Depends. Did one I'd you brought the whole restaurant?
You're surprised because you don't know what you're talking about.
I am sorry, but companies dont run charity. MS has to make a profit at some point.
Bungie in this context.
Because it opens up too many avenues for unfair competition. If MS takes away CoD from PlayStation then playstation just doesn't have CoD same as they don't have a bunch of other first party games. Having control of Unreal engine gives a platform holder the ability to artificially manipulate the market - we have already seen this with Epic using it to bolster the Epic Games Store.
Whoever is in charge at that particular moment. Just like every other publisher.
You have no idea how any of this works, do you?
Bungie remains an independent studio and publisher. That means they are also in control over whoever they hire and whoever they promote.
Sure just like Nvidia buying arm was not going to happen. Everyone not named softbank and Nvidia was against the deal. The same would happen with Sony trying to get the default next generation engine. They could foreclose on not just Microsoft but 3rd party developers especially smaller studios who use it. Only Google out of spite and sony was against the abk deal. Hell everyone else was in favor of it after Nvidia was bought off.
No they left MS because they didn't want to be in the loop of making Halo, and they also sold to MS way too early. Breaking out gave them an opportunity to start a new IP and eventually sell for a value more commensurate with their real value
Sony and Bungie have signed a contract. If the contract says that Bungie remains independent and gets full decision making, then that absolutely includes staff. Bungie is not a publicly traded company that you can just buy shares into and get control over it.
But they have always offered benefits for certain games without buying the company.
They do, but the difference is that you can't just buy into them like you can with a publically traded company. In other words: They can set legal terms and conditions for allowing Sony to purchase their shares.
1: That's quite literally what I've said.
It is completely reasonable to assume that it's in their arrangements.
I actually imagine it will be the opposite when we are talking GAAS games. makes sense to keep these things going. games like ESO are crossplay so the whole shared universe across multiple platforms works for games like ESO and fallout.
You genuinely seem to think that anyone can just walk into a development studio, drop a bag of cash to acquire shares and the studio has no choice but to accept and then lose all control and decision-making prowess.
Yoboman
Sony has a pretty big back catalogue, so if they have all those PS1, PS2, PS3 and PS4 games available, and then add in an EA or Ubi like MS did, they would have a decent service.
But again this would be no different to Havok or even CoD. How would they be able to manipulate the market any more than Havok or COD? Anybody who buys them would have to just make concessions to licence the engine. Say they would licence it like MS does Havok and CoD. The possible manipulation of the market isn't different.
They agreed, but most likely they agreed under specific conditions which, by the way, are legally binding.
I think the most important part is that Sony made assurances to Bungie employees about their independence. Ultimately Bungie is its people. I highly doubt Sony wants to lose that talent.
same reasons they acquired bathesda and should have acquired bioware back in the day... its one of those companies they have a legit working relationship with.... witcher 2 was an x360 console exclusive, Cyberpunk xbox as its marketing partner. ...they make great western RPGs..xbox gamers love western RPGs..... why wouldnt they buy CDPR?
1. No you said they left Microsoft because they want to remain in control. However it's always been specifically stated by Bungie to be creative control they wanted, and through rumours that they were unhappy with what they originally sold themselves for after Halo blew up. Nothing to do with platform choice limits creative control
Bungie Inc now operates under the Sony LLC. They are an wholly owned independent subsidiary of Sony, their board reports to the SIE board. In practical terms that means Sony has 100% voting stock to make decisions on Bungie if SIE choose to exercise that option. Sony have given the Bungie board to manage their own affairs, but have complete veto power on everything Bungie does.You genuinely seem to think that anyone can just walk into a development studio, drop a bag of cash to acquire shares and the studio has no choice but to accept and then lose all control and decision-making prowess.
I'm baffled you feel the need to have and share your opinion on this, considering your understanding of this subject is at the level of a playground argument.
Activision Blizzard is a Publically traded company. Bungie is a Private Company. So no, it's not "The same thing".
What point are you trying to make by posting that?
Sony own them outright. I am sure that them being a wholly owned independant subsidiary and having the Bungie team as the board suits everyone just fine right now. But if Bungie decided to release a game as an Xbox exclusive or take out a $20 billion loan for example, you can guarantee that the Board of Directors would be changed to all Sony people as fast as possible.
I don't think we're gonna see people be able to avoid the battle pass price just because they have gamepass. It will probably be both you have to pay for.
Only thing Sony get is the money that Bungie makes and their expertise in multiplayer game.
That's rich, coming from someone who claimed that the acquisition of a publically traded company and private company is "the same".
1: I never said platform choice control, I simply never specified what kind of control I was talking about. This doesn't change anything to my argument whatsoever which is that Bungie likes to remain in control. Whether that is creative control or platform control doesn't really matter to the essence of the argument.
No.
