• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

My HONEST Thoughts On Acquisitions & Market Consolidation

What's your general sentiment on the state of gaming acquisitions?

  • Love 'em

    Votes: 29 11.6%
  • They're okay

    Votes: 34 13.7%
  • I'm indifferent

    Votes: 64 25.7%
  • Starting to become concerned

    Votes: 84 33.7%
  • Hate 'em

    Votes: 38 15.3%

  • Total voters
    249
  • Poll closed .

freefornow

Member
Y'all can give her a look over here but since you brought it up, I'll have to switch to another girl tomorrow ;)



Lol I was going to but I write this stuff in like one day, didn't do an obligatory wall-of-text thread in a while, why not start of May right?

It's good to see some other people have looked at this in terms of the overall console market and options for people as players & customers, though. I could kind of care less what it does for the purchaser's bottom line, unless I happened to invest shares in said company (or the one being acquired). I hope more see that this is beyond just console preferences, too.



Well, it's clearly a complicated subject, that much is for sure.
Why oh why did i click the link (but thanks). And why oh why have i not heard of her before. God spent a bit of extra time creating that one!

I voted "indifferent" only because I just dont think I have any agency over what corporations are going to do.
To consol myself, going to spend some time "studying" that linked page.............(there is a gif for this, but it's just to obvious)
 
At the end of the day it really does not matter there are some acquisition that i like and some that i don't
but im only a consumer so i will just buy everything i have the money so it no problem
i used to be a warrior championing for a company like some other people to but then i realize how dumb that was and change my ways lol

Craig you were one of the people I was thinking about when I said there seem to be some not thinking about this from a POV that would be very beneficial for them. I get what you mean about going where the games are; as gamers we've always done that...some more than others, but still.

But my concerns with rampant acquisitions & consolidation is that, it might result in less games to even go to in the first place. Like that example I said before, you have three companies putting out 15 games a year, then they all get purchased by a bigger company, but what makes you think the bigger company will now keep that total of 45 games coming a year, let alone increase the number?

Realistically speaking, they won't. If you want an example just look at Disney after they purchased Fox. Where are all those new Fox movies at, that they would've been pushing for if they were still on their own? Only some have come out, others are nowhere to be found. They've vaulted a lot of Fox content, too, post-acquisition. Some of these platform holders already had problems doing much with some of their own IPs, can we really expect them to suddenly bring back dormant IPs of some of these companies they're purchasing when they didn't bring back many of those they purchased earlier?

Even if we can expect it, how probable is that to happen?

Imagine caring about companies with billions upon billions upon billions of dollars instead of just caring about yourself and consume whatever it pleases you.

That's the important thing, and that's what I'm doing. But what if there simply isn't as much out there for you as there would've been, due to rampant acquisitions?

For me, I'm pretty much indifferent, as business are going to do business things. Consolidation and mergers are an entirely natural thing. I'll follow the games, or more precisely, who has the games I'm interested in.

But in all that, and if I dig deeper, I still want the IPs and properties to end up in a company I trust. A gaming company, not just a business. So to that end, I suppose I trust Nintendo and Sony the most. I don't really trust the rest.

I think Sony and Nintendo (certainly Nintendo), have that deep ingrained gaming DNA. Not sure about the rest, except maybe Microsoft.

I think Microsoft do in big chunks, especially when compared to some of the other massive companies like Apple or Google. However like you touch on and was mentioned in the OP, I personally don't think they have a good track record of maintaining and curating their gaming assets.

And it's very hard to just hand-waive all of that away because the messaging has changed. We've got some tastes of what could be in releases like Psychonauts 2, but can we expect that for new games not Forza/Gears/Halo from the ground-up? Only time and results can prove that, not word.

Given history so far, the best bet across the 3 console makers is MS.

At least the majority of their games are cross platform Xbox/PC, currently their Bethesda games are still cross platform (they never stripped their games away from Sony or Nintendo), and they have GP which gives gamers the option to buy the game the traditional way or do sub plan and get them day one.

I'm pretty sure they stripped away Starfield from being a multi-console release to just Xbox, because for as long as that game's been in development, there is definitely some PS5 build in existence.

Not knocking on their options or supporting PC as seriously as they do, but from my own POV, with my gaming habits in mind, I don't care that much about games being on PC Day 1, and I still need to see results from current games in development before deciding if they would be a main factor in me getting a sub (and there would have to be enough of that for me to consider the sub vs. just buying those games, especially if most of the other indie releases also come to PC and are cheap enough).

Sony and Nintendo dont come close to any of that. The closest thing you got is Sony doing ports of PS4 games to PC years later for a handful of their games. Or you stream old games to PC with the Premium PS Now service coming live in June. Nintendo doesnt do anything except 100% walled ecosystem.

I don't honestly have a problem with either of those. Each of these companies have different business models that suit them; ultimately the decision's mine as to whether I think the products are worth buying, if the games are worth buying Day 1 or at all. I can understand for business reasons why they may not be able to do stuff like PC Day 1 or at all, and accept that because, again, I don't do a lot of modern gaming on PC.

Was thinking about switching to PC for current-gen but I'm more inclined to settle with a current-gen system and use PC for most retro gaming, and potentially some MS 1P games. Unless I get a Series S, then I'll just use that for those games instead.

If Sony or Nintendo buys a studio it'll be pretty close to being 100% walled off, unless it's a random 4 year old Sony port to PC.

Well Sony have already proven they can keep those studios open looking at the Bungie acquisition, and the ones they have purchased otherwise have always worked very close with PS consoles almost exclusively for many years. There is also another benefit for quality control if you delay PC ports: teams can optimize for a single hardware spec to start with, the shift their attention to a port later on instead of splitting their optimization process among a bunch of configs.
 
Billion-trillion dollar corporations putting their dick on the table.

Its beyond simple console wars. Video games are too big of an industry now, it will soon be bigger than actual casinos. Just gotta sit back and let it happen.

Worst comes to worst i just stop playing video games when it goes all the way left

Damn now I'm depressed.

It's not a big deal. It's still possible for new studios to form. There was never a time where a single machine played everything. At least not legally.

We've seen some new studios pop up, true. But not a lot, especially AAA-level. From what everyone keeps saying talent is at a premium in the industry these days, at least on the west coast.

Love them. There's never been a better time to sell than now if that's what you want to do. As a gamer, I want Microsoft to buy more publishers and studios because it's better for me. Give me more!!!

I'm curious...how would you specify them purchasing more publishers right now or in the very near future, beneficial for you? What would the ETA be for games from those acquisitions to come about, and do you think it'd be as many as if they remained independent?

Anyone but Tencent or their western trojan horse Epic. And that is where you analysis falls short...the minute Epic gets its own store without fees going to google apple will be the second Tencent starts driving exclusivity to EGS. The played the same games in China against Apple and are using Epic to be thier western wedge.

Ok this is interesting, you got some further links on this I can give a read? If that's true they're further removed from the likes of an Embracer Group than I first thought.
 

Tarkus98

Member
Nice analysis Thicc. You obviously put a lot of thought into this.
Anyway, to match you poll I’m indifferent. I’ll just follow the games I like regardless of the platform they end up on.
 
Last edited:
Imagine caring about companies with billions upon billions upon billions of dollars instead of just caring about yourself and consume whatever it pleases you.
.Pennywise .Pennywise is right, thicc_girls_are_teh_best thicc_girls_are_teh_best turn this into a youtube video with some decent editing or just general gameplay in the background and earn some money for your words. Then post it here for a better discourse.
 

ChiefDada

Gold Member
Gamers can't complain about $70 games from one side if their mouth while eschewing industry consolidation out of the other. OP touched on this by mentioning vertical integration but sort of lost me afterwards. It's necessary to keep economics in check, especially for more traditional games i.e. non MTX.
 

ChiefDada

Gold Member
OP on the left

Will Smith Punch GIF by Xavier Degraux

OP is a stand up guy that can take a sucker punch from an insecure man child with an eternally embarrassing big mouth for a wife???

Sounds like a good dude.
 
D

Deleted member 471617

Unconfirmed Member
I'm curious...how would you specify them purchasing more publishers right now or in the very near future, beneficial for you? What would the ETA be for games from those acquisitions to come about, and do you think it'd be as many as if they remained independent?
It would be beneficial to me because I wouldn't have to buy the games im interested in playing due to being on Game Pass day one and unless it's a licensing issue, would never leave the subscription so it's like I own the game without actually paying to own it and I only subscribe when a new game releases so for me, instead of spending $60/$70, I would be getting each game for a $10 monthly rental.

As for when I get the games, I would get them around the same time they would release if they stayed independent but with more money, resources and time given to make the games better than expected. With so many studios, games and projects within Microsoft, there's no reason for them to rush out games or release average games like they did last generation.

Quantity wise, I would be willing to lose a few games if it means the quality is even higher for the games that get released. For example, I want WB Games and especially Ubisoft. I'll use Ubisoft as the example. They're doing all this free to play garbage hoping that one sticks. I think that Microsoft would end most of them which I believe would be a good thing. The free to play market is already overcrowded and over saturated and while Ubisoft is far from perfect, these games don't fit at all with what Ubisoft does best which is building amazing looking game worlds to explore.

With that said, Ubisoft+ is expected to be revealed at the Xbox Showcase in June as a separate subscription service where they said in January would include their games day one. Now, if this happens, then I don't need Microsoft to acquire them unless a company like Tencent or NetEase, etc. would snatch them up. If it's somehow changed to just be their "vault" in Game Pass Ultimate like EA Play, then I go back to wanting Microsoft to acquire them as soon as possible.

I still buy games day one but would I prefer to pay $10 for a monthly rental instead? Absolutely. I'm also not a collector so any physical games I buy get traded in within a month and I usually get back half the cost so $30-$35 for $60-$70 games but spending $10 and saving even more money is better for me and it allows me to spend that money on other games, expansions, etc. where I normally might not be enticed to do so.

In regards to Microsoft, im hoping they acquire Ubisoft, WB Games and Asobo Studio as well as Crystal Dynamics and Eidos Montreal from Square Enix along with the Tomb Raider, Deus Ex, Thief, Legacy of Kain, Soul Reaver and Gex IP's. I would sacrifice Activision Blizzard as outside of Diablo IV, they have nothing for me and I would much rather buy their one game compared to the 10+ between just WB and Ubisoft. Of course, business wise, AB makes much more sense as King alone will make back the $70B that Microsoft is spending to acquire them but game wise, I easily prefer WB and/or Ubisoft.

Ubisoft has been declining and they're my favorite publisher and with Microsoft finally being 100% all in with gaming, I believe that they could easily fix them up especially since they have great IP's that do extremely well for the most part even if reviews are meh. WB is more for the DC games as it would be awesome to see Microsoft with DC go against Sony with Marvel. Asobo Studio makes visually impressive games that are basically the Sony template and with them having a 10 year contract with Microsoft for Flight Simulator content, it's a no brainer. While Eidos is 50/50 at best, I do believe that Microsoft acquires Crystal Dynamics from Square Enix with the TR IP because outside of Final Fantasy and to a lesser extent, Dragon Quest, they don't give a shit about any of their other studios or games.

With Crystal Dynamics the lead studio on Perfect Dark and Darrell Gallagher overseeing the project, acquiring them while also dropping The Initiative name in favor of Crystal Dynamics would be huge and there's a lot of connections there.

In short, the more games I get day one on Game Pass that I don't have to buy, the better it is for me as an Xbox gamer and a consumer.
 

Naked Lunch

Member
Currently, it seems for most of the biggest companies - the games are still going to be multiplatform. Stuff like Destiny or Call of Duty.
This is why I dont understand fanboy excitement over these acquisitions - "yay my favorite company is going to make more money off the franchise".
This could all change very quickly though.

Now if someone big like Capcom is purchased, and its games are locked to 1 platform - im going to be hyper pissed. That might even get me to quit modern gaming.

Im fine with smaller companies like Housemarque or Double Fine going exclusive.
Its the bigger ones that have a long history of being on everything thats worrisome.
 

Leyasu

Banned
It is what it is unfortunately.

I will wait until the dust settles, then go where the games that I want to play are
 
Craig you were one of the people I was thinking about when I said there seem to be some not thinking about this from a POV that would be very beneficial for them. I get what you mean about going where the games are; as gamers we've always done that...some more than others, but still.

But my concerns with rampant acquisitions & consolidation is that, it might result in less games to even go to in the first place. Like that example I said before, you have three companies putting out 15 games a year, then they all get purchased by a bigger company, but what makes you think the bigger company will now keep that total of 45 games coming a year, let alone increase the number?

Realistically speaking, they won't. If you want an example just look at Disney after they purchased Fox. Where are all those new Fox movies at, that they would've been pushing for if they were still on their own? Only some have come out, others are nowhere to be found. They've vaulted a lot of Fox content, too, post-acquisition. Some of these platform holders already had problems doing much with some of their own IPs, can we really expect them to suddenly bring back dormant IPs of some of these companies they're purchasing when they didn't bring back many of those they purchased earlier?

Even if we can expect it, how probable is that to happen?
You don't need to worry about there being less games
MS & Sony are both gone to buy up as much Devs / Studios as possible
& they will make as much games as possible to feed their services
The gaming market has never been bigger
There are over 60 plus games in development from MS alone
Sony just bought Bungie & there are rumor of 2-3 new IP's that Bungie are making
Plus with all of Sony other game studios there is no worries at all
So i really have zero concern for there being less games

Now for the Disney & Fox part
Fox last couple of movies before selling to Disney were flops and sucked
They literally destroy the X-Men franchise with how bad Dark Phoenix was lol
Hugh Jackman is probably not coming back to be Wolverine again so they need to cast a new actor
Plus cast many more new Actors before they can start to make new Disney X-Men Movies
But Movies & Games are different so i would not group them together to try and make it seem like there will be less games or less movies
 
.Pennywise .Pennywise is right, thicc_girls_are_teh_best thicc_girls_are_teh_best turn this into a youtube video with some decent editing or just general gameplay in the background and earn some money for your words. Then post it here for a better discourse.

No YT, but I'm sure there are content creators who are always talking about acquisitions in one form or another. It'd be interesting to see if any of them touched on some of things discussed ITT and could add their own perspectives. That's as close to a video format you're gonna get.

As for when I get the games, I would get them around the same time they would release if they stayed independent but with more money, resources and time given to make the games better than expected. With so many studios, games and projects within Microsoft, there's no reason for them to rush out games or release average games like they did last generation.

50/50 on this one. Maybe for some studios things being a lot more laxed works out better, if they have more time go at their own pace because there are so many other teams that can pick up the slack. But it can get too heavy-handed with that approach, too; The Initiative have ran into issues because there was almost no serious pressure from upper management in XGS to keep things moving forward at a good enough pace.

Also you have other studios that thrive under pressure. Bungie is one of them; look at the history of games like Halo 2 and you'll see how being under that pressure, crunch aside, can sometimes bring out the best in teams. It's like a sports athlete in grand finals: gotta make it count and give it your best shot. They can't keep resetting the clock or extending the time.

In regards to Microsoft, im hoping they acquire Ubisoft, WB Games and Asobo Studio as well as Crystal Dynamics and Eidos Montreal from Square Enix along with the Tomb Raider, Deus Ex, Thief, Legacy of Kain, Soul Reaver and Gex IP's. I would sacrifice Activision Blizzard as outside of Diablo IV, they have nothing for me and I would much rather buy their one game compared to the 10+ between just WB and Ubisoft. Of course, business wise, AB makes much more sense as King alone will make back the $70B that Microsoft is spending to acquire them but game wise, I easily prefer WB and/or Ubisoft.

Even tho I still personally would prefer they wait until some results can come from current acquisitions first, Asobo would be a pretty good fit for MS studio-wise, that much I can agree with. They did great work on Flight Sim, and they are very good at 3rd-person story-driven action-adventure games with the Plague's Tale series. They could've done some great stuff with Fable working alongside Playground (and using that Flight Sim tech in the Forza games, too).

But would it really feel right for MS to bring back Gex, when they've let Banjo Kazooie languish without a proper 3rd game for over 20 years? Would feel a bit disrespectful to Banjo-Kazooie as an IP and its fanbase, IMO.

Ubisoft has been declining and they're my favorite publisher and with Microsoft finally being 100% all in with gaming, I believe that they could easily fix them up especially since they have great IP's that do extremely well for the most part even if reviews are meh. WB is more for the DC games as it would be awesome to see Microsoft with DC go against Sony with Marvel. Asobo Studio makes visually impressive games that are basically the Sony template and with them having a 10 year contract with Microsoft for Flight Simulator content, it's a no brainer. While Eidos is 50/50 at best, I do believe that Microsoft acquires Crystal Dynamics from Square Enix with the TR IP because outside of Final Fantasy and to a lesser extent, Dragon Quest, they don't give a shit about any of their other studios or games.

The only thing about them getting Tomb Raider is, if they already also have Indiana Jones (through licensing), wouldn't Tomb Raider seem redundant? Unless they could do a crossover entry with both characters, I don't see why MS would need both. How does MS acquiring WB mean more or better DC superhero games vs. what WB were already able to provide? I understand how they could be cheaper, at least in theory, for the customer through GamePass, but what if the GamePass model doesn't work well for that type of game, what then?

With Crystal Dynamics the lead studio on Perfect Dark and Darrell Gallagher overseeing the project, acquiring them while also dropping The Initiative name in favor of Crystal Dynamics would be huge and there's a lot of connections there.

I think they'd more likely just merge the two together and combine their name in some way, but there are a lot of connections between them. So something more between MS/The Initiative/CD in the future is certainly possible.

Currently, it seems for most of the biggest companies - the games are still going to be multiplatform. Stuff like Destiny or Call of Duty.
This is why I dont understand fanboy excitement over these acquisitions - "yay my favorite company is going to make more money off the franchise".
This could all change very quickly though.

Now if someone big like Capcom is purchased, and its games are locked to 1 platform - im going to be hyper pissed. That might even get me to quit modern gaming.

Im fine with smaller companies like Housemarque or Double Fine going exclusive.
Its the bigger ones that have a long history of being on everything thats worrisome.

The bigger publishers getting acquired are the ones that can lead to the biggest disruptions in the free open market so I agree there.

You don't need to worry about there being less games
MS & Sony are both gone to buy up as much Devs / Studios as possible
& they will make as much games as possible to feed their services
The gaming market has never been bigger
There are over 60 plus games in development from MS alone
Sony just bought Bungie & there are rumor of 2-3 new IP's that Bungie are making
Plus with all of Sony other game studios there is no worries at all
So i really have zero concern for there being less games

Well let's hope none of these games get cancelled :/.

However, I disagree with the idea these companies are buying publishers to feed their services. When it comes to the ABK purchase, that was Microsoft, not Xbox, making the buy. So I think their end goal is to increase their revenue stream and use GamePass as an advertising magnet for game devs & pubs to utilize Azure cloud.

With Sony it's even simpler, because they're not so much interested in growing their services (as if they are the main pillar of what makes PlayStation) so much as they are growing their revenue, and the biggest means for them has been through hardware and software sales. That's not really a services-orientated model.

Now for the Disney & Fox part
Fox last couple of movies before selling to Disney were flops and sucked
They literally destroy the X-Men franchise with how bad Dark Phoenix was lol
Hugh Jackman is probably not coming back to be Wolverine again so they need to cast a new actor
Plus cast many more new Actors before they can start to make new Disney X-Men Movies
But Movies & Games are different so i would not group them together to try and make it seem like there will be less games or less movies

They're similar enough though in the fact that they both cost money to produce, and provide updates for. Especially AAA games. So, if a company can support a model where instead of making 10 AAA games, they make 5 and maximize revenue on those 5 games only, they're going to choose the option where they produce less games.
 

GymWolf

Gold Member
Thank god you specified that it was your HONEST!!! opinion, i was almost ignoring the topic before reading that.
 
I'm usually indiferent in term of it affecting games I like so far but I don't like the trend.

Some acquisition make sense like the MS buying Ninja Theory, Obsidian or Sony buying Insomniac or Housemarque. Those were devs that were in need of being backed by a big publisher to take the next step.

MS buying Bethesda/Activision/Blizzard/King or Take Two buying Zynga, or WB/Ubisoft being acquired don't seem like a good thing at all for almost anyone in the long run, be it fans, the studios themselves or even the companies making the acquisition (that will probably mismanage and kill most of what they are buying as we've seen so many times before).
 
Last edited:

Kdad

Member
Ok this is interesting, you got some further links on this I can give a read? If that's true they're further removed from the likes of an Embracer Group than I first thought.
Take a look at Tencent's miniapp program...they cut Apple out of a app revenue stream and basically have locked in 1.5 billion users into its Tencent WeChat world. As for a 'platform', Tencent has 70% of the game streaming business in China...they know the business. EPIC has publicly stated that they see Fortnite as a platform and not a game...they'll use it to mimic Tencent's approach once they get out from under Apple's 30%.
 
In don't really care honestly. The days of independent devs releasing top tier games without big financial backing are long gone. It's not the 90s and early 00s any more.

These days the best games released are backed from a big publisher and hence I'm not really sure what's supposed to be so bad in getting more devs under the same umbrella.
 

ZywyPL

Banned
I'm OK with it, I actually think it's gonna be healthier for the industry overall, as the games will be better founded, get requited technical expertise/support when needed, get better marketing, reach wider audience, earn more money, and we as gamers will get better games this way and guaranteed sequels instead of unfinished cliffhangers. I might be wrong of course, only time will tell how all of this will end.
 

Zeroing

Banned
As long as they don't take pc versions away, I don't mind.
i would say that is a bad thinking! But that is my opinion.

Not directed at specially at you but it seems everyone thinks that way.
We should see gaming as a whole. Yeah it doesn’t impact you but what if next time it does impact you? Well people are going to say! As long as they don’t take the console versions, I don’t mind, as long as it’s on my prefer console, I don’t mind etc

So we - people who enjoy playing video games, end up on this endless circule of apathy! And that’s the message we send to these companies!

Anyway I’m already on the camp of “why bother”
 

rodrigolfp

Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
i would say that is a bad thinking! But that is my opinion.

Not directed at specially at you but it seems everyone thinks that way.
We should see gaming as a whole. Yeah it doesn’t impact you but what if next time it does impact you? Well people are going to say! As long as they don’t take the console versions, I don’t mind, as long as it’s on my prefer console, I don’t mind etc

So we - people who enjoy playing video games, end up on this endless circule of apathy! And that’s the message we send to these companies!

Anyway I’m already on the camp of “why bother”
The difference here is that pc versions of games are the definitive versions (unlocked resolutions and frame rate, better graphics, you choose whatever controller you want, with forever retro compatibility, etc...)
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
To be entirely frank, as a Microsoft guy I dont know if we should consider them more dangerous than fucking tencent and Blackrock. Blackrock is far more dangerous than you realize
 
Embracer flying under the radar

Dunno, maybe. But at least with them you know things will stay multiplat in the truest sense. I am concerned about what funding the next Tomb Raider could receive under them, though. Embracer Group actually has a way smaller market cap than most would think, it's $7.44 billion or something around there.

Thing is they aren't using their money to develop any games, just purchasing other developers who make games. How they'll fund a lot of this going forward is another question but most of the devs they have focus on smaller games anyway.

What’s more important to know is how much time OP had to sacrifice on making this thread?

A good quality gaming session at the very least. Can make up for that throughout the week though.

I'm usually indiferent in term of it affecting games I like so far but I don't like the trend.

Some acquisition make sense like the MS buying Ninja Theory, Obsidian or Sony buying Insomniac or Housemarque. Those were devs that were in need of being backed by a big publisher to take the next step.

Yeah targeted acquisitions like these have generally never been an issue and there's so much potentially gained from them, They also allow the open market to remain relatively stable. What we're seeing more of now are things that can cause mass destabilization for the AAA market.

Maybe the reason some of these publishers are being purchased is to offset the rising costs of AAA development, but it'd of been better if the publishers could reign in excess spending and spend smarter on their AAA games while remaining independent.

Take a look at Tencent's miniapp program...they cut Apple out of a app revenue stream and basically have locked in 1.5 billion users into its Tencent WeChat world. As for a 'platform', Tencent has 70% of the game streaming business in China...they know the business. EPIC has publicly stated that they see Fortnite as a platform and not a game...they'll use it to mimic Tencent's approach once they get out from under Apple's 30%.

Will do. Can't say I feel sorry or bad for a $3 trillion company losing out on making even more money, but I wouldn't like any big company, particularly one with questionable trends as Tencent, having that much control over gaming, either.

These days the best games released are backed from a big publisher and hence I'm not really sure what's supposed to be so bad in getting more devs under the same umbrella.

"Best" is subjective; a lot of the best ones, yes, but there have been more than a few horrid AAA games the past few years with giant publishers behind them, too. I get what you're generally saying, though.

I'm OK with it, I actually think it's gonna be healthier for the industry overall, as the games will be better founded, get requited technical expertise/support when needed, get better marketing, reach wider audience, earn more money, and we as gamers will get better games this way and guaranteed sequels instead of unfinished cliffhangers. I might be wrong of course, only time will tell how all of this will end.

Unfortunately there's a good chance that outlook is too optimistic on your part. I hate to bring up Microsoft again, but where was the marketing for Psychonauts 2? Felt like there was practically zero, and that is a game that could've done a lot better in sales than it did had they put some real marketing behind it. I hope Starfield gets a bigger marketing push than what Zenimax could've done themselves.

The difference here is that pc versions of games are the definitive versions (unlocked resolutions and frame rate, better graphics, you choose whatever controller you want, with forever retro compatibility, etc...)

Not all the time they are. Elden Ring's PC version was busted when it launched, even now it's the less optimal way to play it compared to the PS5 one, from what people are saying. I was considering Elden Ring for PC but seeing those crashes and glitches live around launch made me change my mind very quickly.

To be entirely frank, as a Microsoft guy I dont know if we should consider them more dangerous than fucking tencent and Blackrock. Blackrock is far more dangerous than you realize

I think a massive global financial pandemic bigger than the 2007 Wall Street market crash would need to happen in order for a firm like Black Rock to be affected, at this point.

That said, at least from the little I know on them they don't have any "active" main investments in the console gaming space, their participation in the scene is much more indirect and tertiary at best. Hopefully it remains that way.
 

rodrigolfp

Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
Not all the time they are. Elden Ring's PC version was busted when it launched, even now it's the less optimal way to play it compared to the PS5 one, from what people are saying. I was considering Elden Ring for PC but seeing those crashes and glitches live around launch made me change my mind very quickly.
I had 1 single crash before the patches and the stuttering was gone after some time. The "unlimited" resolutions, lowest input lag by far, better frame rate, unlimited controller support, mods, makes the pc version still the definitive.
 
Last edited:
So here I am , after having read that mofo wall of text and the entire thread.
And it used up all of my time I had this evening.

Thats how much of a sucker I am. Nothing better to do then drop into NeoGAF and read some shitton of words about aquisitions.
FML

Also I don't have the time to answer to your post now, at least not today
Deal with that you moron!
The Simpsons GIF by MOODMAN


Ps.: You should probably put some thoughts into why you are using zuckerbergs apps, thats way more scary then the actual topic.
 
I had 1 single crash before the patches and the stuttering was gone after some time. The "unlimited" resolutions, lowest input lag by far, better frame rate, unlimited controller support, mods, makes the pc version still the definitive.

That's interesting to hear. What specs are you rocking on your PC btw? I'm on a laptop atm (not bad at all for what I really need it for, but it's just a 1050 Max-Q FWIW) but haven't totally written off getting a desktop build going in the future with a GPU I swap between that and eGPU case for the laptop.

Man, honestly, you're a fucking great writer! Just read the Sony part as this is massive to read in one go, but gonna come back and dig more.

Thanks dude; writing this out costed me one of my gaming sessions on Sunday but it's like that sometimes. The timing was super coincidental tho, did not think Embracer would announce acquisitions hours after this went up 🤣.

I'm really curious what ends up happening with Square-Enix now going forward. Whether they stay independent or if this was a move to make them more suitable for a purchase. And if so, who is it?

mood GIF


Thanks for sharing, you changed the world today. :)

Not really, no.

Fine, I'll fix it

thicc_girls_are_teh_best thicc_girls_are_teh_best on the left, .Pennywise .Pennywise on the right

mountain GIF

H2fbxV.gif


original.gif


Can you tell him to at least use lube?
 
Last edited:

rodrigolfp

Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
That's interesting to hear. What specs are you rocking on your PC btw? I'm on a laptop atm (not bad at all for what I really need it for, but it's just a 1050 Max-Q FWIW) but haven't totally written off getting a desktop build going in the future with a GPU I swap between that and eGPU case for the laptop.
5800X, 32GB DDR4 3600, SATA SSD, but still a GTX1070 because RTX insane prices here. 1080p.
 

Bo_Hazem

Banned
So here I am , after having read that mofo wall of text and the entire thread.
And it used up all of my time I had this evening.

Thats how much of a sucker I am. Nothing better to do then drop into NeoGAF and read some shitton of words about aquisitions.
FML

Also I don't have the time to answer to your post now, at least not today
Deal with that you moron!
The Simpsons GIF by MOODMAN


Ps.: You should probably put some thoughts into why you are using zuckerbergs apps, thats way more scary then the actual topic.

I miss you, man!

Happy Season 3 GIF by Friends
 
I’m super late to the party, but I just recently started playing halo infinite with some friends and it does leave a lot to be desired, 343i sorta screwed the pooch hard on this one.

I hope, that Microsoft will focus on getting the right people in place to start delivering consistent, well polished bangers in the future.

I truly believe that Starfield will take the spotlight off of some of the troubled studios and I hope that they use that time to clean house/re-organize.

I’m sure Phil is already aware of what needs to be done being the CEO of Microsoft gaming, if not, there is always someone else.
 

ACESHIGH

Banned
I'd rather have as much third parties as possible. But if acquisitions were to take place, Microsoft is the lesser evil. Because their games will be released on PC. With Sony you never know, and Nintendo they never will.
 
D

Deleted member 471617

Unconfirmed Member
50/50 on this one. Maybe for some studios things being a lot more laxed works out better, if they have more time go at their own pace because there are so many other teams that can pick up the slack. But it can get too heavy-handed with that approach, too; The Initiative have ran into issues because there was almost no serious pressure from upper management in XGS to keep things moving forward at a good enough pace.

Also you have other studios that thrive under pressure. Bungie is one of them; look at the history of games like Halo 2 and you'll see how being under that pressure, crunch aside, can sometimes bring out the best in teams. It's like a sports athlete in grand finals: gotta make it count and give it your best shot. They can't keep resetting the clock or extending the time.
I agree with this in general but The Initiative's issue was that there were people (who are now gone) who wanted the game a certain way while Gallagher didn't and as the studio head with a lot of pull, it was always going to be his vision and way. With Gallagher along with Crystal Dynamics as the lead studio, im much more confident in the Perfect Dark reboot than I was before. This game is set as is but of course, what happens afterwards due to Embracer Group now owing Crystal Dynamics remains to be seen.

The main studio that has management issues is 343 which is pretty obvious but yet, still delivered an excellent campaign for Halo Infinite. Their roadmap is shit to say the least but that's why they also brought in Certain Affinity to help and by releasing the heavily rumored Battle Royale free to play mode most likely later this year, it will take a lot of pressure off of 343. Do they need a shakeup? Absolutely but at the same time, with so many studios excluding Activision/Blizzard/King, Microsoft can afford to have a few have issues. After all, when you have so many studios, not every one of them is going to be running like a well oiled machine.
Even tho I still personally would prefer they wait until some results can come from current acquisitions first, Asobo would be a pretty good fit for MS studio-wise, that much I can agree with. They did great work on Flight Sim, and they are very good at 3rd-person story-driven action-adventure games with the Plague's Tale series. They could've done some great stuff with Fable working alongside Playground (and using that Flight Sim tech in the Forza games, too).

But would it really feel right for MS to bring back Gex, when they've let Banjo Kazooie languish without a proper 3rd game for over 20 years? Would feel a bit disrespectful to Banjo-Kazooie as an IP and its fanbase, IMO.
I wouldn't wait. Today is a perfect example. Embracer Group acquired Crystal Dynamics, Eidos Montreal and around 50 IP's for $300m and covering debt. Overall, still under $2B. When the announcement was made last September that Crystal Dynamics was being brought in and are the lead developer for Perfect Dark, Microsoft should have went right after them. As a 49ers football fan, im a firm believer that if you truly want a certain player (or in this case, a certain studio or two), you go and get it. You don't haggle or waste time because if you do, well, just look at today to see what happens. Always better to be aggressive and get what you want as opposed to not being aggressive and losing out completely. This is why I definitely hope Microsoft acquires Asobo Studio. I don't think they will but im hoping they do.

As for Gex, I didn't say to bring it back. Only to acquire the IP which I think was part of the package that was acquired by Embracer Group. Mainly because if they ever wanted a small 2D AA platformer, they have one as opposed to having to create one. As for Banjo, they don't have a studio for 3D platformers which is one of several reasons why I wish Microsoft would have acquired WB two years instead of passing on them. However, they will have a few platformer studios once the ABK deal goes through.

Either way, having more is simply always better than having less. People will say, hasn't Microsoft acquired enough? And I say fuck no. Xbox One generation sucked and they had 5 studios, I want more and more and more because you don't know what studios will have issues, which ones will lose people or this or that. Always better to have more than less.
The only thing about them getting Tomb Raider is, if they already also have Indiana Jones (through licensing), wouldn't Tomb Raider seem redundant? Unless they could do a crossover entry with both characters, I don't see why MS would need both. How does MS acquiring WB mean more or better DC superhero games vs. what WB were already able to provide? I understand how they could be cheaper, at least in theory, for the customer through GamePass, but what if the GamePass model doesn't work well for that type of game, what then?
This is obviously pointless due to Embracer Group acquiring CD/Eidos but I will answer anyway. Indiana Jones isn't owned by Microsoft. Tomb Raider would have been. It's a valuable IP that's been horribly mismanaged by Square Enix. While I love Uncharted 2 and Lost Legacy, I think Rise of the Tomb Raider was better than Uncharted 4 and I think the series has more puzzles, tombs, exploration, etc. than Uncharted. Indiana Jones I think will be less action oriented but still, they don't own the IP. Also, having TR would have helped fill the third person single player story driven aspect.

Microsoft having WB means more of what they're missing. Superhero games and third person action adventure. Having them be exclusive eliminates 33% of the workload due to only having to work on Xbox Series and PC. No PlayStation version means a quicker turnaround because it's simply less work. Also, Microsoft would invest heavily as they've done since 2018 and continue to do so with more money, time and resources which in turn can only make the games better. WB is great but they've been mismanaged across the board. Microsoft has a few studios that I mentioned earlier that have issues but with WB, it's the majority of them. WB Montreal hasn't released a game in 9 years once Gotham Knights comes out in October. Rocksteady will have gone at least 8 years since Arkham Knight once they release Suicide Squad.

More importantly, these are mainstream and hugely popular IP's and characters which is what Microsoft needs. It's how you get more gamers and consumers into your eco-system. Look at Sony going heavy with Marvel IP's. It's because they know it's going to be mainstream and bring in a lot of consumers into their eco-system. Miles Morales has most likely outsold Sackboy, Demon's Souls, Returnal, Ratchet, GT 7 and HFW combined because it's freaking Spider Man and people want to play it. Because of this, the quality would be equal or better because Microsoft knows that they would be getting a lot of people into the eco-system for just these games and they must deliver the vast majority of the time or you may lose those people who invested into your eco-system because of those games.

Game Pass works for every model which is what a lot of people don't seem to what to see. Single player games can easily work on Game Pass. Look at Guardians of the Galaxy. A shit ton of people have played that game via Game Pass because they didn't trust spending $60 on it after The Avengers which was 100% on Square Enix and eventually led to them selling CD/Eidos. Add expansions and you have reasons to stay subscribed while also being able to play 400 other games or whatever the amount currently is. And again, super hero games are hot right now just like Star Wars is and when they're hot, you take advantage of that by having exclusive super hero games that can only be played in your eco-system.
I think they'd more likely just merge the two together and combine their name in some way, but there are a lot of connections between them. So something more between MS/The Initiative/CD in the future is certainly possible.
Obviously, not anymore. lol. Too late now but if it was up to me, I would have acquired CD last September even if I had to overpay simply because they're worth more to Microsoft than SE at the time. I would merge those at The Initiative with Crystal Dynamics studio that's based in Santa Monica if I remember correctly. I know they have two others but im always forgetting where they're located. After merging, I would have dropped The Initiative name because it's already a failure. No reason to keep the name around especially when Crystal Dynamics has been around for what will be 30 years in July. They have name value and brand recognition. Neither of which applies to The Initiative and when Microsoft has to bring in an external development studio that's owned by a third party publisher and more so, at the time, a Japanese third party publisher, that kind of tells you everything you need to know about The Initiative. Simply, that hasn't worked out as intended and sometimes, you need to bit the bullet and move on instead of holding onto shit for no apparent reason.
 

reforen

Member
They are ok if the buyer is someone from the gaming industry, just imagine Facebook (meta) or Netflix acquiring Capcom, it could end the company
 
I’m super late to the party, but I just recently started playing halo infinite with some friends and it does leave a lot to be desired, 343i sorta screwed the pooch hard on this one.

I hope, that Microsoft will focus on getting the right people in place to start delivering consistent, well polished bangers in the future.

I truly believe that Starfield will take the spotlight off of some of the troubled studios and I hope that they use that time to clean house/re-organize.

I’m sure Phil is already aware of what needs to be done being the CEO of Microsoft gaming, if not, there is always someone else.

They recently got Certain Affinity on for new Halo Infinite content, and there're rumors they're making a Battle Royale mode. That could help, but now there are rumors of another Halo game being made so it's very possible the 10-year plan with Infinite is being internally jettisoned altogether and there's just the bare minimum of new content until a new Halo launches.

I always thought it was a mistake to tie a competitive F2P FPS to base Xbox One hardware for compatibility, but the real problems with Halo Infinite have been severe lack of content at a fast enough clip, missing out on core features the older games had Day 1, and pissing off the fanbase with bad communication. Plus it's not like this is the first Halo 343i have screwed up.

Agreed with Starfield, at least for the most part. As for how other games like Everwild and Perfect Dark are shaping up, we probably won't get updates on them this year, but it would be nice.

I'd rather have as much third parties as possible. But if acquisitions were to take place, Microsoft is the lesser evil. Because their games will be released on PC. With Sony you never know, and Nintendo they never will.

Respect the opinion, but as someone who doesn't do modern gaming on PC and likely wouldn't want to anyway (setup inconvenience, also already use PC for my work), Sony & Nintendo not doing Day 1 PC ports (or any at all) doesn't affect me. If I want those games I'll just buy the platforms to play them. Though there are some games I'll probably use PC for this gen alongside console, like SF6 (gotta have those mods 🤤)

I best delete this post. I've been told it's irresponsible.

Well now I'm curious, what was the post?
 
I agree with this in general but The Initiative's issue was that there were people (who are now gone) who wanted the game a certain way while Gallagher didn't and as the studio head with a lot of pull, it was always going to be his vision and way. With Gallagher along with Crystal Dynamics as the lead studio, im much more confident in the Perfect Dark reboot than I was before. This game is set as is but of course, what happens afterwards due to Embracer Group now owing Crystal Dynamics remains to be seen.

I want to be optimistic about Perfect Dark too but until I see some actual gameplay, the stink of the development drama behind-the-scenes is going to be prominent. As well, we only know if the reason for the dev issues are based on what some insiders have said; none of it has been confirmed. Not that The Initiative or Microsoft would come right out and confirm any of it, but even something as simple as an early build leak showing a different game design, contrasted with a newer gameplay showcase for where the game is actually at now, would be more than enough.

With the advent of CD being purchased by Embracer Group, that might also have some effect on the development of Perfect Dark. We don't know if that'll happen, but the chance has increased.

The main studio that has management issues is 343 which is pretty obvious but yet, still delivered an excellent campaign for Halo Infinite. Their roadmap is shit to say the least but that's why they also brought in Certain Affinity to help and by releasing the heavily rumored Battle Royale free to play mode most likely later this year, it will take a lot of pressure off of 343. Do they need a shakeup? Absolutely but at the same time, with so many studios excluding Activision/Blizzard/King, Microsoft can afford to have a few have issues. After all, when you have so many studios, not every one of them is going to be running like a well oiled machine.

This is a problem for me, because one of the studios having these issues isn't just some random no-name studio with a no-name IP. It's a studio they founded as far back as 2007, on what has been Xbox's marquee IP. The fact that all these years later, 343i still have these issues (if anything, they have gotten worst) and Halo has gone from leading the FPS market to basically being an also-ran, doesn't instill a lot of confidence in me over the future of that studio or Halo Infinite. It also works against the prognosis for other MS teams outside of a very small handful.

With the ABK teams they have to radically change toxic workplace culture which won't be easy, but another problem with this line of thinking IMO is that if you have so many studios that you can afford for some to be mid or badly managed, then that is depriving other publishers the chance to make those studios great, if they were purchased. It also shows that in reality with so many teams, you cannot realistically invest in all of them to elevate them all to a greater level, so then it becomes a question of if the purchases were just for resources and IP, etc. And if that's the best reasoning for buying those studios or publishers...

I wouldn't wait. Today is a perfect example. Embracer Group acquired Crystal Dynamics, Eidos Montreal and around 50 IP's for $300m and covering debt. Overall, still under $2B. When the announcement was made last September that Crystal Dynamics was being brought in and are the lead developer for Perfect Dark, Microsoft should have went right after them. As a 49ers football fan, im a firm believer that if you truly want a certain player (or in this case, a certain studio or two), you go and get it. You don't haggle or waste time because if you do, well, just look at today to see what happens. Always better to be aggressive and get what you want as opposed to not being aggressive and losing out completely. This is why I definitely hope Microsoft acquires Asobo Studio. I don't think they will but im hoping they do.

Well, Asobo would want to be acquired before anything, but I agree they would be a good natural fit for Microsoft considering the close work they've had with Flight Sim, plus Asobo do quite well in a style of 3rd-person, narrative-driven action-adventure game that MS still kind of lacks in terms of proven studios of that type.

The whole situation with CD being acquired is, frankly, one Microsoft put themselves in because they were more interested in getting a "catch-all" giant publisher, and they've done that with ABK. Theoretically speaking ABK covers a lot of bases for Microsoft, and while I see some people saying they should buy Ubisoft or WB as well, I still don't know WHY they would want to. Game tech? They have enough of that between the Zenimax and ABK acquisitions. IP? Again, well more than enough good ones between Zenimax & ABK. Mobile? ABK through King has that covered.

Some people say they should go after WB for Netherrealm but if a studio like Playground can go from doing open-world arcade racers to 3rd-person open-world action-adventure fantasy, surely there is another studio MS already has that can transition to do fighting games. Maybe The Coalition? I say work with the resources you already have and HAVE had for a long time versus spending more and more to cover gaps in your output. If there's one final round of studios out there I feel would fit Microsoft, Asobo are in that list, and maybe a Japanese developer like Platinum (who maybe could also do something in terms of fighting games). I think that's where MS's future gaming acquisitions should focus, IMHO.

As for Gex, I didn't say to bring it back. Only to acquire the IP which I think was part of the package that was acquired by Embracer Group. Mainly because if they ever wanted a small 2D AA platformer, they have one as opposed to having to create one. As for Banjo, they don't have a studio for 3D platformers which is one of several reasons why I wish Microsoft would have acquired WB two years instead of passing on them. However, they will have a few platformer studios once the ABK deal goes through.

But MS already have Ori, don't they? So that would cover the 2D AA platformer, also nothing would stop them from making a 2D AA Banjo-Kazooie spinoff as a test before doing, say, a 3D AAA Banjo-Threeie.

I don't think they needed to necessarily buy ABK outright just to have a studio to do a 3D platformer; simply entering a developer agreement with ToysWithBob (the way The Initiative have done with Crystal Dynamics) would've been enough. However regardless of that, like you say they do have a studio now for that type of game.

The fact MS passed on WB earlier being due to WB not wanting to sell the IP alongside the studios, kind of shows the intent behind MS's acquisitions. They're at least somewhat significantly driven by securement of IP for ownership.

Either way, having more is simply always better than having less. People will say, hasn't Microsoft acquired enough? And I say fuck no. Xbox One generation sucked and they had 5 studios, I want more and more and more because you don't know what studios will have issues, which ones will lose people or this or that. Always better to have more than less.

XBO generation went south because MS hamstrung the Xbox division in several ways. However at the start they actually did very well when it came to games; they had more AAA exclusives than Sony including big games like TitanFall. And a lot of those did not require studio acquisitions in order to bring them about.

You can have too much of a good thing and it ends up becoming a hinderance, though. Lack of a lot of internal studios wasn't the reason MS lost ground with XBO; lack of good management WITH those studios and Xbox division as a whole are the actual reasons.

This is obviously pointless due to Embracer Group acquiring CD/Eidos but I will answer anyway. Indiana Jones isn't owned by Microsoft. Tomb Raider would have been. It's a valuable IP that's been horribly mismanaged by Square Enix. While I love Uncharted 2 and Lost Legacy, I think Rise of the Tomb Raider was better than Uncharted 4 and I think the series has more puzzles, tombs, exploration, etc. than Uncharted. Indiana Jones I think will be less action oriented but still, they don't own the IP. Also, having TR would have helped fill the third person single player story driven aspect.

I guess, but they can still cover those bases in a future acquisition, such as Asobo, or by being creative with current IP and studios in ways that don't require more acquisitions. For example, The Coalition are already pretty great at third-person, over-the-shoulder shooters, who's to say they could work with some people over at Ninja Theory or Obsidian to make something more story-driven in that same template. They could even use the Gabriel Knight IP for such a game.

That's what I mean by being creative with the resources & talent you already have. Seriously, they don't need yet more giant publisher acquisitions (at least not anytime soon) IMO to bring that new content to their fanbase.

Microsoft having WB means more of what they're missing. Superhero games and third person action adventure. Having them be exclusive eliminates 33% of the workload due to only having to work on Xbox Series and PC. No PlayStation version means a quicker turnaround because it's simply less work. Also, Microsoft would invest heavily as they've done since 2018 and continue to do so with more money, time and resources which in turn can only make the games better. WB is great but they've been mismanaged across the board. Microsoft has a few studios that I mentioned earlier that have issues but with WB, it's the majority of them. WB Montreal hasn't released a game in 9 years once Gotham Knights comes out in October. Rocksteady will have gone at least 8 years since Arkham Knight once they release Suicide Squad.

Again, IMO a lot of this could be had without making more acquisitions, at least for the foreseeable future. If MS really wants a superhero game, they already have teams that can deliver them, and can license the rights for a superhero or two in doing that. Maybe that means no WB, but even in that case they can still potentially work something out with Dark Horse (through Embracer Group) or Image Comics. Spawn has some history on Xbox, he was in the Xbox version of Soul Calibur 2, why not have one of the internal studios see if they'd want to make an epic Spawn action/adventure game with some RPG mechanics built in?

I don't think amount of time between releases is necessarily indicative of bad management. Take-Two haven't released a new mainline GTA in almost 10 years, or a new mainline installment in one of their marquee IP since 2018. Are they mismanaged? AFAIK, the last releases from WB Montreal and Rocksteady were well-received critically and most likely commercially, so I don't think those are ground to definitively say they've been mismanaged, either.

More importantly, these are mainstream and hugely popular IP's and characters which is what Microsoft needs. It's how you get more gamers and consumers into your eco-system. Look at Sony going heavy with Marvel IP's. It's because they know it's going to be mainstream and bring in a lot of consumers into their eco-system. Miles Morales has most likely outsold Sackboy, Demon's Souls, Returnal, Ratchet, GT 7 and HFW combined because it's freaking Spider Man and people want to play it. Because of this, the quality would be equal or better because Microsoft knows that they would be getting a lot of people into the eco-system for just these games and they must deliver the vast majority of the time or you may lose those people who invested into your eco-system because of those games.

I don't think simply having the license to make a game on a massive superhero IP ensures that the game will be high-quality, otherwise we wouldn't have had a history of horrible licensed superhero games going back to the NES, where only a small handful of said games were any good, and that's over the span of decades. It just means more money is likely to be pumped into the game but money doesn't automatically equal talent, IMO.

That said I agree the brand power and name of those characters does a lot for building attention to your offerings and I've said in the past it's something Microsoft might need to work on so on those grounds I can see where them acquiring WB studios and IP makes sense, Batman is like the 2nd most popular superhero behind Spiderman for example.

However I just feel less enthusiastic on them making such a move after having already acquired Zenimax & ABK; I personally want to see some actual results from these studios (and some of the ones they acquired pre-Zenimax), results reflective of those gaming being clearly under Microsoft's wings, before claiming I'm okay at a personal level with them buying another massive publisher like WB or Ubisoft. And since I'm looking at this from my POV as a gamer and customer, what such an acquisition does for MS's bottom line doesn't actually matter to me.

Game Pass works for every model which is what a lot of people don't seem to what to see. Single player games can easily work on Game Pass. Look at Guardians of the Galaxy.

GotG isn't the best example considering it came to GP primarily to gin up excitement after really bad sales. Also MS paid pretty cheap for it on GP, due to the bad sales, so it's arguable that if GotG sold very well it would've costed too much for GP hence MS would not have paid to put it on the service.

A shit ton of people have played that game via Game Pass because they didn't trust spending $60 on it after The Avengers which was 100% on Square Enix and eventually led to them selling CD/Eidos.

Heck seems you realize what was said just above perfectly well!

Add expansions and you have reasons to stay subscribed while also being able to play 400 other games or whatever the amount currently is. And again, super hero games are hot right now just like Star Wars is and when they're hot, you take advantage of that by having exclusive super hero games that can only be played in your eco-system.

I get your general idea, I just think there are other ways this can be done currently by MS which don't involve rushing into more massive gaming acquisitions.

Obviously, not anymore. lol. Too late now but if it was up to me, I would have acquired CD last September even if I had to overpay simply because they're worth more to Microsoft than SE at the time. I would merge those at The Initiative with Crystal Dynamics studio that's based in Santa Monica if I remember correctly. I know they have two others but im always forgetting where they're located. After merging, I would have dropped The Initiative name because it's already a failure. No reason to keep the name around especially when Crystal Dynamics has been around for what will be 30 years in July. They have name value and brand recognition. Neither of which applies to The Initiative and when Microsoft has to bring in an external development studio that's owned by a third party publisher and more so, at the time, a Japanese third party publisher, that kind of tells you everything you need to know about The Initiative. Simply, that hasn't worked out as intended and sometimes, you need to bit the bullet and move on instead of holding onto shit for no apparent reason.

So I mean, right here you're saying The Initiative is a failure, which in some ways they seem to be IMO, and that was a studio they built from the ground-up in 2018. So if they can't get that right, if that studio has to turn to a 3P developer for co-development purposes (let's just assume that is why and it was due to internal issues; even though there's been another idea floated around there isn't much to support it), how does that instill confidence in a scenario where MS acquires CD, who already have their own work culture and style?

Because in that instance CD would fall under the watch of XGS/Matt Booty and it's really that side of things where most of the organizational and management issues with Xbox teams seem to be coming from. The Initiative, Playground games (potentially, if the Fable stuff is anything to go by), 343i, Rare (with Everwild) etc. The Zenimax side doesn't really have these issues because Pete Hines is running that, and while ABK has a mountain of their own problems they'll fall under someone else yet still. So the only way CD would potentially avoid a similar fate is if they went under Zenimax, how realistic would that have turned out to be the case?
 
D

Deleted member 471617

Unconfirmed Member
I want to be optimistic about Perfect Dark too but until I see some actual gameplay, the stink of the development drama behind-the-scenes is going to be prominent. As well, we only know if the reason for the dev issues are based on what some insiders have said; none of it has been confirmed. Not that The Initiative or Microsoft would come right out and confirm any of it, but even something as simple as an early build leak showing a different game design, contrasted with a newer gameplay showcase for where the game is actually at now, would be more than enough.

With the advent of CD being purchased by Embracer Group, that might also have some effect on the development of Perfect Dark. We don't know if that'll happen, but the chance has increased.
I think it's pretty obvious what happened. Those who left thought they would have more say and control but didn't. I remember some wanting the game to be episodic and fuck no, that's not going to fly. Instead of there being so many cooks in the kitchen despite already having the chef, they left and Microsoft went and got Crystal Dynamics to develop the game. Gallagher also has a pretty damn good track record so im far more confident now than I was a year ago. I can see a short gameplay trailer at The Game Awards and if not, I would say June 2023 would be a safe bet. As for Embracer, they and CD have already stated that nothing changes. After the first game releases, who knows.
This is a problem for me, because one of the studios having these issues isn't just some random no-name studio with a no-name IP. It's a studio they founded as far back as 2007, on what has been Xbox's marquee IP. The fact that all these years later, 343i still have these issues (if anything, they have gotten worst) and Halo has gone from leading the FPS market to basically being an also-ran, doesn't instill a lot of confidence in me over the future of that studio or Halo Infinite. It also works against the prognosis for other MS teams outside of a very small handful.

With the ABK teams they have to radically change toxic workplace culture which won't be easy, but another problem with this line of thinking IMO is that if you have so many studios that you can afford for some to be mid or badly managed, then that is depriving other publishers the chance to make those studios great, if they were purchased. It also shows that in reality with so many teams, you cannot realistically invest in all of them to elevate them all to a greater level, so then it becomes a question of if the purchases were just for resources and IP, etc. And if that's the best reasoning for buying those studios or publishers...
I agree with 343 but Halo Infinite's core combat/gameplay is excellent. The base/foundation is there. They just need to get better organized and structured in order to release quality content in a timely fashion. Halo isn't what it once was and if anything, won't be the face of Xbox for much longer anyway if it still is.

I disagree in regards to depriving other publishers the chance to make these studios great. If other publishers wanted ABK so badly, then they should have outbid Microsoft which granted, isn't easy but not impossible either if you really want them. Like the saying goes, where there's a will, there's a way. The toxic culture will burn itself out once Microsoft takes over so no worries about that.

The ABK purchase was for King first and foremost. Everything else is just an amazing bonus. Can't say how any of it will play out as it's going to be a while before it gets completed.
Well, Asobo would want to be acquired before anything, but I agree they would be a good natural fit for Microsoft considering the close work they've had with Flight Sim, plus Asobo do quite well in a style of 3rd-person, narrative-driven action-adventure game that MS still kind of lacks in terms of proven studios of that type.

The whole situation with CD being acquired is, frankly, one Microsoft put themselves in because they were more interested in getting a "catch-all" giant publisher, and they've done that with ABK. Theoretically speaking ABK covers a lot of bases for Microsoft, and while I see some people saying they should buy Ubisoft or WB as well, I still don't know WHY they would want to. Game tech? They have enough of that between the Zenimax and ABK acquisitions. IP? Again, well more than enough good ones between Zenimax & ABK. Mobile? ABK through King has that covered.

Some people say they should go after WB for Netherrealm but if a studio like Playground can go from doing open-world arcade racers to 3rd-person open-world action-adventure fantasy, surely there is another studio MS already has that can transition to do fighting games. Maybe The Coalition? I say work with the resources you already have and HAVE had for a long time versus spending more and more to cover gaps in your output. If there's one final round of studios out there I feel would fit Microsoft, Asobo are in that list, and maybe a Japanese developer like Platinum (who maybe could also do something in terms of fighting games). I think that's where MS's future gaming acquisitions should focus, IMHO.
Agree with Asobo part.

The reason why Microsoft should go after Ubisoft and/or WB is simple - it's to prevent other companies from getting them. I don't want to see companies like Apple, Amazon, NetEase, Tencent and Facebook to get them because I have no interest or confidence in any of them whatsoever. I wouldn't mind Sony acquiring either but they don't have the capital or the cash on hand to do so. And even if they pulled it off, the problem is that they wouldn't have the money to keep all the employees especially Ubisoft which is around 20,000. Thousands would lose their job where as with Microsoft, they don't prevent you from leaving if you so choose but they won't fire/layoff anyone.

The ABK situation wasn't like ZeniMax which took two years to complete. It was simply one of those "too good of a deal to pass up" and business wise, I would have went after them too. As a gamer, ABK does nothing for me outside of Diablo IV but if I was a Microsoft executive, I would on them instantly. As for Crystal, I wouldn't be surprised if within the next decade, Microsoft acquires Embracer which to me, seems like Lars is adding as much value as possible and will then ride off into the sunset after a massive buyout. Could be someone else that acquires them but you can see their direction.

Microsoft should 100% get NetherRealm for three reasons. First, they own the MK IP which means it would be included. Second, they can't afford Sony to acquire NetherRealm or WB as a whole because it basically kills the fighting genre on Xbox. Add in the real possibility of Sony paying for SF 6 to be fully exclusive and yeah, Microsoft must acquire NetherRealm 100% if they want to retain any kind of fighting fan genre base that's on Xbox. Third, unlike all the other studios, fighting games is what they do plus expanding them to two teams to where Microsoft has MK and KI with an eventual MK vs KI game would be massive.

What a lot of people don't realize is that for generations, Sony has at times paid for full/timed exclusivity for top tier major games in certain genres which if you get every JRPG for example on PS, you don't need an Xbox so if MK was to go to Sony and you're a fighting fan, you don't need an Xbox for this particular reason. These types of deals kills the genre on the competition's platforms. This is one of the many reasons why Microsoft is going after studios and publishers. There's more important reasons but this is definitely one of them.

I don't see Microsoft acquiring Platinum Games whatsoever nor should they. They failed to meet deadlines for Scalebound numerous times and rumors have always had it where Platinum took the money for Scalebound and put it towards their other projects including Nier Automata which was a licensed game from Square Enix who are notoriously cheap when it comes to studios they don't or didn't own. So I don't see this happening whatsoever and would be shocked if it did.

While Microsoft could use a Japanese development studio or publisher, I think they're more likely to just "be close" with Sega and just ensure that they get all their future games day one on Xbox and if possible, on Game Pass.
But MS already have Ori, don't they? So that would cover the 2D AA platformer, also nothing would stop them from making a 2D AA Banjo-Kazooie spinoff as a test before doing, say, a 3D AAA Banjo-Threeie.

I don't think they needed to necessarily buy ABK outright just to have a studio to do a 3D platformer; simply entering a developer agreement with ToysWithBob (the way The Initiative have done with Crystal Dynamics) would've been enough. However regardless of that, like you say they do have a studio now for that type of game.

The fact MS passed on WB earlier being due to WB not wanting to sell the IP alongside the studios, kind of shows the intent behind MS's acquisitions. They're at least somewhat significantly driven by securement of IP for ownership.
MS owns the Ori IP but im not 100% sure. It could be the publishing rights. Honestly, I forget which it is but doesn't matter, it's highly unlikely that Microsoft is going to work with Moon Studios again and wouldn't give the IP to someone else. What Microsoft wants is to get studios/publisher that solve a gap/weakness in which those studios/publishers have expertise in doing. I do think this gets somewhat solved after the ABK acquisition gets completed but to see anything come out of it, is at least a few years away. Microsoft bought ABK because it's one of those "once in a lifetime opportunities" that you simply don't pass up.

Yes, Microsoft wants IP ownership which is brilliant and exactly what they should be after if they're buying a development studio or publisher. Look at last generation and even Xbox 360. They were burned several times by not owning the IP. If you're the company funding and publishing the game, you should 100% own the IP because if you don't, high chance you inadvertantly get screwed over. As for WB, they passed due to not getting any IP's but also because they were going to acquire ZeniMax which was and is far more valuable than WB especially without the IP's. Too much risk in acquiring WB without IP's.

I want WB (and Ubisoft) because I love a lot of their games as they cater to me compared to say ABK but business wise, it has to either make sense/fit in like almost every acquisition or be like ABK to where you just can't pass on it because it would be stupid to do so.
XBO generation went south because MS hamstrung the Xbox division in several ways. However at the start they actually did very well when it came to games; they had more AAA exclusives than Sony including big games like TitanFall. And a lot of those did not require studio acquisitions in order to bring them about.

You can have too much of a good thing and it ends up becoming a hinderance, though. Lack of a lot of internal studios wasn't the reason MS lost ground with XBO; lack of good management WITH those studios and Xbox division as a whole are the actual reasons.
I agree but look at the problems with not owning IP/studios. Titanfall 2/Respawn with EA, multi-platform. Microsoft wanted Ryse 2 but didn't own the IP or Crytek. While I do believe that Microsoft is going to rectify that based on the Crytek leak a while back, it hurt them. Same for Alan Wake, Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive and more.

Xbox One was hamstrung by Mattrick at launch and then for about 4 years, Myerson. The real reasons why Microsoft lost ground with Xbox One was a shitty reveal of TV TV TV, an overpriced weaker console that had Kinect which no one wanted. After that, they literally only had 5 studios for the majority of the generation. 343/Turn 10/Coalition/Mojang all do up to now one franchise and that's it. Rare was a disaster for the most part but have a hit with Sea of Thieves.

But when you look at their exclusives, they have just as many exclusives from companies they don't own as those they did. You're not going to do anything with 5 studios and you're sure as hell not going to be able to rebound within the same generation with the issues I mentioned above.

I disagree in regards to having "too much" because there could end being studios that just don't hit and need to be closed down or whatever the case may be which is why you want as many as possible, if/when this happens, it won't matter in the grand scheme of things. Last gen, Microsoft shutdown Lionhead and I think one or two studios but I can't remember their names off the top of my head and it made their first party go from shit to shittier.

Simply, Microsoft isn't fucking around anymore and are finally doing what they should have been doing 20 years ago. It's also the simple fact that before an Apple, Amazon, Tencent, etc. start goobling up stuff, they need to do it first and as an Xbox fan, I definitely want them to do so because if the others end up with studios/publishers that im a fan of, they pretty much are dead to me because none of those companies have any history or track record in consoles and Apple having some shit 30 years was horrible and makes them look even worse than if you're coming into gaming with nothing like Google did who saw that you can't just enter and not do anything for your eco-system. Microsoft is simply making the business moves necessary not just for what they want to do but for Xbox fans because no Xbox fan wants to ever see a repeat of the Xbox One generation or at least, I don't.
I guess, but they can still cover those bases in a future acquisition, such as Asobo, or by being creative with current IP and studios in ways that don't require more acquisitions. For example, The Coalition are already pretty great at third-person, over-the-shoulder shooters, who's to say they could work with some people over at Ninja Theory or Obsidian to make something more story-driven in that same template. They could even use the Gabriel Knight IP for such a game.

That's what I mean by being creative with the resources & talent you already have. Seriously, they don't need yet more giant publisher acquisitions (at least not anytime soon) IMO to bring that new content to their fanbase.
I understand what you're saying but at the same time, games don't get made overnight and if you have the opportunity to get more, why wouldn't you? It's a buyers and sellers market right now. If you're looking to sell, no better time than now to do so. Also, one reason that people probably don't know about is in regards to banks and whatnot where Microsoft's money sitting in a bank is not giving them anything because of the world situation. Better off spending that money in order to make more money in the future based on acquisitions instead of letting money sit in the bad with minimal to interest accrued and getting nothing out of it.

Also, for the last decade or so, everyone said that Microsoft has no games, they have no studios, they have nothing. Spencer and Nadella im sure took that shit to heart and they simply are not going to allow this to happen again. Plus, the acquisitions isn't just for now, it's for generations into the future. Who knows how studios will be in 5/10/15+ years from now. Again, the more the better because even those that fuck up or this or that, it won't matter because you have so much other content that can easily make up for it.

Where as with Xbox One, they fucked up and had nothing to make up for those fuck ups. And like I said above, games don't get made overnight. Look at 2022. Nothing thus far. FM is probably September but take away Bethesda for example, there's no Starfield, no Deathloop port and there's no Redfall to strengthen the lineup and excluding Deathloop, nothing to strengthen the exclusive games lineup.

Everyone bashed Microsoft for only having Gears Tactics at launch and while Sony has had their empty gaps as well, Microsoft wants to get to where they can release an exclusive every quarter if not every two months. Plus, their focus is subscription and in order for a subscription to be successful, you need a shit ton of varied content and more importantly, exclusive content.
Again, IMO a lot of this could be had without making more acquisitions, at least for the foreseeable future. If MS really wants a superhero game, they already have teams that can deliver them, and can license the rights for a superhero or two in doing that. Maybe that means no WB, but even in that case they can still potentially work something out with Dark Horse (through Embracer Group) or Image Comics. Spawn has some history on Xbox, he was in the Xbox version of Soul Calibur 2, why not have one of the internal studios see if they'd want to make an epic Spawn action/adventure game with some RPG mechanics built in?

I don't think amount of time between releases is necessarily indicative of bad management. Take-Two haven't released a new mainline GTA in almost 10 years, or a new mainline installment in one of their marquee IP since 2018. Are they mismanaged? AFAIK, the last releases from WB Montreal and Rocksteady were well-received critically and most likely commercially, so I don't think those are ground to definitively say they've been mismanaged, either.
Yes, they can be done but exclusively? Not so much. Spencer isn't into timed exclusives which I personally hate and see as a waste of money for short term gain if that. It's also the simple fact that like I said in regards to Xbox One, if you don't own the IP and whatnot, you're basically screwing yourself in the long term.

The difference with Take Two/Rockstar and Rocksteady/WB Montreal is that GTA Online makes no much money that they don't need a new GTA for a decade or so. Where's the money, return of investment, profits, etc. from WB Montreal and Rocksteady? They haven't done shit. Arkham Knight had it's few months and then basically died. WB Montreal released Origins which was a failure and haven't done anything since.

Two completely different situations and also two very different results.
I don't think simply having the license to make a game on a massive superhero IP ensures that the game will be high-quality, otherwise we wouldn't have had a history of horrible licensed superhero games going back to the NES, where only a small handful of said games were any good, and that's over the span of decades. It just means more money is likely to be pumped into the game but money doesn't automatically equal talent, IMO.

That said I agree the brand power and name of those characters does a lot for building attention to your offerings and I've said in the past it's something Microsoft might need to work on so on those grounds I can see where them acquiring WB studios and IP makes sense, Batman is like the 2nd most popular superhero behind Spiderman for example.

However I just feel less enthusiastic on them making such a move after having already acquired Zenimax & ABK; I personally want to see some actual results from these studios (and some of the ones they acquired pre-Zenimax), results reflective of those gaming being clearly under Microsoft's wings, before claiming I'm okay at a personal level with them buying another massive publisher like WB or Ubisoft. And since I'm looking at this from my POV as a gamer and customer, what such an acquisition does for MS's bottom line doesn't actually matter to me.
I agree with the first part but it doesn't hurt to have more. More is always better than less. It just is.

I understand wanting to see results but as stated above, games don't get done overnight and if Microsoft is committed to highly reducing crunch if not completely eliminating it, that means games will take longer to make and release which in turn, means that you need as many studios and whatnot as possible in order to have a steady stream of solid varied content releasing for your platform and eco-system. If you don't then there will be people that get turned off and leave the eco-system.

I look at acquisitions first and foremost for what it does for me personally because it's my time and money. The more Microsoft buys, the less I have to buy which is already a massive positive. The more games and content I get for less money is even better.

I look at it like this. Microsoft wants to give their fanbase more for less money where as Sony wants to give it's fanbase less for more money. I own a PS5 and love Sony's exclusives for the most part but in all honesty, they leave a lot to be desired. One is simply giving me much more value for my money and time while also saving me a lot of money which in turn allows me to re-invest it into their eco-system so they basically have me and the more studios/publishers they buy, the more greater the chance they keep me.
GotG isn't the best example considering it came to GP primarily to gin up excitement after really bad sales. Also MS paid pretty cheap for it on GP, due to the bad sales, so it's arguable that if GotG sold very well it would've costed too much for GP hence MS would not have paid to put it on the service.
GOTG is said to have sold 4m copies which isn't bad considering it's SE and Avengers was a flop. But true, not the best example I could use.
I get your general idea, I just think there are other ways this can be done currently by MS which don't involve rushing into more massive gaming acquisitions.
The only rush was ABK because it's one of those "holy shit, they're available" that you can't pass up. ZeniMax took two years. The studios they acquired took at least several months to complete. There's other ways, sure but is it beneficial to Microsoft? Is it beneficial to me as an Xbox gamer this generation? Going the Sony route for example where they pay for FF16 for a year is not something I want Microsoft to do. I want their timed exclusivity to be dead honestly because there's no long term gain whatsoever from it. Do I want third party multi-platform games day one on Game Pass? Absolutely. Why wouldn't I? And again, it's all about not repeating Xbox One where they release an exclusive but own the IP and the entire thing goes to someone else or you get any long term benefit from it.

Always better to bring studios/games/publishers/whatever in hours because you then control it's destiny as opposed to depending on someone/something else hoping it goes their (Microsoft) way.
So I mean, right here you're saying The Initiative is a failure, which in some ways they seem to be IMO, and that was a studio they built from the ground-up in 2018. So if they can't get that right, if that studio has to turn to a 3P developer for co-development purposes (let's just assume that is why and it was due to internal issues; even though there's been another idea floated around there isn't much to support it), how does that instill confidence in a scenario where MS acquires CD, who already have their own work culture and style?

Because in that instance CD would fall under the watch of XGS/Matt Booty and it's really that side of things where most of the organizational and management issues with Xbox teams seem to be coming from. The Initiative, Playground games (potentially, if the Fable stuff is anything to go by), 343i, Rare (with Everwild) etc. The Zenimax side doesn't really have these issues because Pete Hines is running that, and while ABK has a mountain of their own problems they'll fall under someone else yet still. So the only way CD would potentially avoid a similar fate is if they went under Zenimax, how realistic would that have turned out to be the case?
The problem with The Initiative was there there were too many people with egos who thought Perfect Dark should be their way. Gallagher siad fuck no, they left and instead of taking years to hire/staff the studio, Gallagher/Microsoft went to a studio and people he knows and trusts which in turn allows Microsoft to trust them or at least the opportunity to prove themselves. The proble was the peopl at The Initiative thinking who they were, wanting control, Gallagher refusing ideas repeatedly like the episodic (smh) rumor and saying, fuck it, enough is enough.

Imagine if those people were still there. Nothing at all would be getting done. Instead, Gallagher saw problems and said fuck this shit, im going to try to bring in people I know and have worked with in which he obviously has chemistry with and knows their work habits and whatnot. After all, it was Gallagher that rebooted TR for CD in 2013. Makes perfect sense to me because of who the studio head is and the studio that's now working on the game.

It instill confidence because I have far more confidence in a veteran like Gallagher who was at CD and knows everyone as opposed to him fighting with those who were there and wanted the game their way despite being told no repeatedly.

Even if you take 343/Rare/Playground (Fable)/Undead Labs/The Initiative as negatives, you still have Mojang/Obsidian/InXile/Turn 10/Playground (Forza Horizon team is not the same team working on Fable, there's two studios, two separate teams), Compulsion/The Coalition/Global Publishing/Ninja Theory/Double Fine as positives which by my count is 10 to 5 which means twice as many studios aren't having issues compared to the five that are.

Reason why I wouldn't see CD as having a bad fate is two fold. First, getting away from SE already makes them better by far and second, Gallagher would basically be the studio head which he was years ago so I wouldn't see any issues here at all. If Gallagher wasn't here or was to leave, then okay but since that's not what it is now, I wouldn't have any worries with CD under Microsoft with Gallagher as the studio head.
 

Loope

Member
As long as they don't take pc versions away, I don't mind.
That's where i stand also, so you're not alone. That's why i voted indifferent, i almost voted "loved it" because i do enjoy the meltdowns and doom and gloom that it brings, but that would not represent how i feel about it, which is total indifference as long as the games come to PC, but even then, most of the games i play are from PC first developers.
 
D

Deleted member 471617

Unconfirmed Member
@peter42O Dang I had to glance through the reply for now, but I'll look forward to giving a more thorough reply probably around dinner. I enjoy this type of detailed dissent from the other POV regardless tho 👍
Haha. Yeah, I wrote a lot but so have you. I feel like im back in school with all the writing and reading. lol. Thanks for the compliment and the feeling is mutual. :)
 
Top Bottom