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

Perhaps the engine and VR tech will come in handy later but atm Bethesda seems overpriced. I would estimate their revenue to be 1-1.5B annual so you're looking at a premium of x5-8. Warner bros pulled in 2B revenue was was seen as overpriced for 4B although that's probably due to their IP still being with Warner.

From a user acquisition point I wonder if it is efficient. Going by games sold in a period (BGS afaik only works on two games at a time)

BGS1: Skyrim - 30M

BGS2: Starfield - ??? Lets say 15M

Doom - 5-6M ?

Arkane, Tango, Machine games < 3M.

60M games sold at 8.1B

Insomniac at $220M will sell 40M (SM 20M, RC 5M, Wolverine 15M) in a similar if not shorter timeframe.

MS needed Bethesda for their big IPs so it makes sense. Was it an efficient user acquisition move? Imo no. I will say it is a lot more efficient than going after a public company that trades stock.

So whilst yes, Insomniac will be able to release a ton of quality games that will sell extremely well and likely even shift consoles (Not that anyone has issues on that front at the moment!)

Technology, I.P and services are where the value of the Zenimax purchase is.

Microsoft is building a "game development framework" with Azure Gamestack, shoe-horning in iD Tech and the Creation Engine for example would be a massive boon to that service as it was missing a performant and flexible game engine.

Gamepass is the flag that Microsoft is waving prominently at the moment... Having Elder Scrolls, Doom, Quake, Fallout on Gamepass isn't something that can be understated.

Sony's purchase of Insomniac was just about the games... And as a PS5 owner, I am happy about that purchase considering how highly I rate Insomniac games, they have made some of my favorite games of all time.

So from "just a games perspective" was the Bethesda acquisition efficient? Probably not.
But what I am trying to convey is that it is more than just games that Microsoft gained here.

Robert_Downey_Jr. said:

A very general definition you pulled out to address a very specific situation.  And then worded in a very passive aggressive way.

Look. You are trying to dance around the definition, I am not going to play that game.

Interesting, but don't a lot of MS studios use Unreal. Are you saying they are going to move from Unreal to their own company wide game engine?

From what I've read, different dev teams having to work with a single in house engine has led to many complications (EA with Frostbite, SE with Luminous). Though there have been success like Capcom with RE engine.

Sony and Nintendo are a bit unusual or it speaks about the technical maturity of their teams, as each studio has their own engine (ND, GG, SP, SM, PD etc)