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.
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.
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