Dabaus
Banned
If Zenimax market cap was "only" 2.5 billion why do you think MS paid 7.5 for them? Outbid others I guess? And if a huge company with zenimax is only valued at 2.5 billion then why are Sqaure and capcom near the 8 billions? Thanks.
- Status
If Zenimax market cap was "only" 2.5 billion why do you think MS paid 7.5 for them? Outbid others I guess? And if a huge company with zenimax is only valued at 2.5 billion then why are Sqaure and capcom near the 8 billions? Thanks.
IbelieveInGenerations
Banned
Thats what I understood also.
TheGejsza
Member
There are two major problems:
1) You can't upgrade PS4 version to remaster. Remaster is gated behind Miles Morales. I don't see the reason why I can't pay $20 and get remaster if I own original version. I need to spend $70 to get it with MM.
2) You don't know how bc will work. I don't care about remaster as long as I get 60FPS/4k (or 1440p) mode via BC. If 60fps will be gated behind remaster then it will be a big fuck you for PS4 version owners.
THE:MILKMAN
Member
We'll have to wait and see what they do now with other games but this is basically setting themselves down the path of never being able to win now. If they do similar to this for other games the complaints will continue to grow and get louder. If they do them differently (more inline with customer expectations) people will point to Spider-Man again.
I'm more surprised that Sony would go ahead on this sort of release strategy for such a big game knowing it would lead to this kind of backlash.
Right now they seem to be providing Microsoft with a tonne of free ammo that they will use against them! Sure they have a huge lead going into next-gen but we're already seeing signs on the gaming forums some are getting tetchy with Sony. Microsoft are also courting the game media and YouTube influencers hard while in the meantime Sony have almost completely retracted from engaging with them so far.
In any case it looks like even if I want PS5 I probably won't get one until after launch as it stands so I'll just observe how this plays out for the next few weeks.
Last edited:
kyliethicc
Member
I think its gonna be MGS1. But who knows. In that tweet they tease Ico, MGS, Silent Hills, Symphony of the Night, Resistance, and Syphon Filter. They are just fuckin with us until they reveal it.
Sinthor
Gold Member
Well, it's kind of like the movie scene that way, isn't it? Hollywood seems obsessed with just remaking old movies or 'rebooting' them. Seems like the focus is there more than it is to make NEW stories and movies. At least with the 'blockbuster' type.
LisaMariaMartin
Banned
wrong thread
Last edited:
Zoro7
Banned
I hate this dude. Like genuine hate.
Shio
Member
True but so far 2 have come true, Shadow Of the Colossus and Demons Souls, MGS and SIlent Hill are also being heavily rumoured adding more weight to the claim
Gediminas
Banned
Cyberpunk coming 19.11. it is 3 weeks til show. it is obvious too little time. no one going to rush just for the sake of the rush.
More likely to be a remake of Silent Hill 1 rather than Silent Hills (a new game), no? A graphical remake of that might bring a lot of people to the series.
Last edited:
kyliethicc
Member
Well it's obvious they have a second remake in the works. I just have no clue what it'll be.
Faithless83
Banned
I understand that and it's exactly why I'm saying it doesn't make sense when people say Sega is "cheap".
But SOTC remake came out almost two years before that tweet. Shadow must be a reference to something else.
megreotsugua
Banned
Some are saying Sega will be better with the financial backing of MS. But money is not really what makes the games. It's the talents of the people that are working there.
How many studios does Sega have? They really can't do anything with the IPs without the studios and the people who understand the IPs. And knowing Sega hasn't published much games lately, I don't think they still have the talents and working force to make use of the IPs anymore. Those people may have left and the remaining ones can always apply to a different company and make another game.
Dabaus
Banned
I dont know if Konami would be willing to part with the silent hill, MGS, and castlevania franchises, but purchasing those three from them plus blue point games would probably go along ways with pacifying sonys base and adding some strength to their first party. Most importantly, assuming konami was willing to deal, would be alot cheaper than 7.5 billion.
Last edited:
If they did remake it they'd have to be sooooo sooo careful with translating the art style and aesthetic of the original because fans would be really upset if it didn't have the same look.
megreotsugua
Banned
Yeah I was actually agreeing with you and it didn't come off as such. The first sentence should be "I agree".
LED Guy?
Banned
Yeah man, I agree with you a 100%
I just don't understand why so many defend and celebrate this shit, it's really annoying and a sad state of gaming that we're heading towards, Microsoft buying all of Bethesda and putting their games on Game Pass is a huge industrial move that I don't think many people comprehend, imagine releasing:
- Next-gen DOOM.
- The Evil WIthin 3.
- The Elder Scrolls 6.
- Star Field.
- Wolfenstein 3.
- Dishonored.
...and many many more!!
On Game Pass for $10 a month while on PS5, they'll be for $70, that's a huge incentive for people to go to Game Pass instead of buying the games, this will result in, like you said, developers not listening to consumer demand and no ambition from developers, you'll just asset flipping, new games using same old assets, no art, no ambition, they'll be small and agile.
Last edited:
ethomaz
Banned
I don't see any reference for SotC in that tweet... Demon's Souls, Syphon filter, Castlevania, Metal Gear Solid, Twisted Metal , Legend of Dragoon, Resistance Fall Of Man are referenced thought.
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
A closer look at the Xbox Series X controller and 1TB expansion cards
Microsoft’s expandable storage is really easy to use
www.theverge.com
megreotsugua
Banned
Who'd be making them games though? I don't think it's wise for Sony to spend so much money for the IPs if they don't have a studio to work on them. Well, they could also start a hiring spree of the old talents from Konami and expand their Japan Studio.
megreotsugua
Banned
This will happen to Bethesda and Sega if Microsoft is not careful. Those IPs means nothing if the people who make them and understand them will be leaving.
Last edited:
smallpotatosan
Member
i don't think it's going to be that bad. Like how Nintendo gets its own market. Sony's premium gaming experience also will. But mainstream IS going towards gamepass for sure. i don't have any doubt about it. Here is my prediction. Sony will repurpose PSNow to match gamepass before it's too late. but Sony will still keep their premium games, but not all first party, off game pass-like service, just as how Disney handled Mulan but not just 4 months. If Jim is not treating gamepass seriously, it will be a huge mistake.
edit: in the short term, Sony is fine. but that's the danger of it. Sony fans won't jump the ship immediately. but after 2023, oh boi.
Last edited:
Felessan
Member
Zenimax didn't have a market cap as it was not traded in market, it was a private company. 2.5B is the latest evaluation, which is quite old (2016) and is way further from indicating anything that market cap.
Neither do I, but the person I'm replying to does.
vpance
Gold Member
Socialism often sounds good, and may be at the start, until unsustainability kicks in where someone has to pay up or the quality and system itself changes for the worse to seek higher profitability.
Last edited:
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Zenimax was not a publicly traded company and had no "market cap."
SEGA is owned by a publicly traded company, so you can look at that holding company to estimate it's worth, but I believe on it's own they could be sold like a private firm can (with only "private shareholders" voting).
Actual public traded companies at least in the US are not secretly "sold" like Zenimax was.
Last edited:
Dabaus
Banned
We dont know what konamis price would be but sony could easily let one of their studios make a new game from one of those franchises not to mention let blue point make a remake. They could also use their film division to make a movie from them or license out a netflix show. Again whatever theyd pay id assume itd be no where near 7.5 billion but would add alot to their already good portfolio.
smallpotatosan
Member
JerryinSoCal
Member
Buying Sega would be a waste of money, also I could be wrong but it's fairly difficult for a foreign company to buy a Japanese company.
Ptarmiganx2
Member
We can't say there's an 18% gap in third party games. What happens when UE5 becomes the go to engine and developers start using streaming assets? The PS5 has a massive throughput advantage. I'm betting the PS5 outperforms the XSX as we get further into the generation.
FunkMiller
Banned
Shit, I'm not buying either. I have Demon's Souls as my launch title, and with Cyberpunk close as well, I have no desire to reward the greed coming from Sony for their Spider-Man games. I'll pick up MM when it goes on sale, or on eBay.
onesvenus
Member
what are you blabbering about? This doesn't make any sense from a technical point of view.
TBH i find this sort of thing tiresome. Making everything into this exhausting game of hype, its marketing at its most tiring.
megreotsugua
Banned
inb4 Microsoft buys dreamhaven
That's a good acquisition. They have no game PS gamers are familiar with. It's like they built the studio themselves from scratch.
Last edited:
Vae_Victis
Banned
Sure, there can be in abstract. However, what happens in practice is a lot more situational, and dependant on a series of additional factors that are on top of the model itself, but that we must keep into consideration.
For example, monopolization is bad news for users, regardless of the model - both can be more or less monopolistic. However, the current paradigm is relatively dispersed as far as game production and publishing goes, because users disperse their expenses on a game-by-game basis, so the system allows for several independent publishers, and even self-published games, to exist. If you move towards a subscription based model in line with what Microsoft is planning, the user is put in front of a drastically reduced number of options on where to practically spend the money. There could exist a "softer" subscription-based model in theory, where individual publishers create mini-subscriptions for all of their products, but it's quite obvious that is not what we are looking at right now.
This centralization inevitably deals a blow to healthy competition, because now individual users cannot "punish" individual game makers for bad products or practices, they are forced to accept the whole package as it is, good and bad, because there is a new agent in the system that acts as a blurring screen between people paying and studios delivering the goods. And since this entity in the middle has agency of its own, and can direct or even dictate to game makers, there are even more chances of anti-consumer practices being pushed on the users via syndication.
If we assume that your premise (total expenditure per user goes up), there are only two ways it can happen: either you up quality of games (and their budget) leading people to willingly dedicate more of their income into the hobby, or the extra money comes from the economic package being offered masking the real cost to the average user and leading them to spend more over time out of unawareness/apathy/habit.
What is preventing the first option to also happen right now, with the current model? It does happen already in fact, because certain platforms have overall attach rates higher than others, and it's usually those platform with a larger and better catalogue to offer. So, is this really an advantage of a subscription system, or just an external factor for which the model is irrelevant?
And in light of this, my next question is: if the subscription system by its very nature succeeds in increasing the per-user expenditure over a certain period of time... where is the incentive to re-invest the extra money into making better games exactly?
Is the door really more open though? It's a bit of a risky statement, because in this scenario the door for anything is exactly as open or close as Microsoft (or whoever manages the service) wants it to be, no more, no less. You assume Microsoft might want to go there. Remember that you moved from a mostly open market where by law of large numbers untapped demand will eventually receive offer, to one where a very limited amount of central entities hold unprecedented control over what is published and what isn't. Sure, in theory the same could be said for console makers right now as well, but remember that you are also moving towards a model where the effective "success" of any game goes through an opaque glass panel and it becomes a lot harder to outline failure and success regardless of what a platform holder could decide to promote right now.
But even if we completely disregard all of these specific considerations, my reasoning on why I don't want to see this is incredibly straightforward.
The gaming industry is a very simple market once you strip it down to the basics: products come from one single side, game publishers, and money comes from one single source, consumers. The goal of publishers is to end up with the highest possible amount of money, subtracting all they spent for game development and adding what users paid them for the products. The goal of consumers is to end up with the best possible product offering according to their standards for as cheap as possible. If the system moves too far in one of the two directions (which can happen on a company-by-company basis or on a wider level) either the customers stop playing games or the studios can't pay the bills anymore (and either one also leads in turns to the other).
This is an inescapable truth of the system, and a service-based model won't change that. Games will still come from a single direction, and money will still come from the other one. If the service will be too terrible people will stop paying, and if the offer will be too good for the customers studios will start closing down. You are shuffling the intermediate steps a bit, but neither of the two fundamental sides of the equations have changed.
Now, considering all this, ask yourself: since what is changing is the shape of the road, but neither the beginning or the end of the journey, why do you think Microsoft would want to pay billions to push for this change? Every last penny they spent to ensure games coming to Game Pass, or entire studios becoming dedicated to making games for it, is a penny they plan to recoup from you later down the line. And it's not money spent strictly speaking in game development, it's not you giving a company twice as much for a product that is twice as good, the games could have been developed even without all of this other money on top of it just to alter the product delivery method. If making Assassin's Creed 19 costs 100, why would Microsoft throwing Ubisoft an additional 20 just to guarantee the game comes to Game pass?
Microsoft is investing hard in a restructuring of the gaming economical system; and where do you think the point of balance of the new system they planned and paid for will lie? Will it be one where the user has it better than now, or where Microsoft does?
Last edited:
At least they say/do something.
Felessan
Member
I doub't that it's possible to do it secretly.
You need shareholder approval in general shareholder meeting (it will leak from there almost certainly, given that there are a lot of minoritary shareholders) as Sega certainly above threshold of selling assets (20%). 2/3 required votes will be a problem in itself. And you need regulatory approval of foreign investments which itself takes around 3 months to finish if I understood properly.
Sega (entertainment content) actually about 2/3 of Sega Sammy revenue (of which games, packaged and digital are 50% and the rest heavily depends on IPs), selling it is like dissolving company.
Last edited:
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Remember the original rumour for Bluepoint was MGS Remake, maybe it wasn't entirely untrue to begin with, just too soon to announce
''We're very pleased to announce that Doom Eternal is coming to Game Pass soon!'' is 'something'.
It's also much more mature and doesn't feed into this overly intense game fan culture we have now where everyone has to be constantly trying to work out 'clues' and talking about 'hints' and everything is just hype hype hype.
Tired of it. It has infected everything. Everyone now expects every single announcement or event to contain 29 'megatonne' announcements. People treat a little Sony or Nintendo digital event as they're paying to see a highly anticipated movie they've paid money to see (rather than just a company showing its products) and they feel they can get bizarrely and inappropriately angry about it if it doesn't personally please and excite them enough.
Been a gamer for a long time and I find the modern culture around it really obnoxious personally. There's a lot of people confusing being spoiled and overly demanding (see people genuinely raging about an E3 showing, as it wasn't free) with being passionate. See also people doing companies marketing for them.
Last edited:
Vae_Victis
Banned
I don't disagree that would be the end result, but this doesn't mean they might not try anyway.
sircaw
Banned
- Status