They are the last person I want them to buy EA.
It counts in the grand scheme of gaming. Consoles arent the only gaming platform.
So, when you compare Sony to these vast market gaming, they dont even own 10% of gaming.
Which is why Activision deal wont be blocked. The rest is just standard ftc practices.If that were the case the FTC wouldn’t even be involved in microsoft or Sonys latest acquisitions
Battlefront, FIFA(Now FC), Dead Space which is set to be revived, Need for Speed, their deals with Disney for doing Star Wars games, Titanfall, that battle royal Titanfall spin off, and smaller IPs that could be revived or just remastered like Mirrors Edge.
Not to mention the manpower that they would bring alongaide a purchase.
EA has a SHITTON of IPs, tech, and personal that add value to it.
Does Obsidian, Ninja Theory, Inxile and many other not count as smaller studios? what kind of smaller studios are you implying?They are the last person I want them to buy EA.
They need smaller studios, in order to increase their output.
Looks like that after they lost the FIFA license there is no need to maintain the company.
Nintendo is market leader. Look at switch hardware and software sales. Not even closePC and Mobile aren’t individual companies though.
No they aren’t they measure it by revenueNintendo is market leader. Look at switch hardware and software sales. Not even close
Those studios. They make perfect for MS, since smaller projects can turn in to a big projects with enough funding.Does Obsidian, Ninja Theory, Inxile and many other not count as smaller studios? what kind of smaller studios are you implying?
Revenue doesnt dictate market leader, since consoles inflate that price. Plus Tencent makes more revenue than Sony.No they aren’t they measure it by revenue
By revenue then Tencent is market leader lolNo they aren’t they measure it by revenue
They makes more money. Apex alone made them $3b.Little talent and IP remain at EA. Just tons of employees and liabilities.
Hmm how bout MS just buy the studios from EA like how Embracer bought Square Europe from Square EnixThose studios. They make perfect for MS, since smaller projects can turn in to a big projects with enough funding.
Obsidian alone is going to do 2 AAA games, Avowed and Outer world 2.
I'd never buy EA as a whole, I'd gladly buy up Bioware, Respawn and their IPs such as Titanfall, Dragon Age, Mass Effect and Dead Space. Sony I think would manage those IPs better. If MS bought them they would just get delayed year after year.
If MS buys the EA sports studio Sony would have to file for bankruptcy. FIFA is the bloodstream of PSN.
I wouldn't want any platform holder to acquire them though. Theres enough concentration as is...
. Plus Tencent makes more revenue than Sony.
Nintendo is market leader. Look at switch hardware and software sales. Not even close
Maybe I'm missing something. What (non-licencsed) IPs of value do they have/own?
Dead Space - surr, i like Dead Space but it's been....Dead for a decade. Hoping the remake will be great.
What else? Not counting Start Wars, Fifa, NFL, etc.?
Which is why, neither would face monopoly.Correct
Microsoft says themselves the order is Tencent > Sony> Them post acquisition of Activision/Blizzzard
https://news.microsoft.com/2022/01/...ty-of-gaming-to-everyone-across-every-device/
EA wouldnt be up to that. Square didnt like those studios, unlike EA.Hmm how bout MS just buy the studios from EA like how Embracer bought Square Europe from Square Enix
Im thinking Bioware & Respawn
Amount of content owned vs. the competition isn't the only thing that can cause an anti-trust investigation.Monopoly would raise alarm bells, when they own 20%-25% of gaming content.
Considering the market shooter in the gaming world, both pc and console, MS isnt close to that. As long BR, other shooter MP games exist. AAA is a broad term. Though, they could get hot water with WRPG, but that depends on whether other companies slowly make those games."Monopolistic practices" doesn't care how much is owned relative to the market. One could argue that Microsoft owning almost every major triple-A first person shooter outside of Battlefield qualifies as monopolistic practices because, in theory, they'd be able to leverage their ownership of those properties to manipulate the market in their favor.
This could be the answer.MSIE got them in hot water because of the way they leveraged Windows to drive out Netscape, not because IE had the most market share.
They used their platform, to extinguish any challenger for their IE. That is 100% anti consumer.because of the way they leveraged Windows to drive out Netscape
Not much, but a few. I liked their Mass Effect remaster, Fallen Order, and I liked their C&C remaster, then the first Battlefront before that. They've been pretty stale for a long time for me. I hope they do a C&C remaster part 2 though.
Really curious if anyone still sees much value in EA outside of their sport deals. I honestly haven't bought a game from them since Mass Effect 2 in 2010..
Not much, but a few. I liked their Mass Effect remaster, Fallen Order, and I liked their C&C remaster, then the first Battlefront before that. They've been pretty stale for a long time for me. I hope they do a C&C remaster part 2 though.
Disney makes the most sense in my eyes. EA's biggest momey makers are sports games and Disney is huge in sports with ESPN. Seems like some synergy there.Stream Madden 24 only on Disney+
Few IPs are licenced, and EA just got rid of Fifa and its riding solo.If they manage to stick the landing, which Im guessing they will, they will retain all the value without any of the cost.The value IPs are licensed and could be lost like FIFA, they are not part of the value for an EA company sale. The talent has been leaking year after year. Who want's DICE or BioWare today? Respawn is one of the few high quality assets they still have. but they alone will not fetch a price similar to Activation. I wouldn't even value EA the same as Bethesda.
This, so much this. People ignore Nintendo, because since they know they can't beat them, its easier to pretend they dont exist.Nintendo is market leader. Look at switch hardware and software sales. Not even close
Follow up from this, EA is reportedly still looking to buyers or merging.
Make your bets for who is going to acquire EA.
Few IPs are licenced, and EA just got rid of Fifa and its riding solo.If they manage to stick the landing, which Im guessing they will, they will retain all the value without any of the cost.
And you would be a terrible evaluator, considering the TROVE of IPs they have, already listed on the post before(I even forgot to mention Dragons Age and Mass Effect)
And if they buy EA, they can just assign new teams or new key members to head those projects.When you buy a company the size of EA, you buy them (mostly) because of the IPs, and less because of the creators, because people can leave, IPs wont.
No. Nintendo has more hardware sales, more software sales, more profit. Definitely the market leader. Not Sony.No they aren’t they measure it by revenue
Ubisoft(?), EA, and WarnerBros are up for sale. These big boys would over these deal, after MS bought Activision.This would be prime for one of the big guys (Apple, Amazon, Google or Disney) to get into the gaming buisness with a big bang.
Even if they don't have the ability to have a console or streaming service they could be a publisher, which isn't out of the norm for them.
Spore.ME and DA are clones of KOTOR and Baldur's Gate. They can be cloned again without the need for the IP.
What else?
I forgot about the ONE Sony IP game that went through development hell. While MS has sucked at managing game studios for quite some time. But wait until 2023, right?Never heard of the last guardian right?