Ginzeen
Banned
it doesn't matter because they didn't promise anything. I don't know why you fail to see this.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PlayStation Is Hiring For A Manager To Identify "Inorganic Growth Opportunities Through Acquisitions & Investments"
- Thread starter Thick Thighs Save Lives
- Start date
- News
Varteras
Gold Member
If a company is planning a rapid expansion, either by many smaller purchases in a short span of time, or a very large purchase, then it is pretty common to hire a person or team who specializes in that regard. Now, this hire does not necessarily mean that anything of the sort will happen. It just means Sony is preparing for the possibility of being very busy on acquisitions. Though given their more recent statements, including plans to spin off their financial arm to help fuel strategic investments, and that those would emphasize IP, it's not a bad bet that they will do just that over the next couple years.
yurinka
Member
Sony said they'll continue acquiring, and focusing on entertainment which includes games, but not soon. They said that plan to do it in the mid to long term and will be more careful with timing and valuations.
They also mentioned that in 2 to 3 years they'll send around 80% of their banks division to get cash for acquisitions.
So maybe all this means they'll go back to acquire in 3 years from now or so.
Varteras
Gold Member
Right. Which is why I said "over the next couple years" and mentioned them spinning off their finance arm. If they're hiring now, they're not planning on just having them sit there for years. They'll be working to prepare for possible buys. They'll be actively evaluating targets and pulling the trigger at the time they feel is right.
yurinka
Member
Yep. Spending billions to acquire one or multiple companies with hundreds or thousands isn't like to buy a soda can in the store.
They have to evaluate if the company is a good fit for their strategy, future catalog and culture, if that company would integrate well and what possible synergies could they create in both ways, to make a proper estimate of when and how they would recoup the investment, make a due diligence, set a proper price and choose the good timing to make the acquisition considering different things like currency exchange, see if the future releases of the company can be properly aligned with the already existing estimated lineup of the other Sony teams, to make the acquisitions in a way that avoids any issue with regulators, and many other things I may forget.
So to do things in the proper way, they will need time.
Gojiira
Member
Case by Case, then immediately cancelled all PS5 games that were currently in dev, lets not forget there exists a actual PS5 native version of Starfield that they cancelled…Talk is cheap…When it comes from Xbox…
Bungie remaining 3rd party is the promise that was made and OH LOOK Marathon is also multiplatform, even MORE proof….
Ginzeen
Banned
Yeah, but......they didn't promise anything. Case by case basis isnt a promise to keep games to playstation. Bungie also makes live service games. Make sense to keep those on other platforms.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
"Case by case" is a PR lie.
Look at what they submitted to European Commission. They did the opposite of that 2 days after closing the acquisition.
Ginzeen
Banned
what did they say? I remember they said they had no incentive to remove them from playstation. Thats no promise either.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Another Savage Games Studios acquisition is coming
I am not sure if you understand what "case by case" means....
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Promise? No.
Misrepresentation, twisting of words, and lies? Yes.
We know that Game Pass subscribers did not grow, and Xbox console market share has decreased even further when compared to the last generation.
So why did Microsoft engage in exclusivity when neither of their conditions fulfill?
Ginzeen
Banned
Ok so no promise was made to keep zenimax games on playstation. So no harm done.Promise? No.
Misrepresentation, twisting of words, and lies? Yes.
We know that Game Pass subscribers did not grow, and Xbox console market share has decreased even further when compared to the last generation.
So why did Microsoft engage in exclusivity when neither of their conditions fulfill?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Last edited:
Gojiira
Member
Yes case by case they cancel not approve…
Ginzeen
Banned
The whole thing was about a promise. So no promise was broken. So I rest my case.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
So you agree that there were no promises made or broken, but there were definitely lies and misrepresentations by Microsoft?
EverydayBeast
thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
Pressure is on sony to surpass ps4 sales and win the generation.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Eh, not really. PS5 is selling like hotcakes.
If any, the pressure is on Microsoft to increase their market share (which has already decreased even more this generation) after spending $80 billions.
squarealex
Member
Tencent, Saudi Arabian, Embracer, Microsoft...
Yeah... very bad mood on gaming... , now Sony is more "tactical" than acquisition "with percentage share", but is undeniable they want "something big"
I'm still pretty sure one day, Nintendo and Sony will be "close"... not a fusion but... kind of consortium with many Japanese game editor.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Gold Member
The issue at hand here is, Sony likely should have been using some of the past 18+ months assessing acquisition strategies (and maybe they have), instead of trying to fight the ABK acquisition so adamantly. The other issue is, if they're not looking to acquire anything WRT publishers until 2025/2026, some or maybe all of their key targets may already be acquired by other companies by that point, or certain companies they could acquire for a lower price today, could cost a lot more by that 2025/2026 timeframe.
Also it's not like Sony need that much time to assess certain potential acquisitions in the publisher space: they have close relationships with virtually all the big 3P publishers, and particularly close ones with a select few of them. They wouldn't have those partnerships without already being on common ground at some critical level corporate-wise, with certain business prospects aligning between the two. They don't need three more years to conclude "yeah, this is a buy worth going for", that particular part is nonsensical. Most of the assessment in that regard, should have been ongoing or at least started over a year ago, even earlier, considering Microsoft weren't the only ones making acquisitions or pumping big investments into key 3P publishers.
As for avoiding scrutiny from regulators? Well for one and this touches on something mentioned in the past, but I don't think the size of acquisition would be used against Sony, simply because they have a larger market share. Regulators aren't looking to punish market leaders for earning their position in the market through fair, and well-known market competition standards. Also, as we're seeing with Bungie, Sony can simply go that they're the only platform holder with a track record historically, and presently, of bringing out new titles and IP to competing platforms without requiring X-year arrangement deals or out of honoring previously-signed contracts. Games like Wipeout, Destiny 2 (content) and Marathon (legacy IP but practically a new IP in eyes of vast majority) are proof of this. And AFAIK, Sony haven't forced reneging of contracts to drop support for rival platforms of a game, after making an acquisition.
Unlike a certain other platform holder :/...
Promise? No.
Misrepresentation, twisting of words, and lies? Yes.
We know that Game Pass subscribers did not grow, and Xbox console market share has decreased even further when compared to the last generation.
So why did Microsoft engage in exclusivity when neither of their conditions fulfill?
Keep posting the receipts. It's been clear as day for a while now that games like Starfield and Indiana Jones obviously don't meet these requirements (I would also add that these conditions given by Microsoft were made on the implied basis of seeing these gains offsetting any lost revenue by skipping multi-platform releases for the game, as well. Which should be the assumed position), but they've been made console-exclusive to Xbox anyway.
Same with TES VI, even if Phil said they're "considering it" at the FTC hearing (with testimony that did not bind Microsoft to his own statements, including when Judge Corley directly asked him about COD on PlayStation (showing she forgot about this non-binding aspect on purpose just to ask that question)). Because we already know he's said it will be console-exclusive to Xbox.
Last edited:
kingfish
Member
Do you want the man to get fired?
Similar threads
- Locked