-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Microsoft CEO Nadella: ZeniMax/Bethesda acquisition is "all about future of software", will consider buying even more video game companies in future
- Thread starter Deleted member 3812
- Start date
- News
He his talking about the buy out of the studios, not the quality of the IP:...
Which is my point. Or are you trying to say Fuse and Sunset Overdrive make Insomniac's acquisition an entirely different scenario ? Because I very much doubt most, if not all, primarily Xbox gamers considered it much of a loss.
I don't think we will the see the scale of Zenimax, but I can see MS swooping in an picking up Digital Extremes - assuming that something went sideways with DE's talks with Tencent. Or FromSoftware - given their working relationship with Elden Ring.
MS making moves, that is for sure.
MS making moves, that is for sure.
I would like you to actually take a step back and consider your rebuttal to me saying a lot of people outside of the enthusiast community don't buy multiple consoles and therefore this means fewer games they have available to them. And it shouldn't be that difficult to extrapolate why consolidation of giant studios/game companies is something that would negatively affect the people that can't or don't want to own multiple consoles.
Really? Ok.
Naughty Dog was a fairly niche developer in the late 80's and early 90's. They made a trilogy of Crash games exclusively for Sony and both found a lot of critical and commercial success for the first time while helping to build the PlayStation brand. Here is the list of games they released before making games exclusively for Sony:
- Math Jam (as JAM Software)
- Ski Crazed (as JAM Software)
- Dream Zone (as JAM Software)
- Keef the Thief
- Rings of Power
- Way of the Warrior
Guerrilla Games was even more niche before they made Killzone exclusively for Sony in 2004. Sony acquired them in 2005. Here's the list of games they released before making games exclusively for Sony:
- Dizzy's Candy Quest (as Lost Boys Games)
- Rhino Rumble (as Lost Boys Games)
- Black Belt Challenge (as Lost Boys Games)
- Invader (as Lost Boys Games)
- Shellshock: Name '67
Sucker Punch was arguably even more niche than Guerilla Games before they made the first Sly Cooper game exclusively for Sony in 2002. Here's the list of games they released before making games exclusively for Sony (acquired as a studio in 2011):
- Rocket: Robot on Wheels
Insomniac's first game was exclusively developed for Sony (Disruptor), and they made games exclusively for Sony from 1996 to 2012.
Okay, now here's the same breakdown for the Zenimax/Bethesda acquisition.
Bethesda Game Studios has not made an exclusive game for Microsoft. Before the acquisition, they made The Elder Scrolls and Fallout games for multiple platforms (and Starfield would have been the same).
id Software has not made an exclusive game for Microsoft. Before the acquisition, they made Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein and Rage (among some others) for multiple platforms.
Machine games has not made an exclusive game for Microsoft. Before the acquisition, they made the new Wolfenstein games for multiple platforms.
Tango Gameworks has not made an exclusive game for Microsoft. The Evil Within games were multiplatform.
Arkane Studios made Arx Fatalis and Dark Messiah of Might and Magic as console exclusives for Microsoft (before being a Bethesda Studio), and Prey and the Dishonored games were multiplatform.
It is pretty clear that your comparison is...I'll be kind and say not well thought out.
Eh...Microsoft has no obligation to do it like Sony. Bethesda/Zenimax now benefits from being first party. From Playground:
"We could talk to other studios, but it had to be filtered. You had to go through certain channels. If we wanted to find out about new technology or initiatives that were coming through, there was a time and a place for that to happen, and it was usually just behind the curve," Fulton said in the interview.
"Now that we're a first party studio, I can pick up the phone and dial out to 343 Studios, The Coalition, Ninja Theory - we can start talking about technology, tools, all of those conversations are easy to have."
Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/6385...usses-benefits-microsoft-ownership/index.html
"We could talk to other studios, but it had to be filtered. You had to go through certain channels. If we wanted to find out about new technology or initiatives that were coming through, there was a time and a place for that to happen, and it was usually just behind the curve," Fulton said in the interview.
"Now that we're a first party studio, I can pick up the phone and dial out to 343 Studios, The Coalition, Ninja Theory - we can start talking about technology, tools, all of those conversations are easy to have."
Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/6385...usses-benefits-microsoft-ownership/index.html
This notion you're saying? I never said it. All I said was the perception was different. I never argued that any sort of corporate consolidation is good, but it's interesting that context matters now when it hasn't previously.
I don't want people losing their jobs. I don't want people losing access to games because frankly it's antithetical to what Microsoft is supposedly about.
I think what's happened in this thread is gross because it completely strips any of the human impact of these moves. Which is considerable. I know I'll come off a self-righteous dickhead because that's kinda how I am but I will stand by this.
The people acting like this is some chess board and cheering these moves, whatever they are, are wrong. And you defending these moves, if what you argue in your last sentence is what you believe, doesn't make sense either.
I appreciate you at least took the time to have a measured reply unlike the rest of the Bring It On crew.
I would agree Sony acquiring Insomniac is similar to Xbox acquiring Playground. Insomniac's legacy and most successful games were on PlayStation.
I mean those acquisitions and the Bethesda acquisition are two different things.
- Naughty Dog: Acquired by Sony in 2001, by that point had been working exclusively with Sony for five years.
- Guerrilla Games: Acquired by Sony in 2005, at that point had already created the Killzone franchise with Sony.
- Sucker Punch Productions: Acquired by Sony in 2011, all of its games except for one Nintendo 64 title were published by Sony. Had already created Sly Cooper and inFAMOUS together.
- Insomniac: Acquired by Sony in 2019. 90 percent of its lifetime output has been published by Sony. Had already created Ratchet & Clank, Resistance, and the Marvel's Spider-Man game series together.
Then you have Bethesda, a major publisher which operates eight studios and owns a catalog of iconic IP that have existed across multiple platforms for many years, and have never really worked with Microsoft directly other than in bringing Morrowind to the original Xbox. Surely you can see the difference?
I don't really know the situation with Street Fighter V to be honest, but from what I recall, Capcom wasn't the powerhouse it is now at the time and wouldn't have been able to make Street Fighter V without funding from Sony. I could be wrong here, so feel free to correct me if so.
I'm not disagreeing with your broader point, but lets not re-write history here. Bethesda gained popularity in the console space by working closely with MSFT developing Morrowind for Xbox, and Oblivion as a timed Xbox 360 exclusive. They did not release a console game before that.
They did not make Morrowind for Xbox--they made it for PC. But yes, that's probably the strongest the relationship had ever been.
I have some serious, serious doubts about this. What game where the predecessor sold 10+ million copies has ever had a problem with funding?
Like the gaming industry would be anything like it is without capitalism.
Excellent post. Not deserved by any means, but an excellent post. And one that will likely need quoting many times over.
I don't really think you can argue that this acquisition was bad for a huge portion of gamers. A bunch of multiplat titles will likely never come to PlayStation ever again.
MS saw a great opportunity for their business and took it.
MS saw a great opportunity for their business and took it.
People who don't want extra consoles have always faced missing exclusives titles (some of the greatest games ever made, if not the greatest have been exclusives). People who can't I feel more for and hope that they can enjoy the games at a cheap rate later down the road.
Exclusives are common territory for media (not just gaming) and are becoming more powerful as time goes (streaming mentioned a little while ago). I'm not really against it bc I expect it.
This is actually a pretty pragmatic kind of trepidation to have. Expansion like this needs to be funded and managed, and they have lots of great studios right now. Getting results from them sooner than later might be a better approach than building an even bigger base with results that are years and years away.
I guess from their perspective, they have all the monies so they can wait a bit, but if they don't buy someone else will.
I kinda think MS is doing a pre-emptive attack against Google and Amazon more than they are engaging in a Sony battle rn. We'll see.
Great post but I can already see how someone will mention how spider-man was an exclusive character in the Avengers game as a response.
yup bgs, like cd project red, were able to transition to consoles thanks to ms.
Welp, I sure hope, when most are bought by MS and you don't have a capable alternative, you enjoy paying whatever MS decides to ask for gamepass.
I didn't say it was like Doom, I said it was like Doom Xbox. It's a hypothetical game with a completely new story, making it its own franchise just like Spiderman PS4.
I don't just mean no big business. There's be no consoles, no cheap consumer gpus, video games would be not much more than current indi titles.
World wide gdp per capital is around $11,000. How much resources would be devoted into luxury entertainment given some sort of socialist revolution?
Rare had not made an exclusive for Microsoft before they were acquired.
Bungie had not made an exclusive for Microsoft before they were acquired.
Compulsion Games had not made an exclusive for Microsoft before they were acquired.
InXile had not made an exclusive for Microsoft before they were acquired.
Obsidian had not made an exclusive for Microsoft before they were acquired.
Mojang had not made an exclusive for Microsoft before they were acquired.
Great question and one I'd love to have the chance to explore in my lifetime.
This doesn't help your argument lol.
yeah, if the thought is to have content for gamepass, than something which has intriguing content for both consoles and PCs make sense.
Now seeing such a thirst for new studios it's a an even bigger shame Bizarre Creations, Studio Liverpool, Evolution etc. couldn't hold on. A new PGR, Wipeout and Motorstorm using the new tech would be really something special.
Their parent company, or whatever it might be called, is publicly traded.
Yeah, still ... they could probably be had for less than some of the names being thrown around here and Witcher 4 and Cyberpunk sequel exclusive to XBox + Game Pass ... would really probably seal the deal as Game Pass or owning an XBox being a must for a large, large contigent of gamers.
Yeah, I don't think that's true but also this is not the place for that discussion lol.
Shared technology/knowledge/development leading to better and improved exclusive first party games? Nonsense, there is no advantage to exclusives. They should disappear because multiplatform games are easy to make and incur no extra resources. I should be able to play all games on my console of choice.
According to whiny babies, that is.
Seriously though, I'm interested if this could lead to some awesome games we usually don't see from a multiplatform developer. It's all down to how Microsoft manages them though.
Not you personally, it's more an elaboration of my position regarding the post you quoted in your reply to me. My core thesis is really that most of the arguments going on are just masks put over what is basically tribalism. It's not arguments borne out of true convictions often, it's a rationalisation applied to their feelings that they may not themselves fully understand. Me team xbox, acquisition good. Me team playstation, acquisition bad. But generally team playstation is always upset when team xbox acquires, and team xbox is always upset when playstation acquires, and the spheres of people (not the same individuals exactly, although sometimes it is) can be seen deploying basically the same arguments the other team did last time. It's easy to be very very cynical because I feel like I've seen it so much now.
My stance is that it's generally bad, and all exclusive deals are generally bad, but I don't get personally upset each time even though I think it's bad, because the level of "upsetness" is based on whether it impacts me or not. I think that phenomenon is basically true of a lot of people but not everyone has the self awareness to distinguish that which personally irritates them from that which is actually morally better or worse in an absolute sense. I get annoyed when a game I'm interested in goes EGS exclusive, but I don't think that's a massive moral crime even though it irritates me personally.
My entire point is that this thing called cultivating relationships before making a purchase is a construct of this forum that has no place in the business world as pertains talent and intellectual property acquisition.
Only silly businesses tie themselves up with such caveats, or reason that getting a publisher is a no go. Microsoft have considered buying a publisher from when they got into the console industry.....back then it was Sega.
They are worth 10B $, you probably had to pay 12 to 15B for a single studio, that is a crazy ideia.
Except it's literally been Sony's--the market leader's--way of doing business, no?
USSR, CCP, Cuba. You can say they weren't the real thing but all that proves is that every time it's been tried to be implemented it's gone horribly wrong.
True lol, think I've been stuck inside far too long!
Yes I too prefer Sony's graceful, arguably coy way of going about these things. Play with your prey a little bit, don't just devour the whole thing right away. Tease me. Put me on layaway first. Microsoft has been too bullish and laser focused as of late and it's not fair. It's mean spirited. They could have at least trotted out some timed-exclusives from Bethesda first!
So, here's A Take, dunno if it's been posted here or not.
venturebeat.com
Apparently Bethesda really wasn't doing all that well due to all the Bombs the past few years, and the ownership was looking for an Out.
Xbox’s Bethesda acquisition is evidence of blockbuster gaming’s volatility
Xbox's Bethesda acquisition is an illustration of publisher's running out of options for moving forward in a stable and successful way.
venturebeat.com
Apparently Bethesda really wasn't doing all that well due to all the Bombs the past few years, and the ownership was looking for an Out.
Exactly. All I keep seeing here is that somehow, MS needs to have the same exact playbook like Sony when they acquire studios, as well as exclusive content. The business world just doesn't work like that, lol. I'm not sure what to tell people anymore, but brand loyalty sure does provide a lot of interesting takes.
Unfortunately Microsoft (and Sony for that matter) is allowed to buy game companies that haven't made exclusive software for their platform. Making exclusive games isn't a precondition to acquisition.
Microsoft is also under no obligation to do things the way Sony did. Sony, however, saw no issue with timed exclusives, exclusive content, locking IPs to their platform, etc...
Again, this isn't the same type of deal that Sony would do. Anyone can stream the games or play them on PC. They're not locked to a piece of hardware.
So, here's A Take, dunno if it's been posted here or not.
Xbox’s Bethesda acquisition is evidence of blockbuster gaming’s volatility
Xbox's Bethesda acquisition is an illustration of publisher's running out of options for moving forward in a stable and successful way.
Apparently Bethesda really wasn't doing all that well due to all the Bombs the past few years, and the ownership was looking for an Out.
Isn't Ubi Soft having some of the same issues?