PlayStation Studios Head Says Sony Isn't Taking Devs off Market with Acquisitions

PlayStation Studios chief Hermen Hulst said it's not necessarily true that Sony is taking game studios off market with its acquisitions.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Sonyslave3125d ago

What lol shit make no sense

blackbeld125d ago ShowReplies(3)
Eonjay125d ago

Um Bungie. They were able to purchase them without taking their games off of other platforms or demanding that Xbox/PC gamers sign up for PlayStation Plus.

GhostTurtle125d ago

Well it's a live service game that's already established on other platforms. WhyTF would they do that?

TheDibbler125d ago

Your example is a bad one. Bungie made it part of their contractual terms in the acquisition that they remained multiplatform. It wasn't Sony being the good guys. All of their other acquisitions have been entirely exclusive. I don't buy what they are selling here.

Eonjay124d ago


So is Call of Duty. Why indeed would you do that?

Eonjay124d ago


You are making assumptions with no evidence. At no point has Sony ever indicated that they wanted their new Live service games to be anything other than multiplatform. It was obviously their plan going into the deal.


And so far MS has done the same. Name a single AAA MS has taken off the market for other platforms after acquisition?

alb1899124d ago

The same can be say with MS and Minecraft.

alb1899124d ago

SONY wants to play the good boy now but they buy exclusive content from Activision. Cry baby cry because there is no way back.

Gunstar75124d ago

Bungie made it a condition of sale

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 124d ago
Lifexline124d ago

That’s dumb what he is saying they are really trying hard to stop the activision deal. You’re right it makes no sense they have bought so many studios and “took them off the market” by making them exclusive the list is huge. Such a hypocritical statement.

MrDead124d ago

... you're comparing buying the biggest multiplatform publishers and banning competition from huge chunks of the gaming world to buying studios... that's like buying a brick and saying it's the same as buying a house.

Lifexline124d ago (Edited 124d ago )

@mrdead a developer is a developer no matter how you spin it. That is the topic at hand. A group of developers compared to one developer guess what they are still developers. No difference at all. I’m sure many people would love to play ratchet and clank but guess what sony bought them and made them exclusive the list goes on. Nothing wrong with that but let’s call bs on hypocritical statements like this. You could spin it and say all the studios Sony has bought and made exclusive over its lifetime surpasses what Microsoft has bought thus far when added up.

Master of Unlocking124d ago (Edited 124d ago )

No it's not, it makes perfect sense when you objectively look at it: Sony either built their studios, or bought studios with which they already had a preferential relationship. Guerilla Games, Housemarque, Bluepoint or Insomniac used to work mainly, and actually usually exclusively, for Playstation platforms prior to being acquired by Sony.

MrDead124d ago


You're understanding of studios compared to publishers is where your argument falls. Publishers, owners of many studios, decades of multiplatform ips, game engines, motion cap studios... etc are not comparable to a game studio

Lifexline124d ago (Edited 124d ago )

@mrdead from my awareness publishers don’t make games developers do. So when buying a publisher yes you ultimately get other things besides the developers. But that is the big price the ip that the developers make.

The main point here is that developers are not taken off the market. Are you really that blind by your loyalty that you don’t see when buying a publisher or developer regardless of how “close” the relationship is at the end of the day a developer is taken off the market regardless of size or what additions come with it. if they remain independent they at least always have the option to do multiplatform games. Your logic is flawed.

Take insomniac they made a game with Microsoft “sunset overdrive”but then Sony bought them and took a developer off the market.

Bottom line is this is a hypocritical statement big time.

MrDead123d ago

Loyalty, grow up kid, I'm not even a console gamer

Learn the difference between publishers and studios and you might understand the gulf of difference with comparisons you've made. Studios are not the same as publishers, hence the price tags of tens of billions.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 123d ago
CaptainHenry916124d ago (Edited 124d ago )

All they care about is making money 💰 🤑 💸

Chevalier124d ago

"single AAA MS has taken off the market for other platforms after acquisition"

Hellblade 2?! Last I checked the first game was on EVERY platform. Now the sequel isn't coming to the Switch or Playstation are they?

Same with sequels to Skyrim, Doom, Dishonored, Prey etc. All established multiplatform games now only on Xbox and PC.

MohammadAdam124d ago

Wake me up when we get Spiderman on Xbox. That was multiplatform. And Final Fantasy 7, 16.

Export124d ago

Hellblade is an indie game fyi Self-described as an "independent AAA game" but still indie game

azzkikr8502124d ago

starfield and elders scroll as well.

TheKingKratos124d ago

They aren't though ....they are only buying who work very closely with them like 2nd party studios .... Even when they bought Bungie they didn't take their games off the market

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 123d ago
sparky77125d ago ShowReplies(5)
darthv72125d ago

Maybe he means 'future' acquisitions? i get that MS is keeping certain contracts in place with theirs but if a dev wants to make a game exclusive or multiplat, it should be their decision. Neither MS or Sony's. At the end of the day its about making $$ and a game that can reach a wider audience has a greater chance of doing that than being restricted to a single platform.

I know people like to bring up Bethesda and Starfield but seriously... that game wasnt very far along when MS bought them and it may very well get a PS release after it releases on XB/PC. But it needs to get finished before that happens. Same with any other game that 'may have been' touted for PS but now is uncertain. People just have to give it time and let the suits work things out.

For me, its why I play multiple,platforms. Because i know this industry is fluid and something you like may end up somewhere else. I won't deny myself the enjoyment of a game simply because of the system its on. That's just petty af. I'm sure I insulted a lot of single platform users with that last bit but to each their own.

isarai125d ago

The 2 main reasons for excuslives is:
1) to draw you into buying and locking you onto their platform and marketplace where they take a cut for every game bought, vastly moreso in digital sales.
2) By focusing on a single set of static hardware they can get a lot more out of the hardware than anyone else, hints why 1st party titles are generally ahead of 3rd party games in many technological aspects. It also saves them quite a lot of development costs by simplifying everything, no bouncing between versions to ensure stability and parity between them all.

That's why exclusives exist, and what gives them that edge. Once you start developing as multiplatform from the start, resources are split, and you are most likely losing that edge in one way or another.

darthv72125d ago

All of that is viable... for the time. We are not talking PS2 vs Gamecube vs Xbox here. where each machine had its own specs and programming language differences. The current trend of basing these machines on x86 was meant to simplify the process of both development for a single platform as well as for making things much easier to transition to another variance in platform if need be.

In the PC space, its like the wild west with an insurmountable number of cpu/gpu combinations. And yet they are able to pull it off by making the games scalable. That is what is happening here in the console space as well. Sure its not as lucrative as limiting the scope to just a single set of specs... but when companies want to recoup the cost of investment, they sometimes make the decisions to expand outward and reel in others where they can.

Exclusives will still exist but the reliance on them is waning.

TheDibbler125d ago

I would argue the first reason is the only one. The second one is a byproduct of the first. I don't think any devs go into a project just to get the most out of the hardware. I think it just comes down to money but the second statement is a natural result of that process.

Lightning77125d ago

"that game wasnt very far along when MS bought them and it may very well get a PS release after it releases on XB/PC."

I don't think so Darth. MS may not be as headstrong with exclusives like Sony is but if they can keep a game in their ecosystem exclusively they will. Besides Sony has no plans in sharing any of its games. Never have and never will. MS knows this so. They're keeping new Bethesda games to themselves.

darthv72125d ago (Edited 125d ago )

somehow the presence of MLB on xbox and Death stranding on PC gamepass say otherwise. MLB was under contract with the MLB to be more widely available and the PC version of DS was under contract with a 3rd party but both are still commonly referred to as Sony games because of the initial development, publishing and reception.

"Never" just doesnt carry the same weight as it once did when $$$ is involved.

isarai125d ago


Those are really dumb examples, MLB was pushed cross platform at the demand of MLB, not Sony/Playstation's decision. Death stranding was always a timed exclusive, Kojima productions is not a Sony studio, that's like saying The Medium is MS game.

AgitUzumaki125d ago

Sony was reportedly in talks to sign Starfield exclusive before Xbox’s Bethesda buyout. You can google it and there is articles about it. I just don’t understand what sony are trying to achieve here. The Microsoft/Activision deal will go through. I find it hard to believe that it won’t.

shinoff2183125d ago

Sony didnt ooen the invistegation. Ms and trying to create a monopoly. Wouldnt be the first or 2nd or 3rd time. Do your research.

DOMination-125d ago

In the early 90s Sony instantly drove Atari, Commodore, Panasonic, Philips and Sega out of the industry with their money (which in comparison to games companies back then was huge), aggressive marketing and acquisitions. Some of those companies barely survived. Nintendo took a decade to recover.

Sony should stop crying about Call of Duty and concentrate on doing what they do best. Making bloody brilliant single player narrative driven experiences.

wiz7191124d ago

@Shinoff or maybe I’m the background they were up for sale and Microsoft could afford the price then got to them first .. why does it always have to be them creating a monopoly ?? Ppl said the same thing about them buying Bethesda. If you did research you would of saw they were tanking and could of came close to not existing anymore.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 124d ago
Extermin8or3_125d ago

That game wasn't very far along when MS bought them. The sale only went through about a year and abut ago. At the aoiint the game had been in development for over 5 years and was about 1 year from it's targeted release window.... so yeah it was far along.

darthv72125d ago

in development for over 5 years... for PC. Console development wasnt that far along.

Extermin8or3_122d ago (Edited 122d ago )

@darth if you look at their hiring and stuff at the time they had recruited people with experience on PlayStation over 3 years prior to that point. So actually that simply isn't true. As soon as the basics of the gsme are done an AAA developer will be ensuring they continuously benchmark it against each console and checking it can run. In particular PlayStation running using a Linux based OS required a fair bit of work to ensure it'd running well. You dint wait until the final year or two to try and do all of that you have a second or 3rd development pipeline simultaneous to the others ensuring things work and run and working on the game for each console.

Not doing so is a recipe for disaster and a cyberpunk 2077 situation.

CobraKai125d ago

Console exclusives acts as incentives for buying a specific platform. The reasons I bought a PS5, Series X, and Switch were because of the console exclusives.
The only time I was a fanboy was during the 16-bit era owning a Genesis only. And the main reason I bad mouthed the SNES? Cuz I simply couldn’t afford both. The moment I got a SNES for my birthday the fanboy died and a gamer was born. Playing Starfox and Sonic, I realized the machine never mattered, it was always the games.

darthv72125d ago

"The moment I got a SNES for my birthday the fanboy died and a gamer was born."... now you're catching on.

TheDibbler125d ago

Not sure why anyone would downvote your comment. Not being a fanboy should be the goal. Puffing your chest out because of the plastic box you own is kid stuff.

CobraKai124d ago

I don’t know. I love the freedom of playing anything I want. I guess some people don’t.

Elda124d ago (Edited 124d ago )

It's not really petty to have someone loyal to one platform. The reason may be one doesn't find interest in the other platform's exclusives. My first console was a SNES but then I went to PS because of the exclusive games it had & I never looked back by buying the PS2,PS3,PS4 & now the PS5. I haven't had any interest to play any games on Nintendo's past consoles nor have I bought a Switch due to my lack of interest in most of their exclusives. The only reason I own an XBSX is that I won an XBSS & I decided to trade it in which cost me next to nothing in cash for the trade-in. I must say for me personally it's been very disappointing this entire year that MS/XB has not released any AAA exclusives & for me majority of this year GP has been mostly lackluster when it comes to brand new titles because most of them are meh Indies. My PS5 is mostly played on the weekends though I play an hour or 2 of some of the classic titles on XB through GP. Though I am looking forward to XB finally releasing some new AAA exclusives to finally play in 2023.

glennhkboy124d ago

"if a dev wants to make a game exclusive or multiplat, it should be their decision" No. For 1st party studios, MS, Sony & Nintendo have the absolute right to order those studio to do whatever project they want. If those studio don't like what they're ordered to do, the only way for rebellion is a self buy-out, like Bungie did multiple times.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 122d ago
porkChop125d ago

Huh? Whether you're buying a new dev or an old one you are in fact taking that dev off the market. If you want to buy studios then buy studios, cool. But don't come with this holier than thou bs. The author points out that only two of Sony's seven acquisitions would even apply to what he's talking about.

125d ago
125d ago Replies(1)
Crows90125d ago

Except that with Microsoft purchases all these up that were available in every platform will now be available in less platforms. So they're being completely dishonest. It's less accessible. Sony buying studios that were already acting as strong first party support isn't anywhere in the same boat or planet.

porkChop125d ago

I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree, but you're arguing an entirely different point. I am in no way saying that Sony and Microsoft's purchases are the exact same. My point is that Herman is clearly being dishonest. He's pretending that Sony are only buying brand new, fledgling studios but that isn't remotely true. Only two of the teams they bought were literally just starting. The rest of them were already staffed up and working on a project. Herman is usually a pretty honest interviewee so it's bizarre to see him make such a clearly untrue statement.

TheDibbler125d ago

In a way you are correct but in another you are wrong. If Sony makes an acquisition it always goes exclusive unless staying multiplatform is part of the contractual obligation as in the case of Bungie. They don't have a history of sharing anything unless they are forced to like with MLB The Show. Microsoft on the other hand has launched new games on other platforms that they were under no obligation to do (Either with exclusives like Minecraft Legends or with publishing rights as in Ori or Cuphead). Also if Microsoft makes the acquisition, they put all of it on gamepass which can be streamed on any device. Sure it isn't local play but you could argue that opens it up to more platforms and makes it accessible to all. You could be a PlayStation gamer and play all of the MS games through streaming on your tv or whatever device. If PlayStation acquires a studio you are basically f'd if you don't own their device or you have to wait 3 years for a possible PC version.

125d ago
125d ago
Crows90125d ago


Agreed. He may be dishonest but I stopped listening to PR a long time ago. At the end of the day actions and outcomes matter. Genuineness would be welcomed for sure but I care about the results more than the talk.

124d ago
124d ago
124d ago
124d ago
124d ago
Extermin8or3_122d ago

No the point he is making is that (excluding bungie but that arrangement is different to the others) Sony buy devs they are already working closely with that generally have been acting a a 2nd or 3rd party exclusive developer. They are also typically their largest customer by a large margin. Microsoft is buying whole publishers that make primarily or only 3rd
Party multiplatforn titles and regardless of what they say so far their actions speak louder than words - making their titles exclusive to their plaftorm/service. That is what he is saying. Sony buying the devs doesn't take them off the market because they were never on the market to behind with. Look at insomniac, sucker punch, blueprint etc they were basically ps exclusive developers for years beforehand

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 122d ago
GamingSinceForever125d ago

I think what he was trying to communicate is their intent is to acquire studios that fit their identity, as opposed to just buying them up in an attempt shift the market.

XBox was Activision Blizzards 4th largest customer. This isn’t an organic acquisition, this is a clear attempt to seize the market.

Business is business so it is what it is, but let’s not pretend that it is something else.

Outside_ofthe_Box125d ago

"Business is business so it is what it is, but let’s not pretend that it is something else."


SoulWarrior125d ago

Nah, Phil is god and the saviour of gaming, he rescued activision heroically from the evil clutches of Kotick and co, without him, Activision would have gone under with all of their IPs for sure without him with their enormous financial struggles.