Support NeoGAF

[ChuckeRearmed]

Intel, AMD, and others still exist so they would not be a monopoly. And FTC didn't even mention them becoming a monopoly in their challenge. They said it would reduce competition and innovation.

ARM is incredibly widespread worldwide and used in almost every micro device. It is like buying Internet.

All in all, ARM case was a completely different thing. No point to bring it in. (though I find it funny that people always try to bring it). Arguable even Microsoft buying Nintendo, would not be on the same level of Nvidia buying ARM.

 

[balls of snow]

Please dont cancel hogwarts, i need that game

Haha..game is almost done. Sunk cost lunacy if canceled.

 

[Craig of War]

It was an honest question, can't you explain?

Tencent = Chinese governement run = Major censorship
Google = Stadia flops enough said
Amazon = Bad for gaming okay
Facebook = Mark Zukerberg lol
Embracer = A weird one they are buying more studios then anyone else but no one know what their end game is yet

Sony = 20 plus years in the gaming industry with hardware & software that have sold over 100 million plus
MS = Also in the gaming industry a long time dating back to the 80's even with PC gaming & then Console in 2001

So who do you trust im take Sony & MS over them others all day every day

 

[Moses85]

 

[nominedomine]

For me its simple. If Microsoft or Sony by a publisher, the games will still be sold as traditional games, at retail (for this gen anyway), and digital, plus having the games on sub plans, etc. If the likes of Google or Amazon by a publisher, those games may end up soley on their streaming platforms, something most people dont seem to want (streaming).
As for Tencent, well you shouldnt really need to ask.

MS has as much incentive as Google or Amazon to push for a cloud future (and they clearly do).

I get the problem with Tencent but at the same time they seem to mostly just buy stakes and it's not like the other companies aren't in business with them as well so there goes away all the moral superiority of not wanting to support the CCP.

Tencent = Chinese governement run = Major censorship
Google = Stadia flops enough said
Amazon = Bad for gaming okay
Facebook = Mark Zukerberg lol
Embracer = A weird one they are buying more studios then anyone else but no one know what their end game is yet

Sony = 20 plus years in the gaming industry with hardware & software that have sold over 100 million plus
MS = Also in the gaming industry a long time dating back to the 80's even with PC gaming & then Console in 2001

So who do you trust im take Sony & MS over them others all day every day

Ok. Very weak reasons but thanks for answering.

I bolded the most ironic one, as Sony and specially MS are also buying a lot of studios including some of the biggest publishers in the market. If you are against consolidation they should be the last one you would be hoping to acquire another publisher.

Sony and MS are no saints and I don't see how their history sets them apart from these other companies. Sony and MS are both in business with the CCP and Tencent too, I find it hard to see the moral high ground here.

 

[Topher]

ARM is incredibly widespread worldwide and used in almost every micro device. It is like buying Internet.

All in all, ARM case was a completely different thing. No point to bring it in.

Those are devices based on ARM architecture. They are not chips made by ARM. They are chips made by companies like Qualcomm, Apple, and many others who pay licensing fees to ARM. It is, in no way, like "buying internet".

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Perfect fit for MS.

- Fighting games MK and Injustice. This would counter Sony's moneyhatting of SF, and by the looks of it Killer Intinct has been dormant for ages
- Batman games counter Sony's Marvel games
- Lego adds some family fun action games
- Hitman alwaus seemed like an Xbox game vs. PS
- MS has done Game Pass deals with WB games

 

[Darth_Ghandi]

Sony does have the best superhero game so they’d be good there imo.

 

[Stuart360]

MS has as much incentive as Google or Amazon to push for a cloud future (and they clearly do).

I get the problem with Tencent but at the same time they seem to mostly just buy stakes and it's not like the other companies aren't in business with them as well so there goes away all the moral superiority of not wanting to support the CCP.


Ok. Very weak reasons but thanks for answering.

I bolded the most ironic one, as Sony and specially MS are also buying a lot of studios including some of the biggest publishers in the market.

Well cloud gaming IS the future, whether we like it or not, but at the moment cloud gaming is just an option for Microsoft, and will be for the forseeable future (as Phil has said himself). Believe it or not but having more options as a consumer is a GOOD thing.
Plus as a PC gamer, if Microsoft or Sony (eventually) buy a publisher, those games will still end up on PC as traditional games, on Steam etc. I dont have to sign up to some streaming service i dont want to play the next Arkham game etc like i would with Google and Amazon.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Daddy Satya gonna buy Netherrealm, the FTC can suck it

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Those are devices based on ARM architecture. They are not chips made by ARM. They are chips made by companies like Qualcomm, Apple, and many others who pay licensing fees to ARM. It is, in no way, like "buying internet".

It is. Because owning ARM license is huge. No matter what Nvidia said about "continue to license it", nobody believed them.

 

[Craig of War]

Ok. Very weak reasons but thanks for answering.

I bolded the most ironic one, as Sony and specially MS are also buying a lot of studios including some of the biggest publishers in the market.

Sony and MS are no saints and I don't see how their history sets them apart from these other companies.

Sony and MS are both in business with the CCP and Tencent too, I find it hard to see the moral high ground here.

Nope not weak at all but hey if you would rather them others buy everyone up instead of Sony & MS then i have no words anymore
that like voting against your own interest lol

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

They done a stupid Matrix sequel so they could make a game about it... I dunno maybe you are right, they realized not all is easy as they thought.

That movie was an act of desperation.

 

[nominedomine]

Well cloud gaming IS the future, whether we like it or not, but at the moment cloud gaming is just an option for Microsoft, and will be for the forseeable future (as Phil has said himself). Believe it or not but having more options as a consumer is a GOOD thing.
Plus as a PC gamer, if Microsoft or Sony (eventually) buy a publisher, those games will still end up on PC as traditional games, on Steam etc. I dont have to sign up to some streaming service i dont want to play the next Arkham game etc like i would with Google and Amazon.

I doubt it is and I don't like it.

Amazon, Facebook and Tencent games are already on PC, I don't know if Google has any games.

I just have a hard time seeing how Sony and MS acquiring these studios would give you more options. It's not like these other companies would be launching a console (which wouldn't be bad as far as I'm concerned anyway), so the games would most likely reaming multiplatform games.

Also, if the future of gaming is on subscription you can be certain that it won't stop at just EA Play, Gamepass, PS+ or whatever one already exists, the same things that happened to movies/series streaming will happen. You'll be expected to have countless subscriptions to access most things.

Nope not weak at all but hey if you would rather them others buy everyone up instead of Sony & MS then i have no words anymore
that like voting against your own interest lol

I doubt my interests align with the interests of Sony and certainly not with the ones MS have.

 

[Topher]

It is. Because owning ARM license is huge. No matter what Nvidia said about "continue to license it", nobody believed them.

It was definitely a big power move, but it simply wasn't a matter of them becoming a monopoly. Just wasn't.

 

[The Alien]

I hate these tweets:

"Hey y'all...I don't really have a story without any additional info, but if this long standing rumor is true, I want to let you know that I knew about it before you guys. Im an insider. So....first"

 

[Yoboman]

Perfect fit for MS.

- Fighting games MK and Injustice. This would counter Sony's moneyhatting of SF, and by the looks of it Killer Intinct has been dormant for ages
- Batman games counter Sony's Marvel games
- Lego adds some family fun action games
- Hitman alwaus seemed like an Xbox game vs. PS
- MS has done Game Pass deals with WB games

What does Hitman have to do with anything? Lmao

 

[nominedomine]

They done a stupid Matrix sequel so they could make a game about it... I dunno maybe you are right, they realized not all is easy how they thought.

That movies felt like it was trying really hard to be a game and after seeing the Unreal Matrix demo I think it would have worked much better as a game.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

What does Hitman have to do with anything? Lmao

WB has them. Good fit for MS.

Games - WB Games

Current and old games from WB Games.

warnerbrosgames.com

 

[Yoboman]

Both Sony and MS have been interested in WB in the past. It would be within budget for both

I'd guess Sony has the leg up if this is true due to MS not want additional factors disrupting the far bigger Activision Blizzard deal

I'd say their portfolio fits MS or Sony well in different ways

EA could also be a dark horse here but that would probably be the worst outcome with their history of killing studios

 

[Hoppa]

Sure Jhan

 

[nominedomine]

Both Sony and MS have been interested in WB in the past. It would be within budget for both

I'd guess Sony has the leg up if this is true due to MS not want additional factors disrupting the far bigger Activision Blizzard deal

I'd say their portfolio fits MS or Sony well in different ways

EA could also be a dark horse here but that would probably be the worst outcome with their history of killing studios

Sony and MS have a vast history of killing studios as well.

 

[The_Mike]

It will be Sony. And you all know it. They are literally looking for a Fighting Studio.

Only under Sony Rocksteady will be able to show his true potential and become the second Insomniac, in terms of performance and quality.

Sony spend all their money on Chinese Halo.

 

[Yoboman]

WB has them. Good fit for MS.

Games - WB Games

Current and old games from WB Games.

warnerbrosgames.com

No, IO Interactive are independent and went full self published with Hitman 3. WB only published for them briefly after they left Square Enix

 

[Yoboman]

WB are kind of worthless and overpriced without the DC, Lego and Potter IPs. But could be a bargain if those licenses come with them

 

[StreetsofBeige]

No, IO Interactive are independent and went full self published with Hitman 3. WB only published for them briefly after they left Square Enix

Ok fine. They got publisher ties with IO. You never what can happen in the future.

 

[NoLootBoxDev]

this is how it will end

 

[Yoboman]

Ok fine. They got publisher ties with IO. You never what can happen in the future.

Mate, you're stretching lol

IO and Hitman would be a good buy but have nothing to do with this

 

[MonarchJT]

finally Ms will get the mainstream superhero

 

[Yoboman]

finally Ms will get the mainstream superhero

They have the guy from Crackdown already

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Tencent = Chinese governement run = Major censorship
Google = Stadia flops enough said
Amazon = Bad for gaming okay
Facebook = Mark Zukerberg lol
Embracer = A weird one they are buying more studios then anyone else but no one know what their end game is yet

Sony = 20 plus years in the gaming industry with hardware & software that have sold over 100 million plus
MS = Also in the gaming industry a long time dating back to the 80's even with PC gaming & then Console in 2001

So who do you trust im take Sony & MS over them others all day every day

Given this group, I'd take MS.

All those companies you listed at the top, who the hell knows how reliable they are for. And for the ones with a stable of games (Tencent and Embracer) they are a lot of Asian games or small scale games.

There's no guarantee Sony or MS will keep the company or game franchise around, but at least MS has most of their games coming to Xbox/PC at the same time. They might have some exclusive console or PC games here and there, but most are supported by both Xbox/PC.

With Sony, it'll be PS first, likely a console exclusive, and if it does come to PC (maybe) it'll be anywhere from 2 years (Days Gone) to 6 years (UC) kind of thing. You might get lucky and it's a 2 year port like DG, or may never happen.

 

[Sleepwalker]

Microsoft please, that way those games can still come to PC.

Google = aids
Facebook - Full focus on VR, and while I love my quest, I dont want those ips to only be in that format
Sony - High quality games, lovely ips and studios but I want to have the date and day PC option
EA - lol
No opinion on Tencent really

 

[MrTroubleMaker]

Another one?

We get you all eventually.... one ccp

 

[Sleepwalker]

They have the guy from Crackdown already

Terry Crews to play Bane in Batman Arkham 5 LFG

 

[Yoboman]

Given this group, I'd take MS.

All those companies you listed at the top, who the hell knows how reliable they are for. And for the ones with a stable of games (Tencent and Embracer) they are a lot of Asian games or small scale games.

There's no guarantee Sony or MS will keep the company or game franchise around, but at least MS has most of their games coming to Xbox/PC at the same time. They might have some exclusive console or PC games here and there, but most are supported by both Xbox/PC.

With Sony, it'll be PS first, likely a console exclusive, and if it does come to PC (maybe) it'll be anywhere from 2 years (Days Gone) to 6 years (UC) kind of thing. You might get lucky and it's a 2 year port like DG, or may never happen.

I think any publisher deals from here out are going to end up being strictly multiplatform

Activision and Bungie have ended up that way and why would any future deals expect less? I think with WB game devs in particular you need to relicense the IP from them and they will stipulate for multiplatform releases

 

[Neofire]

Microsoft please, that way those games can still come to PC.

Google = aids
Facebook - Full focus on VR, and while I love my quest, I dont want those ips to only be in that format
Sony - High quality games, lovely ips and studios but I want to have the date and day PC option
EA - lol
No opinion on Tencent really

I bet you do

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Sony, MS need to keep buying cause if not them then it ill be Tencent, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Embracer etc
i would much rather Sony & MS do the buying then the other terrible options

I laughed, but I used to feel the same way as you. Then I realized a duopoly or triopoly can be almost as bad as a monopoly.

Basically, I don't think a company like MS or Sony has the authority to dictate who can compete in the market as a major player. That's why it's a free market, after all. If Sony, Sega & Nintendo had that mentality back in the day, Microsoft would've been 100% shut out at every turn. If Nintendo & Sega had that mentality, Sony'd of been 100% shut out (and that almost actually happened).

Technically speaking those other options can build studios from the bottom-up and grow them from there, but it's on them to figure that out. They just don't want to deal with the time that'd take and the resources needed, and may or may not lack people good enough to guide that growth. Google certainly lacks it, as an example. All the same, I don't think using the fear of Amazon, Apple, Google etc. potentially entering as major players is good enough reason to want Microsoft, Sony etc. to buy up these massive publishers.

I'm a point now where if a major publisher did get purchased by a company not MS or Sony, and things go south, I'm kind of in the "so what?" camp. Plenty of devs and pubs have shut down in the past. Lots of great IP have been lost. I absolutely wouldn't want to see Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft to stop being platform holders, but I don't think they need to buy up massive publishers and consolidate the industry to avoid that fate, either.

Because it's been going on two years now, and we still haven't seen Apple make a serious gaming purchase, or not even Amazon. Google cucked out at the mere sight of MS buying Zenimax. And also keep in mind, what big pubs even want to really sell to companies like Google or Amazon, as they are right now? Embracer and Tencent are different; Embracer just focuses on b-tier companies and IP, Tencent just tries to buy majority shares. And actually, another company can buy out Tencent's shares.

But unlike MS, Sony, Google, Amazon, or Apple, Tencent & Embracer don't have a major gaming service or gaming hardware they would use their stuff for to push marketshare. They are 100% reliant on the market as it currently exists and aren't interested in disrupting the setup, because that disrupts their money. The only reason I'd somewhat want to keep Google, Amazon and Apple out is because if they're successful, they might push out one of the current Big 3.

That's assuming they actually make a successful product, though. And just buying up studios or publishers won't make that product successful whatsoever; you still need to know what to do with it.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'm a point now where if a major publisher did get purchased by a company not MS or Sony, and things go south, I'm kind of in the "so what?" camp. Plenty of devs and pubs have shut down in the past. Lots of great IP have been lost. I absolutely wouldn't want to see Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft to stop being platform holders, but I don't think they need to buy up massive publishers and consolidate the industry to avoid that fate, either.

Thats the thing.

Game studios shut down all the time whether they are independent or under a corporate umbrella.

Unless someone can prove to me (any of us) a studio being under a big corporation is worse for gamer with a higher probability of being torn down vs. being on their own, it's a non issue for me.

 

[nominedomine]

Microsoft please, that way those games can still come to PC.

Google = aids
Facebook - Full focus on VR, and while I love my quest, I dont want those ips to only be in that format
Sony - High quality games, lovely ips and studios but I want to have the date and day PC option
EA - lol
No opinion on Tencent really

Is acquisition begging the new port begging?

 

[bitbydeath]

I wouldn’t be surprised if Sony is trying to buy all of WB and not just the gaming division.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Thats the thing.

Game studios shut down all the time whether they are independent or under a corporate umbrella.

Unless someone can prove to me (any of us) a studio being under a big corporation is worse for gamer with a higher probability of being torn down vs. being on their own, it's a non issue for me.

I'm not under the idea that a studio staying independent means they don't risk closing down or failing. That reality holds true regardless if they're on their own or under a platform holder, I agree.

However, the benefit of them staying independent is, if they need money, they can take out loans or do fundraisers. They're still going to need to make product that sells, to pay back their investors (with interest), but at least with a sheer greater number of independent devs & pubs you potentially get more variety in software output.

I still don't 100% buy the idea that companies like MS are going to be able to justify funding ALL of these studios, all of these IPs and all of these software releases, over the longer term. At least, not without showing some persistent results of managing that with what they already have. There's virtually no company in history that has kept production of new content post-acquisition at the same level as it'd of been if those companies remained independent & the purchasing company relied on their own regular output.

In other words, if Companies A, B, and C each put out 15 games per year, and Company A acquired Companies B & C, overall I would expect that total output to drop from 45 games per year to 35, or even 25. Considering companies like Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft have already lingered on home-grown IP of their own for many years, what makes you think these companies will keep every active IP from studios they acquire, going at the same rate over time? There's no realistic way they would be able to. And at the worst end of that you get things like Disney who love to vault tons of their own original IP, and now they have been vaulting tons of Fox works that probably would've been getting new projects and releases if Fox remained non-acquired.

I think this is something to seriously consider.

 

[nominedomine]

I wouldn’t be surprised if Sony is trying to buy all of WB and not just the gaming division.

I wonder if there is something in the Spider-man movie rights contract that prevents him from appearing in DC movies. They already set up the multiverse .

Not going to happen tho, Sony doesn't have all that money.

 

[Craig of War]

I laughed, but I used to feel the same way as you. Then I realized a duopoly or triopoly can be almost as bad as a monopoly.

Basically, I don't think a company like MS or Sony has the authority to dictate who can compete in the market as a major player. That's why it's a free market, after all. If Sony, Sega & Nintendo had that mentality back in the day, Microsoft would've been 100% shut out at every turn. If Nintendo & Sega had that mentality, Sony'd of been 100% shut out (and that almost actually happened).

Technically speaking those other options can build studios from the bottom-up and grow them from there, but it's on them to figure that out. They just don't want to deal with the time that'd take and the resources needed, and may or may not lack people good enough to guide that growth. Google certainly lacks it, as an example. All the same, I don't think using the fear of Amazon, Apple, Google etc. potentially entering as major players is good enough reason to want Microsoft, Sony etc. to buy up these massive publishers.

I'm a point now where if a major publisher did get purchased by a company not MS or Sony, and things go south, I'm kind of in the "so what?" camp. Plenty of devs and pubs have shut down in the past. Lots of great IP have been lost. I absolutely wouldn't want to see Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft to stop being platform holders, but I don't think they need to buy up massive publishers and consolidate the industry to avoid that fate, either.

Because it's been going on two years now, and we still haven't seen Apple make a serious gaming purchase, or not even Amazon. Google cucked out at the mere sight of MS buying Zenimax. And also keep in mind, what big pubs even want to really sell to companies like Google or Amazon, as they are right now? Embracer and Tencent are different; Embracer just focuses on b-tier companies and IP, Tencent just tries to buy majority shares. And actually, another company can buy out Tencent's shares.

But unlike MS, Sony, Google, Amazon, or Apple, Tencent & Embracer don't have a major gaming service or gaming hardware they would use their stuff for to push marketshare. They are 100% reliant on the market as it currently exists and aren't interested in disrupting the setup, because that disrupts their money. The only reason I'd somewhat want to keep Google, Amazon and Apple out is because if they're successful, they might push out one of the current Big 3.

That's assuming they actually make a successful product, though. And just buying up studios or publishers won't make that product successful whatsoever; you still need to know what to do with it.

It not a Monopoly just buy 2 console or a PC lol your thinking this in the console war since fuck that man

 

[Craig of War]

I doubt my interests align with the interests of Sony and certainly not with the ones MS have.

Your 1 weird dude bro it about gaming unless you have stocks in these company who cares lol

 

[nominedomine]

Your 1 weird dude bro it about gaming unless you have stocks in these company who cares lol

I just care about games, I don't care about subscription services. I won't cheer for consolidation on account of that. If you like a game, you buy it, works great for me.

As for the moral high ground, are you boycotting games that use Unreal Engine 5 because Tencent owns a big chunk of Epic?

 

[Craig of War]

Given this group, I'd take MS.

All those companies you listed at the top, who the hell knows how reliable they are for. And for the ones with a stable of games (Tencent and Embracer) they are a lot of Asian games or small scale games.

There's no guarantee Sony or MS will keep the company or game franchise around, but at least MS has most of their games coming to Xbox/PC at the same time. They might have some exclusive console or PC games here and there, but most are supported by both Xbox/PC.

With Sony, it'll be PS first, likely a console exclusive, and if it does come to PC (maybe) it'll be anywhere from 2 years (Days Gone) to 6 years (UC) kind of thing. You might get lucky and it's a 2 year port like DG, or may never happen.

Agree

 

[Craig of War]

I just care about games, I don't care about subscription services. I won't cheer for consolidation on account of that. If you like a game, you buy it, works great for me.

If you actually care about games as you say it best that Sony or MS get them not them others

 

[BaneIsPain]

It is boring to see publishers get bought. Good luck

 

[nominedomine]

If you actually care about games as you say it best that Sony or MS get them not them others

Because you are telling me so? Your attempt to explain why that is the case was extremely unconvincing so far.

This whole thing of pretending MS is such a force for good is beyond absurd and quite disturbing to be honest, same goes for Sony to lesser extend since at least they are a considerably smaller company compared to MS. Both would skin players alive if they thought that would be the optimal way to make money.

 

[freefornow]

Deleted: Already covered