VAMatt said:
The acquisition boom has been fueled by the very low cost of cash. On the one hand, interest rates were super low for borrowing. On the other hand, cash sitting in the bank was making very little money. Basically, cash in the bank was losing value to inflation. So, it makes sense for companies with a lot of cash, like Microsoft, to put that cash to work. So, that made big acquisitions. With the increasing cost of borrowing, and the requisite increase in the ability of cash in the bank to earn a return, acquisitions will naturally slow down. Also, Microsoft has a very clear plan for changing the distribution model. It makes sense for them to have a lot more content that is completely within their control. It is not so clear that having all that first party content would make the same level of sense or Sony and Nintendo. Basically, we're seeing a divergence in the business models, consequently, there's a divergence in the business practices. |
Yep a very on point explanation.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
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"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."