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

[PSman1700]

If you asked me, and I know no one did, they need to shift their business model somewhat. They have been quiet on their cloud plans for the future and this is something I would like to hear more about. They could release their titles, eventually, day and date on the PC through their own store (so they can keep the 30%) or even cut a deal with Epyc who are already taking less ( whom they already have a vested interest in). That would move the needle a bit for me at least. Plenty of future ways to get people into their system. MS already expect Sony to have a subscription service sooner rather than later. That will be a shift for them, but it is a shift we have seen in every other medium. Companies should have a good path already mapped out to manage that transition. I just don't see any reason Sony cannot retain/ carve themselves out a nice chunk of the market, in the fashion of Nintendo but with more 3rd party support.

It seems like if Sony is slowly moving that direction. They want to cover more of the market. I have said it before, their own PS Store might actually do quite well. We see now how popular their games on Steam are... Either that or a deal with Steam, epic etc.

Sony may be diminished, but they aren't going anywhere.

Even if Sony would be diminished, they'd still be the biggest console player overall i think. They have a huge lead on Xbox in special in EU/asia. Gotta say that, its good with some more competition from MS, the One/S generation of them was just.... lets say not really competitive to Playstation. They started upping their game somewhat after the OneX's launch, and it seems now their much more seriously into gaming than before. This will only make sony work even harder to try and keep their current lead as the number 1 console platform.

I'm against platform exclusives full stop. We're at a point now where the boxes don't matter and there's no reason locking content to a specific piece of hardware.

Fully agree on that.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The problem was that PS was big enough and Xbox was small enough for a lot of third parties skipping Xbox but releasing everything on Playstation. And it reached the point where the Playstation community got a feeling that they were entitled to all the games.

That's ancient history. Hasn't been that way since PS2. PS community don't feel entitled to ALL the games and don't lament MS exclusives from the traditional style.

Not really. Basically if you pay for time / permanent exclusivity long enough if it were to be acquired people say that it is just a normal thing even if it were a third party.
It is just cheaper approach. Sony is smart in spending money and if in the previous gen Sony decided to buy Atlus or Yakuza studio, people would praise it saying that "they made the games for Sony only anyway"...They dont even need to acquire Square Enix if they can just pay for getting FF mainline exclusives.

Except there is nothing stopping MS doing the same! What's stopping MS dropping bags of money at SE's doorstop to secure all the games away from PS? They can pony up the cash if they want to secure an exclusive from any independent developer. Whereas there's no amount of money Sony can pass to Bethesda or ID or all the other studios owned by MS to make a PS exclusive, or even a PS multiplat. So no, it's clearly not the same thing. An independent studio is a source of titles for all platforms, nicely demonstrated by Insomniac and Housemarque. Where these studios tend to favour just one platform, it's traditionally due to a positive history and their own business choices.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Except there is nothing stopping MS doing the same!

Do you remember what happened when MS dared to make Tomb Raider time exclusive? I do. Microsoft also. Since then they have never tried to make any big IP time exclusive in any shape or form. Even now when they are in more favorable lighti in the eyes the media and consumers - not all of them though - I would image a huge backlash over any FF exclusivity.

Where these studios tend to favour just one platform, it's traditionally due to a positive history and their own business choices.

Well, we can say that when the studio or publisher is bought, they are favouring just one platform due to their own business choices

Anyway, this discussion is irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Nesh]

Do you remember what happened when MS dared to make Tomb Raider time exclusive?

Why arent you saying things the way they actually are instead of trying to maneuver around them by mirepresenting them all the time?
When Tomb Raider was announced on XBOX, MS was deliberately not clear if it was timed or full exclusive. They were giving the impression that the game was a full on exclusive. And it has nothing to do with "playstation community entitlement". We are talking about normal consumers, not fanboys, who were always experiencing this highly popular franchise, thinking back then that they wont be able to play it on the platform they bought for the first time. It was a totally normal reaction and a showcase what a buy out of a popular franchise can do.

 

[zed]

anyone truly following blizzard has seen a dramatic decline, year over year, blizzcon after blizzcon, GSL after GSL.
StarCraft dead, Warcraft dead, heroes of the storm dead. Diablo was dead, it went mobile but the outrage made them start D4. Project titan dead, ghost dead, Warcraft adventures dead, Wow is dead, so it was rebooted. OW2 is massively delayed. War3 reforged pure garbage. StarCraft remastered garbage.

Yeah they have been mismanaged, diablo 4 though could be big, Not having that on PS could be a big blow. Im not too sure how do these sort of games work with a controller? I assume its not ideal

 

[DieH@rd]

StarCraft remastered garbage.

This is blasphemy. StarCraft remastered is awesome, it's 1:1 recreation of the old title but with better visuals and 16:9 support [essentially they just added higher quality sprites, the underlying game is the same and MP-compatible with the original]. They launched it after Korean esports maniacs verified it is faithful to the original, and it still played as an esport title.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Do you remember what happened when MS dared to make Tomb Raider time exclusive?

Of course. They took a multiplatform exclusive out of general circulation without informing people it'd be timed exclusive, apparently removing the chance to play the game for owners of other consoles who would otherwise have got to play the game. Gamers got pissed at the announcement. However, look at their original IP 2nd party exclusives like Gears of War, Blue Dragon, Eternal Sonata, and Sunset Overdrive - no outrage.

Anyway, this discussion is irrelevant to the topic.

I think it shows that information isn't being seeing in total and people are misinterpreting because they aren't seeing major plot points, looking only for evidence that seems to fit their current viewpoint. Your counterargument to 'securing second party exclusives' to show bias is one example of securing multiplat content exclusivity and you somehow managed to miss all the examples of MS securing 2nd party exclusives, that clearly upturn that idea, with the same reaction as this generally garners. "Oh, that looks nice. I wish this was coming to PlayStation."

 

[zed]

This is blasphemy. StarCraft remastered is awesome, it's 1:1 recreation of the old title but with better visuals and 16:9 support [essentially they just added higher quality sprites, the underlying game is the same and MP-compatible with the original]. They launched it after Korean esports maniacs verified it is faithful to the original, and it still played as an esport title.

I assume you're joking, thats the laziest ass remaster ever

Diablo OTOH remastered looks far better, better res like starcraft but also better FX, better FPS. starcraft they kept even the same ~30fps

 

[iroboto]

This is blasphemy. StarCraft remastered is awesome, it's 1:1 recreation of the old title but with better visuals and 16:9 support [essentially they just added higher quality sprites, the underlying game is the same and MP-compatible with the original]. They launched it after Korean esports maniacs verified it is faithful to the original, and it still played as an esport title.

lol. I guess I was expecting more. I mean from that perspective sure, nothing changed, then technically they can swap it in for a direct change for league. If it was a free release I wouldn’t criticize it.

 

[Nisaaru]

Yeah they have been mismanaged, diablo 4 though could be big, Not having that on PS could be a big blow. Im not too sure how do these sort of games work with a controller? I assume its not ideal

Well, Diablo has a lot hardcore fans and though I bought the game back then and played through it on my Mac I never thought it was truly an AAA title. They obviously polished it but the whole game mechanics itself makes it an older generation title, just addictive to some people.
The game needs a complete 3D FPS/3PS technology/gameplay uplift and I've never seen Blizzard to be a studio which is truly technology innovative. They have been a studio which takes a genre/gameplay system, invent a nice story and then tinker and polish the gameplay like Nintendo.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Why arent you saying things the way they actually are instead of trying to maneuver around them by mirepresenting them all the time?
When Tomb Raider was announced on XBOX, MS was deliberately not clear if it was timed or full exclusive. They were giving the impression that the game was a full on exclusive. And it has nothing to do with "playstation community entitlement". We are talking about normal consumers, not fanboys, who were always experiencing this highly popular franchise, thinking back then that they wont be able to play it on the platform they bought for the first time. It was a totally normal reaction and a showcase what a buy out of a popular franchise can do.

I am not sure that discussing the length of exclusivity will do Sony any favour especially when Street Fighter 5 and FF7R exists.
FF7R was specifically a genius move to be honest (and Square Enix made a bank). I applause Sony regarding FF7R exclusive and the way it was handled. It was brilliant (and also honorable mention to Square Enix). Also that 2 year exclusivity windows for Forspoken (or FF16? don't remember) and FF16 are also fascinating as by the time exclusivity expires nobody would care about the game anymore (those who want, they will play on Playstation and buy Playstation for that) so they can extend the exclusivity in perpetuity. People won't care as "those games don't sell on Xbox anyway".

Also there are people who think that Kena is coming to Xbox, but I - personally - don't see it at all.

Now, the topic at hand.
I don't believe that they are gonna to buy any publisher like at all. I do expect even stronger leash on Final Fantasy from Square Enix (I still believe FF14 might be coming to Xbox sooner or later). But Sony planned it anyway.

Capcom is a wildcard as I don't think Capcom wants to be exclusive to any platform anymore so won't be bought. Franchise wise it is an interesting question. They have strong ties with Nintendo and even release the games on Facebook VR (ironically Resident Evil and RE is strongly in Sony's camp and Sony also has VR). It remains to be seen if the next Street Fighter is exclusive to Playstation as Sony owns Evo now and Street Fighter is the essential for e-sports. So Sony might try to do that.

But it is only from the gaming perspective. If we throw in anime and TV proposition, it becomes interesting as it opens up to Kadokawa and (again) Square Enix. But I don't see any other publisher.

 

[PSman1700]

Also there are people who think that Kena is coming to Xbox, but I - personally - don't see it at all.

Kena is on one of MS's platforms if your intrested.... (Windows).

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Kena is on one of MS's platforms if your intrested.... (Windows).

I am not really interested in the game - I would prefer MMO any time (especially since I started to throw the money into cash shops, I found playing MMOs more entertaining lol) - but Windows is a separate thing. It is not the era where you can simply moneyhat any game from PC anyway. PC is just too big. Especially starting this gen.

PC is very interesting platform in a sense that it does not suffer from "accumulate community" syndrome unlike the consoles - where they need to sell in order to build the community on the platform each gen, while PC is just essentially growing and growing due to impressive backwards compatibility.

 

[London Geezer]

Forum dwellers like to talk in completely black and white terms when things really aren’t like that.

Nowadays all businesses operate in various shades of grey.

Sony owns a nice little chunk of Epic, so they make money out of anything Epic/Unreal.

They clearly know what they’re doing and they will make more strategic acquisitions if and when they feel the need.

Just owning the Spider-Man name makes them billions.

Are they going to go out and spend tens of billions to buy Square, when they don’t need to? Hell no. But would they if they see MS hovering around with their check book open? I’m sure they’d try, but MS’s pockets are very deep. Would it be “good” if either Sony or MS buy Square? Or Ubisoft, or EA? I personally don’t think so but that’s life.

Are they going to keep making strategic purchases here and there? You can bet on it. Insomniac must have been their most successful investment but it took years to get there.

 

[PSman1700]

Forum dwellers like to talk in completely black and white terms when things really aren’t like that.

Nowadays all businesses operate in various shades of grey.

Sony owns a nice little chunk of Epic, so they make money out of anything Epic/Unreal.

They clearly know what they’re doing and they will make more strategic acquisitions if and when they feel the need.

Just owning the Spider-Man name makes them billions.

Are they going to go out and spend tens of billions to buy Square, when they don’t need to? Hell no. But would they if they see MS hovering around with their check book open? I’m sure they’d try, but MS’s pockets are very deep. Would it be “good” if either Sony or MS buy Square? Or Ubisoft, or EA? I personally don’t think so but that’s life.

Are they going to keep making strategic purchases here and there? You can bet on it. Insomniac must have been their most successful investment but it took years to get there.

What sony maybe needs to do is release more exclusive/AAA or even AA titles per year, diversify them somewhat perhaps aswell. They can pretty much do that with what they have.
The brand name alone is lifting them high above anyone else currently. This 70bn aquirement does impact Sony obviously in the longer run, but far from kicking Sony of the throne their sitting on right now. They will have to counter-act somehow/somewhere to this, its a given that they will. Its how the market works.

Honestly, i think its good with pressure/competition from MS this time, were bound to see more innovations/graphical powerhouse titles to rise from both PS and Xbox, Sony usually had the best looking titles, now thats abit.... maybe the still the case but not as much, and not for long if so. I'd guess that their next spiderman 2 etc will take true advantage of the system, competing with hellblade 2 etc.

Oh and, not that i like this idea of platform exclusives, as someone already noted, in a perfect world that shouldnt exist.... but it does.

 

[Jay]

When Tomb Raider was announced on XBOX, MS was deliberately not clear if it was timed or full exclusive. They were giving the impression that the game was a full on exclusive.

When was exclusivity length ever revealed, apart from DLC and some content?
Half the time it's just people making guesses and wishful thinking.

 

[Nesh]

What sony maybe needs to do is release more exclusive/AAA or even AA titles per year, diversify them somewhat perhaps aswell. They can pretty much do that with what they have.
The brand name alone is lifting them high above anyone else currently. This 70bn aquirement does impact Sony obviously in the longer run, but far from kicking Sony of the throne their sitting on right now. They will have to counter-act somehow/somewhere to this, its a given that they will. Its how the market works.

Honestly, i think its good with pressure/competition from MS this time, were bound to see more innovations/graphical powerhouse titles to rise from both PS and Xbox, Sony usually had the best looking titles, now thats abit.... maybe the still the case but not as much, and not for long if so. I'd guess that their next spiderman 2 etc will take true advantage of the system, competing with hellblade 2 etc.

Oh and, not that i like this idea of platform exclusives, as someone already noted, in a perfect world that shouldnt exist.... but it does.

I am not fully agreeable on this.
When MS was buying small talented studios like Ninja Theory, I saw a good sign, where low funded talents will now have the resources to innovate and bring out what they can really do, in the same vain as what Sony did with Insomniac, Guerilla, Naughty Dog and other small studios. These studios showed great promise but by themselves they would have never brought us the stunning games the did.
Buying existing multiplatform powerhouses is the complete opposite of innovation. And I assure you this hasnt stopped at Activision/Blizzard. They will continue.
Exclusive titles provided by the platform holders and the small studios they buy are the real innovators.

 

[eastmen]

Why is this in reply to me? I'm not expressing my upset but trying to explain the qualitative difference between Sony's purchases and MS's to those who struggle to understand why the response to MS's acquisitions is different to Sony's. Some people can only see the difference in response as platform bias where there's good, neutral reasons to see them differently based on business practices and market impact, regardless of which business is involved.

The bias is against MS. Those who are upset with MS buying it would have been estatic at sony buying it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The bias is against MS. Those who are upset with MS buying it would have been estatic at sony buying it.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary and the failure of that argument to hold together where the evidence presented trips itself up, you repeat this narrative. Honestly, ignoring all the meat of my posts, the clear pointers to counter-points like MS's accepted second party exclusives, you just throw out an unsubstantiated assertion against people trying to explain their position? Do you honestly consider that good, constructive debate?

"Let's ignore whatever everyone's telling me and instead assume a reality that goes against the evidence because that's what I choose to believe."

What exactly is the point of discussion if one will just take points to be outright lies and not engage in reasoning?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Are they going to go out and spend tens of billions to buy Square, when they don’t need to? Hell no. But would they if they see MS hovering around with their check book open? I’m sure they’d try...

Rumours are MS was hovering around, fanning itself with its chequebook, but SE said, "no."