More Independent Studios Could be Purchased by Sony After Insomniac

SwitchedOn Gamer writes: Sony has acquired Insomniac Games, one of the most successful independent studios. This announcement makes any other studio purchase seem possible.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Jin_Sakai601d ago (Edited 601d ago )

I have a feeling Sony will buy Remedy next. Then hopefully we can get Alan Wake 2 on PS5.

Jin_Sakai601d ago

Sony should also purchase Bluepoint Games. They did an amazing job with Shadow of the Colossus.

bouzebbal600d ago

Bluepoint and reopen Studio Liverpool.. We need some new wipeout.

lalalala600d ago

Bluepoint makes sense,but not remedy

Army_of_Darkness600d ago

I'd like them to purchase level-5(Ni no Kuni) and Housemarque (alienation /dead nation)!

Spurg601d ago

Look at the way Ms buys studios. They had a relationship with the team they brought.
Ninja Theory-Kung fu chaos published by Ms
Psychonauts- Double fine was partnered by Ms to bring the game to xbox
Obsidian-Made KOTOR 2 published by Ms

Insomniac- Sony published R&D, Resistance and Spiderman. So it made sense to buy them.

What game did Sony help Remedy with?
MS has published Alan Wake, Quantum Break and the upcoming Crossfire X campaign for 2020. Ms are the ones who deserve to acquire Remedy, not Sony.

Atom666601d ago (Edited 601d ago )

I'm 50/50 on the Remedy rumors. I would think they'd strike up an exclusive deal for a game or two first before committing, but there's a fair amount of buzz about them being acquired from a lot of folks.

I will say that if they do an Alan Wake 2, they really should do it multiplat, though. Screw the console warriors wanting to score points. That's just needless bad press for a franchise that has a small, but pastionate fanbase.

Mr_Writer85601d ago


"Ninja Theory-Kung fu chaos published by Ms"
In 2003...for the original Xbox

Hellblade was a console launch exclusive on PS4 in 2017

"Psychonauts- Double fine was partnered by Ms to bring the game to xbox "

Sony helped DF get the rights to Grim Fandango, Full Throttle and Day of the Tentacle.

"Obsidian-Made KOTOR 2 published by Ms"

No it wasn't it was published by Lucasarts.

mkis007601d ago (Edited 601d ago )

Lots of stretching with your examples of partnerships... like very bad stretching... ( Ninja Theory and Double Fine have historically released more games favoring playstation than xbox) really softens your point, which is weird because it started out as a good point. Remedy hasn't worked with Sony exclusively in its history. Aside from the type of games they make fitting snugly into son'y wheelhouse, I don't see their history together as one that facilitates an acquisition.

Bluepoint on the other hand would be a nice fit for Sony to pick up. They are remastering gods.

Though the fact the same lake congratulated Insomniac on joining WWS makes it almost too obvious.

Prince-Ali601d ago (Edited 601d ago )


WHY are you ALWAYS in these comment sections talking absolute stupidity!?!?
Ninja Theory makes sense to you because of a game released in 2003!!?!?!? Meanwhile Heavenly Sword released EXCLUSIVE to PS3 Enslaved had marketing rights with PS3 and Hellblade released as a console exclsuive for a year on PS3 and yet they were purchased by Xbox!! But THAT makes sense to you bruhh stop being deluded for 5 minutess and think lool

Double fine literalllyy have released more games favoring PS than MS too.. it's just embarrassing man! ¬_¬

Imortus_san601d ago

Using logic got you 57 downvotes and only 7 upvotes, this just show's that most playstation fans on this site have beans for brains.

flaming_scorpion600d ago

You do know that Remedy’s new game Control has PS Exclusive content right? Just saying the tides have turned for Rememdy and also Remedy has the rights to Alan Wake again so literally it can end up anywhere

froy402600d ago

No... Microsoft will fck remedy up

600d ago
2pacalypsenow600d ago (Edited 600d ago )

Who gives a Shi** about their relationships.

No one deserves anything.

Sony should buy as many studios as they can, it's a business.

MasterCornholio600d ago

I think it's all down to who is willing to give remedy the support that they need.

kayoss600d ago (Edited 600d ago )

" Ms are the ones who deserve to acquire Remedy, not Sony". No one deserve to acquire any studio, its an agreement. Even if MS deserve to acquire Remedy, that doesnt mean Remedy want to sell it to MS.

mrmikew2018600d ago (Edited 600d ago )

I doubt if Remedy wants anything to do with MS at this point.

Flewid638600d ago

If you're using words like "deserve" then clearly you don't know how business works. lol.

IamTylerDurden1600d ago

Sony had a way better relationship with Ninja Theory than Microsoft. Heavenly Sword was a quality, AAA PS3 exclusive and Hellblade was a PS4 console launch exclusive. Kung Fu Chaos was a bad 2003 game.

Sony probably has a more extensive history with Double Fine than Xbox. Grim Fandango, Day of the Tentacle, Full Throttle, and Psychonauts Rhombus of Ruin.

Your bullshit theory has holes.

How about Compulsion? What history does Microsoft have with Compulsion Games?

How about inXile? What history does Microsoft have with inXile?

The post you made is horrible and i'm shocked 19 ppl agreed with you.

To further the lunacy of your theory you make it like Microsoft signs studios they have a relationship with and Sony doesn't simply because of a rumor about Remedy. Meanwhile, Sony just signed Insomniac whom they have a splendid relationship and deep working history with.

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 600d ago
Ausbo601d ago

Doubt they will hit with a large studio back to back. I’d expect a smaller studio like bluepoint or housemarque

KickSpinFilter600d ago

housemarque nah, after such Boss games as Resogun, Dead Nation, SuperStardust their output has been rather questionable as of late. Bluepoint would be a much smarter move.

Crazyglues601d ago

They Need to buy Naughty Dog....

Neonridr601d ago

Naughty Dog was acquired by Sony back in 2001, lol.

AsunaYuukiTheFlash600d ago

Are you living in a rock bruh?

KickSpinFilter600d ago (Edited 600d ago )

Stop sniffin dat CrayCrayglue.

Crazyglues600d ago (Edited 600d ago )

Wow, I don't know why I thought naughty Dog was independent... LoL -see what happens when you sniff glue...

NarutoFox600d ago

Was this a joke or you really didn't know?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 600d ago
NarutoFox601d ago (Edited 601d ago )

I believe Alan Wake 2 would come to PS5 regardless if Sony buys them or not. Remedy owns the IP now. It could also end up as a multiplatform game as well.

Jin_Sakai601d ago (Edited 601d ago )


“The late Stan Lee -- who co-created 'Spider-Man' -- would've been happy over the news that Sony pumped the brakes on giving Disney control of his character ... so says his daughter.“

rainslacker600d ago (Edited 600d ago )

I cant blame Sony after I read the deal that disney was enforcing for the movie license. Make Sony pay for production, but only give them 5% of the box office. That would effectively make Sony the money man and no investor is going to take such a small cut, and get nothing else on extra revenues.

Sony wasnt in a position they couldn't make the movies, I think they just didnt want to.

Luckily, while the movie deal may have greased the wheels for the game rights, I dont think that the game deal will suffer because if it. Sony likely has a multi game deal with disney now, and they pay for and retain an acceptable amount of revenue, and I cant see why Disney would be upset with the sales of the game. Plus, trusting the game to another publisher is a crap shoot nowadays. Sony proved they will take care with the franchise and do it justice.

jivah601d ago

That sounds disgusting. Id buy FromSoftware before remedy. They haven't put out anything substantial in a while.

DarkZane600d ago

FromSoftware is impossible. They're already owned by Kadokawa Corporation. They'd have to buy it from them or buy Kadokawa Corporation itself, which is a much bigger endeavor.

sagittariusboy600d ago

Hahah, keep dreaming. Microsoft already tried buying them multiple times and they wouldn't budge. So I doubt they'll be joining Sony either.

600d ago
sagittariusboy600d ago

Insomniac's acquisition literally couldn't have neen more obvious..

Spurg600d ago

"In 2003...for the original Xbox"
Yeah they've had a relationship from the very beginning of Ninja theory. And also Heveanly sword is an IP that Ninja wanted to own but that to reluctantly give away because Sony would only publish the game if they own the rights to it. And Hellblade was low budget game with AAA qualities and was exclusive for PS4 just it was cheaper and more indie friendly comapred to Xbox but once they recouperated the cost they published on Xbox. They had no deal made with Sony for Hellblade.

"Sony helped DF get the rights to Grim Fandango, Full Throttle and Day of the Tentacle."
And MS thanks Sony for those IPs. Ms funded Psychonauts and today they have taken over publishing for P2 instead of the other incompetent publisher.

"No it wasn't it was published by Lucasarts."
Exclusively for Xbox.

@prince Ali
"WHY are you ALWAYS in these comment sections talking absolute stupidity!?!?"

To you it's stupidity but they are facts, I know all of this because I have a good knowledge of those studios. What better is based on those facts, MS has acquired those studios so is there something stupid here.

"So now previous relationship is a requirement when you fear MS might loose another developer?"
It's not a must but there is a clear connection. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Playground games-Forza horizon exclusive
Undead labs- state of decay exclusive
Complusion games- one expectation
Obsidian-Kotor exclusive
Double fine-funded Psychonauts during it initial stages.
Inxile- expection but are at the same caliber as Obsidian.

shuvam09600d ago

Lol this is going on reddit...
Just so that people know why education is important...

IamTylerDurden1600d ago

I'll take something new over Alan Wake on PS. With Insomniac i'd rather they work on a Spider-man sequel, Going Commando reboot, Resistance 4 or a remake, and AAA VR than Sunset O.

343_Guilty_Spark600d ago

Strange seeing this when so many Sony fans said Alan Wake sucked

IamTylerDurden1600d ago

Alan Wake was ok, but American Nightmare sucked.

Teflon02600d ago

Level-5 I think they should get for the sake of Dark Cloud 3

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 600d ago
NeoGamer232601d ago (Edited 601d ago )

Sony buys Insomniac and literally the next day Disney and Sony split on their partnership with Spider-man.

Did Sony do this to spite Disney?

If you don't want Spider-man in the MCU then you don't get the studio that makes good spider-man games.

Jin_Sakai601d ago (Edited 601d ago )

Marvel wanted 50% of Spider-Man movie profits! I don’t blame Sony for standing strong.

NeoGamer232601d ago (Edited 601d ago )

Spider-man was dead until they joined the MCU fold.

If it wasn't for Disney Spider-man was heading to oblivion. Remember The Amazing Spider-man 1 and 2? Sony shelved the 3rd installment because it was DoA. MCU has made Spider-man worthwhile again. Disney deserves to reap half the profits. After all Spider-man is a Marvel character not a Sony character and Disney has made all the MCU characters relevant. Sony was just smart in buying the movie rights.

They should split the costs and profits 50/50.

Araragifeels 601d ago

Disney asking 50% was to much. Disney was already making more money on merchandise from the movies. Disney should have asked for 25%-40% at least.

601d ago
Mr_Writer85601d ago (Edited 601d ago )


Not only that they want 50% of all Spiderman charater related movies eg Venom 2, Morbius etc.

Sony countered and said 70/30 and Disney said no.


Same was said for Batman after Batman and Robin.

Also Sony made a lot of money from the Spiderman films.

Spiderman $827m
Spiderman 2 $783m
Spiderman 3 $890m
ASM $757m
ASM2 $709m
ITSV $375m

So let's not pretend Sony couldn't make money with those films.

badz149601d ago


you better stop talking about things you don't know about.

In their agreement, Marvel gets 5% but Sony fully funded Homecoming and Far From Home, that 5% is I think for Feige to be there. and that 95% for Sony is only for the Box Office earnings. Marvel still retain 100% of merchandise earnings related to the movies. Sony gets nothing even though they are the one distributing the movies.

now that Far From Home earns so much, Marvel wants a 50/50 split for the movie IP that Sony owns while still retaining the 100% earning from merchandise. in what which universe is THAT even remotely close to a good deal for Sony?

it's like you buying a car and decide to use it for UBER and your car manufacturer says, we will pay half of your gasoline money but let's also split the UBER earnings 50/50. does THAT sounds like a good deal to you??

UltraNova601d ago

All this scares me, if Mickey gets angry he might buy Sony all together. Then we're all fu***!

To our "financial analysts" here, can the House of the Mouse buy Sony?

601d ago
ShadowWolf712601d ago

No, they didn't. They offered a 50% co-financing split. That's 50% of the COST, not 50% of the profits. The revenue split was never disclosed.

Inzo601d ago


Disney cant afford Sony, turns out they have been cooking their books, Galaxy's Edge is a failure and they have so much riding on their new streaming service which if it fails they will be out billions.

Neonridr601d ago

clearly it wasn't that simple. I am sure there would have been benefits for Sony to allow Spiderman to be included in future MCU movies as well. I love how Disney is the enemy here and Sony is the good guy when nobody on this board has any actual inside knowledge or knows 100% what was offered and discussed. Let's just take a few numbers and act like we all know the ins and out. Laughable.

AsunaYuukiTheFlash600d ago (Edited 600d ago )

If thats the case Disney should split the revenue on the MCU films.

DigitalHope600d ago

Marvel also positioned Spider Man to be the center piece of the MCU as the replacement to Iron Man. That will shoot the popularity of Spider Man into the stratosphere in fandom and profit. I don’t blame Marvel or Disney for wanting a bigger cut when it’s their creative direction that has got Spider Man to this point. Disney has also said they will cover part of the cost now for more profit. Sony is being stupid for trying to lowball Disney and not negotiating a better deal. Sony will never be as successful without the MCU.

P_Bomb600d ago (Edited 600d ago )

It’s not hard to piece together. Internet’s a leaky place. Analysis from the Hollywood POV generally comes to the consensus that any executive taking the deal would’ve been fired. “No studio would agree to that kind of extortion.” -John Campea

Do you know how much money Disney gave Sony for using Spider-Man in Civil War, Infinity War and Endgame? Zero. Sony also bankrolled Homecoming and Far from Home themselves. Disney wants a 900% raise on top of that along with creative control and co-financing leverage for all 900 characters Sony bought from Marvel (Venom, Morbius, Spiderverse sequels etc) ALONG with the 100% Spider-Man merchandise and theme park revenue they already have. Sony allegedly came back with a 70-30 and were rejected.

Coming off an Oscar for Spiderverse 6 months ago and Venom making the same BO Homecoming did w RDJ, there’s no reason for Sony to sell atm. If Disney wants to be the hero here, they could just as easily keep they deal they already had that gave them Tom Holland for free. Three times.

343_Guilty_Spark600d ago

50% they deserved.

Spider-Man was trash before the MCU

343_Guilty_Spark600d ago

You would be a very bad business man. The MCU is movie gold.

IamTylerDurden1600d ago (Edited 600d ago )


The Raimi trilogy sold huge and scored well critically.

In fact, the highest rated Spiderman movie (critically) was without the MCU. The best selling Spiderman movie when u account for inflation was also not a movie involving the MCU. Spiderman 2 was the highest rated Spiderman movie and accounting for inflation Spiderman 3 was the highest grossing. Spiderman has had plenty of success without the MCU in the past.

I love how ppl lump The Amazing Spiderman movies together as if they both performed and scored equally. The Amazing Spiderman 1 performed fine critically and commercially. The movie made almost 800 million and is a mere 3 POINTS lower than Far From Home on Metacritic. TASM 1 was a decent film that performed well. Before the MCU Sony had one Spiderman dud and TASM 2 still made over 700 million.

Raimi Spiderman 1-2 were excellent movies and huge hits. Spiderman 3 is the highest grossing Spiderman film accounting for inflation and TASM 1 performed about as well as Homecoming commercially (when accounting for inflation) and nearly as well as Far From Home critically, according to Metacritic. Spiderman has a long, rich history even without Disney or the MCU and as good as the past 2 movies were, the reason why Far From Home sold 1.1b was in large part because it was an epilogue for Endgame. Let's be real. It wasn't necessarily because Marvel made such an incredible movie, it's because it leeched off the biggest movie of all-time. Sony has the ability to make good Spiderman movies without Disney. Didn't Sony make Spiderverse?

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 600d ago
ziggurcat601d ago

That's more on Disney than Sony, but people being as they are dismissed Disney's part in all of that, and immediately hopped onto the Sony hate train without reading up on any of the facts.

NeoGamer232601d ago (Edited 601d ago )

That is on Marvel not Disney. Marvel sold the movie rights to Spider-man long ago to Sony. Way before MCU was relevant.

Now, Marvel is part of Disney and Disney is cleaning up the mess. Disney made MCU real, relevant and profitable not Sony.

ziggurcat601d ago

AFAIK Disney owns Marvel, so... it's Disney.

Atom666601d ago

Sony Pictures gets its portion of the blame for mismanaging the IP for so long that they lost leverage in that deal. Their passive aggressive comments about Feige recently only reaffirm that. If there is hate train for the Amazing Spiderman or Venom films, buy me a ticket.

Disney is ruthless, but I can't fault them for moving in with the better hand. Disney has the fanbase and the media on its side. A deal will get done, but I will put money on Sony caving first.

ziggurcat601d ago

You mean these "passive aggressive" comments:

"Much of today’s news about Spider-Man has mischaracterized recent discussions about Kevin Feige’s involvement in the franchise. We are disappointed, but respect Disney’s decision not to have him continue as a lead producer of our next live action Spider-Man film. We hope this might change in the future, but understand that the many new responsibilities that Disney has given him — including all their newly added Marvel properties — do not allow time for him to work on IP they do not own. Kevin is terrific and we are grateful for his help and guidance and appreciate the path he has helped put us on, which we will continue."

There's nothing passive aggressive about any of that, unless you consider "Kevin is terrific and we are grateful for his help and guidance and appreciate the path he has helped put us on, which we will continue" as passive aggression?

Atom666601d ago

Yep, I do. This part right here seem a little out of place to you?

"— do not allow time for him to work on IP they do not own."

No mention of the financial discussions, just Feige's work load? WTF? Then they're sure to add a bit about how he's too busy to work on a property that, by the way, "we still own."

Realize that your "facts" are the contrived and very purposeful PR attempts from one of the shadiest movie companies around. It's Sony Pictures, man. We've seen their dirty laundry. You can blindly believe that crap, but I see it for what it is: an attempt to garner favor and shape the narrative. Passive aggressive and weak.

ziggurcat601d ago

"This part right here seem a little out of place to you?

'— do not allow time for him to work on IP they do not own.'"

Well, no... They're saying that Disney increasing Feige's responsibilities isn't allowing him to feasibly continue working on their next live-action Spider-Man movie, and that Disney paying for Feige to work on an IP they don't own while he is under a contract with Disney is going to take away from those newly-assigned responsibilities.

"No mention of the financial discussions, just Feige's work load? WTF?

Why would they need to mention financial discussions?

"Then they're sure to add a bit about how he's too busy to work on a property that, by the way, 'we still own.'"

It's not a "neener neener we still own Spider-Man and they don't" comment, you're reading far too much into that.

"I see it for what it is: an attempt to garner favor and shape the narrative. Passive aggressive and weak."

They're not shaping any narrative or trying to garner any favours.

All Sony said was they were disappointed in Disney's decision to pull Feige from his involvement with Spider-Man, stated they understood why, expressed hope in there being a change to that decision in the future, and then praised Feige for his work/contributions to the franchise. I would go back, and have another look at the meaning of passive aggressive.

"It's Sony Pictures, man. We've seen their dirty laundry."

What dirty laundry?

badz149601d ago


"Disney made MCU real, relevant and profitable not Sony."

we all know you hate Sony with a passion but don't let your brain blinded by it from facts. Sony has nothing to do with the MCU. they have no share or own any other Marvel characters outside from the Spider-man universe. what Disney/Marvel is doing wit the MCU is not Sony's business. WTF?

CrashFistfight600d ago


Actually it was Paramount that made the MCU real, relevant, and profitable.

343_Guilty_Spark600d ago

I want a MCU Spider-Man

Not a Sony one

janus225600d ago

Its time for Sony to create their own universe with Spiderman, Morales, Gwen, Venom etc! With Spidey cut off MCU, They can use the other dimension scenario to expand the story