Sony Game Studios Acquisitions [2022]

Oh I don't disagree with you in general. Politics can throw a wrench in normal operations. There was a very public discussion last year about "Big Tech" and the companies that were facing scrutiny. Conspicuously absent from that list was Microsoft. A number of people publicly complained about that. Ultimately I agree with you, though I don't think the Netflix argument is a good one given their overall gaming presence. This wouldn't move the needle for me. But if politicians want to make hay.....

I realized this is the wrong thread to hold this discussion. This is the Sony acquisitions thread. So I shall stop here. No need to make more work for Shifty.

so I shouldn't accept this job offer is what your saying then :(

But regardless , I don't think Microsoft is named with other big tech companies because they really don't own anything they can really abuse anymore. Windows is an open platform anyone can release anything on it and Microsoft doesn't really have a say about it. M365 is just office as a subscription so I don't see an issue there. They have the duo on the phone side but it uses andriod and it barely sells. Surface is just a line up of pcs that selll well but don't really stop competition. even gaming they wont be 3rd until this transaction goes through.

So really what would the FTC really look at in terms of their business ?
 
Nintendo created everything by themselves. They are Nintendo. They are Zelda, Mario and what not.
Nintendo didnt buy multiplatfom Myiamoto Studios and the accessibility of its titles away from others.
Also Sony most of the part either created their own studios or bought not very popular small talented studios and made them big.
But it's becoming destructive for the industry when a company buys those big popular multiplatfrom studios and their games.

Would you describe a scenario as destructive where Activision released its own hardware and tied all it software to it? If not? Why not? It would negatively affect users of all the current platforms? How relevant would it be that Activision created these IPs that would be now exclusive to a piece of hardware with no tract record?

About the only thing destructive about taking these associated IPs exclusive is the limited potential those wares will have in the future.

Outside of sport titles that have exclusive right to some popular professional leagues, most of these franchise are replaceable. No one holds exclusive rights to AR-15s, army fatigues, space armor, swords, shields, fire balls or magic wands.

COD is popular because it’s widely available. Halo used to be the premier shooter on consoles. COD became more popular because it was on the PS as well as in the Xbox. Going exclusive would only create a void that other developers would be happy to fill. That goes for Destiny too. The console market existed just fine when Bungie wares were limited to MS.

Nevermind that the console market was far more segregated until literally the PS3/360 gen. The previous gens grew the market regardless. The current market will probably keep on growing regardless if MS and Sony make these IPs exclusive.
 
Nintendo created everything by themselves. They are Nintendo. They are Zelda, Mario and what not.
Nintendo didnt buy multiplatfom Myiamoto Studios and the accessibility of its titles away from others.
Also Sony most of the part either created their own studios or bought not very popular small talented studios and made them big.
But it's becoming destructive for the industry when a company buys those big popular multiplatfrom studios and their games.
I'm not trying to downplay Nintendo's first party success in any way, but it isn't like they haven't acquired studios or IP. Retro, Next Level, 1-Up, Monolith Soft come to mind. Their partial ownership in Warpstar gives them access to the Kirby IP. And they had a controlling interest in Rare during their N64 run of course. Nintendo's play for market control has been much more about partnering with developers and locking their IP to Nintendo platforms through contractual obligations or investment (instead of outright ownership), though.
 
FWIW the latest planet money episode has a podcast about the spiderman film rights thing
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/
doesnt mention the games though.

From the podcast, I dont like superhero films (except batman 1966, blade, hellboy) but I didnt think spiderman was the #1 superhero, I thought that was superman?, but also here they say https://www.comicbasics.com/ranked-the-100-greatest-superheroes-in-the-history-of-comic-books/ so perhaps its true.
Also interesting. https://www.game.co.uk/webapp/wcs/s...55755&catalogId=10201&langId=44&storeId=10151
captain america #1 in canada :mrgreen:
though one thing I disagree with is in the podcast, surely sony (or anyone) cause just invent a bunch of superheros, half the guys in that top 100 list I have never heard of and a lot of their 'powers' are pretty lame. Quite a few of them were invented pretty recently as well.


If they are talking about in sales then I think Spiderman is ahead of superman. I think Batman is ahead of superman. There haven't been big Superman movies in awhile . Spiderman has also appeared in a lot of the marvel big grossing properties
 
. Nintendo's play for market control has been much more about partnering with developers and locking their IP to Nintendo platforms through contractual obligations or investment (instead of outright ownership), though.
Hmmm....cant say Nintendo's acquisitions/partnerships were that impactful.
But yes especially during the 8 bit and 16 bit era they were very aggressive. They were the MS of gaming. They were literally locking IPS on their platform with very pressuring contracts on developers. The Master System was lacking in games because of it and The Sega Genesis managed to get extra support by simply launching sooner, allowing developers to shift support to the 16bit before Nintendo could, and also thanks to antitrust laws. What MS is doing should have, under objective conditions and similarly, be prevented by regulations from acquiring studios of certain size.
I think Sega and later Sony taught Nintendo a strong lesson. And that without even doing as much in terms of locking games away from competition minus a few exceptions like Tomb Raider which we arent 100% when and how the deal came. Their launch window, hardware choice, better contractual deals for developers in terms of profit margins, friendlier libraries and powerful marketing were enough.
Overall all devs supporting Playstation made or could make games for the N64. Even Resident Evil 2, Wipeout and Ridge Racer saw releases on it
 
Would you describe a scenario as destructive where Activision released its own hardware and tied all it software to it? If not? Why not? It would negatively affect users of all the current platforms? How relevant would it be that Activision created these IPs that would be now exclusive to a piece of hardware with no tract record?

About the only thing destructive about taking these associated IPs exclusive is the limited potential those wares will have in the future.

Outside of sport titles that have exclusive right to some popular professional leagues, most of these franchise are replaceable. No one holds exclusive rights to AR-15s, army fatigues, space armor, swords, shields, fire balls or magic wands.

COD is popular because it’s widely available. Halo used to be the premier shooter on consoles. COD became more popular because it was on the PS as well as in the Xbox. Going exclusive would only create a void that other developers would be happy to fill. That goes for Destiny too. The console market existed just fine when Bungie wares were limited to MS.

Nevermind that the console market was far more segregated until literally the PS3/360 gen. The previous gens grew the market regardless. The current market will probably keep on growing regardless if MS and Sony make these IPs exclusive.
Thats an IF scenario, not a real one, one I would have found a bit more acceptable since those IPs are theirs to begin with, and they can do whatever they want. They created them with their own effort and will be their first entry in the market. Now if there was anotner scenario where they started buying out other big multiplatform titles, titles they arent responsible of, from other platforms to support exclusively theirs I would have consideted it equally destructive.
Especially if this trend continues
 
And that without even doing as much in terms of locking games away from competition minus a few exceptions like Tomb Raider which we arent 100% when and how the deal came. Their launch window, hardware choice, better contractual deals for developers in terms of profit margins, friendlier libraries and powerful marketing were enough.
Sony had exclusive deals right from the get go. Mortal Kombat 3 released on PS1 a couple of months after the console launched and was a generational exclusive (The 16bit versions were allowed but not a Saturn release).
 
Sony had exclusive deals right from the get go. Mortal Kombat 3 released on PS1 a couple of months after the console launched and was a generational exclusive (The 16bit versions were allowed but not a Saturn release).
What do you mean?
It WAS released on Sega Saturn as Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3, which btw was NOT released on Playstation 1

PS The Sega Saturn also received Mortal Kombat Trilogy
 
Thats an IF scenario, not a real one, one I would have found a bit more acceptable since those IPs are theirs to begin with, and they can do whatever they want. They created them with their own effort and will be their first entry in the market. Now if there was anotner scenario where they started buying out other big multiplatform titles, titles they arent responsible of, from other platforms to support exclusively theirs I would have consideted it equally destructive.
Especially if this trend continues

MS didn't just walk into Game Mart, saw Activision on the shelf and had a cashier ring up a sale. Neither was this a hostile takeover. How is Activision exercising their ownership rights to make their software exclusive to some hypothetical Activision console somehow easier to swallow then Activision exercising their ownership rights to be part of MS?
 
Last edited:
Yep, technically a different game, released much later. But vanilla MK3 was a timed launch window 32bit exclusive for Playstation.
Overall Mortal Kombat was not an exclusive and Ultimate was not on PS1. So....
MS didn't just walk into Game Mart, saw Activision on the shelf and had a cashier ring up a sale. Neither was this a hostile takeover. How is Activision exercising their ownership rights to make their software exclusive to some hypothetical Activision console somehow easier to swallow then Activision exercising their ownership rights to be part of MS?
I explained why. Now if you feel differently its ok
 
Thats an IF scenario, not a real one, one I would have found a bit more acceptable since those IPs are theirs to begin with, and they can do whatever they want. They created them with their own effort and will be their first entry in the market. Now if there was anotner scenario where they started buying out other big multiplatform titles, titles they arent responsible of, from other platforms to support exclusively theirs I would have consideted it equally destructive.
Especially if this trend continues
I feel like you’re placing way too much importance on the novelty of creating ground up studios and IPs.

If Disney did not buy Marvel and and lay out a huge timeline to lead up to the end of avengers then no one would have ever experienced the greatness that only comic book goers did. And comic books were dying. The movies were running stale because the same movies would be rehashed repeatedly.
They needed someone with much more vision and experience to make the IP what everyone wanted.

Nintendo and Sony are not just the oldest surviving console players around they survived a period where a great deal of consoles crashed and failed. It was still a miracle that MS survived in a situation where Sega did not. When you put that into perspective, surviving means growth and winning doesn’t mean novelty. Winning means taking the most efficient route you can and truthfully, building a bunch of studios from the ground up against incumbents with nearly 40 years of goodwill, brand power, IPs and strategy makes no sense.

You are doomed to fail.

If You no longer have the luxury of 20 years to build up a solid foundation, what options do you have left really? Your competition is hungry, they are coming in and they will buy up everything to enter the market, and you will be impacted.

this is change and change is coming to the gaming market whether you want to believe it’s coming or not. There is Apple Arcade and Apple TV, there is Google stadia, GeForce Now, Steam Deck, Amazon owns Twitch and lumberyard, Facebook owns Oculus, and Netflix is making some form of games as well.

There will be mergers and acquisitions whether you like it or not, the only question you should be asking is whether the ones making those moves will do those studios and IPs right. The idea that the industry would stay unchanged; and these new entrants would just die off is naive. They have money significantly dwarfing Nintendo and Sony and are looking to increase growth at nearly all costs.

With Disney, there was a limit to new the number of new IPs they could build in any given year. So those acquisitions of marvel and Star Wars have done monumental for them. They had all their things on Netflix and saw an opportunity to start their own streaming service and already have caught up with Netflix in just a handful of years.

that is the power of IP buying and plenty of people are happy with what Disney accomplished.
 
I feel like you’re placing way too much importance on the novelty of creating ground up studios and IPs.

If Disney did not buy Marvel and and lay out a huge timeline to lead up to the end of avengers then no one would have ever experienced the greatness that only comic book goers did. And comic books were dying. The movies were running stale because the same movies would be rehashed repeatedly.
They needed someone with much more vision and experience to make the IP what everyone wanted.

Nintendo and Sony are not just the oldest surviving console players around they survived a period where a great deal of consoles crashed and failed. It was still a miracle that MS survived in a situation where Sega did not. When you put that into perspective, surviving means growth and winning doesn’t mean novelty. Winning means taking the most efficient route you can and truthfully, building a bunch of studios from the ground up against incumbents with nearly 40 years of goodwill, brand power, IPs and strategy makes no sense.

You are doomed to fail.

If You no longer have the luxury of 20 years to build up a solid foundation, what options do you have left really? Your competition is hungry, they are coming in and they will buy up everything to enter the market, and you will be impacted.

this is change and change is coming to the gaming market whether you want to believe it’s coming or not. There is Apple Arcade and Apple TV, there is Google stadia, GeForce Now, Steam Deck, Amazon owns Twitch and lumberyard, Facebook owns Oculus, and Netflix is making some form of games as well.

There will be mergers and acquisitions whether you like it or not, the only question you should be asking is whether the ones making those moves will do those studios and IPs right. The idea that the industry would stay unchanged; and these new entrants would just die off is naive. They have money significantly dwarfing Nintendo and Sony and are looking to increase growth at nearly all costs.

With Disney, there was a limit to new the number of new IPs they could build in any given year. So those acquisitions of marvel and Star Wars have done monumental for them. They had all their things on Netflix and saw an opportunity to start their own streaming service and already have caught up with Netflix in just a handful of years.

that is the power of IP buying and plenty of people are happy with what Disney accomplished.
Your example with Disney is irrelevant as you are justifying it by the fact that Marvel was dying or how it benefited Disney.
There is no miracle about XBOX's survival. It made tenths of billions of losses, that any other company would have consiered a failure and would have exited. They had the liquidity to think more long term and keep going until they can take over whatever they can. Every company wants this and this phenomenon is thankfully limited by healthy competition, regulations and their own financial abilities. Except in cases where one company has extreme liquidation and can over subsidise other businesses where their competitors cant regardless how good they are at the specific market.
As for what I like or not and whats coming again its irrelevant. A lot of your arguments are irrelevant to what I posted and I have no idea if you read carefully what I wrote. I excused Activision using their IPs because its their own IPs, its their own ability and they can use them for their console as exclusives. I didnt say they shouldnt.
It is also an oxymoron since you talk about competition and that new entrans shouldnt die off, or how dying IPs were revived, but whats going on right now, isnt about saving companies that had trouble, nor allowing new entrants, nor saving IPs. Its making the possibility of new entries harder, endangering healthy competition, fragmenting accessibility and potentially reducing the number of competitors. This is where its going whether I or you like it or not and we arent discussing about me.
Surely just like Disney, when XBOX or Sony are buying off established IPs and big studios is expected to bring them big money. Making money is what they do and everyone secretely wish to monopolize and have no competition. And so what? What does this argument bring to the table? You didnt say anything we didnt know.
 
Last edited:
And unlike movies and comics, video game studios come and go all the time. Almost every month there's news that a new studio is formed from industry veterans who worked on top franchises. Some of them work out, some of them fail. Some of them end up in that halfway between and get acquired for their IP or talent. The barrier to entry in the video game market is much lower than it is for most other mediums. There are a bunch of free engines and tools now, and you can essentially self publish on PC, with plenty of indie friendly platforms or even Steam, and getting on console is easier than it's ever been. Hell, every Xbox sold is now a Net Yaroze style indie dev box if you enable developer mode.
 
Which if is true, then that means there is a ceiling on acquisitions. Makes you wonder if this means we may not see any more until this one completes. Too bad the FTC got involved. It could take a year or more.

Tommy McClain
It doesnt necessarilly mean anything.
MS probably has a list of companies considering to buy in various stages and with different priorities.
Its not like they are gonna spent 150 billion in a night to buy 20 companies.
We can already see this.

Sony, being Sony with a certain amount of liquidity, based on what they can buy and what they need, they saw a priority in Bungie.
MS being MS with a certain amount of liquitity, based on what they can buy and what they need they saw a priority in Activision/Blizzard and Zenimax.

It appears that MS focuses on building gamepass and exclusivity whereas Sony seems to focus on Destiny's GaaS model probably to create another entry to the revenue they can get from PCs.

Sony used to be big with EverQuest and PlanetSide with Sony Online Entertainment in the PC space, which was sold. I suspect they found a healthier way to get back into that through a much better established studio and talent
 
Back
Top