sainraja
Member
Pretty much. Some of their developers did create one or two IPs that were on other platforms but majority were exclusive.
Breaking: Microsoft to acquire Activision-Blizzard in near 70$ billion deal
- Thread starter Draugoth
- Start date
Nautilus
Banned
Ehhhhh
Dont really like this argument because its only half true. Yeah Sony adquired many of its high quality studios, but aside from Naughty Dog and maybe Insomniac(Given that they were kinda PS exclusive for a long time), all of the other were kind of unknown until they made it big while under Sony.
Not only that, but Square became what it is without adquiring anyone(Outside of Enix with DQ). Same with Capcom, Konami, Project Red, Ubisoft, etc.
Its not easy, actually its quite hard, but lets not kid ourselves that buying your way in is the only way.
Last edited:
metareferential
Member
You guys already posted this, right?
Because it has to.
Because it has to.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
Yeah that comment from Panello is painfully idiotic
Studios take a long time to develop and nurture, and it doesn't always work out, but there's a long term investment of time, money, and labor building them up over many years.
What MS is doing is just buying that already established success outright, that was already thriving in a multi platform environment, and now making it exclusive.
It's the number one gaming property in the world
Comparing it to insomniac or something is laughably obtuse and arguing in bad faith
Shouldn't have expected anything more from Panello after his PS5 fud
Salmon Snake
Member
I just realized how ridiculous amount of money is involved.
Finland just bought 64 new F-35 fighter jets for 8,4 billion.
Microsoft bought Activision-Blizzard for 70 billion..
Finland just bought 64 new F-35 fighter jets for 8,4 billion.
Microsoft bought Activision-Blizzard for 70 billion..
SportsFan581
Member
They have mentioned it in regards to future cloud native apps, but that would be strictly for something that couldn't ever run on a single piece of hardware in your house.
SportsFan581
Member
Or, the world isn't monochromatic black & white place and MS is just doing what they feel is right for a an eventual cloud based future. Anyone can do cloud, ioi is doing cloud for Hitman on Switch, Ubi already has a tier of Ubi+ with cloud. When everything starts to go streaming, traditional third-party might not exist as it is today. Maybe platforms will exist built more on just the properties they own. Not that I think that all 3rd parties will tackle cloud on their own, many of the smaller studios and indies won't, but a lot of the bigger names probably will try their own hand at forming platforms. At any rate, content is king with a subscription service, whether it is local or cloud, MS getting out there to get some popular content.
Last edited:
JimRyanGOAT
Member
Sony really needs a better long-term vision, they can't just rely on their main IP's selling for 80 bucks for the next decade.
They arent Nintendo, they are in direct competition with Microsoft more so than Nintndo
Microsoft is playing Chess while Sony is playing Checkers
Microsoft has so much content now by owning ZeniMax & Activision
The possibilities are endless with the amount of IP's they own, Meta, Gamepass, or whatever else they want to do
They arent Nintendo, they are in direct competition with Microsoft more so than Nintndo
Microsoft is playing Chess while Sony is playing Checkers
Microsoft has so much content now by owning ZeniMax & Activision
The possibilities are endless with the amount of IP's they own, Meta, Gamepass, or whatever else they want to do
Rick Dangerous
Banned
This is how Monopolies are started.
Microsoft is already a Monopoly in the business world, and they leverage their hugely deep pocket to eliminate competition in the gaming world.
Subscription means captive audience, means less of basically everything.
Those huge American digital companies are a real democratic threat and should be disbanded.
Microsoft is already a Monopoly in the business world, and they leverage their hugely deep pocket to eliminate competition in the gaming world.
Subscription means captive audience, means less of basically everything.
Those huge American digital companies are a real democratic threat and should be disbanded.
JLB
Banned
bs. What Penello says its perfectly on point.
Biggest Sony exclusive IP was developed by a mature dev studio acquired just a couple of years ago.
In any case, why does this matter anyways? If Sony had enough money they would buy every single studio out there.
Its delusional to think that business strategies of any profit oriented entity are based on morals / ethics.
Last edited:
Edgelord79
Gold Member
Interesting insight.
www.gamesindustry.biz
"The deal that will change the industry forever": Analysts on Microsoft's Activision acquisition
The number of mergers and acquisitions taking place across the games industry has dramatically risen in recent years, b…
www.gamesindustry.biz
Crazy stuff.
Banjo64
cumsessed
Page 62 delivered…
Can't take anyone seriously who says that it's ok for Sony to make acquisitions based on arbitrary prior working relationships, but anything else is not ok. Those people are absolute bottom feeders. That, or they are 6 years old.
Can't take anyone seriously who says that it's ok for Sony to make acquisitions based on arbitrary prior working relationships, but anything else is not ok. Those people are absolute bottom feeders. That, or they are 6 years old.
oldergamer
Member
Doesn't matter if they were unknown. His point is they were independent and got bought which is valid.
SportsFan581
Member
Businesses do business, a part of that comes in the form of consolidation/mergers, it's not the end of the world.
GasTheWeebs
Banned
Suddenly. after 25 years sony fans don't like exclusivities any more. I wonder why.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Page by page we're going from refined salt > sea salt > flake salt > Kosher salt > Himalayan salt pink > black lava salt. Soon Fleur de sel end game.
Anyone calling monopoly BS, have a read. You're factually off base.
Anyone calling monopoly BS, have a read. You're factually off base.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
The whole organic/inorganic growth is meaningless to me tbh. Xbox has a shit ton of studios now with the talent to grow their portfolio even more. That's the Reality. Doesn't matter how they got there
Sony needs to build their FP faster than this. I don't care if it's through nurturing the next Bubsy 3D developer or buying Capcom. Just stop pissing around
Sony needs to build their FP faster than this. I don't care if it's through nurturing the next Bubsy 3D developer or buying Capcom. Just stop pissing around
Last edited:
lastmessiah
Member
Yeah exactly. Lol at people pretending this "terrible for gamers". This is fantastic for gamers. This is the most investment in the future of video games we've ever seen.
Markio128
Member
Hopefully MS shake up the COD formula, which was getting super stale anyway. I honestly believe that most of the playerbase bought the games, certainly those released in the last few years, through habit and not because they were any good, or doing anything new. As for Sony, I'm sure they have plans in place to fill the void, aided by Deviation games, for example. Change can be good.
Dr Bass
Member
Normal game prices max out at 70, so not sure why it's now 80 dollars per game. And sales happen often. How is having a pretty profitable software company that people are more than happy to pay for not a "good vision"? How is spending dozens of billions of dollars (where they will never recoup the costs) to acquire old declining companies "visionary"? People are apparently blinded by dollar amounts.
How is MS playing Chess while Sony is playing checkers? Again, just throwing around platitudes with no reasoning to back up the statement doesn't mean anything. This, on the same day when we have people linking to IGN articles saying "It's now a content battle!" when Sony and Nintendo still have more and better content. CoD is not going to shift the industry dynamic, even if it does go exclusive. It's aways been a content battle, that's the point. Thats what Microsoft hasn't been focusing on. And the argument that they are now by buying all this stuff ... it doesn't hold water IMO and here is why. Let me ask people, what would you rather have ... All the stuff that has been purchased so far? Or MS to fund 10-20 brand new, visionary, IPs that are industry leading on a level of a naughty dog game, or Nintendo games, and completely exclusive to Xbox. What if MS DID do that, and Sony had bought Zenimax and Activision. I would bet anyone here a lot of money that the MS diehard response would be "Haha, we have all the great new stuff, you can HAVE all that crap I played 10 years ago!" There is no way in hell anyone on the Xbox-only side would want the situations to be reversed in that scenario, and for good reason. I want to see just one .. just one game from MS that is completely original and on the level of Mario, Zelda, the "Ico Series", the God of War series, the Ratchet series, Uncharted, The Last of Us, and I am sure there are more. I can't think of anything that MS has done on that level. And we gamers just got, yet again ... Halo and Forza, after a decade of being criticized as a Halo/Gears/Forza box.
Microsoft has a lot of IP with Zenimax and Activision for sure. How much of it is actually current and being actively developed though? Nintendo and Sony also have a ton of IP that is basically dormant. Game development doesn't just happen out of thin air. I remember how furious Nintendo fans were (including myself really) when Nintendo sold Rare to MS. Look at all the hit IPs they acquired then. It seemed like we were going to get crazy next-gen versions of all the Rare games that were so great on N64. And look what happened. Rare is a shadow of it's former self. Yes Sea of Thieves has seemingly achieved some success, but Rare was a force in the SNES/N64 days. No one cares about them at all today in the same way.I think there are more games on the Rare Replay collection than Rare has made since being acquired. Kinda sad. And thats why past performance does not indicate future results.
The possibilities are endless for everyone in the games industry. Imagination and creativity are more important for the future than a treasure chest of decades old IP. I'd actually say by relying more on older franchises your possibilities are more narrow and defined. It's the new and unseen that has "endless possibilities." Again, this is not something MS has ever demonstrated a real knack for nurturing.
As always, the proof will be in the pudding. I.e. the games that get released. It's about games and only games. Not acquisitions, not sub services, not gimmicks.
Games.
Last edited:
HoodWinked
Member
Even with Microsoft's acquisition they'd still only be the 2nd largest share of the gaming market, Tencent would still have a larger share of the gaming market and Sony would still be pretty close it doesn't make sense for regulators to impede an American corporation from competing globally against Chinese and Japanese conglomerates.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Those games sort of reinforce themselves at a critical mass point. Your friends play it, buy/sub it, move on to check out the new versions/content and so do you.
HoodWinked
100% mate.
Last edited:
Markio128
Member
Things change. Something new always comes along. COD quality has been in decline, no doubt about it. As long as that continues, gamers will move on.Those games sort of reinforce themselves at a critical mass point. Your friends play it, buy/sub it, move on to check out the new versions/content and so do you.
SportsFan581
Member
Everyone that owns a share in Activision.
No it's not.
No they don't.
Sony and Tencent are still larger. They weren't eliminated by this.
Wrong.
Kerotan
Member
Well ubisoft and take two are not Japanese so if I was sony I'd make it a priority getting hold of one of them.
Fare thee well
Neophyte
What do you guys think of this take? I find a lot of it resonates with my fears, but anyone have some good refutations?
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/mi...r-implications-for-video-games-than-you-think
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/mi...r-implications-for-video-games-than-you-think
treemk
Banned
Page 62 delivered…
Can't take anyone seriously who says that it's ok for Sony to make acquisitions based on arbitrary prior working relationships, but anything else is not ok. Those people are absolute bottom feeders. That, or they are 6 years old.
Awesome graphical representation of your reading comprehension ability
SportsFan581
Member
People forget that new studios form every day. With a great idea and talent the next big thing could come from literally anywhere. We aren't talking about an industry where it is almost impossible for a new player to enter the fray.
Darlingcognito
Member
MS doing what's best for MS/Xbox, securing content for the future.
If Sony had the money they'd do the same thing (but it'd be stuck to one device instead of 3)
If Sony had the money they'd do the same thing (but it'd be stuck to one device instead of 3)
Ogbert
Member
Of course Sony and MS need to buy studios. They're not video game companies.
The first is a tech/av giant. The second is a tech/software giant. Nintendo are a toy maker and video game company.
Nintendo would need to buy someone to help them make tvs or provide a decent online service.
The first is a tech/av giant. The second is a tech/software giant. Nintendo are a toy maker and video game company.
Nintendo would need to buy someone to help them make tvs or provide a decent online service.
I acknowledge that this must be a trying period for you, but that's no real excuse for completely misconstruing my comments.
The word 'monopoly' does not even show up at all in what I said.
I suggest you re-read the post I responded to, re-read mine and then approach this conversation with the right context in mind.
Hope this helps.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
I am sorry and pardon my french, but what the fuck does an eventual cloud future has to do with acquiring a $70 billion company? I mean you go on to end your post saying it doesnt matter if its local or cloud, content is content so why even bring up the cloud?
At the end of the day, they dont just want content, they want content OFF of Playstation platforms. Or hold it hostage until Sony allows Gamepass on Playstation. MS out of any other company is in the best possible position for an eventual cloud based future. They already have the infrastructure. They already have Sony coming to them begging to take their business signing Azure deals, and thats a console manufacturer. Ubisoft, EA, Activision, and Capcom dont have that infrastructure either. So they will all come to MS when that day comes. So then why spend another $70 billion?
This is about console wars. It's about winning generations. It's about putting your competition out of business. Or in gamepass' case, putting yourself in your competition's console. There is no shame in admitting that a company's interest is to put another company out of business. I am sorry but it really is that black and white. They didnt spend $80 billion on zenimax and activision for an eventual console based future. They couldve easily invested a fraction of that money to organically grow studios for that eventual cloud based future.
Nah, they want to win now. They want gamepass everywhere, and this is the best way to do it. It's ingenious and no one here thought of it. Or even dare to think of it. Get CoD and the house of card falls. It's kind of brilliant tbh. Sony was playing checkers trying to buy FF16 and Deathloop exclusivity while MS brought out the queen.
Roronoa Zoro
Gold Member
I predict a consolidation of the Japanese market as a response to this. They're pretty much the only companies MS can't buy due to the government blocking the purchase. That being said Sony would still want exclusives and an the security of actual ownership over some IP plus they're more in their price range compared to Take 2 or EA.
Combine their cash on hand with whatever loans they can justify to their board because it's literally the future of their most valuable branch at stake and...well if this doesn't make Sony take some financial risk I don't know what will.
Combine their cash on hand with whatever loans they can justify to their board because it's literally the future of their most valuable branch at stake and...well if this doesn't make Sony take some financial risk I don't know what will.
Hmm, you're forgetting a little company called Nintendo.
The Switch is in ascendancy in Japan. Most Japanese companies will want to have the option to keep putting their games on the platform everyone is buying.
sainraja
Member
So you must have missed the title of the article in the post you quoted. Gotcha.
For example (not necessarily one that is 100% true right now), if a single company owns content that you play and they have little to no competition then they have a monopoly for that specific category — the device or controller you are using does not change that. That is what was silly about your comparison.
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
You know it goes both ways — undermine it and overplay it.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Suddenly. after 25 years sony fans don't like exclusivities any more. I wonder why.
Suddenly, after years of whining about Sony buying some timed exclusives, Xbox fans love entire massive publishers and all their IPs becoming exclusives. I wonder why.
He's talking about how Destiny locked levels and weapons behind the marketing deal. And how then Call of Duty locked entire GAME MODES behind the marketing deal, meaning the Xbox and PC versions were sold for full price but were incomplete.
Kagey K
Banned
Still better than FB owning them.
If they were determined to be sold, somebody would have bought them.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Excellent article. Really goes to show how Phil's stance has shifted from we want everyone to play games to lets make sure only my guys can play the biggest games.Good article
Monopoly money: is Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard good for gaming?
The company’s bottomless appetite for new acquisitions is creating a megalith where the art of the deal is threatening the art – and heart – of the gamewww.theguardian.com
Microsoft sees games as content. It seems not so much interested in creating games – or selling consoles – as owning where and how we play them.
I remember that too. Here is his full quote.
This part jumped out at me.
I follow the EPL and while I never really minded the oil money buying the best players for my favorite team, they tried to abscond last year to form their own incestous league with other rich teams until fan outrage stopped them. Monopolies are never good for the consumer.
The part about games being art is right on point. You have to cultivate culture, nurture talent and put your faith in temperamental artists. Buying content is not the same as creating content. I wish MS the best of luck, but this is not the right way to go about creating those AAA goty caliber games that push the industry forward and create lifelong fans Bungie did with Halo back in 2001. CoD is comfort food. I wanted a Wagyu steak.
Last edited:
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
Oh, ok. Glad good guy Phil decided to buy the #1 gaming property (they were getting on their platform anyways) so they could lock their rival out permanently to get back at Sony for not including horse armor in the Xbox version of games
Last edited:
AeonGaidenRaiden
Member
Why are people rounding up the number to 70 Billion? Its 68.7 Billion. 1.3 Billion isnt like..oh just another 100k, lets just round it up.
Last edited:
