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.

Going by the literal definition... And not twisting/changing a definition around like you have... (So whilst you are free to disagree, you are certainly incorrect!)

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inorganicgrowth.asp

Inorganic growth is when a company purchases another.

Perhaps the engine and VR tech will come in handy later but atm Bethesda seems overpriced. I would estimate their revenue to be 1-1.5B annual so you're looking at a premium of x5-8. Warner bros pulled in 2B revenue was was seen as overpriced for 4B although that's probably due to their IP still being with Warner.

From a user acquisition point I wonder if it is efficient. Going by games sold in a period (BGS afaik only works on two games at a time)

BGS1: Skyrim - 30M

BGS2: Starfield - ??? Lets say 15M

Doom - 5-6M ?

Arkane, Tango, Machine games < 3M.

60M games sold at 8.1B

Insomniac at $220M will sell 40M (SM 20M, RC 5M, Wolverine 15M) in a similar if not shorter timeframe.

MS needed Bethesda for their big IPs so it makes sense. Was it an efficient user acquisition move? Imo no. I will say it is a lot more efficient than going after a public company that trades stock.

A very general definition you pulled out to address a very specific situation.  And then worded in a very passive aggressive way.

Perhaps the engine and VR tech will come in handy later but atm Bethesda seems overpriced. I would estimate their revenue to be 1-1.5B annual so you're looking at a premium of x5-8. Warner bros pulled in 2B revenue was was seen as overpriced for 4B although that's probably due to their IP still being with Warner.

From a user acquisition point I wonder if it is efficient. Going by games sold in a period (BGS afaik only works on two games at a time)

BGS1: Skyrim - 30M

BGS2: Starfield - ??? Lets say 15M

Doom - 5-6M ?

Arkane, Tango, Machine games < 3M.

60M games sold at 8.1B

Insomniac at $220M will sell 40M (SM 20M, RC 5M, Wolverine 15M) in a similar if not shorter timeframe.

MS needed Bethesda for their big IPs so it makes sense. Was it an efficient user acquisition move? Imo no. I will say it is a lot more efficient than going after a public company that trades stock.

A very general definition you pulled out to address a very specific situation.  And then worded in a very passive aggressive way.

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.

That should be incredibly obvious why.

What's the reason they buy studios in the first place? If they can just make third party deals? Why does Playstation studios exist?

Obviously, complete control of the IP, tech and development. See how years of mismanaging studios has affected MS and their IP. (Bungie, Epic, Remedy etc.) They can grow teams, share the tech and have multiple studios working on the same project etc. Third party studios are freelance, they will go with the best available deal. They can also leverage prices higher and higher depending on the value of their service. Nothing is guaranteed and they don't have the same level of control over development. We've also seen multiple high profile third party deals fall through. 

Completely wrong. Of course these companies are a threat. They're consolidating the open market and definitely have long term plans- that could include their own console or streaming service. 

Incorrect as well, just because MS commit funds does not mean they dominate. Plenty of examples of huge failures on MS' part, despite an open check book. 

You don't seem to have a clue about the financials of either company-pure speculation based on the notion MS: Rich, Sony: Poor and the fallacy that unlimited funding leads to control of a market. Sony have committed to spending $18.39 billion on strategic investments over the next 3 years. They've never been healthier, more cash flush and or as active in investments as they are now. The fact they've just bought 3 studios and are obviously out muscling MS on third party deals and advertising should tell you as much. 

I don't think any of the recent studios were at risk of MS making a play for them, but Embracer group? definitely. 

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.

1) They absolutely can. All they have to do is make a contract, offer money, and have that studio sign it. How do you think they got the KOTOR console exclusivity? Or the FF7R console exclusivity? Whether timed or permanent, they can get exclusives by going to 3rd party mega companies (EA/Blizzard/Ubisoft) just as much as independent 3rd party companies.

2) I mentioned they failed before, and particularly in recent memory they have focused on dominating industries with their wallet. I'm not talking much about 1990's-2010 Microsoft, moreso about 2010-2021 Microsoft. Also, while Xbox has been third in sales, they have made tremendous profit off of Xbox Gold for many years and now are making a lot off of Gamepass. Who cares about hardware sales when profits are up based on smart software moves? I don't know anything about Groove or MS smartspeakers, which means MS obviously didn't even attempt to make a major splash otherwise those attempts would be well known by basically everyone. I keep up with all kinds of news and so if I haven't heard of those, I'm sure many other millions of consumers haven't either. IE failed after years of complacency, and what did MS do? They didn't give up. They came out with Edge, which is far and away a better product than IE and consumes a lot less RAM than Chrome. Their phone line was a major push that flopped, I didn't say they were perfect just that most of their major investments in recent years lead to domination. They absolutely failed (so far) on the phone front, including their surface phones which have sold horribly due to how expensive they are.

3) Before that ex-boss said what he said, I had no idea Sony was in a struggling situation. I was basing that part solely on what he said about games doubling cost from $100 million last gen to $200 million this gen and how that isn't sustainable for Sony. I assumed that a former boss of Sony would know what he is talking about, but if what you said about their cash reserves is correct then I don't know what he is complaining about?

4) I could spin that part on you bringing up Sony. If they have such a big cash reserve, why did they allow MS to buy Bethesda and all the other studios? Money does buy you a degree of marketshare from studios that want to make the most money off selling, but nothing can buy out stubborn individuals that own companies that don't want to sell or don't want to sell to a specific company. I'm sure there are companies that would't want to sell to Saudi Arabia, or EA, or Tencent for moral reasons, and then there are companies that wouldn't care because their owners want to make the most money. Then you have countries that have laws preventing international takeovers; I have heard Japan has some laws preventing that sort of thing. I think Microsoft would rather own a studio than make exclusive deals with them. That whole Platinum dragon game probably made them hesitant to make those sorts of deals with companies they have virtually no control over. Not saying they won't or don't have those deals in place, I just doubt they will happen very often on a AAA level, whereas Sony is very willing to do that. That leaves Sony able to make those deals by adding a bunch of cash to prevent a multiplatform release (or at least a timed deal). If MS bid on the same game to be exclusive or not to their platform as Sony, there is absolutely no way Sony could win that bid battle.

Sony made a mistake with RAD. Could have been a great VR studio and given Sony by far the best VR dev team: London studio, Asobi, PD, Insomniac, Firesprite and RAD.

Imo Sony's next partners for acquisition could be Bluepoint, Arrowhead, KJP (if Kojima wants to be acquired), From Software and maybe Media Vision if the rumours of them working on a PS JRPG are true and it turns out well.

My logic with FROM is that Kadokawa is not really in the gaming business.....its pretty much just FROM by revenue and they haven't made any clear moves of expanding. And their gaming business doesn't add much to their bottom line either.

Imo, and I think FROM kinda knows this, FROM is a studio that could become a leader in the RPG genre, up there with Bethesda and CDPR, however they are often quite behind in tech and it seems they haven't grown as quickly as they should be.

Combine that with the variability of publisher fishing, IP ownership, I think FROM with be a whole different beast under a AAA gaming publisher.