Tekken 1-5 were exclusive to PlayStation consoles. The first game was a launch title for PSX.

Metal Gear Solid was exclusive to PSX (PC version of the first game came out 2 years after release).

There were quite a few 3rd party games that were exclusive to PSX. To deny that seems a bit strange.

Regards,
SB

Of course they were. Care to elaborate also the context?
Because we really arent discussing if 3rd party exclusives existed. We are discussing about snatching support away from others.
And apparently when you have one super successfull platform and one with barely any userbase that is hard to program for, you are apparently going to choose the former.

And thats exactly what happened during the PS360 era and formerly 3rd party exclusives on PS came also on Nintendo and XBOX

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Of course they were. Care to elaborate also the context?
Because we really arent discussing if 3rd party exclusives existed. We are discussing about snatching support away from others.
And apparently when you have one super successfull platform and one with barely any userbase that is hard to program for, you are apparently going to choose the former.

And thats exactly what happened during the PS360 era and formerly 3rd party exclusives on PS came also on Nintendo and XBOX

In which case, there's the Final Fantasy IP which was previously on Nintendo platforms, then made exclusive to PSX.

Hell, the Metal Gear IP fits that as well.

If I had time to go digging there's plenty of other games that weren't exclusive but then became exclusive to PSX.

Regards,
SB

 

[Nesh]

In which case, there's the Final Fantasy IP which was previously on Nintendo platforms, then made exclusive to PSX.

Hell, the Metal Gear IP fits that as well.

If I had time to go digging there's plenty of other games that weren't exclusive but then became exclusive to PSX.

Regards,
SB

Square Enix said that the cardridge medium was the problem.
MGS similarly started development very early and would have been next to impossible fit in a cardridge. He focused on one hardware to make the game he wanted and taje advantage fully of the specufic hardware. Back then each hardware was too different from each other and required too many resources to design in tanteem and port.
By the time the game was finished, Stolar have already said that the Saturn was not Sega's future.
Even the N64 had 3rd party games that never appeared anywhere else and that had nothing to do with special deals. It also got Ridge Racer and Wipeout which were different games since the hardware was much different. Even the Saturn got Wipeout and Destruction Derby and Toshinden.
Now care to provide a proper argument or are you just gonna start pointing games without context?

 

[Johnny Awesome]

To me there's no difference in buying creative talent by hiring people or by buying other companies that already have those creative people. Either way, you're paying money for creative talent.

Sony and Nintendo did it mostly the 1st way and MS did it mostly the 2nd way. There's no virtue or sin in either approach.

All three of these companies leverage their creative talent and jealously guard the fruits of that talent in their respective ecosystems.

It's no more virtuous for Nintendo to jealously guard Zelda and Mario and deny them to Xbox/PS gamers than it is for Sony to buy Insomniac and keep R&C on PS only or MS to buy Bethesda and make Starfield exclusive.

In other words: It's business. Either way. To ascribe virtue to Nintendo over MS is childish IMO. Both are simply doing what they believe is in the best interests of their shareholders.

PS: Do we really want to live in a world where old players are dominant and cannot be challenged by new entrants? I don't think so. Nintendo and Sony spent a lot of money for 10-20 years before MS came in with their money to compete. MS is late to the party so they had to spend a lot to catch up. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[PSman1700]

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...etdpnwGJju7plhrrkEXHQmOQpFKjObXxQt3fFUFLANldQ

Could the bungie aquirement have something to do with this?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

To me there's no difference in buying creative talent by hiring people or by buying other companies that already have those creative people. Either way, you're paying money for creative talent.

The difference is hiring a bunch of people for hundreds of thousands of dollars and buying a company for hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.

The difference is a lot of zeroes that could otherwise be channelled into the actual games and technology itself, not just getting to the starting point of having a team who can develop games.

 

[eastmen]

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/202...bungie-says-outspoken-analyst-michael-pachter

Patcher not having any of it

"Just to compare and contrast, EA bought Respawn about three or four years ago for $700 million with 400 developers. And those guys generate $700 million a year in revenue. Bungie does about $200 million in revenue. So I think Sony vastly overpaid."

"I think this was a statement that [Sony's] not going to let Microsoft get ahead of [it], so [it'll] just buy something out of desperation," Pachter adds, in rather damning fashion. "It's not really a deal that makes a whole lot of sense to me," he concludes.

If he is correct about the revenue stream from Bungie than it does sound like Sony spent a lot on them. But I don't think it was about desperation.

 

[PSman1700]

Bungie wasnt even in anyone's mind here on the forums, i dont think anyone saw that one coming. Was thinking Capcom, or Crytek perhaps, their carrying the TimeSplitters IP right? Now that would have been a killer.

 

[dobwal]

The difference is hiring a bunch of people for hundreds of thousands of dollars and buying a company for hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.

The difference is a lot of zeroes that could otherwise be channelled into the actual games and technology itself, not just getting to the starting point of having a team who can develop games.

Hiring a bunch of capable individuals to form a team does not automatically equal a capable team. There is a reason despite the obvious need of development teams, MS nor Sony make a habit of creating them from scratch.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I've just read that Bungie has 900+ employees. WTF.

Is that 500 people creating new DLC content and 400 gradually removing it from Destiny 2 so you have to buy more DLC?

Hiring a bunch of capable individuals to form a team does not automatically equal a capable team. There is a reason despite the obvious need of development teams, MS nor Sony make a habit of creating them from scratch.

I agree, but Sony have some great first party teams. They didn't all go from 0-60mph overnight but growing them organically can sometimes be better than trying to transplant one culture into another. Slower, but cheaper and you're embedding the culture organically rather than it being a bucket of cold water over what you are used too.

I've been in companies bought by larger ones. Culture assimilation is a thing. Corporations love their culture. Like the Borg.

 

[dobwal]

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/202...bungie-says-outspoken-analyst-michael-pachter

Patcher not having any of it



If he is correct about the revenue stream from Bungie than it does sound like Sony spent a lot on them. But I don't think it was about desperation.

What does this Patcher dude do again?

If EA spent $700 million on Respawn then it do so based on whatever Respawn was doing at that time and future potential. Respawn was not generating $700 million a year during that time or we would still see them jugging out TitanFalls.

If Respawn was worth $700 million based on TitanFall revenue then Bungie is easily worth what Sony paid for it. Bungie's historical success and revenue generation far outweighs Respawn's at their time of purchase.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Bungie wasnt even in anyone's mind here on the forums, i dont think anyone saw that one coming. Was thinking Capcom, or Crytek perhaps, their carrying the TimeSplitters IP right? Now that would have been a killer.

Yeah, the whole purchase and a contract were very surprising.

Could the bungie aquirement have something to do with this?

It is pretty obvious that Sony bought Bungie for these reasons (at least)

• Not to potentially lose another big FPS to Microsoft (All Bethesda's shooters, COD. What shooters aside Fortnite are remaining? Apex?)
  
• GaaS recurring revenue that Destiny and future Bungie games will generate
  
• GaaS expertise as Sony doesn't have any GaaS game in their first party

Is that 500 people creating new DLC content and 400 gradually removing it from Destiny 2 so you have to buy more DLC?

GaaS games require a lot of support staff. All GaaS games on the market has huge amount of people working on it.

I agree, but Sony have some great first party teams. They didn't all go from 0-60mph overnight but growing them organically can sometimes be better than trying to transplant one culture into another. Slower, but cheaper and you're embedding the culture organically rather than it being a bucket of cold water over what you are used too.

People don't grow on the trees. Buying established studios is much more effective than trying to syphon them from other companies (and to build the studio you have to do that as all those devs move from one team to another and so on). You can also add that the studios already have the games in the pipeline unlike the new ones that have to start from scratch.
And what that bucket about? MS buys devs and nothing changes for them except more stable pay (and often bigger)