This x100.
The only people happy (or claiming bias, btw) about this kind of stuff are fanboys.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Brad Sams: Microsoft was looking into buying Platinum Games last year, "deal fell apart or they decided to go another direction"
- Thread starter Kolx
- Start date
This x100.
The only people happy (or claiming bias, btw) about this kind of stuff are fanboys.
Both the OT's are filled with such posts (it's been that way since Microsoft started their acquisitions spree), hell, there are posts from people in this very thread saying it's a shame Microsoft didn't buy platinum. Even you yourself stated the following earlier in the thread;
When we know that if a Platinum games title comes to Switch, or if there are such collaborations with Nintendo, it is far less likely to release on other platforms. It's not exactly a common or simple thing to port games down from say PS4/XO to Switch, and that will be even more true when it's PS5/XSX.
Ultimately people wanting what's best for their preferred platform is nothing new, but what I will say is that Microsoft is most certainly responsible for the recent "acquisitions" race that essentially Sony and others are now having to react to, to stay competitive.
Last edited:
This thread shows me that a lot of people have no god damn clue how Microsoft handles their studios now VS in the past.
It has been 1 1/2 years since the following video dropped, and we already see what is happening with these studios. Ninja Theory can experiment with stuff they WANT to do(Bleeding Edge, Project Mara...)
If Microsoft bought Platinum Games last year I'm sure they would already be working on one or two experimental games they always wanted to do but never got the funding to do so.
It has been 1 1/2 years since the following video dropped, and we already see what is happening with these studios. Ninja Theory can experiment with stuff they WANT to do(Bleeding Edge, Project Mara...)
If Microsoft bought Platinum Games last year I'm sure they would already be working on one or two experimental games they always wanted to do but never got the funding to do so.
They weren't on even ground before the acquisitions, though, and were constantly mocked to improve first party output. Then they did it and now it's uneven again?
Its far from that, I am pointing out the irony of wanting it for one company but not another. Ideally I would prefer platinum stay independent the same for Remedy then I would get their games on PC if they come there. The only time a company purchase should be supported is when that company is in dire need of financial help outside of that all a purchase does is cut their games off from other platforms.
i've never asked for them to become a nintendo exclusive dev. unfortunately most multiplat games skip the switch (my preferred platform) and platinum are one of my favorite devs, so pretty much the only way they'll make a switch game is if nintento funds and publishes it. while doing that they've been also making multiplat games for other platforms for years.
not sure what the rest of your post has to do with what i said.
And I'm sure if MS was interested in giving Platinum money for some fun experimental games exclusive to Xbox, they would be fine with that, they have taken plenty of money to make games from many other companies. Obviously MS is looking to own the studio though, which makes it seem like it's less about "letting studios experiment on our platform" and more about "not letting studios experiment for our competitors"
I don't even know what you're asking or suggesting here, unless you're suggesting Sony shouldn't be reacting to Microsoft's acquisition spree and should consider themselves even instead? Lol.
All the platform holders want what's best for them and their user base. And yes, perhaps in terms of consumer mindframe they weren't on even ground or whatever (they still aren't with actual releases), but there are ways to build out your own studios instead of acquiring a huge number of them, not to mention paying for third party exclusives as has typically been the case up until recently (following the acquisitions spree).
Essentially I wouldn't be surprised going into next gen if there will be fewer third party exclusivity deals and instead more permanent exclusives full stop.
You have to know that "collaborations with Nintendo" dramatically reduces the chances of said titles coming to other platforms.
It's sementics at the end of the day, you're essentially wanting something similar to the very people you're mocking, eg more games on your preferred platform, even if it means less chance of games on other platforms.
Ok sr, you done a great job showing the world how Resetera is a biased forum !
Mission accomplished !
Your efforts will be forever remembered !
not at all the same thing as wanting a first party to buy a studio. but as usual, not going to get into a pointless argument with you.
It's not irony, people just want their favorite developers on their favorite platform. It's normal.
But if they stay independent then the games they make do end up on those platforms i.e Remedy and control
I wouldn't mind all too much a Microsoft exclusive Platinum. What would worry me is their creative control. Would Microsoft let Astral Chain, Scalebound or Bayonetta happen?
In recent history they only had like one multi plat game I don't think they were ever really on the table to begin with.
Last edited:
why would they do that when they jumped ship in the first place? capcom seems to be a RE/MH/DMC factory these days. they'll just put platinum to work on one of those.
Yes, but now that everyone is acquiring (MS, Sony, Tencent, Facebook, Epic...) the chances of a dev never work for a platform agan is high.
I wouldn't say that entirely. I am excited by Microsoft aquisitions because it means those games will be coming to GamePass day 1. I honestly like GamePass so much that I want a service like it for Nintendo and PS5 as well. Until then I get pumped knowing there will be more great games on the service.
It's not exactly the same, but the ramifications are similar. Eg, one or more platforms still lose out with your Nintendo collaborations for a set period of time, whereas with acquired studios it's of a more permanent nature.
But look at it from the perspective of those gaming on single platforms; In this current climate of acquisitions almost being a norm (thanks predominantly to Microsoft), a non tentpole third party studio not being purchased by said preferred platform, means more of a chance of it being acquired by a competing platform. Eg if Microsoft doesn't aquire Remedy, there's a chance Sony acquires them instead, and vice versa. And then there's the chance of more third party exclusivity deals etc too even without an acquisition.
In other words, multiplatform titles are not guaranteed either way (especially if a major multiplatform release(s) underperforms and puts the studio in a vulnerable position, more open to outside funding or acquisitions), and it's not surprising non multi platform owning gamers are concerned about studios being acquired by a platform they don't game on, or the opposite being true.
Not because of the insanely successful Sunset Overdrive that's for sure.
And those games can be put on Gamepass without the acquisitions, without negating everyone else the chance to play those games. No, people championing acquisitions only does because they're stanning for their preferred company
Last edited:
There is a general arms race going on for development teams right now. If that wasn't the case, I don't know if the deal would have happened.
it's not like PG was sitting there, mulling over tons of offers for multiplat titles from big publishers and picked a nintendo offer over those. despite what hardcore gamers think, they're not exactly a popular and successful studio. you're implying those nintendo collabs come at the cost of multiplatform games, when we don't know that to be true. most likely if it wasn't for those collabs they'd be in a much worse financial situation.
Nier is a Square IP, right? They are probably working on something new they can own
didn't we hear that the next nier game is being developed in-house at SE? i imagine the sequel is already being worked on, while platinum is doing babylon's fall for SE.
Well thanks for telling me how I feel. Glad you could clear that up for me.
That sounds like a match made in hell. If this is true, which I doubt anyway, I'm glad the deal failed. Platinum always wanted to remain independent and I'm pretty sick of the weird obsession clueless brand loyalists have with studio acquisitions. Platinum develops for everyone and that's how it should stay.
I mean, that's exactly what happened with Obsidian tho. Lol.
Oh crap I know Square owns it but think I assumed since automata did so well that they'd bring Platinum back for the next game. If they aren't involved that's a bummer. I hope the combat is as fun in the next game! That's one area the 2nd game destroyed the first one, and made Automata more fun to play....if you can call anything Nier related "fun" lol
No problem.
Or are you denying that a game can be put on GP Day-1 without (in this case) MS acquiring the studio?
I actually agree with you here. The very fact that Platinum was going around looking for funding, clearly highlights that they were in need of it, whether to fund more ambitious projects, games for more platforms or whatever it might be.
Difference with MS acquiring these studios is we only need Game Pass to get their games day one.
