By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
LurkerJ on 05 February 2023
Edit Thread
EpicRandy said:

This does not seems to refer to what you have quoted so I'm a bit confused here. My quote was about creating and building studios not IPs. Studios takes time to build and grow and it's true for every actor. MS is making a $70B investment here if they were to do the same investment by only growing organically it would take many years to materialize (more than likely 10-15years+) and the same would be true for Sony or Nintendo.

I think it applies for both IPs and studios really, SONY can't wake up one day and ask Santa Monica to make a successful Call of Duty or mutliplayer game, that's not what the studio was built for. Although I feel like I have probably missed the point you're trying to make here as I don't have the time to lurk around here as much anymore. 

EpicRandy said:

I'll just say I disagree here. All big tech have done their fare share of copying others but don't see how this relates to the topic.

True, there are big tech companies that copy from each other.... and there is MS. 

EpicRandy said:

Never said MS would be done with acquisition afterward just don't believe any would be on the same scale. and my logic is:

  • MS is doing this acquisition because of GamePass. 
  • The number of studios MS would gain out of the transaction will significantly rise their production capacity (36 studios many with more than 1 team and Xbox games studios doing many 2nd party deals (probably 50+ projects in parallel))
  • Considering development time MS may expect 8-10+ AAA/year
  • There's a point where you will hit diminishing returns on your investment for service like GamePass
    • The point where most literally don't need any more reason to subscribe 
    • The point where you can already churn out AAA on a regular basis
    • The point were you already cover all types

I don't think it is illogical to think MS cannot expect linear or near-linear growth out of GamePass from another $70B investment so will more than likely resort to smaller and more targeted acquisition. How is this not logical?

"your opinion on why it's not going to happen flies in the face of MS publicly stated intents" can you quote MS saying they would do another $70B deal in the future?

No, I can't quote MS saying they would do another $70B deal in the future, this is silly. A made up metric you came up with to dismiss valid arguments. 

Even if I accept your made up metric and assume MS will only buy smaller companies from now on; this doesn't lessen the effect of these buyouts because cumulative and snowball effects are important factors in how the world works. You are refusing to see that buying companies that are, 10 times smaller than AKB, would cause another shift in the market. MS can buy easily buy Ubisoft next on top of what they have, a company that's tenth the size of AKB, and that will lead to a much bigger effect of Ubisoft was the only company they ended buying. The whole can always be greater than the sum of the parts, and it often is in business. Your made up rules on what count and what doesn't are frankly meaningless. 

EpicRandy said:

Also my argument is not at odds with MS publicly stated intent.

  • Do MS stated they want to do more acquisition -> yes.
  • Do MS stated they want to do other acquisitions of the same scale of ABK-> no, not to my knowledge.
  • Can MS do another acquisition on the scale of ABK -> yes. 
  • Would it make sense -> Maybe but more likely not.
  • is it relevant to the ABK acquisition -> Not at all.

Ignoring how you actually want to convince me that MS won't buy another big publisher, buying smaller publishers on top of Bethesda and AKB doesn't invalidate my arguments. 

"the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" is the driving force behind many business practices.  I don't see how you can agree that MS will buy more companies in the future consolidate more of the market under their wing and say those future buyouts aren't relevant, because again, what you are arguing flies in the face of how established business practices work.  

And again, even if we accept your made up business plans and made up rules, MS can still spend another $70b buying multiple smaller studios and I end up being validated, because you can buy 10 more smaller studios instead of a massive one and achieve a similar outcome.

  • Can MS buy 10 studios for 70B dollars -> yes
  • Would it make sense -> maybe but more likely not 
  • are they relevant -> not at all. 

I am being sarcastic, obviously.