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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony acquires FireSprite Studios

Pemalite said:
Robert_Downey_Jr. said:

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.

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



I am Iron Man

Around the Network
src said:

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.

So whilst yes, Insomniac will be able to release a ton of quality games that will sell extremely well and likely even shift consoles (Not that anyone has issues on that front at the moment!)

Technology, I.P and services are where the value of the Zenimax purchase is.

Microsoft is building a "game development framework" with Azure Gamestack, shoe-horning in iD Tech and the Creation Engine for example would be a massive boon to that service as it was missing a performant and flexible game engine.

Gamepass is the flag that Microsoft is waving prominently at the moment... Having Elder Scrolls, Doom, Quake, Fallout on Gamepass isn't something that can be understated.

Sony's purchase of Insomniac was just about the games... And as a PS5 owner, I am happy about that purchase considering how highly I rate Insomniac games, they have made some of my favorite games of all time.


So from "just a games perspective" was the Bethesda acquisition efficient? Probably not.
But what I am trying to convey is that it is more than just games that Microsoft gained here.

Robert_Downey_Jr. said:
Pemalite said:

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.

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

Look. You are trying to dance around the definition, I am not going to play that game.



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

Pemalite said:
src said:

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.

So whilst yes, Insomniac will be able to release a ton of quality games that will sell extremely well and likely even shift consoles (Not that anyone has issues on that front at the moment!)

Technology, I.P and services are where the value of the Zenimax purchase is.

Microsoft is building a "game development framework" with Azure Gamestack, shoe-horning in iD Tech and the Creation Engine for example would be a massive boon to that service as it was missing a performant and flexible game engine.

Gamepass is the flag that Microsoft is waving prominently at the moment... Having Elder Scrolls, Doom, Quake, Fallout on Gamepass isn't something that can be understated.

Sony's purchase of Insomniac was just about the games... And as a PS5 owner, I am happy about that purchase considering how highly I rate Insomniac games, they have made some of my favorite games of all time.


So from "just a games perspective" was the Bethesda acquisition efficient? Probably not.
But what I am trying to convey is that it is more than just games that Microsoft gained here.

Robert_Downey_Jr. said:

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

Look. You are trying to dance around the definition, I am not going to play that game.

Did MS pay a premium for Zenimax? maybe on face value but like Pemalite said, Zenimax is more than just it's big name game brands, now we could argue whether those components are enough to shift the value proposition in Microsoft's favour but to me that's a debate that isn't needed, because what Pemalite demonstrates when talking about Game pass is how well the purchase fits in with Microsoft's needs and that Game pass situation means the monetary value is there just on the brands alone because those Zenimax IP's will drive Game pass and increase those subs,the rest is cream on top.

Last edited by mjk45 - on 11 September 2021

Pemalite said:
src said:

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.

So whilst yes, Insomniac will be able to release a ton of quality games that will sell extremely well and likely even shift consoles (Not that anyone has issues on that front at the moment!)

Technology, I.P and services are where the value of the Zenimax purchase is.

Microsoft is building a "game development framework" with Azure Gamestack, shoe-horning in iD Tech and the Creation Engine for example would be a massive boon to that service as it was missing a performant and flexible game engine.

Gamepass is the flag that Microsoft is waving prominently at the moment... Having Elder Scrolls, Doom, Quake, Fallout on Gamepass isn't something that can be understated.

Sony's purchase of Insomniac was just about the games... And as a PS5 owner, I am happy about that purchase considering how highly I rate Insomniac games, they have made some of my favorite games of all time.


So from "just a games perspective" was the Bethesda acquisition efficient? Probably not.
But what I am trying to convey is that it is more than just games that Microsoft gained here.

Robert_Downey_Jr. said:

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

Look. You are trying to dance around the definition, I am not going to play that game.

Interesting, but don't a lot of MS studios use Unreal. Are you saying they are going to move from Unreal to their own company wide game engine?

From what I've read, different dev teams having to work with a single in house engine has led to many complications (EA with Frostbite, SE with Luminous). Though there have been success like Capcom with RE engine.

Sony and Nintendo are a bit unusual or it speaks about the technical maturity of their teams, as each studio has their own engine (ND, GG, SP, SM, PD etc)



Dulfite said:

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. 



 

Around the Network
Dallinor said:
Dulfite said:

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. 

From what we know the studios MS gone after were either struggling, already had long history with MS or were multiplatform. We haven't even heard of they going after any studio that was mostly developing for Sony.

And we know as you said of Read at Dawn with Facebook and there is also Quantic Dream with Tecent from studios very tied to Sony.



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."

DonFerrari said:
Dallinor said:

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. 

From what we know the studios MS gone after were either struggling, already had long history with MS or were multiplatform. We haven't even heard of they going after any studio that was mostly developing for Sony.

And we know as you said of Read at Dawn with Facebook and there is also Quantic Dream with Tecent from studios very tied to Sony.

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.



Dulfite said:
Dallinor said:

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.

>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. 


Shawn Layden wasn't talking about Sony's financials. He was talking about the industry as a whole.

His point was that the gaming industry as a whole can't afford these kinds of expenses. Not MS, not Sony, no one.  

A 100 billion dollar industry can't afford to spend 150 billion dollars in production and marketing. 

Dulfite said:

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.

>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.

But what about when it's cheaper to buy the studio yourself? That's the point you keep ignoring.  

>3.) Before that ex-boss said what he said, I had no idea Sony was in a struggling situation. 

Sony isn't struggling. You clearly did not understand what Shawn Layden was talking about. He did not mention Sony once.  

> 4.) why did they allow MS to buy Bethesda and all the other studios? 

Because it doesn't fit their strategy. MS needs big IPs to make Game Pass successful.  Sony already has big IPs that have already made PlayStation successful, and they've a lot of success with creating new ones. 

>I think Microsoft would rather own a studio than make exclusive deals with them.

And you seemingly can't imagine that being the case for Sony? Sony has a couple generations worth of history of buying several studios at the start, and often closing them towards the end.   

1999-2001 (PS2): Naughty Dog, Bend Studio, Incognito Entertainment

2005-2007 (PS3): Guerilla Games, BigBig, Evolution, Zipper Interactive



the-pi-guy said:

Dulfite said:

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.

>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. 


Shawn Layden wasn't talking about Sony's financials. He was talking about the industry as a whole.

His point was that the gaming industry as a whole can't afford these kinds of expenses. Not MS, not Sony, no one.  

A 100 billion dollar industry can't afford to spend 150 billion dollars in production and marketing. 

Dulfite said:

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.

>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.

But what about when it's cheaper to buy the studio yourself? That's the point you keep ignoring.  

>3.) Before that ex-boss said what he said, I had no idea Sony was in a struggling situation. 

Sony isn't struggling. You clearly did not understand what Shawn Layden was talking about. He did not mention Sony once.  

> 4.) why did they allow MS to buy Bethesda and all the other studios? 

Because it doesn't fit their strategy. MS needs big IPs to make Game Pass successful.  Sony already has big IPs that have already made PlayStation successful, and they've a lot of success with creating new ones. 

>I think Microsoft would rather own a studio than make exclusive deals with them.

And you seemingly can't imagine that being the case for Sony? Sony has a couple generations worth of history of buying several studios at the start, and often closing them towards the end.   

1999-2001 (PS2): Naughty Dog, Bend Studio, Incognito Entertainment

2005-2007 (PS3): Guerilla Games, BigBig, Evolution, Zipper Interactive

I still don't know how people expect one company to prohibit another from making a purchase. All these deals are done under NDAs, they have it signed even before they say they have any interest in purchasing and everything after that (including values, timeline and other details) is secret until the deal is closed between managing boards and released for stockholders to approve or not. So there really isn't much that MS could do to prevent Sony from doing their purchases or Sony against MS, no matter MS having much more money than Sony they didn't bought Insomniac before Sony, considering Sony paid 200M MS could easily have overturned that with any billion laying around right?



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."

src said:
DonFerrari said:

From what we know the studios MS gone after were either struggling, already had long history with MS or were multiplatform. We haven't even heard of they going after any studio that was mostly developing for Sony.

And we know as you said of Read at Dawn with Facebook and there is also Quantic Dream with Tecent from studios very tied to Sony.

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.

I think it's difficult to portray the RAD situation as a mistake. Sony's relationship with them was never defined by their ability to make VR games, which is something RAD only pivoted to after their relationship with Sony. But I don't disagree that having another VR studio would've been good for them. 

Bluepoint and Arrowhead seem viable, more so the former. But From Software is not happening unless Kadokawa want out of the gaming industry. I see no other reason why they would let go of an asset as important as FS.

I do think that Deviation and Haven studio are possible studios that Sony is eyeing. But I imagine that first depends entirely on how their debut games perform + the working relationship established making said games.