What should Sony's Acquisition Plans Be? *spawn*

Well, MS - at least in optics - is trying to position itself as the guard of Sony and Nintendo against other big tech giants

I find it kinda funny that it is always Xbox who forces people to buy the console. People who bought Xbox in the first place are not forced to anything, just like buying Playstation is not the obligation and a choice. Yet, all the time I hear across various communities how Xbox forces somebody to buy it.

 

Why do you twist what he actually said? He said that people wanting to play particular games that used to be multiplatform had the option to buy which ever console they like. That could be either Playstation or Xbox. Now to play specific games they have to buy an Xbox.

 

It's the same when a company makes an exclusive deal for the game. making an exclusive deal is actually worse because you don't know what game at what point from your favorite third party company will be only on one platform. At least from the start you know that Bethesda games wont be on the playstation. But if your a square fan maybe all their games are multiplatform maybe their new game is exclusive. Who knows ? Wont know till they announce it. Hope you bought the right title.

But the point I was making is that the first party should have their feet into all genres to insure that their customer base is served. Sony does very well with 3rd person action games like Uncharted , Ghosts , God of war , Last of us , spiderman and horizon . But in other genres they are weak.

The thread is about what their purchasing plans should be. I believe I gave a fairly solid reasoning for why they should purchase companies that meet their goals. They don't need to buy a ubisoft or ea to acomplish it. Warhorse made an amazing Kingdom Come RPG. Sony could purchase that studio. They can purchase a bunch of smaller studios that excel at different types of games and just increase their first party support and variety

 

Actually, these seem to be what Sony should buy to appeal to you specifically. That is not the same as Sony's goals. I know this is a bonkers sentiment, and I feel like I have to re-state it a lot, but Sony's goal is to make money. Releasing games that appeal to a small audience to tick a checkbox on a genre list is not going to achieve that. Producing content for popular genres that sell well are why Sony have a very profitable video games business.

Like all business decisions it's about balancing cost, appeal and profits. Pleasing all of the people all of the time has never been a profitable model.

I may as well ask why Microsoft or third parties are not filling the demand for Norse-mythology action adventure games? The valid answer is that there is not a massive market for them. It also means games like God of War stand out a bit unlike the seemingly endless stream of post-apocalypse zombie-like survival-crafting games that literally flood every platform.

 

Just looking at previous history, Sony's highest purchase as a company is 3.4 billion for Columbia Pictures. Microsoft sized purchases isn't their M.O. because they aren't Microsoft. The difference in money means that they are operating differently.

 

And thats Sony, not the playstation devision.

 

Correction, 3.4 billion for Columbia Pictures but that is still true. Not the Playstation division.

 

To be fair we might need to consider that acquisition in terms of the time it actually happened way back in 1989. At the time it represented a major power play by a Japanese company (especially in the context of 80's Japanese corporate expansion) and the largest deal at the time for a Japanese company. Not to mention that 3.4b cost would be much bigger in today's terms.

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/28/business/sony-has-high-hopes-for-columbia-pictures.html

Not saying of course that is applicable or representative of what Sony will do today however, interesting none the less.

 

Yes, but that shows that, especially in recent times, they've haven't come close to approaching that number. It doesn't appear to be in their DNA to do so currently.

 

If you want to play a game franchise that you already enjoy, but it moves off the platform you have to another platform you don't have, what else is that to be called? The strategy of such content is to 'force' people andnthat's why that strategy is chosen as a business move. It's like BT Internet buying the rights to all the Premiership football matches - the idea is to force people who would otherwise watch those games on free terrestrial channels onto the subscription service. The alternative is making content people choose to buy into, rather than acquiring something they already have/want and moving it behind a paywall, such as Netflix making Stranger Thigns to entice people to subscribe to access they content they'd otherwise miss.

The reason it's Xbox who always 'force' people is because currently they are pretty much the only company who buys existing IPs and sticks them behind a paywall. But if you listen honestly and without prejudice, you will hear similar criticisms levied against Sony, such as locking Spider-Man to PS consoles. Or locking network gaming behind a paywall. It's a business practice people largely don't like and it gets stick when employed.

 

For a game that's been announced and gamers are expecting to come to their console, only for it to be snatched away, yes. We see that same, consistent behaviour among gamers with Epic buying up a game and pissing of Steam users who are being forced to install EGS to access that game. Gamers don't like content they were expecting being paywalled to a platform, and who can blame them? And it's universal, although of course if you happen to have the platform that is getting the content, you are less likely to complain as you aren't directly affected. Life is unfair, but we rarely complain when it's unfair in our favour! That doesn't make the criticisms of the affected any less valid though.

And yes, Sony grabbing a multiplat and making it a PS console exclusive where it could and should come to XB is a crappy move. It'd be better if they didn't do that. But at least if it's a deal, it's only a title here and there. Buying up the studio and making everything PS only would be quantifiably a worse move for gamers. Sony's Square Enix exclusives are but a few titles among an entire library, or a frustrating timed exclusive - how dreadful would it be if Sony acquired all of SE and put all their games onto PS only? Love Final Fantasy? Well now you're forced to own a PS to play it.

 

The problem is not with the practice, but with the way it is framed and you mentioned it yourself that it is Xbox who always forces people. Not Sony with SF5, not Sony with FF7R, not Sony with Spider-man, not Sony with FF16 and Forspoken (that supposed to come in 2 years, but who knows), hell even Kena is probably not coming too. And Sony even went after Starfield and if not for purchase we could get a situation where Deathloop or Ghostwire would not come to Xbox. We can even assume that Sony might make KOTOR exclusive too, because you never know with Sony.

If we get the amount of titles Sony moneyhatted (or made some deals behind the scenes that we can presume) it will be more than just a publisher over the generation. I only applaud Sony for doing smart tactical moves like with Street Fighter that obliterated fighting genre on Xbox (they got all the fighting games without paying for them. Beautiful). Or constantly paying Square Enix to a point where people claim that buying Square Enix is fine because they make the games for Sony anyway. Sony is very good at conditioning people where if they pay the studio long enough not to release the games on Xbox and then in public perception it becomes a Sony studio anyway so can be bought organically.

As if it is not the same right now. Since 2016 Xbox did not have a single FF game (though FF devs work slow) and also Forspoken was moneyhatted too and FF16 is gonna be moneyhatted too. I like approach that MS uses - at least it is a honest way and Game Pass value grows. Sony community gets only 70$ games and 10$ upgrades. And also cloud saves behind the paywall.

Anyway this talk won't go anywhere and my position is clear - MS doesn't do anything bad buying publishers if it is the way to finally get the third party games without thinking whether they are gonna be snatched by Sony or not (like all those rumors about Persona or Monster Hunter). In Xbox case it even benefits due to the games coming to Game Pass. For Sony? Any acquisition won't change anything for the Playstation community.

 

But we've seen claims in the past that everyone already has a gaming PC so they don't need an Xbox console...

 

It does benefit the PS community. It provides assurance and security.. and I'm not sure what you think is going to happen.. but Sony is absolutely going to copy GamePass and thus any studios that Sony acquires will also work towards that benefit.

Ragnarok is coming, and Sony would be wise to do what's right for their community and secure what they can.

 

Yeah, they have been trembling over the posibility of losing the games for years...Especially in PS2 and PS4 era. In PS3 era I am not sure if there were games that did not come to Playstation either. In PS1 era it also did not lose games (or any). And to be precise it was more Sony taking off the games from other platforms at that time. I would say that only this gen, Playstation community get to experience what other platforms have been experienced for years. Will be a refreshing experience.

And that's the reason why there is so much outrage over that, because Playstation community is not used to games skipping the platform. In a sense people loved PS2 era because those who owned Playstation got all the games they wanted. PS4 was also crazy (though a lot of genres declined) where if you wanted to play all the games - one console was enough.

Probably another paid upgrade in the works.

 

Except they did. I'm pretty sure at the time people complained about Sony taking the SF franchise away from other platforms, and I'm pretty sure the arguments were the same that people didn't want to be forced into getting a console to play a franchise. Very quick Google:

As I already explained, you'll get less outrage from the platform that benefits because we don't complain or resist when life is unfair in our favour, but the common view is if a platform is going to miss out on a title it should be getting, there ought to be a good reason like the platform holder stepped in to save it.

Which is unfair! But then you have the case where you can still get these on PC. If Sony bought the studios and excluded them from PC also, that'd be even worse, no? The explanations are the same though. If a company creates new IP to make their console unqiue, people are okay with that. If they secure content from other platforms, they aren't that happy. If they buy wholesale studios/publishers that were multiplatform to force existing fans into buying their console, that's the worst.

It's a clear, rational scale across a spectrum of business activities with corresponding market reactions. There's no ambient platform bias. Again, look at the reactions to EGS versus Steam - not even console fanbases arguing because they are both PC! But the arguments are the same when one store secures exclusivity of a game expected (sometimes even announced) for the other store, forcing people to use the other store.

That really isn't true. Where were you during the PS360 era? 360 got loads of exclusives. I repeat, with some facts you ignored last time and will ignore again, the Sony community did not rage against Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Gears of War, Fable, etc. How does that fit into your theory?

 

I don't remember media doing crusades on Sony over that like they did with Tomb Raider and Microsoft. Showing a topic on reddit is not a proof of anything. It is like saying that nobody plays COD because people hate it on the forums.

Not. Buying a publisher is a honest way to say the game is not coming to the platform (though MS is pretty generous in that regard. Sony would have never given that much leeway regarding the game releases), while Sony gets more with less (without buying a publisher they literally lock one game after another and then whole genres evaporate) - pay small 100m and then extend and then extend the deal and people won't care if the game is not coming to other platform anymore and even claim that the whole series is the platform exclusive. Publisher acquisition at least allows to sort the internal issue while Sony with their COD deals could not influence ATVI on stopping annual COD games.

I am not sure what are you trying to prove here considering that MS releases their exclusive game on PC day one. I believe you meant something like "see! Sony was generous enough not to moneyhat the game from coming on PC! They are good!"

With EGS the main argument is that the store is bad. If the store was good - with communities, basket etc. - nobody would complain. Or at least not that much.

Wait, so you comparing FF and SF moneyhats with Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon and co.? Oof. You literally said in the same post If a company creates new IP to make their console unqiue, people are okay with that so I am not sure why you are bringing these IPs...

Except there is. There are so many articles about "why the game should be coming to Playstation" or "why it cannot skip the platform". But good thing is that with Xbox growing in popularity, the media noise will die out and they will start asking real questions like "why cloud saves on Playstation are behind the paywall" and "when Playstation will finally have a good refund policy"

Anyway, it is been long obvious that you are not arguing in a good faith. We have nothing to talk about on this topic as we are running in circles lol

 

All the complaints I've seen are about Epic using their Fortnite revenues to buy a competitive advantage. The fact the store isn't great only makes it worse, but the overall discussion I've seen is continuing the standards for gamers - they don't like companies muscling their way to success by taking games out of the game pool for other platforms.

No. I'm saying there have been plenty of times MS has secured titles without Sony fanbots/gamers complaining they are missing out on games. You state Sony fans feel entitled to everything. I present evidence that they don't. They are just fine with other platforms having exclusives. Sony fans are no different to other gamers. There is a spectrum:

1) Multiplatform games
2) In house IP exclusives
3) Second party new IP exclusives
4) Second party existing IP exclusives
5) Studio acquisitions of existing IPs

Gamer response, excluding platform fanatics, are

1) Yay
2) That's okay. Good that the company is investing. Old school "It's good that the hardware will be maximise" but we're seeing that as less and less valid over the generations.
3) That's okay. Good that the company is investing.
4) That sucks. Although if there's a history for a title, response may be muted
5) That sucks.

Contrast gamers' response to MS funding second party new IP exclusives Blue Dragon and Sunset Overdrive, and doing a deal with Epic to secure the new IP Gears of War, with gamers' response to the TR exclusive announcement and the potential for MS to secure long-running multiplat IPs with their recent publisher acquisitions.

And note that no-one is expecting MS fans to complain about MS's acquisitions. The point is the the complaints from the other sides are rational and justified and not just platform prejudice as some suggest. If Sony secure SF5 for PS only and MS fans say that's unfair because it locks them out of the game, that's a legitimate complaint! It's not just XB fanboy complaining. Likewise Sony fans complaining about being locked out of existing IPs isn't them being biased but a legitimate complaint. And if there are more PS fans, and more titles affected, the vocal resistance will be that much louder. You don't hear many Ouya fans complaining about a lack of ports...

 

imo only acquisition that would be beneficial for players would be konami

 

No, if EGS store was a decent store nobody would bat an eye. Not the first time there is a separate launcher on PC. The problem is that EGS store is bad and rather than improving it, Epic is throwing around money to temproray lock third party exclusive games. They did not even have a basket for a long time, which is hilarious!

Of course they would not complain as it is IP they are not interested in. In fact a lot of Playstation folks would be happy in Xbox sit in some corner with their own games without touching any third party games that could potentially come to Xbox. Just like with Nintendo.

Rational arguments are the unbiased arguments. However discussions about exclusivity are inheretenly biased because most of the people prefer one or another platform. I have never seen a single person who would say that time exclusivity is better than acquisition while not having Playstation. Like each and every person who prefers Sony's moneyhats owns Playstation.

In case Xbox, exclusivity benefits the customer because the game can launch in Game Pass (and it launches in Game Pass if studio or publisher is owned). It is also available on cloud, PC too. In case of Sony? It is just a gatekeeping benefiting no one except Sony stakeholders. Playstation community does not receive the game early (it launches when it is expected), cheaper (especially with 70$ games) and not in PS+ (even for the first party). So basically the win Playstation community gets is just depraving other platform from the game. Maybe in the future people will argue about real issues on Playstation like paywalled cloud saves, more expensive games, paid updates, strange safe transfer (don't know how it works with PC though), launch in PS+ and the missing browser (they could play XCloud if it was available). But people just shrug it off and cry over "Microsoft ruining game industry".

I have personally never hidden my bias towards Xbox as I am still salty about Sega, all those Sony's moneyhats last gen and the attempt to grab Starfield (and in general the way Sony went after each and every Xbox associated franchise or studio). At the same time I have the objective issues with Playstation too even outside the bias. And I objective enough not to care about "suffering" of Playstation community when I see the real benefits that Xbox and developers get. I mean, seriously, a lot of developers celebrated ATVI acquisition so they are more important here, while moneyhats do not even end with higher pay for the devs.