PlayStation CEO Jim Ryan: 'We’re Growing Our Studios Organically and Through Acquisition' - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 02 April 2022 / 5,923 Views
Sony Interactive Entertainment President and CEO Jim Ryan on the latest PlayStation podcast said PlayStation will continue to grow its first-party lineup in two ways - organically and through acquisitions.
"We're in a really good place with PlayStation Studios and have been for the past few years," said Ryan. "The critical success and the commercial success of the games that they've been making… that has given us permission to invest heavily in content creation."
He added, "We’re growing our studios organically and we’re growing through acquisition. We acquired five studios during the course of 2021, we’re in discussions with Bungie and we have more planned. This is getting us into a virtuous cycle where success begets success."
In 2022 alone, Sony Interactive Entertainment acquired Destiny developer Bungie for $3.6 billion, as well as Jade Raymond's Haven Entertainment Studios.
Ryan has previously stated there are currently no plans to add first-party titles day one on at least one of the PlayStation Plus tiers in the future.
"We feel like we are in a good virtuous cycle with the studios, where the investment delivers success, which enables yet more investment, which delivers yet more success. We like that cycle and we think our gamers like that cycle," said Ryan at the time.
"[In terms of] putting our own games into this service, or any of our services, upon their release... as you well know, this is not a road that we've gone down in the past. And it's not a road that we're going to go down with this new service."
He added, "We feel if we were to do that with the games that we make at PlayStation Studios, that virtuous cycle will be broken. The level of investment that we need to make in our studios would not be possible, and we think the knock-on effect on the quality of the games that we make would not be something that gamers want."
Thanks, VideoGamesChronicle.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel dedicated to gaming Let's Plays and tutorials. You can contact the author at wdangelo@vgchartz.com or on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
As we have witnessed. Hopefully this will be the end of, "Sony only grows organically (ie they do it the right way)" because we know it's not the case.
Well he just said that they are ALSO doing it through acquisitions. Before... it really was organically.
There's a big difference between being a hypocrite and being forced into seemingly being one.
When the competition has tried the same thing and failed or lacked the patience, so then decided screw it, we're just gunna buy our way to monopolistic exclusivity, you can't just sit back and play the organic waiting game as is required. You now have to start making considerably more, bigger acquisitions, sooner than later.
Jim is just making it clear that MS has left Sony no choice but to deviate from mostly organic growth going forward, or at least for the time being until perhaps the consolidation cools down.
Havent they still done mostly organic growth? If I'm not mistaken bungie has been the only one that was not organic. Even heaven studios was help started by Sony.
The problem with your post is the lack of seeing that the competition is no different. They are all the same. Just because Sony slowed down on making big acquisitions recently doesn't mean they never did. Sony did all that during the PS1 and PS2 eras. Where do you think majority of their studios came from?
Xbox started buying studios in their 3rd era, only difference is Xbox hasn't stopped buying. When Sony got to where they needed to be and on top, they never saw a reason to buy studios, why waste money when they are top dogs? Now they see the competition swinging back, they are now looking into buying again to stay competitive. If they don't buy and change their methods, they will be left behind this all digital future we are heading.
With PS organic growth, you have to understand what that means to PS. They don't mean only and specifically internal growth.
By organic, they mean, if purchasing, to acquire smaller entities and build from there. Which is what PS has done in the past for the most part.
You didn't ever see PS spending even close to billions to purchase third party studios in the past for this reason.
XB with their relatively recent 8 billion and 70 billion dollar purchases, changed the game in a way that PS has no choice but to modify their growth strategy. This is why PS is now spending multiple billions of dollars to acquire, because they don't have much of a choice at this time.
It's not so different as to why XB is making these massive purchases. They've tried a similar enough organic growth strategy to PS, and it either wasn't working for them in some cases, or was just to slow to catch up to PS. XB felt they had little choice but to change their strategy and grow asap in whatever way possible.
This isn't the norm in the console space, which is why it's caused so much controversy. Having the Zenimax and Activision Blizzard purchases happen so seemingly close together, just made it worse.
This is where your post contradicts itself. All companies work closely with studios and have every opportunity to buy them when necessary.
MS has worked closely with Bethesda and Activision way before you know. But because it doesn't suit the current trend of fans, it doesn't justify. Xbox is no different to Sony in this instance.
They have also brought many smaller studios they have worked closely with including others like Double Fine, Undead Labs, Playground Games and Compulsion, they have also built their very own successful studios in 343, Turn 10, Coalition and soon The Initiative. They have done everything Sony has done but more.
The only difference here is MS continue to grow their gaming division and are continuing to invest heavy into these acquisitions. Sony are starting to realize the shift in the gaming industry and are now the ones trying to compete.
The even bigger issue with fans and they don't like to hear this, but this isn't about Xbox chasing Sony, this is far bigger than Sony and Xbox/MS are focused on an even bigger target. They don't care anymore about console sales numbers. These buyouts is to grow GamePass into a tens of billions profitable service.
Contradict? I never said anything about working closely together.
MS has had the funds to buy Bethesda as well as Activision and Blizzard before they even became Activision Blizzard. The question is why didn't they back then?
XB has bought smaller studios, yes, but why not continue to then? Why make a large and massive acquisition at all for that matter? All of these purchases have all come relatively closely together, one after another. Why didn't MS spread them out over a decade or more prior?
Speaking of contradictions, now you admit, due to these XB acquisitions that the game has been changed, so PS has no choice but to follow suit and attempt to compete?
A tens of billion dollar profitable service for XB will never happen even if PS stays its course. It'll only happen if Game Pass as a service combines mobile, or slowly bleeds PS dry. Then you end up with either mobile type games taking priority, or with a AAA monopoly and everyone knows what happens in that case. Nobody wants another XB1 or PS3 situation.
They didnt buy those publishers back than because GamePass wasnt a thing during the 360 era and buisnesses like MS will buy when the price is right. Clearly with whats happening at Acti/Blizz the value of the brand has dropped making it the time to swoop. But you already know that right?
MS want to grow GP to be a mammoth service, they arent going to dick around buying smaller studios just to be fair for those who cant afford what they can afford.
Its not MS fault they can afford these publishers, and as mentioned before, this has nothing to do with Sony. This is to make GP a tens of billions service. They are already making $3b a year with their current sub count, its on its way and these buyouts will bolster that achievement.
Have you not noticed this gen that its not MS following Sony but Sony following MS? Its pretty clear. Just look at recent events. Sony is trying to do what Xbox is doing, its not the other way around.
You said they worked closely together and had every opportunity to buy them though. When necessary, is how you finished that point, which is the point exactly.
It wasn't necessary for MS to buy back then because they weren't in such a poor position. They didn't care about offering the best deal in gaming, because they didn't need to.
Price being right is nonsense when it comes to MS. Money basically means nothing to them. A go to line used at times by some is, well MS could just buy Sony, which is used because it has some merit, because MS could buy out Sony if it simply came down to money. Another way to deal with Sony if you can't buy them with your money, is bleed them dry with your money.
Good to know that in the future, if Game Pass is a monopoly for games, that MS won't care for those who can't afford the service because MS has even bigger plans and wants too much to sub.
Can't afford to be part of what we're doing? Then too bad!
Again, good to know it's all about making MS tens of billions, and far more in the future, regardless of anything else like Sony or the consumer. It's about profit in the end, not what's best for the consumer. That's way down on the list, far below profit.
Well Sony does seem to be lacking when it comes to getting more consoles on shelves. Maybe they are trying to sell less PS5's so they can match XB Series sales?
PS isn't trying to copy Game Pass, because if they were, there's more they easily could've done with the new Plus offering that they clearly didn't bother to since they aren't that interested in offering a Game Pass competitor.
Did you not notice that the day after the new Plus was revealed, that XB announced a family package deal for Game Pass? Awfully odd timing considering XB wasn't reacting to PS Plus...
Oh boy, where do i start with this. The reason they werent making these big deals because they didn't have a platform that was worth the expense until GamePass. MS doesn't care about how many consoles they sell over Sony, they care about that $80b revenue the gaming industry produces. the OG Xbox lost MS $6b dollars while the 360 lost MS $3b dollars, wasn't exactly the best idea to go out and buy $60b publishers at the time. Now that the X1 and Series consoles are profiting and are not bleeding cash, MS are now focused on the bigger fish, nothing to do with Sony.
"MS doesn't care about money.." are you joking? seriously i hope you are, otherwise that's a foolish thing to say. MS has done their research on GP and have forecast what they believe is the future and will generate the most profit. Their is a reason they have the money in the bank like they do, wasn't made by donations.
Sony's end game is still primary about selling consoles, that's not MS end game, not anymore. Sony's end game is like what David Jaffe said, "is a dinosaur" which means old and outdated.
Contradicted yourself again. So the new PS Plus is not a competitor to GP yet MS countered with offering a family package to GP. Why if its not a competitor? Don't listen to what Sony says with PS Plus. Also their is a big difference between competing with deals than straight up follow innovation. Sony is following Xbox with the digital and online departments. This isn't new either, PSN wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Xbox Live.
That's just how Sony have always operated, they follow the innovation off others than use what works off others and implement for themselves later for maximum profit.
So XB recently spent $8B and $70B of their hard earned cash to make those acquisitions, or was that MS money since XB barely contributed to that investment?
If MS is willing to toss $78B + whatever else was spent on top, for all the smaller acquisitions, what's another $9B lost from earlier generations?
It sure isn't a valid excuse.
The entirety of Sony only had $9B in income in 2021.
You're right there.
MS basically prints money.
Money, which is made from the Windows ecosystem.
Which is a monopoly.
Contradict? Again?
You just said prior that Sony is following MS and trying to do what they're doing.
Now you're saying Sony's plans and end game are nothing like MS?
I'm the one saying Plus is not Game Pass and you've been saying Sony has been trying to follow and copy XB Game Pass.
Yet is looks as though XB is reacting with Game Pass to what just happened with PS and Plus.
PS2 was setup for online capability and was launched long before XBOX was. PS Now and it's library and streaming was launched long before Game Pass or xCloud was.
Well then XB wouldn't even exist at all if PS didn't.
So Sony stole CD (from Nin) for the PS1?
Stole DVD for PS2?
Stole BRD for PS3?
Stole joysticks (from Nin or XB) for PS1?
Stole triggers for PS2?
Stole sixaxis for PS3?
Stole share for PS4?
Stole AT for PS5?
The Xbox was making more money than PS in the 360 era and they still didn't buy big publishers. It isn't just about the money. MS was still working out the gaming market as well as those publishers likely weren't for sale either. Its not a coincidence that when the gaming market was valued at $80+Billion, MS started to make some big moves.
Watch the Xbox documentary and see how easy it was to get Xbox on the market.
MS care about money, its foolish to think otherwise.
If you haven't looked around lately, PS is following in Xbox footsteps this gen, we have seen plenty of examples, porting games to PC, buying big studios, creating a GamePass alternative, Backwards Compatibility etc. Its really not that hard to see.
Sony's end game currently is the old dinosaur method however they are still following others with the online ecosystem. Sure PSNow came first before xCloud but Sony didn't push the tech like MS is.
That list is laughable and quick google searches would have given you vital information before posting.
Sega Saturn launched 1 month before the PS1 and CD-Roms were a thing back in 1987 which conveniently enough MS used back in those days.
Sony weren't the first to launch with a Blu Ray drive in the PS4, the XB1 also had it built in.
Sony didn't invent the DvD-Rom.
Sticks from Nintendo
Triggers from Atari
Shoulder buttons from Nintendo
Rumble from Nintendo
Heck the entire PS1 controller was a straight copy of the SNES controller.
AT from Nintendo
Credit to Sony for the Share and Sixaxis and voice mic. But lets not act like they don't straight up take ideas. Sony are the most common at doing so compared to others.
I did watch it. MS decided just to buy PS or Nin and got told to take a hike. They were worried about their future Windows money, not gaming.
Their first moves were literally to start buying the industry out. Since they couldn't, they had to do things the hard way and actually attempt to compete on their own.
Your much earlier point was that PS was no different than MS, that they were gobbling up companies. So is PS leading MS there or following MS? You seem to think it's both, yet neither.
Games going to PC, you got that. Though XB did that because their games weren't selling enough on their hardware.
Plus isn't a Game Pass competitor. PS2 had BC and so did PS3.
So now it's who pushes the tech furthest, and not who came up with it? Which is more important?
Denon and Sony created CD's. That's why Nin wanted Sony's help with making a CD based console before PS1 happened.
Sony, Philips, Toshiba, and TWarner all created DVD.
That's because PS3 had BRD way before PS4 and XB1. Sony was part of making BRD as well. 360 had optional HD-DVD.
PS1 standard controller design with joystick came before N64.
Triggers we're both wrong. Dreamcast first standard controller.
Shoulder buttons wasn't a point made, but ok.
Rumble and Dual Shock wasn't a point made, but ok.
PS1 vs SNES controller wasn't a point made, but they're copies?
Not aware of Nin controllers with adaptive triggers.
I won't be going over everything else that Sony, MS, Nin, or anyone else made or incorporated or advanced, since it doesn't seem clear that who's done what, or what's actually important, if any of it, actually matters as far you're concerned.
I am failing to see your point. I am saying that MS doing MS things because MS do those things. It has little to nothing to do with Sony or their own performance within the industry. MS have seen past Sony and the dinosaur mentality of trying to rely on selling the most boxes. They see that Game Pass is the future and the gaming market is $80b+ big. They need more studios to earn a huge chunk of that $80b.
I added points to your list to show you it means little to what is being said here. But ill add, AT was taking from both Nintendo and Xbox One controllers. HD Rumble from Nintendo and Haptic Triggers from Xbox. Not saying they don't take ideas themselves as Xbox took the Share button off the PS4 controller etc.
The Industry is changing rapidly and this was the original direction MS had with the XB1 and the heavy online focus. Xbox this gen is pushing GP as much as they can because that's where the real money is, not with selling X/S at a retail loss. Sony has started seeing this to.
So now it has nothing to do with Sony whatsoever?
How did we get here from the start of this discussion about Sony and competition?
Stated already, I'm not going back to creations or innovations, since it's you who brought that up, even though you say it means nothing.
It's not changing rapidly. Game Pass started in 2017.
Sony just revamped Plus in 2021 and it's still not Game Pass.
It's heavily rumored that XB and PS are doing all they can and pushing hard to get more hardware out. Why would that even be a thing if they didn't care or even want more hardware sales?
Because consoles still generate revenue for their online eco system and software sales. They arent just going to shut off 50m+ gamers just because the industry is changing. What we will see is the slow decline of physical hardware like Disk Drives, less physical media, bigger promotions for online services and once majority of the audience has switched over, the console idea will evolve into an App for TVs, PCs and other universal hardware.
The more quality games these companies can dish up on these services, the more customers they gain, surpassing anything the console industry can compare with.
Weather we agree with the direction means little, thats the future of gaming. Less billions spent in console RnD and more billions made via software sales.
XB1 attempted to merge gaming with TV through Kinect.
XB Series is further attempting with TV through Netflix mass content.
Both haven't solved the quality and gaming focus problem.
That's why XB attempts at AAA are on their service and why Sony's trusted AAA aren't. Even the new Corvette, isn't sold like a Ferrari.
Going from 1 launch model to 2, isn't less hardware R&D and spending, it's more.
MS were the highest rated publisher last year and actually broke a Metacritic record of highest average. 87.
Good companies don't just stop when they are on top, they strive to change to become even bigger. When the 360 was the king of the world (Besides the Wii) MS still changed it up with the XB1 trying to find an even bigger audience. Next gen, expect them to do the same again and try to innovate GP even further and find an even bigger market cap.
Good companies as per the CEO/critics or as per the consumer?
If the point is simply massive profits eventually through any type of growth, instead of, this is for the players, then may the gaming gods help us.
Well last year Xbox was the best publisher while pushing and supporting GP and BC 100%. Majority who use GP and BC absolutely love it. So it seems MS is knocking it out of the park on both fronts.
Can you give me examples where you see it differently.
Best pub, or largest pub, or most pub?
Supporting GP, yes they have.
Supporting BC 100%? Not even close. Though in a preferable manner over the competitions offering for most.
Again, where's the strong, solid, lasting first party?
Halo launch wasn't even close to ready for console launch but was said to be, to save face and make sure console sales weren't weak right off the bat.
Then Halo get's delayed multiple times, 1 year in total.
At launch much is missing from the game, core to Halo.
Halo's uptrend is short then starts trending downward not that long after launch and continues to dive.
Devs mocking worthy complaints, etc.
This is 343 and Halo. H.A.L.O.!
Yes, MS has newly acquired studios who've been long in development before MS with new games that will be coming. When those games arrive, if in a timely fashion, and respectably well done, then MS will have a stronger argument going forward.
(Except for the fact that those titles would have gone to everyone but may not due to XB or GP exclusivity. It's one thing for new XB or small buys that are grown within to become exclusive, because the prior audience is non existent or small, compared to massive players who won't be able to access the content now.)
Also assuming of course, that after these titles launch, and once fully part of the MS ecosystem, that future first party continues to thrive.
Future TV or movies also can't be like Halo. A new universe excuse or not, taking the games and making a mockery of them is not only sad but weakens the gaming community.
Offering Halo, which isn't Halo, to a new community makes no sense when it comes down to pleasing the gaming community who helped you build Halo and who breathes Halo.
Everything you stated is subjective.
XBOX was the highest rated publisher last year, with games they published (1st and 3rd party) breaking a metacritic record of being the first to average 87+ on meta.
Now Halo is very subjective. Some like myself absolutely love it and its a return to form, some think its okay. As a general game Halo Infinite is very good. For a Halo game it lacks content. Again depends what you play the game for.
What does the TV series have to do with Xbox? Xbox didnt make it, plus its only 3 episodes in and so far scored a 61 which is considered good for a movie/series. For conparisons sake, Uncharted scored mid 40s. Also i doubt you even bothered watching the series. I am enjoying it so far, its different and nothing wrong with that.
You may not like the directions but scores outweight random thoughts on the internet.
(XB) game ratings aren't subjective? Why different ratings to make up the final rating then? Shouldn't all ratings be the same?
All games and their offerings are subjective, yes.
What do movies have to do with TV shows? The Uncharted movie wasn't exactly hyped to be a big thing. Most were hoping Sony didn't screw it up because lately everyone seems to screw every media transition up. I wasn't hyped and didn't think the movie was very good. The games are so much better.
Doesn't MS own Halo? MS is ok with taking something great, the Halo gaming franchise, which you seem to agree is lovable, yet allow some media entity to take it and turn it into a 61? Halo is supposed to be a 90 level kind of thing. Regardless of rating differences, 61 is a joke for what Halo should be getting as a TV series, based on what it truly is.
First 20 mins or so of the first episode was ok, but the rest was not good. The entire second episode was terrible. I won't be watching anymore until positive reviews start showing up as the series goes on, if those reviews end up positive. I'm not holding my breath.
Scores are subjective, which you imply is also meaningless like so many other things. Some you even bring up yourself as positives.
I agree that scores are very subjective, however scores are outweighing your points. You cannot tell people something is bad when scores say otherwise. Who do you believe, the 100 critics who played through the games or that 1 random guy on the internet that favors Playstation.. hmm.
Also your lack of Movie rating knowledge is showing. Unlike games, movies are scored differently. Average to good movies are rating 50s to 60s, great movies are scored in the 70s to 90s. For games, average to good are between 70s to 80s while great is scored 90+.
Halo games should be high 80s to 90s. Halo Infinite sits on an 87.
Now you are being a hypocrite. Ignore the Uncharted movie for scoring in the 40s while the games are known to be rated in the 90s yet criticize the Halo Movies for scoring in the 60s and expect it should be rated as high as the games.
You are not giving any good points here.
So subjective didn't matter before with Halo, but it does for all other game scores? Obviously those critics aren't biased or fans of any brand. No way some get paid off one way or another to influence their scores.
I'm finding it really hard to believe the 1 random guy on the internet who favors XB. The contradictions, hypocrisy, and flip flopping is enough to make a politician blush.
You mean the part where I said, regardless of the rating differences? Where I then point out that for TV specifically, 61 is a joke for what Halo should be getting (if done well as it should be since it's Halo).
87 must mean the Infinite campaign is the best ever made for any game in history, considering more than 13% of the rest of the game was missing.
I'm a hypocrite because I saw a considerable lack of hype, which you must agree since you didn't call it out, since there is no reason to because the hype just wasn't there for Uncharted?
Or maybe because I wasn't much interested in it regardless, considering I figured it wouldn't amount to much based on the fact this tends to happen to most game to tv or movie transitions?
You're the one who made the point that MS wants massive growth and profits by any means necessary and that it's a good thing period.
I'm arguing against that. Sony is attempting other media as well, but I don't fully support it, considering it's unlikely to succeed.
Now if either brand can do so, staying true to the source material, while being successful, so it not only grows the gaming community but still caters to existing gamers, then that's great, I'm all for it, but with Halo and Uncharted, I'm more against it now then I already was prior.
You're not reading carefully enough, or not remembering or ignoring what was said earlier, at times just one reply prior.
If you are going to bring up reviewers being paid off etc than ill need proof. Otherwise its just hyperbole. Bias happens on both sides so they cancel eachother out.
Regardless if you cared for the Uncharted movie means little to the debate. Its Uncharted, it needs to represent, just like Halo right? Interesting enough, the movie followed the games and did worse than Halo going a different direction. Also the Halo series hasnt even finished yet. How about wait for the season to end before jumping to conclusions.
Why does Halo or any game need to score a 90 to be good? You playing the score or the game?
Who said i think its a good thing what MS is doing? I am stating their strategy not agreeing or disagreeing with it. Its the future, no ifs or buts about it.
As Griffin Gaming says all the time, "You need to keep that same energy"
No need for proof of bias? How about how even both sides are in terms of reviewers? How about how open to manipulation each are? How about both sides in terms of who has the will and means to make payments or gifts and other ways of getting around the rules?
It didn't follow the games. It also took from the games but didn't follow the Uncharted story as it's laid out on PS.
It should represent, the games themselves for the gamers, which is done much better than Halo. What was done just as poorly was picking and choosing what to add in where. PS fans seem to be more picky than XB fans, which is also why its probably rated so low. They want their monies worth.
A new audience didn't seem to mean near as much to Sony as to MS, which is why Uncharted was more true to what you find in game.
TV shows, unlike movies, yet like console launches, are similar in the fact that very very rarely do they start out poorly then end up good. I'm sure you're also waiting for the Uncharted movie trilogy to wrap up before criticizing the first right?
So now your score points don't mean anything either? Really?
So if something you like or love, is changing in a way you don't like, you should just grin and bare it and go along with it? Not only is that terrible advice, but boy oh boy has that worked out extremely poorly in major events throughout history.
I have no idea what you are talking about anymore.
Halo Infinite is doing just fine, the Halo Series is doing just fine. It was the most viewed on Paramount+ and its critic scores are decent.
Stop trying to speak for everyone without facts. Cool you dont like it, great, move along.
Sony, PS Studio's, Plus, and the Uncharted franchise are doing just fine as well.
PS5 is the most wanted console and for good reason.
Where have facts been lacking where necessary? Does everyone decide based only or mostly on facts?
Nobody speaks for everyone. Some for one. Some for few. Some for many.
Unfortunate you don't seem to like it. Greatness isn't for everyone.
That post just cements it for me. Now i know what im dealing with here and its been a complete waste of my time.
Mind tricks only work on weak minds. Get those droids!
MS didn’t announce a family pass, it’s a rumor that has been around awhile.
Also you’re asking why MS didn’t buy these big publishers years ago, it takes two sides to make an acquisition. Just because one side has the money, doesn’t mean the other side wants to sell. A lot of these studios were looking to be bought and MS made the deal.
That's not what was said earlier about working together and just buying them up. You should go back and read through it (more carefully).
Nah, I read, you’re just wrong again. You asked why MS didn’t make these purchases before or why they didn’t “spread them out over a decade”. It’s not that simple. MS can have all the money, it doesn’t matter if there aren’t worthy studios willing to sell.
Also you might have missed it but there was a pretty radical shift in philosophy once Phil Spencer took over.
Why did I ask that?
Read back further.
The answer is both earlier and later in the discussion.
There was a shift, a 180.
Then to a BC narrative.
Then a power narrative.
Then a deal narrative.
“Why did I ask that?”
Because you like asking stupid questions that don’t make any sense?
Because some people don't like doing their homework?
Pretty likely it's one of the two. 50/50 shot. BOL.
I know but I'm talking about the fans who kept saying this as a way to take a dig at MS. Not the case anymore though.
Show us the from soft acquisition already and break the internet
We already knew about this.
