This ranks among the most tedious & stupid arguments leveraged by fanboys.  In all likelihood, they've scoped out big acquisition deals too but inevitably been priced out.

I don't understand how you could reach said conclusion.  If a big publisher with well-established IPs is communicating they're willing to be purchased, the bigger players are going to come to see if they've got a shot.  This is a bog-standard expectation.

Regardless of this point, the "organically grown" line regarding acquisitions should just be considered artificial fanboy points.

Within the gaming sphere: AT&T signaled its willingness to sell WB Interactive division to offset the obscene amount of debt it currently has.  EA, Take-Two, Activision, and Microsoft had shown interest (either in their own words or according to AT&T higher-ups).  Remove what I said about "well-established IPs" and change "publisher" to x, y, or z, and that sentence could be applied to dozens of other market sectors.  That's why it's bog-standard to me.

On its own, it's not.  It can just be a descriptor.  Through the lens of "console wars," it's a cheap gotcha masquerading as a point.  These businesses aren't cultivating a fucking garden or investing in a "relationship" before marriage.  It's an industry that runs on money for creatives to achieve their vision.  As such, how said companies go about with their money is going to depend on their best successes.  Just look at what's consistently made it for Microsoft 3 & 4 gens in: Gears of War, Halo, and Forza.  Fable IS coming back was effectively extinct for a whole gen.  Whether fanboys like it or not, Microsoft's history reveals an uncanny knack to scout 3rd-party talent that've made the Xbox brand what it is today.  Compare that to homegrown ventures during 8th gen (Lionhead, Press Play, the Project Spark team) and it's clear which path brings them more consistent success.

That's what makes it so artificial: how can you possibly expect a business to not make the kind of moves that've bred the most success for them?  Of all people Jim Ryan should know that; and I believe he does.  That's what makes MBG's title so cringe: "PlayStation Boss who would do the same thing IF his company had that much money takes shots at company who does."

You understand you're combining two different things here, right?  Because I've never caught wind of a lot of the fanbase's demands extending to "we want to you to create a bunch of new studios from the ground-up."  The pulse of the fanbase, AND the majority of critics, stuck to something much simpler: they simply need more studios.  Not to mention a couple of those ARE built from the ground-up (World's Edge & The Initiative) and two others are 2nd-party studios brought into the fold (Playground Games & Undead Labs).

Sigh...

You're giving me that feeling of losing the plot while continuing to argue again.  

What do you mean?  I was giving a typical rebuttal to your "it is very unlikely that both companies were trying to bid for the same companies" line by just pointing out how such deals tend to happen: there's likely a select few bigger companies vying for the smaller company's attention.  I provided an example of multiple bigger publishers (financially) who were interested in acquiring WB Interactive.  I don't follow how you think the likes of Sony weren't at least interested in pursuing their options of purchasing ZeniMax as well--especially since Zeni had been open about being acquired before.  You asked for an example and I provided one.  Any more debate going down this avenue is going to look like you're moving the goalposts.

I mean...Sony could do a number of things.  Beating MS' price of $7.5billion for ZeniMax, though?  Sure, they have more net worth that that, but Jim Ryan would've had to make a blood oath to those shareholders for them to be okay with it.  But that's beside the point.  "That is basically a difference in strategy..."  So you agree with my point, then?  That using this "organically grown" as some kind of fanboy 'own' (as is often personified on the internet) is a ridiculous thing to do?

I got lost in the weeds there.  I thought your "fanboy point?" part was talking about how conversely that's what MS fans wanted or something.  Anyways...

Sigh...

You're giving me that feeling of losing the plot while continuing to argue again.  

What do you mean?  I was giving a typical rebuttal to your "it is very unlikely that both companies were trying to bid for the same companies" line by just pointing out how such deals tend to happen: there's likely a select few bigger companies vying for the smaller company's attention.  I provided an example of multiple bigger publishers (financially) who were interested in acquiring WB Interactive.  I don't follow how you think the likes of Sony weren't at least interested in pursuing their options of purchasing ZeniMax as well--especially since Zeni had been open about being acquired before.  You asked for an example and I provided one.  Any more debate going down this avenue is going to look like you're moving the goalposts.

I mean...Sony could do a number of things.  Beating MS' price of $7.5billion for ZeniMax, though?  Sure, they have more net worth that that, but Jim Ryan would've had to make a blood oath to those shareholders for them to be okay with it.  But that's beside the point.  "That is basically a difference in strategy..."  So you agree with my point, then?  That using this "organically grown" as some kind of fanboy 'own' (as is often personified on the internet) is a ridiculous thing to do?

I got lost in the weeds there.  I thought your "fanboy point?" part was talking about how conversely that's what MS fans wanted or something.  Anyways...

Put simply: because I was under no obligation to based on what you initially asked.  This part of the chain started off with "...it is very unlikely that both companies were trying to bid for the same companies."  Correct me if I'm wrong but I figured that meant both MS & Sony.  I respond back with a generalized statement that kind of bidding/acquisition stuff happens quite often and provided an example.  It seems like you agree with my general sentiment now, so I'm even more confused why you're pushing this argument.

What are you talking about?  This demand is even more tenuous than the previous.  I'm not making a declarative statement as though Sony, MS, & other companies were at a ZeniMax auction.  I'm responding to the context of what you'd previously said "Sony could have purchased any of these studios too."  Your anecdotal story, though interesting, doesn't really progress this argument any further.  And I never even intimated I believed this is what happens at any time in this conversation.  That's just plucked out of nowhere.

My best guess: doesn't violate any site rules or expected decorum.  Could be crazy though.  Report it if you feel so inclined.  But I must ask you not to reply back to me if you're only complaining about what a mod did to you at some other time.  I'm trying to keep my full attention on Don's quick, illuminating responses that have to do with the topic(s) at hand.  Accept my sincerest thanks in advance, fellow patron of the PlayStation Arts.

Guys, you don't necessarily disagree.
- DonFerrari is saying that the premise of the video is right in that Sony's strategy seems to be to found new studios internally, grow existing studios in size with more teams, and only acquire studios if they're already 2nd party.
- Coolbeans is saying that the idea on forums that console makers should only found new studios internally or grow their existing ones instead of acquiring 3rd parties doesn't always make sense in reality and that Sony would probably buy 3rd parties as well if the opportunity arises.

You're both right.
- Internally: Sony's current list of studios consists of internally founded (Pixelopus, Polyphony Digital, SIE Japan, SIE London, SIE San Diego, SIE Santa Monica) and acquired 2nd party studios (Bend, Guerrilla, Insomniac, Media Molecule, Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch). Some of these have then grown over time (SIE Japan, SIE Santa Monica, Naughty Dog, Guerrilla, Insomniac are all said to be multi-team studios now).
- Externally: The recent quote from Jim Ryan was: "We plan to grow our studio capability organically but where we can bolster our in-house capability with selective M&A that might be possible." Considering that M&A means mergers and acquisitions, it's obvious that Sony will consider acquiring studios as well if said studios match or strategically broaden their lineup.