By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony acquires FireSprite Studios

Dulfite said:

So you don't think Sony being concerned about MS buying this studio up, whom they have worked with over the years on PS exclusives, is a factor? If anything their importance to PSVR that you mentioned highlights more of a reason on Sony's part to prevent these types of studios from being bought out by MS. And sure, they've not made xbox games before, but if MS likes the quality of their games and they are willing to spend billions of $ on obtaining studios, why wouldn't they want to add a quality candidate that happens to have a history of working with, primarily, Sony? 

I honestly think the sentiment is correct, but the company is wrong. It's not MS they're worried about, I think their eyes are on Embracer Group (77 studios) who are having an absolute field day snatching up developers all across Europe.

Nixxes, Housemarque and FireSprite are all European developers. 



 

Around the Network
mjk45 said:
Dulfite said:

Makes sense for them to do it. Definetly a preventitive move. I just doubt Sony would be buying some of the studios they have bought had Microsoft not gone on a spending spree. Some of them they would have bought either way, I suspect, but others were dependent on this climate we find ourselves in I think.

This purchase was clearly aimed at PSVR2 and since VR is something that MS clearly isn't involved in it is definitely not a preventative move.

Really? You don't think MS, a company that is constantly entering markets it hasn't been in, isn't looking into VR? If Sony is making profit off of it then Microsoft absolutely would make profit off of it and will no doubt get into it. What better way to enter it than having proven developers that have made VR games? I stand by that this was a preventative move.



Dulfite said:
mjk45 said:

This purchase was clearly aimed at PSVR2 and since VR is something that MS clearly isn't involved in it is definitely not a preventative move.

Really? You don't think MS, a company that is constantly entering markets it hasn't been in, isn't looking into VR? If Sony is making profit off of it then Microsoft absolutely would make profit off of it and will no doubt get into it. What better way to enter it than having proven developers that have made VR games? I stand by that this was a preventative move.

Phil has constantly stated that they aren't looking at entering the VR space, now of course MS will keep at eye on VR like they do with all video game technology but they aren't acting upon it so no it has nothing to do with MS but all to do Sony with expanding it's VR capacity by buying a company with historic links to itself .



People are sleeping on VR. Its the next evolution for not only a large part (note I said part, traditional gaming will still exist) of gaming but also computer interaction with VR/AR. Every big tech company knows this and every big tech company knows gaming is absolutely fundamental to VR.

Facebook have mentioned their VR metaverse. Epic, with Fortnite, has mentioned its idea of a VR metaverse. Tencent has talked about it.

At the moment, the ones with an advantage in the VR space, due to having both hardware and exclusive software, is Sony, Facebook and Valve. Sony actually have one of the most VR experienced dev pipelines. They let Ready at Dawn slip imo, acquired by Facebook.

Firesprite will be crucial for PSVR2.



Robert_Downey_Jr. said:
Pemalite said:

Industry is clearly consolidating... And Microsoft and Sony are focused on inorganic growth via acquisitions, then will likely provide these studios with additional resources/technology/infrastructure to create additional organic growth.

Wondering when Nintendo will start doing some acquisitions, it's got $14~ billion smacko's in the bank at the moment...

This Sony one and their past one are quite organic.  Usually Sony will buy studios that they published most of their games beforehand anyway so they were already exclusive and funded

A purchase, any purchase... Is inorganic growth.

Already owning a studio and growing it creatively and via investment is organic growth.

Sony and Microsoft are doing both, Sony more so as their wallets aren't as fat as Microsoft's.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
Robert_Downey_Jr. said:

This Sony one and their past one are quite organic.  Usually Sony will buy studios that they published most of their games beforehand anyway so they were already exclusive and funded

A purchase, any purchase... Is inorganic growth.

Already owning a studio and growing it creatively and via investment is organic growth.

Sony and Microsoft are doing both, Sony more so as their wallets aren't as fat as Microsoft's.

I just disagree entirely with your first line.  If you helped them grow and you've been partners for years including exclusives for their biggest games thats organic to me.



I am Iron Man

Dallinor said:
Dulfite said:

So you don't think Sony being concerned about MS buying this studio up, whom they have worked with over the years on PS exclusives, is a factor? If anything their importance to PSVR that you mentioned highlights more of a reason on Sony's part to prevent these types of studios from being bought out by MS. And sure, they've not made xbox games before, but if MS likes the quality of their games and they are willing to spend billions of $ on obtaining studios, why wouldn't they want to add a quality candidate that happens to have a history of working with, primarily, Sony? 

I honestly think the sentiment is correct, but the company is wrong. It's not MS they're worried about, I think their eyes are on Embracer Group (77 studios) who are having an absolute field day snatching up developers all across Europe.

Nixxes, Housemarque and FireSprite are all European developers. 

As I said before, why would Sony care if a third party company absorbed another third party company? They could still have the same studio make exclusive games for their device being part of Embracer Group just like they could with them being independent. EA/Ubisoft/Embracer/Blizzard/etc. are not threats to any of the Big Three. They make deals all the time to create exclusives for specific devices, especially Platinum, all it requires is cash up front just like any other exclusive deal with independent studios. But if Nintendo or Microsoft buy a studio (or Apple/Amazon/Google if any of them can get their act together), then that locks those games behind their platform/service. Nintendo isn't a threat for that since they buy studios so rarely. Microsoft wants to take over whatever industry they set their eyes on. They don't always fully commit, more so in the past, such as the Zune, and fail because of that. But when they do commit, they dominate. All the purchases MS has made in the last 5 years tells me one thing: They are here to dominate. And they have an absurd amount of money. All those juicy profits coming from Officer 365 subscribers are being pumped into taking over so many industries and gaming is one of them they have set their eyes upon.

Sony isn't in a position to buy studios like MS is, so when they have an opportunity to do so they have to take it. Their former leader just admitted to how gaming expenses are doubling each generation and how that isn't sustainable. He knows exactly what financial situation Sony is in recent history, so for him to complain like that shows how little buying power Sony has right now, whereas Phil Spencer seems like he could reach into any bag in his officer and find butt load of money to buy another developer any minute. This is the atmosphere I was talking about and why I think Sony is defensively buying studios up MS absorbs them into its empire.



mjk45 said:
Dulfite said:

Really? You don't think MS, a company that is constantly entering markets it hasn't been in, isn't looking into VR? If Sony is making profit off of it then Microsoft absolutely would make profit off of it and will no doubt get into it. What better way to enter it than having proven developers that have made VR games? I stand by that this was a preventative move.

Phil has constantly stated that they aren't looking at entering the VR space, now of course MS will keep at eye on VR like they do with all video game technology but they aren't acting upon it so no it has nothing to do with MS but all to do Sony with expanding it's VR capacity by buying a company with historic links to itself .

Companies/Organizations say they aren't going to do something publically until they suddenly are doing that something. You don't show your hand until it's ready to be shown to defeat your opponet, that would be silly. If MS said they were pursuing VR as of right now, looking into it, researching it, what do you think will happen? I think their competition will start being proactive to prevent them taking over that industry. It isn't in MS' interest to tell us what they are doing before they are doing it. That will just make them dominating that industry harder, which will tick off their investors.



Not that many noteworthy games and severl ex London Studios, so hope there isn`t to much resentment.
At least it is the type of buy Sony have been doing (except that PC porting studio) that have long history with Sony and isn`t taking from multiplatform as the very friendly company that don`t want to restrict where you play your games.
To approve of a multiplatform studio I would only do if it was cases like companies that are to be defunct otherwise or stopped caring about console gaming otherwise is putting money to just stop competition.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Dulfite said:
mjk45 said:

This purchase was clearly aimed at PSVR2 and since VR is something that MS clearly isn't involved in it is definitely not a preventative move.

Really? You don't think MS, a company that is constantly entering markets it hasn't been in, isn't looking into VR? If Sony is making profit off of it then Microsoft absolutely would make profit off of it and will no doubt get into it. What better way to enter it than having proven developers that have made VR games? I stand by that this was a preventative move.

MS have said they would invest on AR for X1 ever since before releasing X1X, but so far nothing.

Pemalite said:
Robert_Downey_Jr. said:

This Sony one and their past one are quite organic.  Usually Sony will buy studios that they published most of their games beforehand anyway so they were already exclusive and funded

A purchase, any purchase... Is inorganic growth.

Already owning a studio and growing it creatively and via investment is organic growth.

Sony and Microsoft are doing both, Sony more so as their wallets aren't as fat as Microsoft's.

I partially disagree because well the IPs already belonged to Sony, so it wouldn't be that much different than hiring everyone directly and giving a name to the studio versus buying the studio as whole, they would even save in some redundancies =p just would give a little more work to do.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."