S.T.A.G.E. said:
The Naughty Dog you know today is not the Naughty Dog Sony purchased. They bought the talent and turned the studio around and it worked out in their favor. Microsoft bought Rare and look what happened.Sony had a vision of making cinematic/pixar like experiences and aligned themselves with developers who did the same. If you notice that Sony only purhcases devs that go through the intiation process of making what they creatively would like and reach some form of success so that they can have a successful range of games that they both can agree on making. This does not equate with how Microsoft ran their devs. I dont know how good Epics relationship with Microsoft was when they kept nagging them to make Gears for them. Creative people want to make new things. You cannot just make the same game forever. That is the EA, Activision and Ubisoft philosophy and Microsoft mirrors it so well. If Phil Spencer would focus on making dedicated studios to certain types of games and they wouldnt have many issues. |
Yeah, and I'm saying M$ should do the same. They don't necessarily have to build studios from the ground up to make their games. If a studio develops a hit IP for M$, they don't need to go and build a new internal studio to make more games in that series, they need only buy the developer. This wouldn't be a RARE situation. It'd be more like M$ buying up Playground Games.
Also, I dunno if it's fair to lump Ubisoft in with Activision, EA, and Microsoft when it comes to milking IP's. They're actually pretty good about bringing out new stuff, their problem is that a lot of their new ideas stick too closely to what is now known as the ubisoft formula.
Essay Pro