Topic: Which Studios Should Microsoft Acquire Next?

@Magabro
I could see either Apple or Google moving in on Sony. Possibly as a strategic business partner, I don't think they would be allowed to buy them. Japan is very weird with companies in Japan being bought by companies from the West.

@ZuneTattooGuy it would make a lot of sense for Apple or Amazon because of their streaming platforms (Apple TV+, Prime Video). Sony is probably the last big studio that doesn't own its own streaming platform.

But you're right, buying a Japanese company is more complex than buying a Western one. But if we're assuming that Microsoft could buy SEGA, we most entertain the possibility that another Big Tech could potentially buy Sony, if Sony is willing to sell. I'd assume they would have to be in a very bad shape in order to accept that.

@Magabro
Sony does own their own streaming platform
https://www.engadget.com/2012-07-02-sony-buys-gaikai.html

@Magabro
Sega is technically an American company that has offices in Japan. Though I don't see Sega ready to sell anytime soon. Sony, despite the Playstation brand being a massive success, is bleeding money on almost all other fronts. They keep heavily investing into their mobile phone division but other than making impressive expensive phones they are not turning a profit. Their movie division is very hit and miss, and when is the last time you've seen someone buy a Sony TV? They have many divisions that are not anywhere near as successful as their Playstation brand.

Sony are not doing too badly at the moment - obviously their Hardware market isn't the 'Strongest' as people have tended to move away from hardware in Music (hi-fi systems, Walkmans, Stereos etc) and don't buy VHS/DVD/BluRays for Movies anymore either. So apart from the the few Hardware items they still produce, things they don't produce as much so its not surprising its not their 'main' income stream.

Movies were not doing that well a few years ago, a few big 'flops' didn't help (the 'Amazing' Spider-Man 2...) but a few successes (Jumanji reboot, Marvel Spider-Man trilogy etc) and things have picked up for Sony's Pictures in recent times.

Anyway, enough about Sony as they are not doing too badly and showing 'growth' in their annual profits in recent years and its not really relevant to the topic.

Sega is not like a typical Japanese Company that would be particularly difficult for an outside company to purchase. However its complicated by all the 'holdings' of Sega - Resorts, Golf Courses etc etc as well as all their 'Gaming' properties.

I don't expect MS to invest in another 'Publisher' - unless opportunities present themselves. If they want to sell, then I'd expect MS to be 'interested', but I expect them to Consolidate and reorganise after acquiring ABK with maybe adding 'independent' Studios (like Undead Labs, Double Fine, Obsidian, InXile) rather than a Publisher with multiple Studios. Asobo, Certain Affinity etc are what I would consider most likely but we shall see...

Microsoft wont be allowed to buy anyone after this merger

@trev666 Why not? Its not as if they have the 'majority' of Studios or IP's.

TenCent are 'bigger' than Microsoft in a Gaming sense for example and its 'not' Sony vs Microsoft and Sony can't buy more Studios so MS shouldn't be allowed. Its more like MS vs Sony vs Nintendo vs TenCent vs Embracer vs EA vs Ubisoft vs Capcom vs Sega vs Square Enix etc etc Its nowhere NEAR anti-competitive or potentially monopolising gaming yet so no reason to 'block' anyone from buying up more Studio's/Publishers...

If you only own a 'small' fraction of the market, you can't control or monopolise the market. The fact is that there are hundreds if not thousands of Studio's making games. MS doesn't release the 'most' every year and 'every' game is competing for Consumers time/money. Peoplpe will still buy Nintendo for Zelda, Mario, Pikmin, Pokemon etc, People will still buy Sony for LoU, Spider-Man, Wolverine, R&C etc too - games never on MS hardware so should Sony and Nintendo be blocked from buying?

@BAMozzy As clearly as you explained the realities of the games industry, most will still it ignore reality and return with the same erroneous MS/Xbox "monopoly" arguments.

I wouldn’t mind them picking up The Behemoth and assigning them to a Castle Crashers II fine if it’s multiplatform; I just need that game.

I think that they should start to make their own games.

@AnVold Any Studio bought by MS is 'owned' by MS and any Game they go on to make is funded by MS so they are making their 'own' games - they 'own' the IP's, the Studio, the Publishing Rights etc etc...

Starfield is a Microsoft owned IP, made by a Microsoft owned Studio, assisted and Financed by Microsoft so its their 'own' game. At most, you can argue that 'old' games now 'owned' by MS weren't theirs originally - like Fallout 4 or Doom: Eternal, but any 'new' Fallout/Doom etc would be made by an MS owned Studio, funded entirely by MS and Published by MS - an IP they 'own'...

Virtually Every game made by the Studio's MS acquires is Owned by MS so they are making their 'Own' games. If we get a Fallout 5 for example, it will be owned by Microsoft - its their IP, made by their Studio who are Microsoft employees...

@BAMozzy I mean that Microsoft should start to make their own new games instead making other games and IP their own.

@AnVold They need Studio's to make/create 'new' IP's so that still requires buying up Studio's to 'create' those new IP's. Naughty Dog had no choice to leave Crash Bandicoot behind when they were bought by Sony because they didn't OWN the IP and had to create something 'new' in Jak & Daxter. If Sony had purchased the IP too, Sony would 'own' that IP and no doubt have forced ND to continue making Crash games as a PS mascot...

Whatever 'new' IP's are created by MS owned Studios will still not be regarded as their 'own' because they bought a 'multi-platform' studio and those 'new' IP's should have released on multiple platforms - even if they were greenlit, funded and only got made because of MS. How long will it take for people to stop thinking that whatever games MS release are MS owned 'games'. Starfield, Hi-Fi Rush and Redfall are MS owned IP's, made by MS owned Studios and are 'NEW' IP's never released on ANY Platform, no 'history' on Playstation at all yet you still think that MS need to make their 'own' games...

They are Xbox Games owned by MS, developed by Microsoft Studios and Published by MS - whatever Doom, Fallout, Elder Scrolls etc game comes out in the future will be a MS owned game, built by MS owned Studios and funded/published by MS too - it 'exists' because of Microsoft!!

@BAMozzy but they have more then enough studios for it. Studios that they had and that they bought. So where is new IP? Hi-Fi Rush is ok, but it's not enough and I don't think that Tango Gameworks can make something great without Shinji Mikami. They also need to improve their quality control. Quality of games like in Redfall is unacceptable.

True, but if game released on Xbox and PС only - it's not a 'multi-platform' game.

It's not true enough. Starfield and Redfall was announced and was in development before Microsoft buyed Zenimax. They would be released without Microsoft (maybe even in better quality) and they would be a 'multi-platform' games.The only thing that Microsoft has done is deprived the PlayStation community of these games.

Yes I do, because this games was made not by Microsoft itself. They just buyed almost finished product. And they still can't finish Redfall completely even after release.

Nope, they didn't exists because of Microsoft. This series was made much earlier then Microsoft buyed them and they can easily exists without Microsoft. But the problem is that they can "die" under Microsoft like it was with Lionhead Studious and Fable. It can start with low quality games like it was with Ninja Theory, 343 and Arkane. Then they'll lose many of their developers or their "head" like it was with 343 and Tango. I don't think that we'll see a bright future of this gaming series under Microsoft.

This pic is sad, but it's so true.

@AnVold First off if it releases on Xbox and PS - its 'multi-platform' - its not 'exclusive' to a Single Platform.

Secondly, Starfield, Redfall and Hi-Fi Rush are IP's with NO history and certainly never released (or were announced for) Playstation so these games are NEW IP's owned 'exclusively' by Microsoft. You can argue that Returnal wasn't a 'Sony' owned IP, made by a Sony owned Studio, they just paid to keep it away from Xbox and only after release, decided to add that Studio and 'their' IP's to Sony's.

As for whether those games would have released or not is 'irrelevant' - the fact is that MS bought the Studios, the IP's, the Publishing rights etc and as its 'their' money funding these games now, you cannot say that the 'Game' would have come to 'Playstation' - the IP maybe but it could be a 'different' game, not as ambitious or as polished, maybe loaded with Cosmetics and MTX as most 3rd Party games are these days, maybe forced to make Games as a Service (like ESO, F76 and Redfall was intended to be - but 'changed' after MS owned it.

Any game made under MS ownership is MS owned and whilst 'IP's' may have released on PS in the future had they remained 3rd Party, there is also a possibility that any 'future' version wouldn't be the SAME game under different management with different objectives and having to 'release' on as many platforms as they don't have their OWN.

Those games exist because of Microsoft. MS is the owner and bought these Studios to make these Games and as we know, changed the way those Studios 'work' and what support they can get. Redfall would be 'similar' but also much more a GaaS than it turned out after MS bought the Studio so the 'version' of Redfall we got was different to what it would have been, therefore it 'exists' that way because of MS. Starfield may not have been as 'Ambitious' without MS Support, HiFi Rush may never of been fully realised as Zenimax would probably expect them to make a GaaS to capitalise on the potential money from Sales of MTX Cosmetics etc...

Its clear you are a Sony Fanboy as 95% of Sony Studios were 'bought' and as such, stopped those Devs from making Games on Xbox. Whether they create a 'new' IP or not, those games are made by a Sony owned Studio, funded by Sony, published by Sony etc so its 'OK' but if MS do it - its wrong...

What is worse in my opinion is going to 3rd Party Publishers/Devs and paying them not to release games on 'other' platforms - whether its a 'year' or never releasing, its still worse than buying the IP, the Studio, the Publishing rights etc and therefore have the 'right' to release ONLY on their Hardware. Sony own Uncharted, Last of Us, Ghost of Tsushima, Infamous, Killzone, Destiny, Ratchet & Clank etc etc - created by Studio's they 'bought'. As for 'killing' studio's Sony has certainly killed off a number of theirs too - where are the creators of Motorstorm and Driveclub? Oh that's right, Sony killed them because Driveclub wasn't the 'success' they hoped it would be. No different from MS almost a 'decade' ago shutting Lionhead as no-one was interested in their 'new' Fable project (Fable: Legends) and the last Fable (Fable: Heroes) wasn't great either...

Of course, MS has completely restructured Xbox since then, merging Xbox into MS instead of running it as a Side Project, introducing Game Pass and releasing Games day/date on PC too, hence they have bought Studios (which take time to develop 'new' games and therefore see a return) as well as Zenimax which adds their entire 'Publishing' and IP collection to MS's so has immediate benefits and immediate returns. If you buy Fallout 4, Doom Eternal, Skyrim or any other 'pre-purchase' release, that money goes to MS as MS owns it - even on Playstation, its money for Microsoft as they OWN the games...

If you buy Tomb Raider (the Crystal Dynamics trilogy for example) money goes to Square Enix as Publisher and 'owner' of that Game. Amazon own Tomb Raider now but don't own the Publishing Rights to the 'OLD' games so have to make a 'new' Tomb Raider to make 'money'. If they 'choose' to keep it to their Luna service exclusively, they can - regardless of whether Eidos released on Playstation/Xbox/Nintendo/PC or whatever platforms in the past, regardless of what Square Enix did too. Tomb Raider will 'exist' because Amazon own the IP and are paying a Studio to make a 'new' Tomb Raider. Just because CD/SE may have made a 'Tomb Raider' that released on PS/Xbox, also doesn't mean its the exact same 'vision', same ambition and quality, same amount of 'money' invested in it etc etc so it 'exists' in the future because of Amazon, not because of Eidos who haven't been in existence for years!!

If Sony buy Square Enix, you don't expect them to release Forspoken, Final Fantasy and all the other SE titles they 'inherit' on Xbox ever again and you can certainly kiss any remote hope that FF7/16 etc will ever release on Xbox. Its fair enough, its their money, their Studios, their IP's etc...

@BAMozzy my bad. I meant 'Xbox and PC'.

That's why I said that Microsoft should start to make their own new games instead making other games and IP's their own.

Why I can't say that? PlayStation is a very popular platform, much more popular then Xbox. Independent developers can't just ignore it. And I doesn't matter if the game will be the same or slightly different. The fact is that this games will be definitely existed without Microsoft. Microsoft just parasitizes on the gaming industry. They don't creating anything new.

Not as ambitious and polished like Redfall, Halo Infinite and Bleeding Edge? Is it a joke? Right?

Nope, those games would be existed without Microsoft

Those studios can make their games without Microsoft and do it good. I like TES from Bethesda, but I don't know what I'll see in TES from Microsoft. I'm sure that Redfall would be much better without Microsoft, because Independent developers cares a lot about their own reputation and will not release unfinished product.

Is it correct to call a guy who plays on three actual platforms and on many retro consoles 'Sony Fanboy'? I think, no. So I can see only one fanboy here. He is not me and he is from 'green side'. If you want, you can call me a former Xbox fan. It closer to truth. And yes, I remember a time when Microsoft could make their own big and good games

So what games was not released on Xbox because of Sony? I don't know even a single. But I know games that was not released on PS because of Microsoft. It's Starfield and Redfall.

But there is a big difference. When Sony creating a 'new' IP for their money, Microsoft just buying almost finished products and other's IP. They creating nothing new by themselves. That's why I don't like a current Microsoft.

Why it worse? Xbox gamers can play Stray, Ghostwire: Tokyo and Deathloop for now. But can PS games play Redfall! - No! Can they play Starfield and TES VI in the future? - No! Many peoples own just one console and Microsoft just taken away the opportunity to play these games from these peoples. This is much worse.

But it was all created under Sony or for Sony (except Destiny). Buying Bungie by Sony was a answer on buying ZeniMax by Microsoft.

It's simple. They was 'killed' because they can't make a great games anymore. But look on GUERRILLA and Sucker Punch. They made new and awesome IP's. The IP's that current Microsoft just can't create by yourself.

No difference? So what about Rare then? A Legendary studio, a creators of Donkey Kong, Killer Instinct, Banjo Kazooie and etc. Why it's relased only a few new games and few ports/remakes for Xbox? Why they can make great games for Nintendo, but can't do it for Microsoft? Why Nintendo gamers remember this studio better then Microsoft gamers? Why this studio almost died? I don't want the same fate for Bethesda and id Software.

Sony don't need to buy Square Enix, because they can make their own big and great games. They'll buy it only if they fear that Microsoft may buy it and take it's future games from PlayStation community.

in my opinion they would have plenty enough studios to manage, after acquiring Activision on top of the current ones, and they should focus on that to avoid something like embracer in the near future...

I think Royal Games because it is the main portal
to King.com, the games site has been there for 18 years, it has a good gaming community and the games that are played are really good.

SEGA was an American corp, that changed in the 80's when CSK bought SEGA and became their biggest shareholder, before being sold off to Sammy. SEGA Sammy hasn't moved more and more back into games production on the consoles/PC. SEGA would be a nice buy along with a team like Asobo

. I also feel people miss the point sometimes. You don't need to be number one to be successful. SONY Tv's still sell well enough to make a profit, in the same way Samsung phones sell well enough, despite Apple being the market leader

For me its not all about buying studios either. XBox PR is beyond pathetic and Xbox needs to do a far better job of showing the power of the Series X IMO

@TeamAndromeda
Apple sold 225.30 million iPhones in 2022
Samsung sold 259 million units in 2022

Nice try though.

Also my point was when is the last time you have seen anyone with a new Sony TV, Laptop, Cellphone or MP3 Player (yes they still sell brand new MP3 models for some reason)