By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony aquires "Insomniac Games"

I'm more surprised it didn't happen sooner. To me It feels like they've always been a Sony Studio. I've been a fan of them since the day I became a gamer. I didn't even realize that they weren't a Sony studio until Fuse was announced years back.

If this means they can make their games even better then I'm all for it.

Last edited by Eric2048 - on 20 August 2019

Around the Network

That's a huge pick up for them, Insomniac is a great studio. Ratchet & Clank 2016 is still one of my favorite PS4 games.



CrazyGamer2017 said:

But I want for Sony to acquire From Software, Guerilla Games, Housemarque and Tarsier Studios because Little Nightmares is simply a master piece.

Why isn't Sony acquiring the studios I want it to acquire?

EDIT: Forgot to mention that Insomniac is nice too, I loved the Ratchet and Clank games.

It would be savage if Sony purchased From Software. Absolutely savage.

But it likely won't happen. Not unless Sony is prepared to make a hefty purchase.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

CrazyGamer2017 said:

But I want for Sony to acquire From Software, Guerilla Games, Housemarque and Tarsier Studios because Little Nightmares is simply a master piece.

Why isn't Sony acquiring the studios I want it to acquire?

EDIT: Forgot to mention that Insomniac is nice too, I loved the Ratchet and Clank games.

Isn't Geurilla Games already part of Sony's studios?



zealen said:
CrazyGamer2017 said:

But I want for Sony to acquire From Software, Guerilla Games, Housemarque and Tarsier Studios because Little Nightmares is simply a master piece.

Why isn't Sony acquiring the studios I want it to acquire?

EDIT: Forgot to mention that Insomniac is nice too, I loved the Ratchet and Clank games.

Isn't Geurilla Games already part of Sony's studios?

Yes they are.



Around the Network
Mar1217 said:
VideoGameAccountant said:

In short: to keep them away from Microsoft. Microsoft has been buying companies left and right and has indicated they will buy more. Sony (and likely Nintendo) are looking at this as Microsoft taking resources away from them. It's only natural they would go after a key studio that they couldn't afford to lose first. There will be more acquisitions like this. This is honestly the least surprising one as many people predicted this. 

I don't know how this would endanger Nintendo since Microsoft has begun pledging support to their platform and they don't have much of a touch in Japan like Nintendo does.

Anyway, Nintendo has deciced to go to the ways of partnerships instead of acquiring which has suited them well for a while, no reason to change the modus operandis.

That's a good questions, so let me see if I can explain.

So let's take Developer XYZ. They aren't big but are pretty well know. Their games get 80s to 90s and sell about 2 million units. They make their game on every system: XBox, Playstation, Nintendo, and PC. Now let's say one of the publisher (perhaps Sony in this instance) want's people to gravitate toward their system. What's an easy way to do it. Well, if they buy Developer XYZ, then they control all of XYZ's games and they can say which system they are on. Now the sequel to their hit game can only be on Playstation. Now, say Nintendo isn't directly competing with Sony like they usually do. Normally, what Sony does doesn't affect Nintendo and vis versa. However, this is a title that is no longer available on Nintendo's system. Even if these companies aren't directly competing, this still affects Nintendo because that game isn't on their system and it makes their line-up look worse. 

So with that in mind, consider Insomniac. They have worked mostly with Sony since the original Playstation, but they have made games outside of Sony, including Sunset Overdrive with Microsoft. Microsoft is looking to expand their portfolio, and Insomniac could be a studio they nab. Even if their intent isn't to lsight Sony, Sony is still out a developer nonetheless. This is why they bought Insomniac up after working with them since the late 1990s. They are bringing them in to make sure they stay on the Sony ecosystem. Nintendo will likely have a similar response for the same reason. If Sony or Microsoft gobbles them up, then they will not be making games for Nintendo. While Nintendo has historically partnered with companies rather than purchasing them, I think that will change with the risk that they could be bought by someone else.

So, in short, someone getting bought up means they can't make games for your system, so you buy them not to expand the portfolio but to make so you don't lose those games.

CGI-Quality said:
VideoGameAccountant said:

Well, if you look above we have at least Daniel Ahmad saying what I'm saying. That said, I fail to see how it being expected would mean it's not because of Microsoft. It was expected because Microsoft has been buying up studios and Sony has said soon after they will do the same. Again, if Sony was bolstering their portfolio then they wouldn't buy Insomniac because they work with Sony regardless. Thus, the only reason to spend the capital to buy them was to defend against someone else buying them. 

And debating these things is kind of the fun of message board discussions.

I stand by my assessment. You're free to believe otherwise. And that last portion? No. It isn't fun to listen to someone repeat ideas (and actually moves into Spamming after a while). Eventually, you move on to something else. 

Yeah, no problem, you're entitled to you opinion, and I can be totally wrong. I just figure that since you were responding to me that there would be more of a discussion. You just responded and when I said why I think that's not the reason, you just tried to duck out and said you don't want an argument. Honestly it just seems like your idea is a little half baked and you really can't back it up. 

twintail said:
VideoGameAccountant said:

Well, if you look above we have at least Daniel Ahmad saying what I'm saying. That said, I fail to see how it being expected would mean it's not because of Microsoft. It was expected because Microsoft has been buying up studios and Sony has said soon after they will do the same. Again, if Sony was bolstering their portfolio then they wouldn't buy Insomniac because they work with Sony regardless. Thus, the only reason to spend the capital to buy them was to defend against someone else buying them. 

And debating these things is kind of the fun of message board discussions.

I think this is a bit of a strange take on the situation. Firstly, the entire MO for Sony is to work with a studio before buying them. Saying Sony would not buy Insomniac only to bolster their portfolio is just a complete misreading of how Sony usually acquires studios compared to how MS is doing so now.

Also, there was no way Insomniac was ever in threat of being bought off by MS that Sony would have to defend against losing them. Sony is pretty much the only publisher Insomniac has seen actual long term success with, and don't forget that Sony were the ones who offered a Marvel IP to them ad they chose Spider-man. They were pretty much gifted it due to their working relationship with Sony. There was no way they were going to lose access to SM or Ratchet just to go with MS.

On the first part, I think that if the intent was to bolster their portfolio, they could have done it anytime since 1998 when they started working with Sony. Insomniac has been with them for a long time. Why didn't Sony buy them after Spyro's success. Why not during the heyday of the PS2? Why not soon after Spiderman because a huge hit? If this was solely about making their first party line-up stronger, they had every opportunity to do it, even at points when Insomniac was far cheaper?

Now, on the threat of them being bought out, maybe, but you have to consider it from Management (and possibly the Board's) position. Sure, Sony doesn't have to spend the capital and still get the benefit of working with them, but then they run they risk of someone coming up and buying them away from Sony. And you may think "They'll never get bought by someone else as they've had all their success with Sony", but you have to remember that Insomniac is ultimately beholden to their shareholders. These people invested a lot into the company and expect a return, and it can be hard to get your money out of a private company as there isn't a highly traded secondary market. So if Epic or Microsoft come by and offers 5 times book for the company, then they can't say "Nah, we only want to work with Sony." They are obligated to, at a minimum, consider it. And that is ultimately what Sony is weighing here. Do they keep their cushy relationship going and hope no one else buys them up, or do they buy them up now to make sure they stay with Sony forever? Acquisitions are hot right now and it doesn't show any signs of stopping. Management of Sony (and Nintendo) are aware this is going on and they are going to respond accordingly. This is why it was important to buy up Insomniac now. Thinking it's just because they want to have the best first-party line up is more of a fan's outlook on the situation. 

Last edited by VideoGameAccountant - on 20 August 2019

Visit my site for more

Known as Smashchu in a former life

Replicant said:
Barkley said:

Who did Stadia or Amazon buy?

Google
Owlchemy Labs (Job Simulator)
Slide (SuperPoke)
Niantic (Pokémon Go) – Spun off in 2015
In talks to acquire more game studios (link)

Amazon
Double Helix Games (Killer Instinct)
Reflexive Entertainment (Lucky's Escape)

Epic
Psyonix (Rocket League)
Cloudgine (Crackdown 3)
Chair Entertainment (Shadow Complex)
People Can Fly (Gears of War: Judgment, Bulletstorm) – Sold in 2015

However besides Microsoft, THQ Nordic (and to a lesser degree Bigben) has been the one on a crazy buying spree these past few years.

THQ Nordic
Black Forest Games (Destroy All Humans!)
Bugbear Entertainment (FlatOut)
Dambuster Studios (Dead Island 2)
Deep Silver (publisher of Saints Row, Dead Island, etc.)
Experiment 101 (Biomutant)
Grimlore Games (SpellForce 3)
Gunfire Games (Darksiders 3)
Pieces Interactive (Magicka 2)
Piranha Bytes (Gothic, Risen, ELEX)
Rainbow Studios (MX vs. ATV)
Volition (Saints Row)
Warhorse Studios (Kingdom Come: Deliverance)
Together with a huge bunch of IP (link)

Bigben Interactive
Cyanide (Styx, Call of Cthulhu, Werewolf)
Kylotonn (WRC 8, V-Rally 4)
Spiders (The Technomancer, Greedfall)

Crackdown 3 was developed by Sumo Digital.  Cloudgine only had a minor role in its development.



zealen said:
CrazyGamer2017 said:

But I want for Sony to acquire From Software, Guerilla Games, Housemarque and Tarsier Studios because Little Nightmares is simply a master piece.

Why isn't Sony acquiring the studios I want it to acquire?

EDIT: Forgot to mention that Insomniac is nice too, I loved the Ratchet and Clank games.

Isn't Geurilla Games already part of Sony's studios?

Yes, lol.  Has been for almost 15 years.



JRPGfan said:
DonFerrari said:

I remember the threads were it was given as certain that Halo 5 and Gears 4 each one would do much better than basically any PS4 exclusive. Those were the days. Most have left VGC, hide away or pretend that it isn't important anymore.

We have no idea about actual sales of Halo 5 & Gears 4.

On Neogaf, Frank o Conor, posted "Halo 5" did almost 5 million sales abit after its first 3 months.

With Gears, all we know is its had ~6.4 million players, that have played it. 
With Gamepass/resales/trades/multiple users for same disk,... its hard to say exactly how many sales that is.

Since then? nothing.
So I still think Halo is bigger for sales than Gears is, on xbox.

I feel like if Halo crossed 10m sales, someone at xbox side would have announced it.
With 40m+ consoles out there, if attach rate was ~25% it should be possible to do.
Im guessing its under 10m.

Meanwhile Sony has 6? games over 10m, and a few reaching towards the 20m mark.
install base gives a huge edge though.... like if you manage to sell 130m+ consoles, its hard to imagine you dont sell a few 10m+ titles of your own.

10-20% more sales due to bigger instal base could be argueed more than it we don't have data to suggest it. But we do have plenty of evidence with series staying about same sales with largely different install base. PS3 had 87M and still only a couple of 10M+ series.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Replicant said:
Barkley said:

Who did Stadia or Amazon buy?

Google
Owlchemy Labs (Job Simulator)
Slide (SuperPoke)
Niantic (Pokémon Go) – Spun off in 2015
In talks to acquire more game studios (link)

Amazon
Double Helix Games (Killer Instinct)
Reflexive Entertainment (Lucky's Escape)

Epic
Psyonix (Rocket League)
Cloudgine (Crackdown 3)
Chair Entertainment (Shadow Complex)
People Can Fly (Gears of War: Judgment, Bulletstorm) – Sold in 2015

However besides Microsoft, THQ Nordic (and to a lesser degree Bigben) has been the one on a crazy buying spree these past few years.

THQ Nordic
Black Forest Games (Destroy All Humans!)
Bugbear Entertainment (FlatOut)
Dambuster Studios (Dead Island 2)
Deep Silver (publisher of Saints Row, Dead Island, etc.)
Experiment 101 (Biomutant)
Grimlore Games (SpellForce 3)
Gunfire Games (Darksiders 3)
Pieces Interactive (Magicka 2)
Piranha Bytes (Gothic, Risen, ELEX)
Rainbow Studios (MX vs. ATV)
Volition (Saints Row)
Warhorse Studios (Kingdom Come: Deliverance)
Together with a huge bunch of IP (link)

Bigben Interactive
Cyanide (Styx, Call of Cthulhu, Werewolf)
Kylotonn (WRC 8, V-Rally 4)
Spiders (The Technomancer, Greedfall)

I don't mind any of these studios or games, so nothing i miss this moment



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."