410°

PlayStation's and Xbox's Acquisition Strategies Highlight Key Differences

While neither is necessarily better or worse than the other, the different ways PlayStation and Xbox go about making acquisitions are huge.

Read Full Story >>
gamerant.com
AspiringProGenji1024d ago

Sony has had a family of developers for years and those they acquired during the PS3 era were what made the PS4 shine with their games, while the older brothers were working on their craft and pushed the PS4 even more. Now with the PS5 we will see all devs in their prime and going all out. Sony should focus on keeping their family of devs making more quality content and adding a few that would diversify their lineup rather than panic buying devs, which is what MS has been mostly doing. It will take more years for MS will be where Sony is at right now. They have the quantity… now let’s see how they will deliver quality

1023d ago Replies(8)
1023d ago Replies(3)
1022d ago Replies(1)
neutralgamer19921022d ago

One company had none so they spent while the other company keeps doing smaller buyouts and growing overtime. I don't think Ms had the luxury to wait and see, they had to go big to show their commitment long term. And because they were trying to step away from traditional gaming model and instead focusing on subscriptions

Right or wrong depends on your point of view. The way I see it Sony at one time were working on a console with Nintendo so they saw first hand what was working and they learned from that. Microsoft came into gaming console business thinking they could just throw money around and fix their shortcomings

OptimusDK1022d ago

BETHESDA - PANIC BUYING LOL you are to funny!

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1022d ago
isarai1023d ago

Sony buys up and coming studios with promise and potential and builds them into something bigger.

MS is buying the biggest ones they can afford that have already developed themselves.

Basically Sony is buying the lot, then building the mansion, MS is buying the mansion prefurnished from the previous owner.

Atom6661023d ago

But prior to Bethesda, the criticism was that the 5-6 teams bought by MS were small AA teams.

Suddenly that's forgotten?

1023d ago
DarXyde1023d ago

I think you're taking isarai's comment to be denigrating—to me, it's more of an observation, and an apt one at that.

I respect the PlayStation approach more because it's a very encouraging environment that raises the talent, but I also think Microsoft buying Zenimax makes a ton of sense. A massive purchase of many studios with highly acclaimed IPs. They were pretty far behind and it does help them play catch-up, for sure.

I think Sony should be flattered, honestly. Microsoft felt compelled to spend upwards of $7 B to keep pace. People would deny that, but I'm quite convinced that this was clearly a purchase aimed at leveling the gap.

Sayai jin1023d ago

Yet, MS and Beth3ada has had a productice long relationship.

DOMination-1023d ago (Edited 1023d ago )

"No. The criticism was that they don't build their dev teams. And they don't foster their relationships."

Bit of a blanket statement there. MS built 343i, The Initiative and The Coalition from scratch in the last decade and worked with Playground Games and Undead Labs for years before purchasing them.

How many studios have Sony built from the ground up in the last 20 years?

Yes ZeniMax is a different beast, nobody disputes that but Microsoft have done the stuff Sony does (fostering) and the stuff people thinks Sony does but doesn't (build new studios). Plus in addition they have stopped small studios from going bankrupt (inXile, Double Fine, Obsidian). And maybe Microsoft acquire Asobo, Moon and Avalanche next after they have worked with them?

Atom6661023d ago

Sure...like Undead and Playground?

How about some of the others? Obsidian's first console title was Xbox. Ninja Theory's first console game was Xbox. All of the teams they signed up have all had relationships w/ MS for a long, long time. Look into the actual people in those teams and how long they've worked with folks on the MS side.

Relationships don't just mean that they took a multiplat/freelance dev...fed them contract work for awhile...and then bought them. Sony isn't some special altruistic corporation here. They made targeted acquisitions and used the exact same PR speak as MS afterwards.

Fanboys just want to tell themselves that when THEIR multi-national corporation does an acquisition, it's SO much different than the others.

It's not. It's all the same. If Sony was comfortable with the financials, they'd get larger buys too.

anast1023d ago

Great screen name. Strange comment.

UltraNova1023d ago

Sayai jin,

Show me a Zenimax/Bethesda multiplatform game that sold more copies on xbox vs PS. Then look at the totals.

wiz71911023d ago

@knightedhollow what are you talking about ?? Majority of MS studios they did so have a relationship with them prior to purchase. Fans swear they know what goes on in the background.

DOMination-1023d ago

"Show me a Zenimax/Bethesda multiplatform game that sold more copies on xbox vs PS. Then look at the totals."

Not aimed at me but I'll jump in here. You're asking an almost impossible question to answer as that information is hard to find/prove. But I can almost guarantee that Oblivion, Skyrim and Fallout 3 sold more on x360 than PS3.

Also just to add facts to what was said earlier, Beth/MS have had a relationship for some time. Morrowind was exclusive, Oblivion was exclusive (until the GOTY edition came out) and Skyrim/F3 had all their DLC timed exclusive to x360.

Now last gen was a different story altogether of course. PS4 completely dominated and I imagine every single game sold more on PlayStation.

Sayai jin1022d ago

Ultrs, which one sold more? Your cimment doesn't make sense in context. I am talking about relationships not sales. Ot is a well known fact that Bethesda and MS had a good relationship for sometime. It looks like Domination beat me to it as far a s a response.

Are you denying that they had a good relationship?

Domination, pretty much said what I eould have done.

UltraNova1022d ago (Edited 1022d ago )

Saya Jin,

The keyword on your OG comment was "productive" which means, in my eyes, in terms of revenue produced. The simple truth is that Bethesda had a more "productive" relationship with Sony throughout the years by making more money (in total - to appease DOMination) from partnering with Sony i.e releasing their games on PS platforms - which is especially true during last-gen as DOMination already mentioned. It's worth reminding that last-gen saw record game sales compared to any previous gens too.

Anyway, the deal MS made was aggressive and there's no excuse, but it made sense too.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1022d ago
Rude-ro1023d ago

Direction via output.
Microsoft wants drag and drop game engines connected with other players to create the dependency of playing with friends is what gaming is about.
This, of course, leads to cheaper development and leans into their bread and butter… subscriptions.
Nothing wrong with it… it is a space that can be filled.
IF one of Microsoft developers knocks out an awesome idea for a single player AAA game.. then we will randomly see them. But their focus is players creating fun with each other.

Sony has had a hard line approach of creating big AAA games and blurring the line of art, movies and gaming while they spend less on “connected” games, make them indie style or let the third party developers who are focusing on it have their own spot.

Both companies can make changes.. but this would favor Sony more because it is far easier to create a map/sandbox and let players create their connected PvP/co-op fun vs huge AAA games that push the gaming developments forward.

Kind of cool to be honest.
Third parties for everyone… differences in directions.

MIDGETonSTILTS171023d ago

I think it would be fairer to say Sony started a small town that grew into a city, and Microsoft found a metropolis and bought the election for to be Mayor of it.

One has deep rooted connections with every corner of their community, the other has ownership and power of a larger community (but shallower roots). Time will tell if Microsoft’s dev culture has shifted at all since Bungie split up.

Rimeskeem1023d ago

Xbox likes to partner with established devs and give them more resources to make bigger games. PS likes to partner with smaller devs over the course of years and eventually give them an offer etc.

Rimeskeem1023d ago

In other words, I feel like PS builds a relationship from the ground up with devs providing an opportunity to make something they want to make with more resources while Xbox takes them out for a really nice dinner and then says if they marry them they get to be rich.

DarXyde1023d ago

I do wonder what the financial benefit to Bethesda is though. They kinda remind me of Rockstar where their games are popular enough that they're massively profitable with very limited budget constraints.

1023d ago Replies(6)
1023d ago Replies(1)
Gunstar751022d ago

Sony has no choice in the matter. XBOX is backed by a two trillion dollar mega Corp. Only they can spend zenimax level dollars

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1022d ago
waverider1023d ago

One doesnt know how to build and improve a Studio and its force to spend billions on big studios another get small studios and helps them become great.

wiz71911023d ago

insomniac wasn’t a small studio, the only big studio MS bought was Zenimax. The other studio that were purchased were going under anyway, y’all Sony fans are clueless. Y’all need to become friends with google.com for real lol .. spreading more false information then anything ..

Ron_Danger1023d ago

Insomniac was a small studio when they started. They had around 50 employees when they created their first game, Disruptor, for PS1 (originally for the 3DO before that system tanked). Through the years, they’ve worked with many console makers but it was Sony that helped them the most, hence the whole building up a small indie studio and nurturing talent.

I agree… google.com is useful!

https://insomniac.games/a-n...

wiz71911023d ago

@Ron first their relationship with insomniac was by default , it was them or Nintendo. When Sony purchased insomniac they weren’t a small studio.

Ron_Danger1023d ago

Hmmm… looks like you aren’t taking your own advice. Google is your friend (remember what you typed).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...

They didn’t go with Sony by default. It was between Sony and Sega (Nintendo used cartridges not cds) and Universal chose to go with PlayStation.

Considering you completely fabricated that point in your comment, I can only assume you’re one of those users who just throws ideas at the wall and hopes something sticks. There’s no point talking with you because you’ll just lie to make your comments seem plausible.

Jericho13371023d ago

If that’s how you want to spin it. So if Sony went and bought say, Rockstar, then I suppose you’d slate them for it then?

The reality is that Microsoft has a bigger balance sheet and Sony can’t make the same sort of industry-shaking acquisitions. Carry on dressing up the morals of this as much as you like though.

Elda1023d ago

Sony has done it the right way. Basically buying studios that basically developed exclusives for Sony for years.

Show all comments (98)
150°

With Larian Out Of The Picture, Will The Baldur's Gate IP Be In Safe Hands?

Huzaifah from eXputer: "With Larian Studios washing their hands of the IP, what is the ultimate fate of the legendary Baldur's Gate series?"

RaidenBlack1d 9h ago

If anybody's gonna mention BioWare, then look at Archetype Entertainment, they're the new BioWare
or else
Obsidian is still a good choice but not independent anymore.

anast1d 9h ago (Edited 1d 9h ago )

No, WoTC is pivoting to mobile. They can use Larian's work to justify DnD Go and everyone will accept it.

RiseNShine1d 9h ago

Short answer, nope. Long answer, f*ck nope.

robtion15h ago

Correct answer. Most people don't realise that the companies that are still making good games using common sense and a customer focus are generally not American. They are from Poland, Belgium, Japan, or other countries that have not yet become completely corrupted by 'extreme capitalism'.

Before you down vote me into oblivion I am not anti-american. I just don't like greed and corruption which unfortunately seems to correlate with power.

I would guess the next Baldurs gate will probably be filled with GaaS.

Christopher1d 9h ago

Honestly, we're talking completely new engine and none of Larian's built-in stuff with regard to environments and the like that they had from their past divinity game. No one is going to have that just ready to go. So, they need to shop for a dev studio that has a past game that shows what they want.

Obsidian doesn't have that, maybe the closest being Dungeon Siege 3 or Pillars of Eternity, but those are very basic, not as open, very little environment related and altering capabilities. So, we're talking a step way back on what Larian delivered. Zero scene experience to line up with what was done in BG3. Okay conversation tree designs, but still needs more complexity.

inXile has Wasteland 3 as a base model engine, and I think that's better than Pillars of Eternity from Obsidian. But, still needs to be more open world, more environmental effects, and a much heavier rules set adaptation. But, not a bad overall engine as a base, but still a ton of work. Zero scene experience to line up with what was done in BG3. Needs a ton of work on that entirely.

Tactical Adventure did the Solasta game. Really good and more accurate as far as 5e rules than BG3. But, again, if the expectation is similar to what made BG3 a big hit, engine isn't designed for moving the camera, is a bit outdated in graphics, doesn't have in-game scene elements, and needs much better writers/voice actors.

Owlcat of pathfinder games is another choice, even though they've recently moved on to WH40k licensed games. Again, though, the engine is the biggest issue here to match up, but it's a much better option overall than Tactical Adventure. Another question is writers/story telling, as much of their overall story telling bits are very limited with a lot of random worldbuilding elements that are just +\- of some attributes.

TBH, no matter who takes over, it's just not going to be like BG3 much like how BG3 isn't at all like BG1/2. And BG3 was so successful because of how much Larian was able to put in with their engine and how focused they were on players having ridiculous control over the story being told. I just don't see the next BG being the same and depending on what it is, it might be good but I'm not as big of a reach as BG3. It's way more likely players are going to go into BG4 (or its spiritual successor if it moves away from Baldur's Gate and into Neverwinter or something like Plansescape) expecting much of what is in BG3 with more options, new and older characters, and the same level of control over what they're doing. If it doesn't have that, regardless of who makes it, it won't be as successful, IMHO.

exputers16h ago

Yes, I completely concur.

As good and talented as inXile and Obsidian are in their own specific way of making their particular games, none of them have Larian's attention to detail, dynamic worlds, and reactivity, so even if they end up making a new Baldur's Gate, it's going to be a significant step-down in terms of gameplay if not narrative.

CrimsonWing691d 8h ago

Probably not, but maybe… just maybe…

Show all comments (8)
30°

Human Fall Flat 2 Delayed, Devolver Details Major 2023 Sales Decline

As part of its latest financial report, Devolver Digital has announced that upcoming physics platformer Human Fall Flat 2 has been delayed beyond 2025.

Read Full Story >>
techraptor.net
260°

Microsoft has ‘let Blizzard be Blizzard’ following its acquisition, studio says

Microsoft has 'let Blizzard be Blizzard' following the acquisition of the veteran developer according to World of Warcraft's executive producer.

Read Full Story >>
videogameschronicle.com
Kaii2d ago

Diablo 4 storefront being a cash grabbing shitshow does unironically attest to that, kudos.

kythlyn1d ago

Microsoft needs to be guiding Blizzard to be what it USED to be, not allowing it to continue to be the greedy bastardization of itself that it has become.

XiNatsuDragnel2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Okay i will be interested if they become old Blizzard but might as well be dead.

Rynxie1d 13h ago

They will never be old blizzard. Most of all the OG's left from developers to those on the top (even some decision making folks left).

Vits2d ago

Shame most of the people that made Blizzard what they were, have already left a while ago.

ApocalypseShadow2d ago

I was about to say this. How can they be blizzard when they're no longer blizzard from yesteryear?

Hofstaderman1d 18h ago

Just like Rare and Bioware...

blacktiger1d 18h ago

Rare was the thing I lost heart

victorMaje1d 15h ago

Exactly. Blizzard hasn’t been Blizzard for a long time.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Knightofelemia2d ago

Blizzard is not the same Blizzard like it use to be.

PassNextquestion1d 18h ago

Were you expecting Microsoft to hire everyone that had left Blizzard long before they purchased the company...

Microsoft has let the Blizzard company they purchased continue to be the Blizzard company they purchased.

thesoftware7301d 12h ago

Wow, PassNextquestion,

You fully understand what that saying means, unlike some people on here who just have to say negative garbage talk.

When someone says, "Just let *blank* be *blank*, "they are just letting them operate how they operate.

It's pretty much how Sony "let Bungie be Bungie."

This comment section is full of outright haters, but you have to "let N4G be N4G"

GamerRN1d 9h ago

This site leans so heavily in one direction...

BISHOP-BRASIL1d 1h ago

I don't think people commenting are necessarily blaming MS for anything here, this is just collective longing for what Blizzard/Vivendi was before Activision's meddling.

Show all comments (43)