Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony looking to buy more studios

KLXVER said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

It's happening with Japan too.  Nintendo bought Monolift Soft, Square-Enix bought Eidos, and Sega bought Atlus (for example).  A merger or acquisition can make a company's balance sheet look good, but it doesn't necessarily help in the long term.  

So 3 companies over like 20 years. It happens, but not exactly a sign of any doom and gloom.

It wasn't an exhaustive list.    Also, based on this reply, I think you derailed your own question.



Around the Network
pokoko said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:
Frequent mergers and acquisitions are actually a sign of an industry in trouble. A healthy company can grow on its own merits, but a less healthy company can look like it is growing by merging with or acquiring another company. This is not a knock against Sony per se, as this sort of thing is happening all over the game industry. It is just to say the game industry has some important underlying issues which it needs to address or else it will be in big trouble in a generation or two.

A healthy company can grow via acquisition just fine.   Some of the most successful business moves in history have been acquisitions and some of the most successful businesses have a long history of buying smaller businesses.  Trying to paint this as some kind of automatic negative is simply doom mongering.  A bad move is a bad move and a good move is a good move.  

On topic, I think this was inevitable when Microsoft took the initiative.  Competition buying a multi-plat studio isn't just a gain for them, it's a loss for you.  Smart money would be on scanning the market for anyone teetering on the edge.  

Well why don't you give some examples of mergers and acquisitions that were successful, and then some examples of mergers and acquisitions that were unsuccessful?  Then point out what makes one work and another one fail.  

The way this post reads, you are just dismissing me, because you don't know what you are talking about.



The_Liquid_Laser said:
KLXVER said:

So 3 companies over like 20 years. It happens, but not exactly a sign of any doom and gloom.

It wasn't an exhaustive list.    Also, based on this reply, I think you derailed your own question.

How did I derail? Wasn't your concern that the gaming industry was in trouble? I said there is not much evidence of that in other places except the west.



More exclusives. That's never a bad thing!



But no new LoD?
Cowards.



Around the Network

Buy Media.vision Sony and make a new wild Arms, you can do it



The_Liquid_Laser said:
pokoko said:

A healthy company can grow via acquisition just fine.   Some of the most successful business moves in history have been acquisitions and some of the most successful businesses have a long history of buying smaller businesses.  Trying to paint this as some kind of automatic negative is simply doom mongering.  A bad move is a bad move and a good move is a good move.  

On topic, I think this was inevitable when Microsoft took the initiative.  Competition buying a multi-plat studio isn't just a gain for them, it's a loss for you.  Smart money would be on scanning the market for anyone teetering on the edge.  

Well why don't you give some examples of mergers and acquisitions that were successful, and then some examples of mergers and acquisitions that were unsuccessful?  Then point out what makes one work and another one fail.  

The way this post reads, you are just dismissing me, because you don't know what you are talking about.

First of all, you gave no examples at all to backup your claims about acquisitions translating to industries in trouble and unhealthy companies.

As for my post, have you ever heard of Microsoft?  A company with a long history of growth by acquisition?  They've been doing it for decades, starting with the purchase of the company behind the PowerPoint software.  Microsoft is worth over a trillion dollars.  Would you say that they are unhealthy?  If so, please explain why, because the way your post reads, you don't know what you are talking about.

Have you ever heard of Disney?  What about Marvel?  What about Pixar?  Please explain why these acquisitions signaled an unhealthy company and a failing industry, because the way your post reads, you don't know what you are talking about.  

Ever heard of Google?  A company that has made literally hundreds of business acquisitions, including Android and DoubleClick, and used those acquisitions to grow into one of the most market-dominant companies in the world?  Explain why such a practice has actually been bad for Google, because, the way your post reads, you don't know what you are talking about.

Acquisitions are neither inherently good nor inherently bad.  That you're trying to imply otherwise ... well, you get the idea.



I feel like Bluepoint Games is going to be the next acquisition.



Rafie said:
Wouldn't be surprised if it was Kojima Studios or Supermassive Games.

I doubt either will happen.

Kojima Productions is worthless without Kojima. It's risky investing in a studio like this.

And Supermassive have been on a decline ever since Until Dawn. They don't offer much value imho.



think-man said:

 

As part of its latest earnings call, where it also announced that the PlayStation 4 is now the second best-selling home console of all time, the hardware manufacturer said that it will "continue to pursue growth investment opportunities to enhance content IP". In other words, Sony is in talks with more studios in order to bolster its first-party line-up that little bit more.

.

pushsquare is such a rubbush site.

No where in their earnings call did they say they were looking to buy more studios.

Pursue growth investment? Enhance content IP?

These could literally mean doing anything. Merchandising.  Growing current studios.  Getting licenses for other IP (Spiderman, Iron Man, Predator). Working with 3rd parties on exclusives.

Etc.

I'm sure acqusitions are on the table,  but they always have been.