My examples should have made it clear I was including Zenimax, when I was talking about the studio acquisitions being low key. Most people don't care about Roundhouse Studios, Alpha Dog Games MachineGames.  

Like I said the most notable studios they acquired were Bethesda Game Studios, ID and Zenimax Online. 

Frankly the Zenimax acquisition, arguably put MS's studios on par with Sony's. They didn't need to do anything to compete. 

I agreed with you,why are you debating this

Doesn't matter if a studio is low key. What matters is what kind of content they make, and whether the games can sell.  

Oh so MS buys low key and it doesn't matter but SONY buys low key an they will do wonders with it............lol

These are just platitudes, not facts. 

do you have any experience in life or not? - can't you understand analogy about the way life works.

nobody has unlimited talent

How does Apple buying Sony nullify what MS has done?

if you understand anything about business or strategy then you will understand

MS is already behind SONY in gaming,the purchase of Activision and Bethesda bring them equal to SONY

but if Apple Buys SONY then SONY will gain strength where they lack aka Cash

It doesn't matter who has more money between MS and Apple because both companies have enough resources to buy whoever they want.

That way SONY also has enough resources but SONY couldn't have bought Activision

Bad at managing studios is your opinion. All companies have had inhouse issues, even Sony.

how is it an opinion when sales prove it to be true.

SONY has ha very less inhouse issues,they without alot of investment have turned less known studios to the top of the gaming industry

Halo's success was also made by MS. Any long series like Halo go through periods of decline. 

Gran Turismo,God of War,Uncharted have not gone through decline but have maintained sales or have grown

even PlayStation oriented games like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear have maintained their sales

Gears is still a very strong franchise and if anything has grown as a series. Also rumored that the Coalition might be making a new IP.

It was one of the biggest IP's in the 360-PS3 era,it is a shadow of its former self

How are those Sony IPs you mention cannot be matched by Xbox's own? Maybe look up Xbox's games before making those claims. Halo alone is bigger than half the games mentioned in your list.

Halo is bigger than God of War,Last of Us,Horizon,Gran Turismo,Spiderman,Ghost of Tsushima,etc?

Without Game Pass,it would struggle to sell even 8-10million units and it is the only Microsoft Game to even come close to that number.

This is the thing where people need to research more than just basing popularity off game sales. Game sales have many avenues other than customers going out buying games. Take into account system bundles, console user base size, game discounts etc. 

Comparing games that Sony also heavily bundled with the PS4 which has sold more than double the X1 consoles is going to lead to more software sales overall especially when people are buying PS4's like crazy and are given games like Uncharted and GOW and Horizon for free. The PS4 sales actually help boost game sales by default. When the X1 isn't selling anywhere near as much as the PS4, a game cannot compete in the same space. Their is a big handicap favoring PS. I had a friend who picked up the Uncharted PS4 bundle only because it was the cheapest console bundle during Xmas period, he actually traded back UC4 however that still counted as a UC4 sale. These events happen all the time. Xbox also bundle their games however due to the low console sales, it isn't going to compare in the same manner. 

Lets look at something on a more equal playing field.

Steam Launch concurrent users

Halo Infinite: Peak 270k concurrent users

God of War: Peak 73k concurrent users

Horizon ZD: Peak 53k concurrent users

Now to say Halo isn't as popular to the games above is a massive downplay. Whats insane is people actually think that comparing these Sony titles on the PS4 which has sold over 115m consoles to Xbox titles which sold on a console that sold under 50m systems and claiming those games are more popular is nothing but an uneducated assumption. Based off Steam which has access to both companies titles, the results seem rather different, as proven above.

The 360 vs PS3 era also proves my point as both systems were on par with each other in terms of system user base, and Halo 3 outsold 6 PS3 1st party exclusives combined. As quoted from a article below

MS: Halo 3 outsold six PS3 titles combined • Eurogamer.net

"Just in from research team (NPD): Halo 3 has outsold Resistance 1 + 2, Uncharted 1 + 2, Killzone 2 and God of War III combined.... wow" 

When Xbox is playing on the same playing field as Playstation, its a different ball game. People underestimate the popularity of titles on this site because they only focus on one thing. Mario 3D World sold under 6m copies on the WiiU, i guess Mario isn't as popular anymore based on their logic. Software sales need a strong user base to sell well, that doesn't mean the software isn't popular, it just means the software cannot sell due to industry handicaps.

Steam concurrent shows how popular Halo actually is compared to other games. If its not as big as these other games, why is its user base so much higher? They share the same user base on Steam. Its not just the concurrent users that show this. Halo itself was a massive hit on Steam. Plenty of articles will show this. 

What bases are you basing these other IPs to be bigger? Because they sold better on consoles when one console sold over 115m units compared to one selling under 50m units.. that doesn't sound like a fair comparison. Huge difference in user base.

I used Mario 3D World on the WiiU selling under 6m as the perfect example. Does that mean all these Sony titles are bigger IPs than Mario due to the low sales on the WiiU?

You don't see the problem with bundled games? People flock to buy the consoles and normally take the best deals. There would be plenty of people who brought a PS4 with no interests with the bundled games yet end up having it anyway. Those that wanted a PS4 for COD or Fifa ended up with a Sony 1st party title. The PS4 was selling like hot cakes, you could bundle any game with the PS4 and watch it do amazing. Drive Club went on to sell 2m copies in the PS4's early life due to its heavy bundle with the PS4 and that game tanked.

Halo is a monster IP, its in another league when it comes to IP size. Just because Halo 5 sold only 5m copies on the X1 does not mean the IP has shrank. Halo Infinite comes out and its the highest selling game on Steam at the time with an insane 270k concurrent users at launch. That says enough. Mean while GOW managed 70k at launch, not exactly bringing in the same amount of people. 

Tell me, why do you think Horizon, GoW and Ghost of Tsushima are bigger IPs than Halo? Because they sold more copies than Halo 5? You understand Halo is a multi billion dollar IP right? Halo has generated over $10 billion USD in revenue.

Halo franchise generates $ 10 billion in revenue - iGamesNews

Lets keep this in perspective.

GoW made $500m in revenue

Horizon ZD made $400m in revenue

The lowest selling mainline Halo game (Halo 5) generated $500m in revenue in its first week!

Its not even a comparison. But i am interested in your thoughts as to why you think these IPs are bigger than Halo.

i've been following what Sony's doing since 2005,been through the bad PS3 generation and the good PS4 generation.

I am more interested in long term vision and strategy not short term gain

Talent is not some kind of limited resource. It doesn't get used up when a game is launched.

A songwriter that doesn't do as well with their second album did not lose talent.

the talent isn't gone but used so the returns are lower and lower.

and TALENT is a limited resource,don't you understand anything about the world? - if everybody ha talent then everybody would be successful but they are not

You have a misunderstanding of what TALENT is.TALENT isn't some magical thing which one has.People have different natural abilities aka Talents but they can be molded into the direction which leads their abilities to shine.

Talents aren't rigid,with enough work they can be used to produce success even in non related fields but work is required for that.

And in your definition,the gaming industry is HUGE but only 1 developer ROCKSTAR produces games anywhere near as big as Grand Theft Auto.If Talent was unlimited then everybody would sell like GTA games.

LUCK is a word in the dictionary of Losers who always say the other person got successful cause they were lucky hiding their own shortcomings

Your reading comprehension needs some work bud. You are conflating an individual with a group.

what is true for an individual is true for the group of the similar individuals

I am not saying that there are infinite talented people out there.

I am saying people don't lose their talents when they use it. 

i know,what i was saying is that the output of talents reduces after they keep using it.

By your definition Rockstar must suck now because they've used up all their talent making GTA.

yes they suck at making multiple games like they used to in the PS2 generation.they now focus all their power to just make 1 game per generation.

Of course this is what you think. Because you don't understand how math works, how the world works.

Math has no luck,everything fits exactly.What is sow is what you reap not some magical out of this world intervention.

Luck has nothing to do with magic.  It's just probability, which is math. Luck is just getting a favorable outcome even though it is unlikely.

Luck isn't a probability.Luck is when you were not supposed to win but still win because of some unforeseen circumstance

You don't pick your parents or your genetics. You don't get to choose what deficiencies you are born with or without.

Being born to Bill Gates isn't magic, but it's an outcome that is luckier than 99.9999% of the population. It's not a skill or a choice.  It's an outcome that had nothing to do with you.  That is what luck is.  

In Eastern Religions an Philosophies,Your Birth is dependent on your actions in your past life.

Even in Abrahamic Religions- Christianity,Islam,Judaism - The Religious texts talk about Reincarnation.

It was just that, Early Christian Theologians removed reincarnation from Christian Religious doctrine cause they thought if people knew there would be another life,then they would not stop committing Sins in this life thinking of paying the price(debt,consequence) in the next life.

Read the Bible fully,even it talks about reincarnation.