Forums - Sony Discussion - Why Sony's Take-Two Aquisition RUMOR seems possible now?

LudicrousSpeed said:
DonFerrari said:

Please explain to me what irony have in saying the business isn't a very soundy decision, as much as MS putting 2.5B in a game that didn't had assured return of that in profit.

You’re making comments about how little others know about business but then making your own comments proving you don’t know much yourself. I mean look at that last part there you just said about Minecraft, “didn’t had assured return of that in profit”. MS didn’t buy Mojang expecting a quick return of that 2.5B investment. They bought Mojang because they figured Minecraft would make them more money than that 2.5B would collect sitting in a bank earning interest.

Just goes to show the gargantuan difference in funds we’re talking about between the two companies. Sony has a lot less to spend, and a much larger focus on video games to the company as a whole, thus anything they buy must make a much bigger positive impact than MS buying Mojang. Plus the purchase price would be four times as much, minimum. 

Not a very smart comparison if you know a lot about business, which I certainly am not claiming that I do, but when you say some people here know “0” about it, that implies you do know a bit yourself.

Considering MS paid like 5x over the cap of that company there was no certainty in the return. Also as I said (unless you ignored all the times) it isn't the best of the decisions for Sony to fork over 10B on T2.

Now read some of the comments on the thread and you'll see they have 0 ground in business.



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

Around the Network
Azzanation said:

So you would want Sony to spend almost half there Cash on hand for a Publisher/Developers that has the promise of making $6b in however long GTAV has been on the market for? (6 years) Small detail, that $6b is made from GTAV selling over 90m copies, and sorry to say that's not all on Sony's platform.
Google "GTA 5 has now sold over 90 million copies and generated over $6 billion in revenue since its initial release."

What's in it for Take-Two exactly here? With MS investing heavily in Xbox and its eco-system and PC and Nintendo's Switch being the hottest device on the market, you think Take Two don't see the possible venue on the other platforms? They make a fortune selling there games on everything not just 1 platform. So not only will Sony waste almost half there Cash on hand in just there gaming division, the income will be a lot less than what Take Two is making now so it will probably take 10 years for Sony to make there money back on Take Two's purchase.

Also Take-Two wont have to share there profits on there games.

So basically I am just asking the question here, What's in it for Take-Two?

If they were brought out the negatives are..

They have to cross there fingers that Sony's next platform is incredibly successful
The Income they make gets more divided
They limit there games to 1 or 2 platforms
They could possibly lose development freedom

Not to mention their CEO himself, Strauss Zelnick said they're "undermonetizing their customers on a per-user basis".

And limiting their market share helps how?



Azzanation said:
EricHiggin said: 

PS has stayed on their desired path for the most part so far, but little by little the doors seem to be opening. At the every least, it seems like PS is trying to make their library open to more devices, and It's hard to believe some of those devices won't be new future PS products. PS will have no choice in the future but to become as open or more as MS is becoming with everything, or they will have to make sure they can offer their products on as many worthy hardware platforms as possible, theirs or not.

Just create a new GTA or RDR? You make it seem like anybody can just wake up one day and do it, or just because MS has boatloads of money they can do it. All you have to do is look at the history of XB and all the money in the world hasn't made them #1, and they're not far from becoming #3 in the console space as of now, by a product that's had less than half it's time on the market. MS has acquired more studios and outside talent, but while that is necessary to get them started and headed in the right direction, to assume these new copycat titles MS would come out with would hold a candle to franchises like GTA or RDR is a fantasy. That's not to say they couldn't be fun and do well in their own right, but there is good reason no one has bothered to seriously try and compete with Rockstar. When MS says they are going to try and copycat HZD, that makes sense, because it's a brand new hit, and isn't established, so MS has a chance to somewhat easily grab some of that audience, similar to PUBG. That time has basically long past for anything related to Rockstar titles.

Game and Network Services for SNY is at the top of the earner's for them along with financial. Gaming has shown the most growth for them by far as well. In 2014 it made up 7.5% of the companies total income, where as now it's 18%, and financial is only up a couple percent to 11%. With MS looking to gear up against them, and Nin making another big comeback, if SNY doesn't do whats necessary to stay well ahead, they will see that 18% slide. You spend your money where you think you can make the most in the future, but also what's making you money now. Gaming fits both those requirements so there's no reason to think SNY won't spend a hefty amount to keep it's cash cow well fed. Maybe there's cheaper more efficient ways to do that, maybe not. Too much focus on titles 'starting from scratch' in the gaming division, will take away focus from other parts within that division, as well as others within the larger corporation. It might be better to spend the money, make minor changes, and have a small, equal focus on Take Two IP.

Part of the problem with Fortnite is that PS didn't have full control. They really had little control, considering it was not only third party, but F2P. If PS had the same control over Fortnite that MS did with PUBG, they wouldn't, or shouldn't, have had the same problem, because MS didn't for the most part, so. MS played PS like a fiddle that round. Not only did they scoop up PUBG, but they turned gamers against PS with cross play/accounts on Fortnite, an F2P game, something MS locked behind a paywall that PS didn't. I gotta hand it to MS, they really got PS good that time. Shame on PS as well, because they could have handled that so much better and at the very least dispersed the negativity for that matter.

The shareholders may very well only care about the extra they will make from the buyout. Very likely so I would imagine, because it has been on a steady decline for a while now, plus if Take Two stock now falls under the SNY brand and it's stock, while it'll be more secure and stable, it also won't see the gains that Take Two's stock did. SNY stock doesn't tend to fluctuate too much. If I were a Take Two investor, I would sell during the buyout, no doubt. As for the brands, all will be fine overall. If you want GTA or RDR, your going to have to buy a PS device or service if exclusive. This may not happen with dedicated hard core gamers who are upset, but those brands have grown to a level where they only require the masses now, and they don't care too much about platform, they just want those games. All PS has to do is make sure what they already offer meets or exceeds expectations, and it will draw people in, including the hardcore, even if it's not for or against Rockstar games initially. While I agree corporations are always pushing to make more money, sometimes you have to flat line if not take a hit, to make sure your ready for the future due to competition.

While I don't necessarily think exclusive would be the best way to go overall, while SIE titles like HZD and GOW are system sellers, they wouldn't hold a candle to what GTA and RDR would do for PS console sales if they were exclusive. This could even be seen as a way for PS to potentially try and push XB out of the hardware market and solely into online services.

Well for starters MS probably spend just as much money in there gaming devision than Sony. MS invest in what they believe they will make back, thats why they are where they are in the food chain.

How many companies have tried making a GTA game? Its a big investment and there isnt a need to because we have a company already doing it. Any company can make a GTA game, weather it be good is another story but a big investment in the genre will create something atleast half decent and who knows, might be better. If GTA was to be locked away to one plastic box than expect a new openworld IP that the competitors will invest in.

Thats just the way the market works.

Keep in mind that console net sales of $5.33bn probably doesn't include the expenses to make the hardware as RnD for console projects have been near the $3bn mark on the low side. So if you subtract take that away from the net sale you will notice it doesn't leave you with much. And that's if the PS4 cost $3bn to make, could be 4 or 5. The PS3 was around the 5bn to 6bn mark as a guide line.

EDITED - And just to add to the poster below, Anyone can make a clone game, If a company like MS want to spend money to make a GTA/RDR clone they very well can. They haven't and they don't plan to as we know. But any company can do it with the right amount of money behind the project. Lets not kid ourselves and think that because MS are richer as a whole equals they spend more on developing games and that there games are mediocre = MS money means nothing. Money means something when a company actually spends it. MS don't or haven't invested major in there 1st party departments for quite some time now and the games that came out are normally around the business average to make. If Sony brought Take-Two for $10bn, MS will spend $100m and make there own GTA game and promote the crap out of it which will put pressure on the $10bn business decision that would have made. Weather a clone will be better than GTA will be assumed as no body will know until it actually happens. So lets not talk about current games to future games. At one stage Sony couldn't make great games either or were a dime a dozen. Things change.

Hardware isn't supposed to be a money maker. That's the way it's always been in the console industry. You also have to take inflation into account when your talking about PS3 and PS4 cost to design and manufacture.

GTA isn't the only thing that comes with that $10 bil. There's 20+ games that come with that deal. It's estimated that GTAV cost around $250 mil from start to finish. RDR2 is estimated to be between $250 mil and $500 mil. To make 20 similar AAA games from scratch, with the same input costs to compete, would cost at least $5 bil, not to mention all the work to make that happen, which would be A LOT. Meanwhile, PS would be able to sit back and let T2 bring in big money, while MS will be doing everything possible to scrape what they can away from those already established franchises. If GTA6 costs $500 mil, then MS would probably have to spend $750 mil just to stand a chance in competing with it, especially in marketing. You also have to consider, how much MS has been making off T2 titles, on XB and PC, and all of that will be gone if SNY were to make them exclusive to the PS brand.



EricHiggin said:

Hardware isn't supposed to be a money maker. That's the way it's always been in the console industry. You also have to take inflation into account when your talking about PS3 and PS4 cost to design and manufacture.

GTA isn't the only thing that comes with that $10 bil. There's 20+ games that come with that deal. It's estimated that GTAV cost around $250 mil from start to finish. RDR2 is estimated to be between $250 mil and $500 mil. To make 20 similar AAA games from scratch, with the same input costs to compete, would cost at least $5 bil, not to mention all the work to make that happen, which would be A LOT. Meanwhile, PS would be able to sit back and let T2 bring in big money, while MS will be doing everything possible to scrape what they can away from those already established franchises. If GTA6 costs $500 mil, then MS would probably have to spend $750 mil just to stand a chance in competing with it, especially in marketing. You also have to consider, how much MS has been making off T2 titles, on XB and PC, and all of that will be gone if SNY were to make them exclusive to the PS brand.

Of course Hardware isnt meant to make the bulk of the money. So the chart is not exactly a good example here. RnD eats up alot of the net sales profits. Its why MS care more about the software side of things.

Sure Sony gains access to 20 other games,  however alot of them are not industry leading games and wont be making its money back on the purchase. If games like GTA get locked behind a paywall than why cant MS invest in there own GTA? It will cost 1/10 of the price and they wont have the burden of owning a big studio to do so, also the market will welcome it as its the only way to play a GTA game if they game on other platforms so T2 will be opening up there own competition except this time it will be competing with a game thats on majority of platforms. Its Possible.

Also owning a buisness isnt as easy as purchasing and sitting back. There is alot more involved plus a bunch more staff to pay and manage. It could work but it can also be a huge waste of cash leaving Sony weaker against competitors like Samsung. 



Azzanation said:
EricHiggin said:

Hardware isn't supposed to be a money maker. That's the way it's always been in the console industry. You also have to take inflation into account when your talking about PS3 and PS4 cost to design and manufacture.

GTA isn't the only thing that comes with that $10 bil. There's 20+ games that come with that deal. It's estimated that GTAV cost around $250 mil from start to finish. RDR2 is estimated to be between $250 mil and $500 mil. To make 20 similar AAA games from scratch, with the same input costs to compete, would cost at least $5 bil, not to mention all the work to make that happen, which would be A LOT. Meanwhile, PS would be able to sit back and let T2 bring in big money, while MS will be doing everything possible to scrape what they can away from those already established franchises. If GTA6 costs $500 mil, then MS would probably have to spend $750 mil just to stand a chance in competing with it, especially in marketing. You also have to consider, how much MS has been making off T2 titles, on XB and PC, and all of that will be gone if SNY were to make them exclusive to the PS brand.

Of course Hardware isnt meant to make the bulk of the money. So the chart is not exactly a good example here. RnD eats up alot of the net sales profits. Its why MS care more about the software side of things.

Sure Sony gains access to 20 other games,  however alot of them are not industry leading games and wont be making its money back on the purchase. If games like GTA get locked behind a paywall than why cant MS invest in there own GTA? It will cost 1/10 of the price and they wont have the burden of owning a big studio to do so, also the market will welcome it as its the only way to play a GTA game if they game on other platforms so T2 will be opening up there own competition except this time it will be competing with a game thats on majority of platforms. Its Possible.

Also owning a buisness isnt as easy as purchasing and sitting back. There is alot more involved plus a bunch more staff to pay and manage. It could work but it can also be a huge waste of cash leaving Sony weaker against competitors like Samsung. 

Hardware was 1/5th of the chart. The bulk of the conversation and the main point is about software. Exclusive software means nothing if gamers don't have your hardware though.

Some of the games are not near the same level as GTA, but that doesn't mean they won't make their money back on the purchase. It also means those lesser games don't cost T2 that much to make either then, unless PS were to give them bigger budgets. The fact they will get extra marketing because they would be a PS exclusive is something they may not have had before, and marketing means a lot in today's world, while past budgets and sales back that up. You think just tasking a random studio that's available with making a GTA knockoff with 1/10th the budget will be able to produce something that compete's on a level that's worth worrying about for PS? Look at what it took some of the PS first party studios that are well established to create worthwhile games that sold millions, and they didn't have much competition either in certain genres. Now add GTA as your competitor and you'd be lucky to sell a couple million copies, vs how many tens of millions of GTA copies? Lets assume MS does this, and by the 3rd iteration in the series they've caught up to GTA. By then T2 has been paid off already anyway, and other games that MS could have made, weren't, because of the new GTA knockoff focus. That likely means there were other PS games that didn't receive XB competition and made tonnes of money. PS doesn't care if GTA makes the money or is a distraction, as long as the money comes in one way or another.

Is any or all of it possible? Sure, but I'd have to say while PS purchasing T2 is unlikely, MS trying to directly compete with those big franchises is far more unlikely, and MS making a copycat and coming anywhere near to GTA success in general, if ever, is highly unlikely. SNY obviously would need to reorganize T2 and probably add some positions and remove others. When you spend billions of dollars acquiring a company, you don't do so because your bored and need something to do quickly. SNY will have planned everything out as much as possible and will be ready to execute asap, once the deal was final, baring a few exceptions along the way.



Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
Azzanation said:

Of course Hardware isnt meant to make the bulk of the money. So the chart is not exactly a good example here. RnD eats up alot of the net sales profits. Its why MS care more about the software side of things.

Sure Sony gains access to 20 other games,  however alot of them are not industry leading games and wont be making its money back on the purchase. If games like GTA get locked behind a paywall than why cant MS invest in there own GTA? It will cost 1/10 of the price and they wont have the burden of owning a big studio to do so, also the market will welcome it as its the only way to play a GTA game if they game on other platforms so T2 will be opening up there own competition except this time it will be competing with a game thats on majority of platforms. Its Possible.

Also owning a buisness isnt as easy as purchasing and sitting back. There is alot more involved plus a bunch more staff to pay and manage. It could work but it can also be a huge waste of cash leaving Sony weaker against competitors like Samsung. 

Hardware was 1/5th of the chart. The bulk of the conversation and the main point is about software. Exclusive software means nothing if gamers don't have your hardware though.

Some of the games are not near the same level as GTA, but that doesn't mean they won't make their money back on the purchase. It also means those lesser games don't cost T2 that much to make either then, unless PS were to give them bigger budgets. The fact they will get extra marketing because they would be a PS exclusive is something they may not have had before, and marketing means a lot in today's world, while past budgets and sales back that up. You think just tasking a random studio that's available with making a GTA knockoff with 1/10th the budget will be able to produce something that compete's on a level that's worth worrying about for PS? Look at what it took some of the PS first party studios that are well established to create worthwhile games that sold millions, and they didn't have much competition either in certain genres. Now add GTA as your competitor and you'd be lucky to sell a couple million copies, vs how many tens of millions of GTA copies? Lets assume MS does this, and by the 3rd iteration in the series they've caught up to GTA. By then T2 has been paid off already anyway, and other games that MS could have made, weren't, because of the new GTA knockoff focus. That likely means there were other PS games that didn't receive XB competition and made tonnes of money. PS doesn't care if GTA makes the money or is a distraction, as long as the money comes in one way or another.

Is any or all of it possible? Sure, but I'd have to say while PS purchasing T2 is unlikely, MS trying to directly compete with those big franchises is far more unlikely, and MS making a copycat and coming anywhere near to GTA success in general, if ever, is highly unlikely. SNY obviously would need to reorganize T2 and probably add some positions and remove others. When you spend billions of dollars acquiring a company, you don't do so because your bored and need something to do quickly. SNY will have planned everything out as much as possible and will be ready to execute asap, once the deal was final, baring a few exceptions along the way.

We should start by asking ourselves how MS that struggled to get 70+ score games this gen on new IPs and a lot of sequels would go there and make a 95 game (not even asking about GTA clone itself). I have to also ask, if MS is capable of creating these games why haven't they so far?



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

We're still debating this?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

GTA and Max Payne exclusive on the playstation is huge if it happens
It's my dream to play take two games specially GTA only on the Playstation



REQUIESCAT IN PACE

I Hate REMASTERS

I Hate PLAYSTATION PLUS