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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Change title Only Western Developers are willing to Sell to either big 3, While Majority of Japanese don't care to sell to big 3

Lucca said:

Microsoft is buying a bunch of studios to compensate for having fewer exclusive developers and for only churning out the same franchises yearly. Nintendo and Sony already have that, so they don't need to "fight back". Also, I think buying out platform-independent devs/publishers is bad, so I wouldn't want the other big platform holders to start doing that too.

I agrre that Nintendo dont need to buy any other devs.  Their 1st party output is so good that they are able to get away with simply having their own IPs on their device. 

Sony is a little more vulnerable as the ultra biggest games on their console are 3rd person (Fortnite,  COD etc). But I would argue that they have reached a point where significant numbers of gamers are buying their consoles just to play 1st party games. However they obviously do feel vulnerable as they have been on a purchasing spree and are rumoured to be in discussions with SE.



<a href="https://psnprofiles.com/fauzman"><img src="https://card.psnprofiles.com/2/fauzman.png" border="0"></a>

Around the Network
Kneetos said:

Nintendo seems content expanding on its own terms
I recall them buying more land in Japan to build a new 12 story building as well as them renting office space close by to their current headquarters.

I like this approach more then buying established studio's because if they just buy studio's, they are just moving people around, while making new studio's themselves is creating more jobs for new people, new talent ect

I certainly prefer the approach of building new studios and hiring people than buying publishers and devs.

VAMatt said:
DonFerrari said:

Selling at a loss like other manufacturer and recouping money with SW, which they sell more than the other 2 platform holder for higher price averaged on the life of each SW and even the system.

Considering how well Switch has sold as-is, it is doubtful that making it more powerful would have done much to improve sales.  It would have just cost Nintendo money for the subsidy.  It is already among the best selling consoles ever. 

I have no doubt about it. I was just stating that Nintendo could have made a more powerful device, not that they needed it or would even sell more or profit more.



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."

VAMatt said:
DonFerrari said:

Selling at a loss like other manufacturer and recouping money with SW, which they sell more than the other 2 platform holder for higher price averaged on the life of each SW and even the system.

Considering how well Switch has sold as-is, it is doubtful that making it more powerful would have done much to improve sales.  It would have just cost Nintendo money for the subsidy.  It is already among the best selling consoles ever. 

If the console was more powerful it would have had a shorter battery life. I feel like that could have been a deal breaker for some. The OG 2017 Switch already had a worse battery life than the 3DS.



Nintendo doesn't have to do shit, they can sell the Switch with their own games + indie titles have created a secondary software outlet, beyond that, Microsoft actually supports the Switch fairly well. Call of Duty might actually be more likely on the Switch now.

Sony should be worried because 3rd parties are their bread and butter and keeping 3rd party content under exclusivity deals has been their go to play for decades, now someone is returning the favor hardcore and they don't like it.



Of the two, I think Sony needs to more than Nintendo. Sony's relationship with third parties has been to buy exclusive third party games and then supplement their games with their own internal studios. Microsoft is breaking that buy just buying the cow rather than the milk. Sony and Microsoft are also in direct competition as they are seen as substitutes. This is also why Sony is setting aside a lot of money for acquisitions. If the Microsoft/Activision deal is approved by regulators (which I think it will be), Sony will become more aggressive. Nintendo, for now, is going to be more defensive and get the companies they can't afford to lose or ones that approach them about selling. 

the-pi-guy said:
twintail said:

Buying and expansion are not mutually exclusive, as evident by the studios Sony have acquired also increasing their headcount with new jobs being made available. 

It's definitely not mutually exclusive.

But Nintendo has pushed back on wanting to expand that way.

They've made various comments like this: 

https://www.polygon.com/22916059/nintendo-acquisition-plans-sony-microsoft-activision-blizzard-bungie

“Our brand was built upon products crafted with dedication by our employees, and having a large number of people who don’t possess Nintendo DNA in our group would not be a plus to the company,” said Furukawa.

Could definitely change, but where Sony is saying they have "many more moves to make", Nintendo just doesn't seem to have that same ambition. Most of their acquisitions have been about keeping their partners under their wing.

I don't see Nintendo getting big into acquisitions unless Sony gets involved. Nintendo rarely cares about Microsoft but they really care about Sony does. For instance, Nintendo killed the Gameboy line and started the DS when Sony entered the market. Keep in mind the GBA was only on the market for 4 years and sold 80 million units. It was a massive risk. Nintendo keeps up these gimmicks until Sony left. If Sony buys up a major third party, then Nintendo will go from "People who don't process Nintendo DNA in our group would not be a plus to the company" to "Nintendo has always saw opportunities to bring in new talent and ideas into the company to expand the Nintendo DNA". If you want to see if Nintendo will get into the acquisition game, just watch Sony. 



Visit my site for more

Known as Smashchu in a former life

Around the Network

Sony and Nintendo should merge, and then acquire Square, Capcom, and Bandai Namco.



On a more serious note, it is inevitable that Sony will acquire a publisher, it would be negligent if they don't.

The fact they're adding 300M+ to their first party development costs in FY22 points to massive expansion. It is similar verbiage that alluded to the acquisition of Bungie. Assuming an average salary of 100K per developer, that would be nearly 3000 employees added onto SIE, leaving room for smaller acquisitions like Haven and potentially Deviation.



So Saints Row looking pretty bad. Once again, Embracer Group has fail to show us that their acquisitions are good for them.



the-pi-guy said:

During the last presentation, they specifically mentioned these expenses being "aimed at our existing studios"

I imagine it also covers the cost of things like equipment, servers, workstations, and motion capture set ups, and probably things like office buildings for the teams. 

Could you source for that by any chance?



VideoGameAccountant said:

Of the two, I think Sony needs to more than Nintendo. Sony's relationship with third parties has been to buy exclusive third party games and then supplement their games with their own internal studios. Microsoft is breaking that buy just buying the cow rather than the milk. Sony and Microsoft are also in direct competition as they are seen as substitutes. This is also why Sony is setting aside a lot of money for acquisitions. If the Microsoft/Activision deal is approved by regulators (which I think it will be), Sony will become more aggressive. Nintendo, for now, is going to be more defensive and get the companies they can't afford to lose or ones that approach them about selling. 

the-pi-guy said:

It's definitely not mutually exclusive.

But Nintendo has pushed back on wanting to expand that way.

They've made various comments like this: 

https://www.polygon.com/22916059/nintendo-acquisition-plans-sony-microsoft-activision-blizzard-bungie

“Our brand was built upon products crafted with dedication by our employees, and having a large number of people who don’t possess Nintendo DNA in our group would not be a plus to the company,” said Furukawa.

Could definitely change, but where Sony is saying they have "many more moves to make", Nintendo just doesn't seem to have that same ambition. Most of their acquisitions have been about keeping their partners under their wing.

I don't see Nintendo getting big into acquisitions unless Sony gets involved. Nintendo rarely cares about Microsoft but they really care about Sony does. For instance, Nintendo killed the Gameboy line and started the DS when Sony entered the market. Keep in mind the GBA was only on the market for 4 years and sold 80 million units. It was a massive risk. Nintendo keeps up these gimmicks until Sony left. If Sony buys up a major third party, then Nintendo will go from "People who don't process Nintendo DNA in our group would not be a plus to the company" to "Nintendo has always saw opportunities to bring in new talent and ideas into the company to expand the Nintendo DNA". If you want to see if Nintendo will get into the acquisition game, just watch Sony. 

Yeah I think so too. However, the main reason I think Nintendo was particularly looking at Sony was because they wanted to secure their homeland first, and Sony was the biggest competitor. Btw the mindset is already "Nintendo has always saw opportunities to bring in new talent and ideas into the company to expand the Nintendo DNA" but not from acquisitions, rather from hiring new/young devs. Miyamoto stated in the shareholder meeting and interviews multiple times that they hire younger people and ingrain them with Nintendo DNA for the future of Nintendo whenever he was questioned about what happens after he retires.