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

As I said before, why would Sony care if a third party company absorbed another third party company? They could still have the same studio make exclusive games for their device being part of Embracer Group just like they could with them being independent. EA/Ubisoft/Embracer/Blizzard/etc. are not threats to any of the Big Three. They make deals all the time to create exclusives for specific devices, especially Platinum, all it requires is cash up front just like any other exclusive deal with independent studios. But if Nintendo or Microsoft buy a studio (or Apple/Amazon/Google if any of them can get their act together), then that locks those games behind their platform/service. Nintendo isn't a threat for that since they buy studios so rarely. Microsoft wants to take over whatever industry they set their eyes on. They don't always fully commit, more so in the past, such as the Zune, and fail because of that. But when they do commit, they dominate. All the purchases MS has made in the last 5 years tells me one thing: They are here to dominate. And they have an absurd amount of money. All those juicy profits coming from Officer 365 subscribers are being pumped into taking over so many industries and gaming is one of them they have set their eyes upon.

Sony isn't in a position to buy studios like MS is, so when they have an opportunity to do so they have to take it. Their former leader just admitted to how gaming expenses are doubling each generation and how that isn't sustainable. He knows exactly what financial situation Sony is in recent history, so for him to complain like that shows how little buying power Sony has right now, whereas Phil Spencer seems like he could reach into any bag in his officer and find butt load of money to buy another developer any minute. This is the atmosphere I was talking about and why I think Sony is defensively buying studios up MS absorbs them into its empire.

That should be incredibly obvious why.

What's the reason they buy studios in the first place? If they can just make third party deals? Why does Playstation studios exist?

Obviously, complete control of the IP, tech and development. See how years of mismanaging studios has affected MS and their IP. (Bungie, Epic, Remedy etc.) They can grow teams, share the tech and have multiple studios working on the same project etc. Third party studios are freelance, they will go with the best available deal. They can also leverage prices higher and higher depending on the value of their service. Nothing is guaranteed and they don't have the same level of control over development. We've also seen multiple high profile third party deals fall through. 

Completely wrong. Of course these companies are a threat. They're consolidating the open market and definitely have long term plans- that could include their own console or streaming service. 

Incorrect as well, just because MS commit funds does not mean they dominate. Plenty of examples of huge failures on MS' part, despite an open check book. 

You don't seem to have a clue about the financials of either company-pure speculation based on the notion MS: Rich, Sony: Poor and the fallacy that unlimited funding leads to control of a market. Sony have committed to spending $18.39 billion on strategic investments over the next 3 years. They've never been healthier, more cash flush and or as active in investments as they are now. The fact they've just bought 3 studios and are obviously out muscling MS on third party deals and advertising should tell you as much. 

I don't think any of the recent studios were at risk of MS making a play for them, but Embracer group? definitely. 

From what we know the studios MS gone after were either struggling, already had long history with MS or were multiplatform. We haven't even heard of they going after any studio that was mostly developing for Sony.

And we know as you said of Read at Dawn with Facebook and there is also Quantic Dream with Tecent from studios very tied to Sony.

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

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"

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