everytime when i see microsoft buying into games nowdays, all i can think of is this: "well... just another piece of entertainment that might impress this guy."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2ifYunhT7s

thanks but i'll pass.

I've never understood fans of some companies getting upset that other companies spend money. Nintendo caters only to fans of their franchises almost to the point of alienating 3rd party companies. This allows them to sell their games for maximum MSRP all generation long and make tons of money, even in gens where they sell a lot less hardware. Sony got into the industry by spending money, telling publishers to keep money with lower royalty fees, and eating up huge losses on hardware to get their feet in the door. And when they had money, they spent it on exclusive deals. Now they have a lot less money, so they make smaller deals. Anyone who thinks Sony would not buy the Gears IP or Titanfall being exclusive if they had the money to make it viable, are just kidding themselves.

But we see people say this is "bad for gaming" and they are a "cancer to the industry" and "M$". Why? Competition makes everything better. It's like some of you want every console to be a mirror image of one another and play the same games. Is it bad that $ony doesn't allow Naughty Dog to put Uncharted 4 on the Wii U? Shouldn't Nintendough make an Xbox One port of Wonderful 101? Please. Did any $ony fan complain that $ony moneyhatted thatgamecompany for 3 games last gen, or did they point out that those games were amazing and won GOTY awards or some shit? Even now, how many times have we been reminded that "the best exclusive next gen game is on PS4!". And what is that game? A game from a 3rd party developer that $ony funded and then put on P$+, which means that $ony not only moneyhatted the game by paying for it, but $ony also had to go Inception style moneyhatting and provide another level of moneyhats for the game being on P$+. Not sure why this double standard exists but it's funny to read.

The idea that this "limits" developers is also nonsense. For starters, the developers are the ones who design the games and sign the contracts. If this were in any way negative to them or "limiting", they aren't good developers and reap what they sow anyway. However, you plug away at projects and that opens up more possibilities. This isn't logic that is limited to gaming. You hear musicians and authors and actors say they same things all the time. You do big jobs to make money to fund the other stuff. Did anyone think $ony was "limiting" Naughty Dog when they were on a 6 year Uncharted cycle? No. Not only did that allow ND to create 3 successful games, it also allowed them the freedom to make Last of Us. Did Epic Games only do Gears last gen? No, they also did UT, Infinity Blade, Shadow Complex, Bulletstorm, etc. And are doing Fortnite right now.

It just seems like bitterness. Upset that MS is making Titanfall never come to Playstation. Or you have to wait a month for CoD DLC. There's nothing wrong with the business strategy, all companies do it. Get over it.

I guess the real question is : does it work for MICROSOFT? I'm not addressing whether or not their methods are beneficial to Gamers or the gaming industry, because Microsoft doesn't have a responsibility to EITHER of those two. Does it work for Microsoft? I think we're all pretty unanimous on the answer to that question...

The alternative way would be to buy the studio and never let them work on other platforms again, just like Sony did with Sucker Punch.

OR buy the studio and never let them work on other platforms again... and shut them down a couple of years later. Like Sony did with Psygnosis (SCE Liverpool) bought in 2001, closed in 2012, or Zipper Interactive, bought in 2006, closed in 2012, or BigBig, bought in 2007, closed in 2012.

Would you prefer MS to buy Epic and close them in 2019?
Instead they bought an IP that might or might not have been continued, hired a lot of developers to produce the next chapter of this franchise and let Epic develop whatever they want. Please tell me, how is this worse?

MS Lamented buying studios and creating new IP's. Halo was in development before they bought it. Gears was funded by them because they believed in Epics promise and Killer Instinct came as a perk of owning Rares library of IP's after they purchased them. Its all worth it to me. Buying IP's from people works for MS, and their track record in the industry proves it. Their internal game isn't that strong. Owning proven franchises strengthens their brand. This is good. Microsoft has done a lot of moneyhatting, but this is the first time I can say their moneyhatting actually has a valid reason. Epic was going to put Gears on the backburner and Gears is a moneymaker for Microsoft soo.....

Lol, I love these threads.

Is there really a difference between buying a game and owning a studio?

Buying studio that makes new games, loses independence to make games for other platforms = good.
Buying exclusive rights to new game made by studio, but studio can still have independence=bad.

That's one-sided. Owning a studio also keeps the games from reaching other users.Buying a game can also make a new game. See Bayonetta 2 that wouldn't have happened if Nintendo didn't buy it.

Buying a studio is essentially just buying every game a studio makes.

on a side note: i don't care if you're investing into single games or whole studios (allthough i still think you should at least have a few long term contracts with selected studios in whose creative talent you trust if you really care about gaming as entertainment medium) but when your big exclusives are dead rising, ryse, titanfall and gears of war i'm not "investing" into your product and your vision of gaming at all.