If they wanted to do that why wouldn't they just do that at Rare for Banjo? Why would it require the Toys for Bob studio name but hiring different personnel anyway?
Last edited:
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
DrFigs
Member
I think it will be an interesting challenge for xbox's management to have that many employees if that's the route they go. But I think really the xbox team would be shooting themselves in the foot by changing literally anything Activision is doing right now, including the yearly releases or moving dev teams away from COD to do budget titles (?). I think what's more likely is that they just hire third party devs to make smaller games, like what Sony sometimes does. like for example sumo digital making little big planet games or whatever.
Last edited:
In Cold Blood
Banned
Why not? MS short of a quid?
They asked Nintendo. They supported the deal because Microsoft promised to bring COD to Nintendo platforms and because MS has a history of bringing games to Switch on a case-by-case basis.
It would be immeasurably difficult for a successful argument that Nintendo exclusivity for Triangle Strategy and Harvestella outweighs deals for Forspoken, FFXVI, FF14 and FF7 Remake.
Not to mention that the CMA and EC look at sales in the UK and EU where Sony is really strong.
More importantly, there are no real arguments Sony can make to say they need Capcom or SE. They already get the games coming from those guys (including exclusivity deals) and are in a position of market dominance in terms of marketshare, mindshare and revenue. They also don't have any history like MS does with the likes of Minecraft. And of course, their strategy towards exclusivity is well known.
I don't think it would go as easy as some of you think. At least, not without being forced to sign behavioral remedies.
Yoboman
Member
The reality is Microsoft are not hands on managers. ABK will manage itself as it has been the last decade, same as Bethesda have been. With the change that some of their games now exclude PlayStation and they have to be on Gamepass day one
If anything they may increase developers working on COD to keep on schedule with the addition of Nintendo platforms
If anything they may increase developers working on COD to keep on schedule with the addition of Nintendo platforms
DrFigs
Member
Call of Duty makes a lot more revenue on playstation than on Xbox, but that doesn't seem to matter. This would be an insane outcome if they allowed the 70 billion dollar acquisition, but not whatever <10 billion it would cost for Square enix and capcom. just on the face of it.
edit: ah sorry i misread your comment. i think my first sentence is not responding to what you were saying about exclusivity deals that sony and nintendo have w/ square.
Last edited:
In Cold Blood
Banned
With ABK, Bethesda and Xbox Studios they have around 18,000 employees. By comparison Ubisoft has 20,000 and Embracer Group has around 16,000.
For the output MS has far bigger and better IP than both of them.
They could grow that by 2000 more to build up the COD studios without any real dramas.
TheGodfather07
Member
i dont think sony will even try to get any japanese publishers simply because there is no threat of microsoft getting them. it would be western publisher that they go for to balance it out a little bit. the only significant thing they can get from japan that would make a difference would be kadokawa.
Last edited:
This casual belief that Microsoft is taking massive losses with GamePass seems rooted in wishful thinking. Because there's no metric or information out there that suggest this.
No management issues at Bethesda, and it's unlikely you'd find the same at Activision. These are being run as subsidiary divisions under Microsoft Games, and retain much of their leadership structure.
The 'mismanagement' reported at XGS affects just a handful of studios and nothing suggests those are not fixable.
DrFigs
Member
Yeah i don't think Embracer group and Ubisoft are examples of companies that are doing well managing a large staff
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Questions for Xbox bros:
- What do you think Sony will do to respond to this acquisition once approved?
- What would you be okay with? And what would you be not?
- Sony may stay the course: increase current studios organically by adding more developers and buying smaller studios every now and then.
- Sony may start acquiring smaller publishers (< $10 billion): SquareEnix, Capcom, CDPR, FromSoftware, Ubisoft, Sega, etc.
- Sony may attempt a bigger publisher (> $10 billion): Take-Two, EA, etc.
- Sony may go all in timed-exclusivity deals.
- Sony may go all in on full-exclusivity deals for major multiplatform franchises
- Other stuff like this that I didn't list here.
Last edited:
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
There are long queues to just play a beta. On a weekend where people are busy playing a remake to the best game ever made. Diablo 4 is gonna be crazy.
Last edited:
TheGodfather07
Member
xbox bros hate temporary deals, so acquisitions it is! i guess its better to not get a bunch of games at all then get a few a bit later. makes no sense to me but alot of shit doesnt make sense in todays world. you cant even call a woman a woman without somebody getting mad at you.
Last edited:
infinity ward and sledgehammer have both doubled in size the last 3 years
Yoboman
Member
This whole process has made it clear that the software needs to be considered an "essential input" for it to be considered for behavioural remedy. If COD doesn't qualify then nothing does
Any and all parties can make a convincing argument for why they need X developer. Sony needs Square because of low marketshare in the Japanese market. Nintendo need Capcom because they don't have access to games in the high end console market like RE4 remake. Xbox can make all the same arguments as they have with ABK
Basically all bets are off now
The main question that I have about Sony's strategy is whether any big buy does also commit them to being more supportive of PC as a platform that they release games onto day one. They don't have to but it feels to me that it would be the case (however I obviously don't have the revenue splits)
In Cold Blood
Banned
Rare don't want to do Banjo or any old IPs now.
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
As a gamer that's owned every Nintendo, PlayStation and Xbox, I expect Sony to keep making their exclusives that keep me coming back. I wish they'd remember that have Killzone and stop with the awful Horizon games.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Who do you think they will acquire then?
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
I don't blame them. Sea of Thieves (their baby) has been more successful than the old IP's. Maybe not in certain peoples minds, but in sales and longevity, I think it has.
I'm not sure why acquisitions or exclusivity deals are the only responses you envisage. The major change from this deal with ABK will be an increase in revenue for Microsoft, bigger presence in Mobile gaming and a much more attractive GamePass. Why can't Sony's response to this be to further improve their PS Plus Extra tier?
Sony's already gone all in on full and timed exclusivity wherever they can find and afford them, so those last two bullet points are rather disingenuous.
We also know they've been carving out substantial budgets for acquisitions in the past few years, so they always had acquisitions for exclusive content in mind.
Hopefully, in more egregious examples, regulators can hold them to multi year access deals similar to what they'll get from MS with ABK. Seems only fair.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
100%.
Almost all multiplatform publishers release their games on PC, and that revenue and reach become part of their buying price. To remove a big platform like PC after the acquisition disturbs the financials.
PC and PS make up like 75-80% of the sales. By ensuring any publisher they buy continue to release on PC, it'd be easier for Sony to not release their games on Xbox and take that 20% revenue hit for long-term gains. At best, we will see delayed PC releases as in the case of Final Fantasy and other first-party PS games.
In Cold Blood
Banned
Double them again.
People are saying that COD is a bigger IP and makes more money than GTA.
Infinity Ward have around 500-600
Sledgehammer has around 500-600
Trayarch has around 650
By comparison Rockstar has over 5000.
Snake29
Banned
Because you don't want to hear your lovely MS has contracts with clauses?
Xbox fanboys are tone deaf. They ignore this part, don't want to hear this, because they are heavenly focused on painting Sony PlayStation as the evil corp, just so the can sleep every night.
And the would even blame Sony for MS Xbox their bad and inconsistent games output. If PS didn't had any meaningful output for 3 years, the world was already on fire.
Last edited:
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
That's the thing that sucks about Sony exclusives and some third party exclusives. PC releases should always be day 1. Sony greed or whatever you want to call it needs to end.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Only? I listed 6 examples + left room for others to chime in.
Because subscription is a money pit; they don't increase revenue.
Not at all. There are no timed or full exclusives from the majority of publishers: Sega, Ubisoft, EA, Koei Tecmo, Take Two, Warner Bros, CDPR, FromSoftware, etc.
There's a lot of room for Sony to expand in this area by 10x.
The multi-year access deal is only about COD of more than 2 dozen IPs that Microsoft has recently bought. I can see a similar arrangement for something like GTA. But why should that be the case for smaller games such as Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, Monster Hunter, Assassin's Creed, Division, Sonic, etc.?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Why? There is no hard-and-fast rule about that or an obligation that console manufacturers should release their games on PC day one.
Sony would do it if it makes financial sense for them. If it doesn't, they won't do it. Having said that, if they purchase any publisher, I don't expect Sony to remove day-one releases from Steam/Epic, but they won't be obligated to do so, and it wouldn't be wrong if they stop doing it.
Yoboman
Member
How does swapping a 30% royalty to paying for licenses increase revenue?
TheGodfather07
Member
i have absolutely no idea but i'll take a guess that it would be a western publisher. microsoft have 2 big ones, so i reckon sony will get one and balance it out a little. theres no way they dont respond at all if microsoft get activision. they have no choice but to respond and it has to be a publisher. single studios wont cut it anymore because microsoft have changed the game.
mansoor1980
Member
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
The Jim Ryan legacy will be ending soon. As a PS5 owner, I say good riddance. As an Xbox owner, I say, "lol."
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Yeah. IF they decide to buy a publisher, there is a high chance it's a Western one. Japanese publishers are relatively safe from Microsoft, and Nintendo is less likely to buy one either.
The problem is that there are very few Western publishers with cherished IPs that are well-managed and cost less than $10. Ubisoft would have been an option but it's a terribly run and bloated mess that I'm sure Sony would avoid at all costs. Warner Bros. may be an option, but not sure how worthy that would be without the IPs.
TheGodfather07
Member
lol, very few indeed for under $10.
what about EA? would give sony a bunch of established and well known ip, including battlefield. it would be easier than creating their own fps from scratch. sony can massively grow the ip by actually making good games. EA have been awful for ages. they need a shakeup.
Last edited:
ulantan
Member
I mean he really hasn't done anything other than have the foresight to make some multi-player game I don't get the hate from a ps owner standpoint.
Fess
Member
That's my main annoyance with Sony's exclusivity strategy. I already have all platforms, I don't care if they buy up every studio that is still available to buy - As long as they stop doing their stupid PC game delays!
What's the deal? They get their fans to 1) double dip and first buy a console version and later a PC version, or 2) buy a console version and then get angry when a better version comes to PC that they should've bought instead, or 3) patiently wait for a PC version and have everything in the story spoiled til the release. It's just a shit strategy.
Come on now. They barely brought anything to Nintendo platforms that wasn't through an aquisition to begin with. The only thing I can think of is Ori. Why couldn't Sony do the same if they made an aquisition and have some SE or Capcom games come to Nintendo platforms. Just say it's like MLB The Show.
I said Octopath Traveller not Harvestella, we can add that to the list though. what about capcom and Monster Hunter Rise, that's pretty big. There is no deal for FF14 btw.
In the UK MS is strong too. Last year they sold 87K less than PS having released very little for the whole year.
If Nintendo have a problem with it all they would need to do is point to Switch sales, say they're not a monopoly if they buy Capcom because they wouldn't be if Nintendo and MS are there, point to Capcoms lower sales compared to MS/Nintendo massive first party sales. Say it isn't a critical supply for Nintedo or even MS because it truly isn't in the slightest compared to ABK. Say they want to compete on MGS services. Say Nintendo didn't have SF or RE to begin with and Capcom aren't interested without the acquisition. Pretty much everything that has happened now.
What's the argument made that MS need ABK? Was xbox not getting games from ABK before? They can say they need content for PS+ Premium.
MS are in a position of market dominance for MGS right now, doesn't stop them from acquiring it for that purpose. Sony have The Show on Switch and Xbox, they have Bungie's IP on other platforms too. They absolutely do have a history, they even have a history of multiplatform releases from an acquisition that outdates Xbox the brand, releasing destruction derby and wipeout on N64 and Saturn.
Minecraft was an acquisition too. A pretty big one. should that have been blocked because at the time PS and xbox were pretty close and MS didn't have any history of multiplatform releases whatsoever? The chicken or the egg. You're saying they can't make a purchase to show they continue releasing games on the other platforms "cases by case" for capcom when they have no history of cutting off IP/games. I think the SLC concerns for Capcom would be smaller than they are for ABK.
Define Rare here. The people currently at Rare might be doing other things and uninterested but you're saying that they can get new people to work on Banjo at TfB. Why wouldn't Rare want to expand and hire people on a separate team working on a different project?
Last edited:
Yeah, in which case I am not too personally fussed about Sony buying a big third party publisher. I have been supportive of the idea that Sony could create a pc storefront and am happy to have multiple stores on my PC.
I can see them applying a six month exclusivity, I think any longer starts causing issues with the general ROI.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
EA would give them Battlefield and Apex that they can prop up against Call of Duty in the future. It'll also give them another route to big those big-name IP-licensed games like Star Wars.
However, EA is just way too expensive I believe.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Significantly. I don't think there would even be any concern. It'll be passed just like Zenimax did.
I can see Nintendo raising some concerns for IPs like Monster Hunter, but Sony can offer them a deal. Beyond that, I don't see any concerns whatsoever from an Xbox perspective buying Capcom or similar-sized publishers.
Alex Scott
Member
Even a 6 month exclusivity is a bad idea. They need the the accquistion to pay itself to some extent.
I think it's a bad idea but it does depend on the forecasts that Sony has re the increased console sales/MAU's from implementing that tactic. I don't think it would cover itself.
Alex Scott
Member
EA is worth 32B. MS paid 47% premium (I think) on ABK. So it would cost 47,040,000,000 to buy EA.
TheGodfather07
Member
so the only ones who can buy EA are... microsoft. what great competiton we have!
I'm sure player numbers are good. Do you think it will sell 30M like Diablo 3 though? I'm not talking player numbers here because the person said sales and that's what I have my doubts about. Might be wrong and not saying it can't happen but I have doubts about that.
Last edited:
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
With EA already a part of game pass, no need for MS to acquire them. Those of us with patience (and game pass sized backlogs), we can wait for their game to hit the service.
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
I'm not sure. I think D4 could surpass D3. Its online structure seems to make it a game that will have much longer legs, meaning more sales in other ways than just at retail.
Through microtransactions? True, I can see that happening but the guy was talking about unit sales specifically.
Last edited:
X-Wing
Member
You are tired of good games released on a regular basis?
Yoboman
Member
Hopefully they do it to protect us from Google, Amazon and Saudi Princes
- Status