Support NeoGAF

[Bergoglio]

The insider Klobrille, hints at Microsoft "considering" the opportunity to acquire the Copenhagen-located studio. IO Interactive.

"Consideration = a fact or a motive taken into account in deciding something.". That's what it is. A consideration, It's a start,"

MS aren't done with new first party studios. Source is Klobrille from Resetera, I think he also has a reddit account.

He is the one who first leaked Playground games and Obsidian acquisitions.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/mi...-sold-off-by-now.75600/page-198#post-15205433


Well, what do you think ? Hitman 2016 almost killed the company and Hitman 2 isn't goin well and it's already discounted.

 

[HeresJohnny]

Buying financially troubled development houses to aid your own struggling console business is probably not the best plan ever presented in a boardroom. I'm just fascinated that Microsoft keeps doing it.

EDIT: Having owned their products now in this space for a decade and a half, my observation has been that Microsoft is very into checking boxes, even when it doesn't benefit them. They did it with Kinect when the Wii craze was dying out. "See guys! We've got waggle too!" They did it with the X this generation after Sony brought out the Pro. "See guys! We have the most powerful system!" And now they seem to be doing it in response to their lack of studios. "See guys! We own all these development houses!"

It's all very formulaic to them, as if they can just tick off boxes and magically reverse what Mattrick did to them. It's going to be a long uphill slog, and it's going to require brilliant moves rather than just a fat wallet. Ask George Steinbrenner.

 

[wipeout364]

Buying financially troubled development houses to aid your own struggling console business is probably not the best plan ever presented in a boardroom. I'm just fascinated that Microsoft keeps doing it.

EDIT: Having owned their products now in this space for a decade and a half, my observation has been that Microsoft is very into checking boxes, even when it doesn't benefit them. They did it with Kinect when the Wii craze was dying out. "See guys! We've got waggle too!" They did it with the X this generation after Sony brought out the Pro. "See guys! We have the most powerful system!" And now they seem to be doing it in response to their lack of studios. "See guys! We own all these development houses!"

It's all very formulaic to them, as if they can just tick off boxes and magically reverse what Mattrick did to them. It's going to be a long uphill slog, and it's going to require brilliant moves rather than just a fat wallet. Ask George Steinbrenner.

I feel this is a very cynical reply. I agree Mattrick was very bad but to give the impression that Xbox one X and S are simply a box check is not accurate it was a well thought out response to bad management decisions by Mattrick and crew. It corrects many of the problems made in original design and sets an design direction going forward.
I agree buying studios is not guarantee of success but that is the way things are now and is the direction all publishers go in. Look at all the failures of attempts to grow a studio from scratch, look at the issues EA has had. Look at the complaints against 343 studios, how would you grow their studios?

If half of these studios produce decent games then that is a win for Microsoft in my opinion and is probably a lot cheaper than starting from scratch.

 

[HeresJohnny]

I feel this is a very cynical reply. I agree Mattrick was very bad but to give the impression that Xbox one X and S are simply a box check is not accurate it was a well thought out response to bad management decisions by Mattrick and crew. It corrects many of the problems made in original design and sets an design direction going forward.
I agree buying studios is not guarantee of success but that is the way things are now and is the direction all publishers go in. Look at all the failures of attempts to grow a studio from scratch, look at the issues EA has had. Look at the complaints against 343 studios, how would you grow their studios?

If half of these studios produce decent games then that is a win for Microsoft in my opinion and is probably a lot cheaper than starting from scratch.

How was repeating the same pricing mistake made in the first place a "well thought out response"? I agree the hardware is ace, but who fucking cares if no one but the hardcore ever buys one? That's why I feel it was checking a box, because they gained little or nothing from it.

 

[Hendrick's]

Buying financially troubled development houses to aid your own struggling console business is probably not the best plan ever presented in a boardroom. I'm just fascinated that Microsoft keeps doing it.

I disagree. Buying talented studios who are financially troubled is the smartest thing they could be doing. Next, we wait and see if they can execute.

 

[Blam]

How was repeating the same pricing mistake made in the first place a "well thought out response"? I agree the hardware is ace, but who fucking cares if no one but the hardcore ever buys one?

Because microsoft is looking for users. Not Consoles sold.

 

[HeresJohnny]

Because microsoft is looking for users. Not Consoles sold.

Do you really get one without the other? I mean, if you'd rather sell a hundred systems and call them "users' while your competitor sells a hundred thousand units they call "buyers," your shareholders are going to want a word with you.

 

[HeresJohnny]

I disagree. Buying talented studios who are financially troubled is the smartest thing they could be doing. Next, we wait and see if they can execute.

Buying studios that are having trouble only means you've bought a studio with problems to add to your existing woes.

 

[Bryank75]

They can buy who they like, I dont trust MS and never will. EA and them have a disturbing vision for the future of gaming and every step they take is just a different route to the same destination.

 

[nani17]

I agree they're not done. One thing MS has more of than Sony is a ridiculous amount of money. They will continue to buy up as much as they can.

Next gen MS fanboys will be saying yeah but we got more exclusives something they haven't been able to say IMO

 

[GTR R35_Supra RZ]

I disagree. Buying talented studios who are financially troubled is the smartest thing they could be doing. Next, we wait and see if they can execute.

Exactly! I dunno how you can sit there and come up with one liner like that about an incredible development team like IO..the panic salt is real, and the thought that the next Hitman will be %110 Xbox exclusive it doesn't sit well with them..so, let us do our warrior duty job.

 

[wipeout364]

Buying studios that are having trouble only means you've bought a studio with problems to add to your existing woes.

I asked you before what would you recommend? Starting 5 to 10 studios from scratch? Buying square enix or ubisoft? Microsoft needs content for gamepass and for their next system in 24 to 36 months, what strategy would you use since you think this one is garbage?

 

[Xaero Gravity]

As a massive Hitman fan, if it means saving the series then absolutely I'm all for it.

 

[Breakage]

Microsoft need a Team Ninja-esque type of studio. A Japanese development unit capable of creating high quality cult classics. That is what the Xbox platform really lacks these days.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I agree they're not done. One thing MS has more of than Sony is a ridiculous amount of money. They will continue to buy up as much as they can.

Next gen MS fanboys will be saying yeah but we got more exclusives something they haven't been able to say IMO

And that's great for MS and gamers. Some of these small studios can use the big bankroll MS can provide. If IO Interaction sells itself, it means a talented dev team can make more games instead of closing up shop. By the sounds of it, their latest Hitman games aren't selling great.

MS is really just doing what Sony did years back when it swooped like vultures buying every studio out there to prevent them from possibly going multiplat later.

Most of Sony's biggest name games come from third party devs which they bankrolled. I think the only key games Sony has left that are made from grassroots Sony studios are Gran Turismo, God of War and their annual baseball game.

Naughty Dog - Uncharted, TLoU
Guerrilla Games - Killzone, Horizon
Sucker Punch - Ghosts of T, Infamous, Sly
Media Molecule - LBP, Dreams

And then some others which they bought out but dissolved later...... Evolution studios, Sony Liverpool (the old Psygnosis), Zipper Interactive, and more.

 

[HeresJohnny]

I asked you before what would you recommend? Starting 5 to 10 studios from scratch? Buying square enix or ubisoft? Microsoft needs content for gamepass and for their next system in 24 to 36 months, what strategy would you use since you think this one is garbage?

Maybe recruit and promote talent from design schools more aggressively. People get out of school and they owe a fuck ton of money and they need a job. If Microsoft pushed hard on internships at some of these schools or even partnerships, they may have access to the best and brightest coming out. They need to be more organic. Shigeru Miyamoto had a degree in industrial design and was hired as a lowly artist by Nintendo. That's where I would start. As to the 24-36 months thing, they should've been thinking about that 24-36 months ago.

EDIT: and if I was going to buy studios, I wouldn't buy ones that were ailing, I'd go big. Why buy IO when they really only have a couple viable franchises you're getting with your money? You could buy strong up and comers with a hit or two under their belt. Sure it will cost more, but if it gets you what you need, then isn't that merely the real cost?

 

[nani17]

And that's great for MS and gamers. Some of these small studios can use the big bankroll MS can provide. If IO Interaction sells itself, it means a talented dev team can make more games instead of closing up shop. By the sounds of it, their latest Hitman games aren't selling great.

MS is really just doing what Sony did years back when it swooped like vultures buying every studio out there to prevent them from possibly going multiplat later.

Most of Sony's biggest name games come from third party devs which they bankrolled. I think the only key games Sony has left that are made from grassroots Sony studios are Gran Turismo, God of War and their annual baseball game.

Naughty Dog
Guerrilla Games
Sucker Punch
Media Molecule

And then some others which they bought out but dissolved later...... Evolution studios, Sony Liverpool (the old Psygnosis), Zipper Interactive, and more.

Never said it was a problem. it means more games and more competition

 

[pr0cs]

How was repeating the same pricing mistake made in the first place a "well thought out response"? .

The x was their response to the OG xbone. They lost their focus with the launch of the xbone, it launched with a mixed message, questionable features and higher price. It wasn't sold as a gaming system but more of a media player when in fact it wasn't good at either. The x reconfirms that Microsoft understands what gamers want, an excellent gaming machine first.

Now they're building their software houses to continue that confirmation. Buying talent that are in financial trouble that already have existing well established properties makes good sense, especially ones like IO who have shown they are capable of making good games using latest tech. They seem like a great choice if the rumor is true.

I won't lie though, I'm not the biggest hitman fan but I would like to see IO work on something new, certainly like how Playground games is working on new properties under Microsoft

 

[HeresJohnny]

The x was their response to the OG xbone. They lost their focus with the launch of the xbone, it launched with a mixed message, questionable features and higher price. It wasn't sold as a gaming system but more of a media player when in fact it wasn't good at either. The x reconfirms that Microsoft understands what gamers want, an excellent gaming machine first.

Now they're building their software houses to continue that confirmation. Buying talent that are in financial trouble that already have existing well established properties makes good sense, especially ones like IO who have shown they are capable of making good games using latest tech. They seem like a great choice if the rumor is true.

I won't lie though, I'm not the biggest hitman fan but I would like to see IO work on something new, certainly like how Playground games is working on new properties under Microsoft

Agree that it gained them goodwill with the true believers, the ones who'd rebuy another $500 console only a short time after buying the original Xbone. But were they ever really gone? I say not likely. If someone screwed me on a $500 machine, I'm not buying another from them in a few years unless I'm still on board, and if I'm still on board at that point, well, I'm not the type of buyer they needed to convince anyway.

 

[pr0cs]

f someone screwed me on a $500 machine, I'm not buying another from them in a few years

Were you really screwed though? From the start Microsoft message for the xbone was terrible, very early on it was clearly underpowered. If you bought it thinking it would compete with the ps4 then it's on you for not doing your homework.

I was primarily a 360 gamer last gen and the ps3 was for exclusives. This gen I started with ps4 but bought a X because Microsoft is drifting back to what made the 360 so great.

Microsoft adding new studios reaffirms that notion that gaming comes first. This gen is done but if they can continue with the goodwill (cross play, back compat, regular os updates and improvements) and launch next gen with some exciting new IP and dev houses I expect a lot of gamers will move back like I did.

 

[Bogroll]

Yeah just give up Microsoft /s

 

[TheShadowLord]

Microsoft need a Team Ninja-esque type of studio. A Japanese development unit capable of creating high quality cult classics. That is what the Xbox platform really lacks these days.

they could just buy mistwalker

 

[HeresJohnny]

Were you really screwed though? From the start Microsoft message for the xbone was terrible, very early on it was clearly underpowered. If you bought it thinking it would compete with the ps4 then it's on you for not doing your homework.

I was primarily a 360 gamer last gen and the ps3 was for exclusives. This gen I started with ps4 but bought a X because Microsoft is drifting back to what made the 360 so great.

Microsoft adding new studios reaffirms that notion that gaming comes first. This gen is done but if they can continue with the goodwill (cross play, back compat, regular os updates and improvements) and launch next gen with some exciting new IP and dev houses I expect a lot of gamers will move back like I did.

A self-inflicted screwing is still a screwing. I think many people bought in hoping it was not what it appeared to be (I wasn't one of them, I bought an S) based on the positive times they had with the 360. I think most thought it would definitely be directly competing with the PS4 because the PS4 hadn't even come out at that time. If the Xbone had launched after the PS4, they'd be even more screwed than they currently are -- that lack of contrast was one of the few things they had going for them.

 

[Breakage]

they could just buy mistwalker

Oh yeah, I forgot about them. Lost Odyssey 2 on the next Xbox would be interesting. The previous Xboxes had their fair share of Japanese cult classics, and that helped to make the original Xbox and 360 attractive platforms.
You had games such as Otogi, Ninja Gaiden, JSRF, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Lost Odyssey etc – only on Xbox.
Microsoft need to recapture that Japanese magic.

 

[Blam]

Do you really get one without the other? I mean, if you'd rather sell a hundred systems and call them "users' while your competitor sells a hundred thousand units they call "buyers," your shareholders are going to want a word with you.

Well that's where their Play Anywhere goes, what is a console sold with one game. But a user can buy 4-5 of their games at full price or at deluxe like some did with FH4, or FH3, and it makes them more money in the long run.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Buying studios that are having trouble only means you've bought a studio with problems to add to your existing woes.

That's shortsighted. Perhaps they need new leadership, perhaps they need better funding more access to tools and resources.

The hitman games are great but the decision to release the last one in chapters put a lot of people off. Surely on the talented level that was not a choice they made.

Sometimes companies need a shake up. You're attitude is these people deserve to not be working because they are not doing well financially.

Sony bought OnLive and it too was struggling. Sometimes it takes a company with more resources to help support it to something more desirable.

 

[flashfire926]

How was repeating the same pricing mistake made in the first place a "well thought out response"? I agree the hardware is ace, but who fucking cares if no one but the hardcore ever buys one? That's why I feel it was checking a box, because they gained little or nothing from it.

What price mistake? Spencer already said the X was targeted to the enthusiasts, not the mainstream.


No one (including MS) was expecting it to sell 10's of millions of units.

 

[HeresJohnny]

What price mistake? Spencer already said the X was targeted to the enthusiasts, not the mainstream.


No one (including MS) was expecting it to sell 10's of millions of units.

So what was the point in releasing it? Again, it doesn't gain them anything. If Spencer is trying to sell to the already converted, he's basically waving a white flag.

EDIT: It also further the stigma that buying an Xbox console is now going to cost $500. It seems like that may be their strategy; to normalize the $500 price point.

In fact, it costs them, because now their successor console has to drastically outperform the X at a lower price point to be competitive to the mainstream. Many of the ideas on the X are great ideas, and could have been implemented for the next true console generation. Not only did they take all the thunder away from those ideas, they've created a competitor for themselves when making their next console.

 

[HeresJohnny]

Well that's where their Play Anywhere goes, what is a console sold with one game. But a user can buy 4-5 of their games at full price or at deluxe like some did with FH4, or FH3, and it makes them more money in the long run.

Doesn't the conventional market do the same thing? I though Play Anywhere just makes the game accessible across multiple devices.

 

[flashfire926]

Buying financially troubled development houses to aid your own struggling console business is probably not the best plan ever presented in a boardroom. I'm just fascinated that Microsoft keeps doing it.

EDIT: Having owned their products now in this space for a decade and a half, my observation has been that Microsoft is very into checking boxes, even when it doesn't benefit them. They did it with Kinect when the Wii craze was dying out. "See guys! We've got waggle too!" They did it with the X this generation after Sony brought out the Pro. "See guys! We have the most powerful system!" And now they seem to be doing it in response to their lack of studios. "See guys! We own all these development houses!"

It's all very formulaic to them, as if they can just tick off boxes and magically reverse what Mattrick did to them. It's going to be a long uphill slog, and it's going to require brilliant moves rather than just a fat wallet. Ask George Steinbrenner.

1) They're console business isnt struggling. They turned profits in 2017. Not being the leader =/= struggling

2) Struggling studios come at a much cheaper price than usual due to them being more willing to sell out when it comes to saving the studio. So no, it is a smart strategy. Microsoft has enough money to fund them.

3) Didn't Kinect 1 sell like 18 million units? That was a success wasnt it? Yes bundling it with XB1 was a huge mistake. Though Sony chased this trend too.

Not a very well done post.

 

[flashfire926]

So what was the point in releasing it? Again, it doesn't gain them anything. If Spencer is trying to sell to the already converted, he's basically waving a white flag.

EDIT: It also further the stigma that buying an Xbox console is now going to cost $500. It seems like that may be their strategy; to normalize the $500 price point.

In fact, it costs them, because now their successor console has to drastically outperform the X at a lower price point to be competitive to the mainstream. Many of the ideas on the X are great ideas, and could have been implemented for the next true console generation. Not only did they take all the thunder away from those ideas, they've created a competitor for themselves when making their next console.

It doesnt gain them much, but it doesnt hurt them either. It extends the generation as XB1 family sales have a longer tail that usual.

And the bolded is a bunch of bullshit. One S sell for like $200 nowadays. Xbox One X is a high-end product not made for everyone.

Graphics are at a point where it doesn't even really matter anymore. We are at the point of diminishing returns. Next gen will be the smallest jump yet for Sony and Microsoft yet. Just make sure to make it 4k to cash in on the buzzword, everything else will take care of itself.

We arent in 2000 anymore, nor is this a PS1 to PS2 type jump. Consoles will have incremental upgrades from now on.

 

[HeresJohnny]

1) They're console business isnt struggling. They turned profits in 2017. Not being the leader =/= struggling

2) Struggling studios come at a much cheaper price than usual due to them being more willing to sell out when it comes to saving the studio. So no, it is a smart strategy. Microsoft has enough money to fund them.

3) Didn't Kinect 1 sell like 18 million units? That was a success wasnt it? Yes bundling it with XB1 was a huge mistake. Though Sony chased this trend too.

Not a very well done post.

1) Depends on what you'd call struggling. I don't think Microsoft entered this race with the intention of selling half the consoles that the market leader did. I remember, quite vividly, talk by Microsoft of the Xbone being the best-selling console of all time prior to release. If you don't like to talk in terms of numbers, then let's turn to profits. Turning a profit for one year after a series of losses may not be your definition of struggling, and that is fine. I'd call that "turning a corner - MAYBE" but If you want to parse what the term struggling means, it's certainly your prerogative to do so.

2) Struggling studios may continue to struggle after being acquired, and I'd argue they are likely to. We'll have to see if the buyout happens and what happens to IO if it does.

3) Kinect was a fad chasing a fad. They bundled it together with the 360 (yes, the bad decisions within Microsoft began before the Xbone ever came out, the device was a stain on the 360 as well), and there was a giant glut of shit software that no one plays and no one cares about to this day. On paper it may have been successful, in reality it was quite a different story. And again, it really isn't about the success of Kinect. It was that the device was a sham. They had to make fake videos at E3 because the device was such a fucking turd. They came up with the buzzphrase "better with Kinect" when in reality that was the opposite of the truth -- usually Kinect made a good game worse and a bad game awful. And my opinion on the device is that it was always a "me too" device intended to cash in on the Wii craze and check that box.

 

[SlashBringingHasher]

Buying financially troubled development houses to aid your own struggling console business is probably not the best plan ever presented in a boardroom. I'm just fascinated that Microsoft keeps doing it.

EDIT: Having owned their products now in this space for a decade and a half, my observation has been that Microsoft is very into checking boxes, even when it doesn't benefit them. They did it with Kinect when the Wii craze was dying out. "See guys! We've got waggle too!" They did it with the X this generation after Sony brought out the Pro. "See guys! We have the most powerful system!" And now they seem to be doing it in response to their lack of studios. "See guys! We own all these development houses!"

It's all very formulaic to them, as if they can just tick off boxes and magically reverse what Mattrick did to them. It's going to be a long uphill slog, and it's going to require brilliant moves rather than just a fat wallet. Ask George Steinbrenner.

are you joking?. maybe instead of being a salty fanboy (am a playstation fan) you should expect Sony to be expanding their first party reach, not cutting it down like they did this generation


its in every way a positive thing for microsoft to acquire a studio that would close if they didn't step in. for everyone. the employees. us, hell and even the people that don't own an xbox.


Sony's inept and lazy leadership and their lack of innovation should be exploited and it will be very soon when Microsoft is firing on all cylinders and making more genres than Sony is and potentially more games. as they already have more studios than Sony

Sony is already splitting their playerbase between VR owners and non VR owners. thats another thing.

 

[Lionel Richie]

Buying studios that are having trouble only means you've bought a studio with problems to add to your existing woes.

Yeah this doesn't work like this, they acquired talent and expanded their first party offerings to bolster their service.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

So what was the point in releasing it? Again, it doesn't gain them anything. If Spencer is trying to sell to the already converted, he's basically waving a white flag.

EDIT: It also further the stigma that buying an Xbox console is now going to cost $500. It seems like that may be their strategy; to normalize the $500 price point.

In fact, it costs them, because now their successor console has to drastically outperform the X at a lower price point to be competitive to the mainstream. Many of the ideas on the X are great ideas, and could have been implemented for the next true console generation. Not only did they take all the thunder away from those ideas, they've created a competitor for themselves when making their next console.

You're too focused on sales. In your opinion a Honda Civic would be better than a BMW because it sells more. Or a low/mid range CPU/GPU is better than a recent Intel or Nvidia higher priced chip because hardly anyone has it.

Xbox isn't doing as well as 360, but it's still doing well enough for MS to keep investing. And it's making money too.

And because the gaming market is big enough to support 3 players since last gen, all consoles get lots of games. MS and Sony consoles are closest in competition as Nintendo does it's own thing, but regardless of hardware power, just about every third party game comes to Xbox and PS, which right now X has the best version (BMW).

The key differences are really first party games (exclusives), third party quality (one of the systems will have the best version), online stores/UI and Sony has VR now. That's it.

If MS wants to focus on the higher end of console gaming, which is best hardware at the expense of getting the biggest market share, maybe that's fine in their books as the've probably realized for years the will never have global presence like Sony's brand. So to them, they might have a strategy that works for them.

Same can be said for Sony. If Sony wants to get more sales, they can gimp PS systems and beat out Nintendo for cheapest system. Or sell Sony TVs at RCA prices. They'd for sure get more units out the door, but at the expense of quality and profits.

 

[12Dannu123]

I

Buying studios that are having trouble only means you've bought a studio with problems to add to your existing woes.

think it's clear you're just VERY salty.

 

[12Dannu123]

Do you really get one without the other? I mean, if you'd rather sell a hundred systems and call them "users' while your competitor sells a hundred thousand units they call "buyers," your shareholders are going to want a word with you.

XCloud would like a word. Yes you can have one but not the other. Unlike Sony, they have the games but they suck at everything else beyond it. Amazon and Google are competition, not Sony, those giants have the money, the influence and infrastructure to get into the gaming market, especially the Cloud gaming market.

 

[Blam]

Doesn't the conventional market do the same thing? I though Play Anywhere just makes the game accessible across multiple devices.

Yeah Multiple Platforms. PC/Xbox.

 

[HeresJohnny]

You're too focused on sales. In your opinion a Honda Civic would be better than a BMW because it sells more. Or a low/mid range CPU/GPU is better than a recent Intel or Nvidia higher priced chip because hardly anyone has it.

Xbox isn't doing as well as 360, but it's still doing well enough for MS to keep investing. And it's making money too.

And because the gaming market is big enough to support 3 players since last gen, all consoles get lots of games. MS and Sony consoles are closest in competition as Nintendo does it's own thing, but regardless of hardware power, just about every third party game comes to Xbox and PS, which right now X has the best version (BMW).

The key differences are really first party games (exclusives), third party quality (one of the systems will have the best version), online stores/UI and Sony has VR now. That's it.

If MS wants to focus on the higher end of console gaming, which is best hardware at the expense of getting the biggest market share, maybe that's fine in their books as the've probably realized for years the will never have global presence like Sony's brand. So to them, they might have a strategy that works for them.

Same can be said for Sony. If Sony wants to get more sales, they can gimp PS systems and beat out Nintendo for cheapest system. Or sell Sony TVs at RCA prices. They'd for sure get more units out the door, but at the expense of quality and profits.

If Microsoft wanted to position itself as BMW, that would be fine. To stick with the car analogy, you don't see many BMW dealers selling Hondas or vice-versa. The two are kind of mutually exclusive markets. To further complicate things, game consoles rely on software, and aside from releasing two versions of each game (which is not likely) developers have to make those games playable on both formats. So sticking with your car analogy, the parts for both cars would have to be interchangeable and it would be a mess.

I don't think Microsoft has conceded a global presence, and I don't really think they should. There was strong evidence with the 360 they could build a global box that sold gangbusters. Nothing is holding them back now, I just don't think they have the vision for it as they once did.

 

[HeresJohnny]

I

think it's clear you're just VERY salty.

You're right. I'm just salty, dude. I'm salty Microsoft is buying a studio whose last game I played like a decade ago. On an Xbox console, no less.

 

[Akuza89]

It would be a nice acquisition for them regardless of money woes or whatever at the company.

I personally hope Microsoft get a few more companies in on this and shock us with 1 massive one at the end.

 

[Clear]

Having all these studios under one umbrella is nice until a corporate direction change puts them all under the gun in one fell-swoop. Not saying that's going to happen, but lets be honest consistency has never been MS' strong suit when running the gaming side of their business.

It also sets a precedent where everyone else is encouraged to buy up studios of their own in order to protect their business, widening the potential for trouble.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

If Microsoft wanted to position itself as BMW, that would be fine. To stick with the car analogy, you don't see many BMW dealers selling Hondas or vice-versa. The two are kind of mutually exclusive markets. To further complicate things, game consoles rely on software, and aside from releasing two versions of each game (which is not likely) developers have to make those games playable on both formats. So sticking with your car analogy, the parts for both cars would have to be interchangeable and it would be a mess.

I don't think Microsoft has conceded a global presence, and I don't really think they should. There was strong evidence with the 360 they could build a global box that sold gangbusters. Nothing is holding them back now, I just don't think they have the vision for it as they once did.

And right now, MS is the BMW of gaming. It has the highest priced unit and the best looking games. It even has side features like BC and a 4k drive.

Now for next gen, who knows if MS or Sony will be the top dog with the priciest and best performing unit in 2019 or 2020 (likely not Nintendo given their track record).

Your developer part doesn't even make sense. Most third party games are multiplatform, with the PC version being the best (assuming someone has a good rig), then X, then Pro, the PS4 OG and last is Xbox One OG. A Switch version will be at/near the bottom, but does have the unqiue feature of being portable. This path of best to worst holds true the majority of the time.

MS has conceded. At least the last 10 years. Since Lost Oddysey and Blue Dragon, they basically ditched Japanese partnered games. Only recently has there been some blurbs about MS courting Asian gaming conferences or PR (something like that).

As for MS having an awesome vision, who knows. Maybe they don't really care that much. Their gaming division is the worst one in terms of sales and profits. When a company earns about $20 billion in profits per year and the gaming division might scrape up $100 million of it, who cares.

Sony is different. Their divisions have done so poorly the last 10-15 years, their gaming division is probably their best division (along with that insurance arm). If Sony's gaming division sinks, so does probably half the company's profits. If Xbox disappears, it probably wouldn't even affect their quarterly EPS (earnings per share) when they do wall street results.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

1) Depends on what you'd call struggling. I don't think Microsoft entered this race with the intention of selling half the consoles that the market leader did. I remember, quite vividly, talk by Microsoft of the Xbone being the best-selling console of all time prior to release. If you don't like to talk in terms of numbers, then let's turn to profits. Turning a profit for one year after a series of losses may not be your definition of struggling, and that is fine. I'd call that "turning a corner - MAYBE" but If you want to parse what the term struggling means, it's certainly your prerogative to do so.

2) Struggling studios may continue to struggle after being acquired, and I'd argue they are likely to. We'll have to see if the buyout happens and what happens to IO if it does.

3) Kinect was a fad chasing a fad. They bundled it together with the 360 (yes, the bad decisions within Microsoft began before the Xbone ever came out, the device was a stain on the 360 as well), and there was a giant glut of shit software that no one plays and no one cares about to this day. On paper it may have been successful, in reality it was quite a different story. And again, it really isn't about the success of Kinect. It was that the device was a sham. They had to make fake videos at E3 because the device was such a fucking turd. They came up with the buzzphrase "better with Kinect" when in reality that was the opposite of the truth -- usually Kinect made a good game worse and a bad game awful. And my opinion on the device is that it was always a "me too" device intended to cash in on the Wii craze and check that box.

They are rumored to be buying more studios, why does Xbox threads have people in them that think they always know better?

Why do you have a hard time focusing on what is, not what's been. You act like Microsoft is done for, that they should just pack up and go. The WiiU was a colossal disappointment they sold less than half of what the Xbox One has done so far on more exoensive hardware and less studios. The WiiU got curbstomped and was gone in 4 years. Where is your outcry then and what did you suggest Nintendo to do?

Here you are now telling everyone this is a mistake. Seems like no matter what they do you guys are right there crapping on every move. The X was designed to take away the inferior hardware image. Now look around, all the fanboys want to talk about is exclusives. Meanwhile every month third party consumes the list so let's not act like that support and the hardware to push it doesn't matter. The WiiU lived and died by that. Same with the Gamecube.

You also ignored my comment on OnLive which goes to show you're not here to debate anything.

 

[flashfire926]

1) Depends on what you'd call struggling. I don't think Microsoft entered this race with the intention of selling half the consoles that the market leader did. I remember, quite vividly, talk by Microsoft of the Xbone being the best-selling console of all time prior to release. If you don't like to talk in terms of numbers, then let's turn to profits. Turning a profit for one year after a series of losses may not be your definition of struggling, and that is fine. I'd call that "turning a corner - MAYBE" but If you want to parse what the term struggling means, it's certainly your prerogative to do so.

2) Struggling studios may continue to struggle after being acquired, and I'd argue they are likely to. We'll have to see if the buyout happens and what happens to IO if it does.

3) Kinect was a fad chasing a fad. They bundled it together with the 360 (yes, the bad decisions within Microsoft began before the Xbone ever came out, the device was a stain on the 360 as well), and there was a giant glut of shit software that no one plays and no one cares about to this day. On paper it may have been successful, in reality it was quite a different story. And again, it really isn't about the success of Kinect. It was that the device was a sham. They had to make fake videos at E3 because the device was such a fucking turd. They came up with the buzzphrase "better with Kinect" when in reality that was the opposite of the truth -- usually Kinect made a good game worse and a bad game awful. And my opinion on the device is that it was always a "me too" device intended to cash in on the Wii craze and check that box.

1) "A series of losses" what losses? When did they have a loss? . You are the one who is morphing the meaning of struggling. Yes they didnt hit the targets, but they were unrealistically high to begin with. Profit is the main scale for success for these companies, hence why PS3 isnt really a success despite many others claiming that.

2) WHAT? These studios are struggling in terms of financial backing, nothing else. Hitman 2 got glowing reviews. These studios have proved that they can make great games. All they need to get is financial backing.

3) Now you're moving goalposts. This was a part of your initial post: "Having owned their products now in this space for a decade and a half, my observation has been that Microsoft is very into checking boxes, even when it doesn't benefit them. They did it with Kinect when the Wii craze was dying out. "

First you said that the kinect didnt benefit them, didnt earn them money. Now that you were proven wrong you morph the argument into your opinion of how good/bad the kinect was.
About the bolded: no, youre first post literally argues that it wasnt benefitial for Xbox. In reality those years (2010-2012) were the most profitable years for xbox. So yeah, your rant has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Having all these studios under one umbrella is nice until a corporate direction change puts them all under the gun in one fell-swoop. Not saying that's going to happen, but lets be honest consistency has never been MS' strong suit when running the gaming side of their business.

It also sets a precedent where everyone else is encouraged to buy up studios of their own in order to protect their business, widening the potential for trouble.

You are assuming Microsoft has the same leadership and goals and never changes. Who would have thought such things 20 years ago with Sony and the future of the company back then? How big is their electronic and TV market now?

Microsoft is now giving full confidence to its games division. If there is one consistency is that Microsoft knows how to stay relevant. They are close to a trillion dollar company.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

You are assuming Microsoft has the same leadership and goals and never changes. Who would have thought such things 20 years ago with Sony and the future of the company back then? How big is their electronic and TV market now?

Microsoft is now giving full confidence to its games division. If there is one consistency is that Microsoft knows how to stay relevant. They are close to a trillion dollar company.

Business strategies change all the time. And often when companies face milestones or hurdles.

Last gen
- 360 was inexpensive, powerful and came out of nowhere to get lots of sales and market share
- Closeminded to cross play, free games, modding, always stories about draconian policies for indie games
- Happy with living off a handful of internal studios, hoping third party devs will save the day

- PS3 was overpriced, powerful (for internal staff who could harness the power), and lost share
- Openminded to cross play, giving away games with PSN+, allowed modding in some games, stories seem to say Sony is great to work with
- Prefer buying up studios to churn out first party games, as third party games didn't look as good as 360

Beginning of this gen..... funny how things change
- Xbox One overpriced for what you get and had Kinect
- Reliance on the usual first party games waning with gamers
- Gamers scoffed

- PS4 more powerful and reasonably priced
- Combine good first party games with now best third party games = solid 1-2 combo
- Gamers love it

Recently this gen..... funny how things change again
- MS releases X as most powerful, BC, 4k, cross play, Play Anywhere, Game Pass, MS buying up studios to get more content
- From a weak entry with Xbox One OG, they've changed to be more pro-consumer as they need to play catch up

- Sony releases half hearted Pro, no BC, no 4k drive, weird censorship policies lately, no cross play, no options like PA or GP
- From a strong start, they've tried to ride the wave with stodgy policies as they don't need to change

History always repeats itself.

 

[bitbydeath]

This would be a huge get if they go through with it. Probably the biggest they’ve done this gen.

If they could deliver on a proper new AAA Hitman game which isn’t in parts like IO are currently doing it could really turn a few heads.

Edit: Aside from Minecraft I guess...

 

[Justin9mm]

I've always been a little bit of a Sony Fanboy, never owned an Xbox, was very biased. I was able to get a One X cheap and wanted Game Pass and to play a couple exclusives, the X has sold me with it's superior performance for 4K gaming and features such as Game Pass which I think is amazing. I stopped buying and playing Multiplat titles on my Pro now. My view of Xbox has now changed. In the past it didn't matter what Xbox had, I would just buy the next PlayStation but now I wouldn't hesitate to invest in the next gen Xbox if it's worth it. I'm interested to see how Microsoft is going to shape up next gen, buying up these studios could be what they need in order to bring a range of new exclusives to their console. I hate the god awful OS on the Xbox though, change that shit! It was crap before and it's crap now!

 

[12Dannu123]

Having all these studios under one umbrella is nice until a corporate direction change puts them all under the gun in one fell-swoop. Not saying that's going to happen, but lets be honest consistency has never been MS' strong suit when running the gaming side of their business.

It also sets a precedent where everyone else is encouraged to buy up studios of their own in order to protect their business, widening the potential for trouble.

So??? This happens to every industry, the gaming industry isn't any different. Consolidation of the gaming industry was always going to happen in the future, it's a matter of when not if. Lets be honest here, Microsoft has become the gaming industries safety net. We will likely see studios who are struggling sell themselves to MS.