A healthy company can grow via acquisition just fine.   Some of the most successful business moves in history have been acquisitions and some of the most successful businesses have a long history of buying smaller businesses.  Trying to paint this as some kind of automatic negative is simply doom mongering.  A bad move is a bad move and a good move is a good move.  

On topic, I think this was inevitable when Microsoft took the initiative.  Competition buying a multi-plat studio isn't just a gain for them, it's a loss for you.  Smart money would be on scanning the market for anyone teetering on the edge.  

It wasn't an exhaustive list.    Also, based on this reply, I think you derailed your own question.

Well why don't you give some examples of mergers and acquisitions that were successful, and then some examples of mergers and acquisitions that were unsuccessful?  Then point out what makes one work and another one fail.  

The way this post reads, you are just dismissing me, because you don't know what you are talking about.

A healthy company can grow via acquisition just fine.   Some of the most successful business moves in history have been acquisitions and some of the most successful businesses have a long history of buying smaller businesses.  Trying to paint this as some kind of automatic negative is simply doom mongering.  A bad move is a bad move and a good move is a good move.  

On topic, I think this was inevitable when Microsoft took the initiative.  Competition buying a multi-plat studio isn't just a gain for them, it's a loss for you.  Smart money would be on scanning the market for anyone teetering on the edge.  

How did I derail? Wasn't your concern that the gaming industry was in trouble? I said there is not much evidence of that in other places except the west.

First of all, you gave no examples at all to backup your claims about acquisitions translating to industries in trouble and unhealthy companies.

As for my post, have you ever heard of Microsoft?  A company with a long history of growth by acquisition?  They've been doing it for decades, starting with the purchase of the company behind the PowerPoint software.  Microsoft is worth over a trillion dollars.  Would you say that they are unhealthy?  If so, please explain why, because the way your post reads, you don't know what you are talking about.

Have you ever heard of Disney?  What about Marvel?  What about Pixar?  Please explain why these acquisitions signaled an unhealthy company and a failing industry, because the way your post reads, you don't know what you are talking about.  

Ever heard of Google?  A company that has made literally hundreds of business acquisitions, including Android and DoubleClick, and used those acquisitions to grow into one of the most market-dominant companies in the world?  Explain why such a practice has actually been bad for Google, because, the way your post reads, you don't know what you are talking about.

Acquisitions are neither inherently good nor inherently bad.  That you're trying to imply otherwise ... well, you get the idea.

I see.  I interpreted your question as a question, and you meant it as a statement.  My mistake.  

Yes, I do think it is worse in the West.  EA for example has devoured countless companies, and they all seem to get worse after getting bought by EA.

Thank you for giving examples.  At least now I see where you are coming from.  Couldn't hurt to hear some examples of what you think doesn't work, but let's at least look at what you've put here.

1) Microsoft - There strategy of "acquisitions" was really a strategy of eliminating potential threats, especially while Bill Gates was CEO.  Bill Gates liked to look at small companies that could potentially threaten Microsoft in the future and get rid of them.  That could be by buying them out or it could be by just putting them out of business.  It wasn't the acquisition that made the company grow, so much as the company was already growing and they were just out to eliminate potential threats any way that they could.  Perhaps they bought PowerPoint?  But if they didn't they would have made something similar themselves.  In the early days of the internet Netscape had the most successful browser and they refused to be bought.  Microsoft put them out of business and made Internet Explorer instead.  Either way the acquisitions were just a means to an end: eliminate the competition.

2) Google - Something to notice about Google is that they don't buy other search engines.  Do, they buy pet projects?  Yes, of course, because they are always looking to expand into new markets.  Sometimes it works.  Often it doesn't.  But even when it works, they aren't buying new search engines.  Gaming companies, on the other hand are largely just buying gaming companies, so it's a different situation.  They mostly aren't expanding into other markets.  The main gaming company looking to expand into other markets is GameStop and that is because it is very clear that they are in trouble.

3) Disney - Disney authentically has a rare talent for acquiring a studio and keeping them just as good or potentially making them better.  This is the exception rather than the rule.  For example, they acquired Marvel and Endgame just became the top grossing movie of all time.  Hard to get better than that.  Is the movie industry in trouble?  Yes, it is actually.  Most experts and insiders are afraid of a Disney monopoly.  And yet, the game industry is much worse when it comes to acquisitions.

How many companies has EA bought?  Who knows.  A lot right.  Do any of them ever make better games after being bought out?  Another example is Blizzard.  They used to be considered one of the best game companies of all time.  They used to just make hit after hit.  Then they merged with Activision.  Blizzard's decline was slow, but now a lot of people want to boycott the company.  They used to have a pristine reputation and now they are pissing off people left and right.  So the question is: how did this merger help either Blizzard or Activision?  I'm sure it initially looked good on their books, and investors were happy for a short time.  But Blizzard sucks now.  That merger didn't really help anyone long term, especially Blizzard.

So, Disney can buy Marvel, and then Marvel eventually makes a ton of hit movies culminating with Endgame.  Can you think a story in gaming like this?  Where a company is doing ok to good and then get bought out and become awesome?  I definitely can't.  There are a lot more stories where the opposite is happening.  That is why these mergers can create long term problems.

Thank you for giving examples.  At least now I see where you are coming from.  Couldn't hurt to hear some examples of what you think doesn't work, but let's at least look at what you've put here.

1) Microsoft - There strategy of "acquisitions" was really a strategy of eliminating potential threats

2) Google - Something to notice about Google is that they don't buy other search engines. 

So, Disney can buy Marvel, and then Marvel eventually makes a ton of hit movies culminating with Endgame.  Can you think a story in gaming like this?  Where a company is doing ok to good and then get bought out and become awesome?  I definitely can't.  There are a lot more stories where the opposite is happening.  That is why these mergers can create long term problems.