Analyst Claims Sony is 'Under Pressure' to React to Microsoft Acquiring Activision Blizzard - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 02 November 2023 / 13,093 Views
Ampere Analysis games research director Piers Harding-Rolls speaking with GamesIndustry is claiming Sony Interactive Entertainment is "under pressure" following Microsoft completing its deal to acquire gaming giant Activision Blizzard.
He expects Sony to react by investing in PlayStation, as well as making more acquisitions of its own, including one large enough to move the needle.
"Sony surely is under pressure to react, even after their Bungie acquisition," said Harding-Rolls. "I expect further investments and acquisitions for PlayStation, including a large one that would move the needle for them in a meaningful way."
Midia Research senior games analyst Karol Severin believes Sony could expand PlayStation beyond what Microsoft is working on. This includes using Sony's strength in the film, TV, and music industry to offer a cross-entertainment subscription.
"Sony has one of the most impressive content catalogues on Earth," Severin said. "Bringing it together in a subscription offering for example could pose a solid competitive answer to Xbox’s cross-platform efforts. It will be increasingly difficult to compete with Microsoft on games only. The only response for Sony on the games-only side would be buying something really big like Take-Two, but that is unlikely.
Sony completed its $3.5 billion acquisition of Destiny developer Bungie in July 2022.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
Fuck this !@#$#@! Stop this acquisitions sh@#! Don't turn multiplatforms into exclusives, create new things! Don't follow the "easy" route that Xbox decided to take! Be bold Sony, make Playstation better, not Xbox, or Nintendo, worse!!
PS will end up buying smaller studios, that's pretty much what they have done except for Bungie.
It is a smart move by Sony to make sure the really good devs that have consistent good products and IP stay on PS and not see MS who is definitely on a buying spree come along and scope them up like BGS.
Yes that is the way Sony should keep growing. They have increased their investment in Playstation (almost doubling amount on 1st party studios, plus quite the money on M&A compared to the past) and also shown with SM2 that they have great content.
Sony literally entered the market doing exactly what MS is doing by taking games away from their competitors, you could argue MS is doing it on a much larger scale however they are more lenient with the multiplatforms unlike Sony who weren't.
And now all the people who supported the Microsoft Acquisition will complain about potential Sony acquisition cause they don’t understand that this is what happens when major consolidation begins. 🤦🏻♂️ no one thinks of the long term ramifications
Yep and one of the biggest reasons I was against MS buying pubs/devs that were third party AND on a healthy financial situation (didn't like much when they bought small devs that were 3rd party, but since they were on risk of closing yep it was acceptable).
You can be against it all you want but the industry does not move based on what consumers like, it moves based on the market. What I mean by that is that a lot of bigger hitters are getting into the market and both MS, Sony are trying to either protect what they got, expand what they have and fight off new disruptive competition into the space. A lot of moves do not always have anything to do with consumers more than preparing for current and future competition.
Errr I haven't seem any corporation bigger than MS making purchase of big publishers. Also haven't seem any other platform holder doing similar level of acquisitions. And yes I can easily separate not liking something and knowing it will happen.
So you believe Google forray into cloud gaming was not them sending a warning that they are looking to enter the market. You do not see Amazon, Netflix coming into the market trying to get a foothold. You believe that Apple is just going to sit by the wayside and let all that money slide by when they have a perfect opportunity to make a push of their own. Just because you do not see something just mean you are not looking.
In one of MS emails when they purchase BGS I believe is how they felt it sent a signal to Google and pushed back iniative that Google was doing at the time. Most gamers can only see from their own perspective which is a very narrow view of how the forces in a particular market operate. Gamers only think about what is best for them but that is not how most corporations and dev studios look at the landscape.
My thing is, is that their really is no major consolidation going on. Both MS and Sony has been purchasing studios to shore up their lineup for years. Its like people just woke up one day and have not realized that these companies rarely if ever build studios from the ground up. They will always acquire studios first before going the very long and risky route of building from scratch. Nothing today is any different from the past, outside of the fact gaming is a much bigger industry.
Most of you completely ignore the part about how ABK wanted to sell. It wasn't a hostile takeover. If it wasn't MS, it would have been Facebook, Google, or someone else. Same goes for Zenimax/Bethesda. I would rather it be MS, Sony, or Nintendo doing the buying. If Sony buys a publisher then so be it. That publisher was going to sell anyways. Consolidation was happening before this deal and it would keep happening regardless.
Well Said.
Anyone who defended and applauded MS' acquisition of big publishers has no right to complain. If Sony buys a major publisher, any form of negative reaction from these people will be a testament to fanboy hypocrisy.
I am not sure you understand something very basic. Let me ask you this question. ABK is up for sale and MS decides not to purchase them and Sony does. As a business owner do you believe that would be a smart move by MS to allow their competitor to purchase ABK over them.
What about BGS, they also were up for sale and MS made a move. What would be the outcome if MS did not make the move and Sony bought them.
In all scenarios as a business, you can either make a move or do not and then have to deal with the fallout. In this situation, Sony could have gone after BGS or even ABK but they did not. Because of that, they now have to deal with those publishers under MS. This is what be call business. Its very simple in that you either make a move or you do not and if you do not and your competitor snatch up a company that is up for sale, you have to deal with the fallout.
This also goes for Sony. Sony purchase a few very good devs like Insomniac and Bungie. Could MS have gone after those devs, yes they could but they did not and Sony secured them. This is how the gaming industry has worked for a long time and its how its going to work for the foreseeable future. Either make a move or do not. So if Sony purchase a publisher, then MS will have to deal with the fallout just that simple. There is no love when huge corporations vie for consumers dollars.
There is a huge difference between Sony and MS. Playstation Buying small studios and building IPs from scratch enriches the industry. On the other hand, Xbox buying 2 of the biggest publishers on the market and turning most of their multiplatform IPs into exclusive games doesn't create anything new, it just hurts the competition.
Keep defending consolidation, you have the right to see the industry this way, your point of view is absolutely valid. Just don't complain if Sony, Nintendo, Google, or any other company buys a famous IP/publisher and decides to exclude the Xbox platform.
And me? I will continue to argue that buying big publishers and turning multiplatform content into exclusive content is wrong. This does not enrich the industry, in addition to hurting competition and users.
Also, your speculation that another company would make a 70 billion offer is doubtful. ABK would, likely, remain independent.
You still do not understand. Sony is not purchasing publishers because they do not want to, they are not doing so because its not needed. Sony has a huge marketshare lead, its much better for Sony to purchase successful dev studios which would not trigger a hell of a lot of regulatory scrutiny then it would be if they go after lets say Sega and then have to deal with exactly what MS did but instead already having a huge market advantage.
What studios did Sony build from scratch. Every Studios Sony purchase already had successful IP and product when they purchase them, its the reason they purchased them. The majority of all Sony studios were purchased. That is how the market has worked for decades. This is not just Sony, this is pretty much every publishers out there. Independent studios usually build from scratch, then get to a level of success and become prime acquisitions.
This also is the difference between our arguments. For some reason you believe I am defending something. My arguments have nothing to do with defense, and everything to do with how the market works. You are on this emotional rollercoaster where you believe what you feel is dictating the market and I am telling you it does not. The market moves based on the competition in the market and the players positioning themselves for control.
Its a waste of time being emotional about a dynamic within a market I have absolutly no control over. If you fear consolidation then you are a decade to late. It will happen no matter if you agree with it or no because that is the path that it will go because money is on the table and players are positioning themselves to take advantage of it.
Please don't just say "Every Studios Sony purchase already had successful IP". Please elaborate and name some of the "successful IPs" created by these studios, the games that had no money or technical support from Sony. Talk about the successes that arose before the partnership, financing and exclusivity with Playstation. If you are able, prove your point here with something other than Destiny, or stop talking nonsense.
In another topic, about the vision of "how the market works". From the companies' point of view, your logic, for the most part, is true. However, I do not speak from the point of view of these corporations. I speak here as a consumer, and I bring here my disapproval of these practices based on arguments previously discussed in the news.
I repeat, I'm not discussing "market truths", I'm expressing my disapproval as a consumer. Furthermore, I also pointed out that those who applauded ABK's acquisition will demonstrate hypocrisy if they criticize any type of acquisition that harms the Xbox platform.
It would be a shorter list if you tell me which studios Sony purchase that did not have a successful IP because I cannot think of one. What would be the point of purchasing a studio that did not prove themselves, that logic in itself seems very silly to me.
Also you are asking me to prove a point I did not make. As its you who is making a point about Sony purchasing unproven studios so I would believe you have some examples.
As to your other point, as a consumer you are one sided in your complaint. You can complain about the game being played but then you are trying to equate one is better than another. In reality its not that simple. There is no one is better than the other, as the market needs for each company is different. During the PS1 and PS2, it was Sony the predator, coming into a new market. Making exclusive deals and securing top devs. Now a bigger player comes into the market and they are doing the same thing.
I just find it a waste of time trying to white knight one company over another, they are not your friend. Sony make moves for their corporation and if you happen to get any benefits its because there is enough competition in the space where they cannot seek pure profit. If I am looking at this as a consumer who has a PS5 and enjoy Sony games, there is never a point I ever want Sony to feel safe and comfortable in the market. When that happens, you will find out just how much Sony or any of these companies are not your friend.
You realy should read, or read again, Arthur Schopenhauer.
You run away from clear answers like the devil from sacred things. Having no more arguments, hides with elaborate words, creates pointless arguments and tries to assign me the burden of proof.
There is nothing more to say. You are absolutely incapable of proving me wrong, that's enough.
Its your belief that I am trying to prove you wrong which is your problem. I just have an opinion and so do you. If you believe your opinion is right then the burden of proof is for you to prove it. The fact you are not even willing to provide even one example to prove your opinion is pretty much says it all then you run away because you did not want to take even that effort.
I made a statement that all Sony acquisitions had successful IP before they bought them and you disagreed but then cannot provide one dev that did not have any successful IP before being purchased. So now you want me to do your job as I can find all of the studios Sony purchased with at least one IP that was successful. Either backup what you say as well or just run away like you are doing.
Dude, this is a bad take. Sony is the market leader, Xbox is far from that status. You cannot compare the two. If Sony is the market leader and brought ABK, what does that do to competition compared to if MS brought ABK? One increases competition and the other removes it.
Sony just needs to keep doing what they've been doing. I don't think they do much of anything beyond that. I love how he says it's going to be difficult to compete with MS on games only when MS isn't even up to PS standards yet.
I don't see them under that much pressure personally. PS5 is still leading Xbox Series even in the US, Xbox's biggest market, and by quite some considerable margin they are leading Xbox Series there too. Spider-Man 2 just released to GOTY nomination tier reviews and huge sales. They have an advantage making 2nd party deals and 3rd party moneyhat deals as the market leader.
Sony is pretty much set through the end of this gen and will have the advantage beginning of next gen too, since the hardware leader the previous gen always has an advantage going into a new gen. Xbox meanwhile is handicapped by ABK's biggest IP, CoD, needing to stay multiplatform through 2034 (halfway through next-gen), and by the fact that many of their next biggest IP's (like Diablo and Overwatch), just saw recent releases, meaning that sequels to them that could be exclusive to Xbox won't be ready until next gen. So there isn't alot that Xbox can do to close the gap this gen, any significant gap closing on their part can't really happen until next-gen.
Sony will eventually need to come up with a CoD counter in case Xbox does decide to make it exclusive after 2034, but they have ample time to build up or acquire a CoD competitor before then. They absolutely do need to expand their 1st party some more as well, since Xbox's first party now roughly doubles the size of Playstation's in studio count, but they are not in an immediate rush to expand, they have several years to grow their current studios with new teams , open brand new studios, and acquire more studios.
Do you feel a direct COD competitor is needed? Personally I think any major MP game (on the level of COD) will suffice - Fortnite, Apex Legends etc. I can't see MS actively making COD exclusive post 2034 if Sony owns Fortnite. I think gamers all over the world will be massively upset if both those games become platform exclusive.
I also agree with the statement of Sony not being under immediate pressure, but they need to start preparing for what's going to come.
Agreed, they really don't need a direct competitor, any multiplayer game of comparable popularity would work as a counter to Microsoft possibly (though unlikely) deciding to make CoD Xbox exclusive after 2034.
Yep. The analyst is wrong on an actual need. But as someone else said shareholders may make a pressure for a purchase (well Sony is already planning purchases from all their meeting notes) that is noteworthy. But myself I would still prefer they do organic growth, hire the plenty of devs that are being laid-off from several companies, maybe hire some of the big names that are on the market, keep doing partnering and if after fostering the 2nd party it becomes a good situation to absorve ok.
Sony ability to purchase on a large scale like a publishers is limited because they are the 800 pound gorilla in the console market right now. They could go for a PC developer or big moble developer but if a publisher has a lot of console IP and games it would be hard for Sony to get pass regulatory agencies. This is why what Sony is doing is the best course of action. Secure all of the really successful PS devs and get them out of MS or any other player eyesight. Once you have secured those devs, then Sony also should be making a push into mobile so they are not blindside if a shift happens.
What's crazy is that Blizzard alone has more employees than all PS studios combined
are they really? isnt the PS5 outselling XBS 2:1?
It's almost like 3:1
Is PlayStation feeling the pressure? Sure. Microsoft just gobbled up the world's largest 3rd party publisher/developer. However, Sony has a massive portfolio of games and 20+ studios of their own. They don't "need" to purchase another company. Will they? Absolutely. But it won't be EA, Take Two or even Square Enix. Bungie will remain their largest purchase for at least the next 10 years.
I could see Sony trying to strengthen their relationships with Square Enix, Konami, Capcom, From Software, but they don't have the money to go toe to toe with Microsoft on buying companies.
That is why it would be foolish to fight MS at their strongest point. Sony running around trying to purchase a publishers just to one up MS on ABK is a foolish endeavor. Instead, Sony needs to shore up any weaknesses in their current line up of games and secure their future probably by not relying on just one platform.
Acquisitions are not always about who can bid the highest. Just because MS can outspend Sony, doesn't mean they automatically win every bid.
You only have to look at Bungie that it's not always a numbers game. Being able to retain staff was one of the major factors in that purchase. Another was how Bungie IPs would be able to grow and evolve through Sony's extensive multimedia business approach.
Depending on how important the latter was for Bungie, arguably it wouldn't have mattered if MS could bid more because they don't offer the same multimedia business model that Sony does.
Studios may also not be interested in becoming a subscription model developer.
I get the importance of having the money to outbid others, but not every acquisition comes down to money alone.
This would be no different then MS trying to out buy Sony on 3rd party exclusive deals. While MS have the pockets to go this route, Sony has the marketshare to make it a much cheaper investment. MS fighting Sony on their strength is a much costly investment which may not equal the same returns.
Yes, MS having big pockets does mean they can outbid Sony if both coming to a company that is up for sale. I am not saying Sony cannot win a battle here or there, I am saying going to war and into the strength of your opponent is not a smart move. Think about Nintendo. At no time have they every tried to go into the strength of either Sony or MS but instead stayed true to what makes them unique and valued to customers instead of trying to play the system power game. Could Nintendo partner with with Nvidia and pump out a system comparable to Sony and MS, sure but would that make them valued more over their competitors or would it put them at risk more if they invested to much and failed.
Understanding what differenate you company from the competition and successfully investing into those areas is always better than playing into another company moves just because.
The thing is, MS will always have the money to outbid by a margin that make the purchase for Sony a bigger risk with mininal impact. That is why I state, doing what Sony is doing is the better strategy. Pick and choose devs that compliment and strengthen where they are at and find dev studios that also shore up their weaknesses. Trying to go for a publishers just to one up MS, especially now when they have a huge marketshare advantage put them square into regulators line of sight which is not what they want. There is no need for Sony to overextend themselves just because.
Sony can react by making games, use their massive backlog (they bought Psygnosis ages ago, it's owns like 30 IPs alone) of owned IPs and relationships with already owned studios to offer games of varying sizes and value. They don't need to try and outbid MS, they can't and shouldn't. Stop playing MS game and play theirs.
I don't think there is any real value on the dormant Psygnosis IPs after so long. Making new IPs works a lot better for Sony. Their main issue now is manpower.
The flip side to that though, these dormant IP can be relaunched, reimagined and most of the gaming audience now, doesn't know what Psygnosis made 30 years ago.
Sure they could make a new entry that is modern appeal. But just saying that using an old IP or creating a new one wouldn't make much of a difference. But yes I would love to see a new Syphon Filter =p
Psygnosis was just an example, it's about owning the IPs more than specific ones. Owned IP allows you to control what you offer, even if this means they make new IPs and just get studios, both own or commissioned to make games. Sony don't need to purchase publishers to prop up a lackluster back catalogue like MS, they have the skills to create new IP and backcatagolgue already.
Now, you are right on man power but that's where 2nd party comes in, a practice it seems isn't really used that much. Getting independent studios to make your owned IPs allows you control that game, allows that studio to get a revenue and stays away from splashing silly money on buying studios who will be working on your owned IPs anyway or paying for exclusivity.
Of course then you could argue that 2nd parties don't want that and want to control the games they make so they benefit but that's a risk as without someone like Sony helping push and promoter the game it might not succeed.
Anyway all are options and better than just throwing money around not making any games.
It's like Bungie going back to Marathon. Owning the IP means Sony can do whatever they want.
If they wanted to, they could give Killzone to Bungie and say "make something with this". Or Team Asobi with Jak & Daxter. The IP is what's important
And sometimes that also results in stupid levels of success.
I.E. Rare with Donkey Kong Country.
Yes second party is something that Sony needs to keep doing as their route for growth. Smaller devs get a dormant or new IP, Sony invest on them, grow and when confident they can have steady quality releases turn them into first parties.
There is a reason why old IPs become dormant. Old IPs will not be Sony future because gamers in general always like the new shiny object. To put dev resources on old IP that have not been done in decades isnt what Sony will be doing going forward because all their studios are concentrating on brining out new or current IP that are successful. Manpower is the biggest issue as there only only so many studios that Sony has and putting them on some old IP they may not have any passion on doing is a good way to have a subpar product.
A few issues:
Who would make these games?
If an IP hasn't particularly caught on, what's the benefit of that over a new IP?
2nd party studios, their own (they own 22 now outside of Bungie according to wiki). And same goes for new IPs? As mentioned in my other posts, maybe my point didn't get across. It's not about literal one set of IP, it's about owned IPs and this can come from many sources, not just spending the almighty $$$ buying publishers.
Surely Sony (and MS and Nintendo) have a wealth of creative game designers ready and willing to put their ideas for games into practice, take both old and new IPs and make something great with the help of others. This is how Sony should be handling MS throwing money around.
Why do you believe that a lot of these publishers and dev studios do not go back to their old IP and bring them to market. Its not just MS, Sony or even Nintendo but its all publishers and devs. The reason is passion to do those IP. Only when a group really wants to do those old IP and bring something to the table that can be successful is it green lit. Just some have effort to do something will always result in a subpar product.
I shouldn't have mentioned Psygnosis. That is my fault because now everyone is obsessing over old IPs and not owned IPs (kinda ironic as there is literally an article about old IPs and MS and people commenting "Yes please" basically).
My points isn't just old dead IPs, it's IPs they own that they have control of which they put the effort into make great. This can be new or old. 2nd party is just a part of that. Insomniac for years was massively successful as an independent studio with much of that coming from their 2nd party games made for Sony. Sony comes with added bonuses for a studio, industry knowledge, funding, expertise and just because the IP is an older one doesn't mean it will fail just like just because an IP is new, doesn't mean it will succeed.
But... I guess you are right, why bother trying? ;-)
I agree there is money to be had for working on IPs but you really need to have the right studio to do it and they need to have a passion to work on it. A great case point would be Killer Instinct. The fact that MS found a studio that not only wanted to do it but had passion for the IP and understood how to make an excellent product. MS has not done another Killer Instinct since both studios left because finding the right studio with the passion to do the project isn't as simple as just throwing it to some dev team and hope it comes out ok.
The point I am making is that investment in making a game cost a lot of money which gamers seem to forget. A miss if the game does not perform well at retail could be huge as we have seem with a number of games released that did not fare well at retail and now those studios are in trouble. When its not your money on the line its easy to say just do it but when you invest millions on something and it miss, there can be consequences. This is why I say, if there is an old IP that a dev studio has a passion to want to do then that is different then just giving an IP to some studios and hope they can make a decent project from it.
Well, yeah. It's obviously not as simple giving an IP to a studio and saying "Make this." We know how that turns out when it comes to things like Bioware and Anthem.
These aren't some half baked movie tie in games here. They are Sony's products and they will (and generally do) try and get the best out of their products in gaming to sell the PS brand. This means over seeing production, proper management, creative teams and investments. Getting the right and passionate development teams who want to make your game. MS found a dev that wanted to do KI proud, so Sony can't do the same for their existing or even new IPs?
I'd like to point out, we are basically saying the same thing. ;-)
Although admitting, I just wish the big guns of the industry would take more risks to help the industry grow instead of just throwing money at things. We've had like 4 years on this website of MS buys this, Sony paid exclusivity for that. All money down the bloody drain as far as I'm concerned, rich people getting richer and no new games.
Yes, I would say that Sony cannot find a dev team that wants to do any of their dormant IP because if there were some out there, it probably would have been done. At best you have the studio that bought that did the first Souls game which was a banger but then again that studio is know for that kind of work. Maybe they will do Bloodborne next and that would be awesome. As for all the other dormant IP, you do not see any of Sony studios interested in that work.
Its hard for the big guns to take risk because development cost has sky rocketed. Just a mid tier game cost around 30 to 40 million to get to market. That is a lot of cheese when taking a risk and it is a miss. We have a number of games that have come to market, even existing games that did not hit their numbers and you can only take so many risk before next thing you know, you laying off staff. A business can only take on so much risk and it needs to be managed. Its best for experience teams like Santa Monica or ND taking a risk with a new IP then going all in and have multiple failures.
So, people aren't interested in Sony's IPs but are in Microsoft's (KI)? A game that was at one point nigh on completely dead. Kind of a contradiction there.
MS just spent $80 billion plus on studios in the last 4 years. 50 mil is a drop. Sony spent 3bil on Bungie. They are the ONLY ones who can afford the risk because they have the profits and disposable income to do it.
Yes, have you heard of any other studio saying they wan to do any of Sony dormant IP. Out of all the IP MS has, only one team wanted to do Killer Instinct. Just think about that for a minute. Its not like MS does not have a lot of dormant IP themselves. If there were genuine passion to do any of Sony dormant IP, do you believe they would not invest in it, especially if the studio is accomplish enough to pull it off.
Also I am not sure you understand the difference between risk and a investment. MS spent 80 Billion on a investment that has consistently brought in billions in profit and that will continue to bring in billions in profit. Next, you are equating MS who is a trillion dollar company making that purchase compared to Sony which is not.
Also, I was saying that even small AA projects cost 50 to 60 million but most AAA projects are 3 times as much. No its not a trifling amount because a business unit still have to manage their budget. ABK is MS purchase for the whole company just like any of their acquisition, it does not come out of the business unit budget. The business unit itself has a budget them must work within and manage and while MS as a whole can absorb losses within a business unit, having to many failures will have you out of a job and that business unit sold off.
Last but not least, do not equate an acquisition to the same as a development cost, they are not the same thing. This was explained by Phil Spencer during the FTC vs MS trial not to long ago.
I think the biggest reason why Sony would acquire anyone would be, because they need more developers. There are IP that they care about like Final Fantasy, but historically IP has practically been secondary to how SIE operates. The vast majority of acquisitions were studios that were already working on PlayStation owned IPs.
In the current market (this is speculation) they seem to be nervous about partnering up with second party studios that could end up getting acquired by someone else. At the very least they've never had fewer second party titles.
Sony is supposed to be pretty good about letting developers work on what they want to. If no one is working on those old IPs, it's most likely because it's not a priority for any of the developers.
I agree that Sony really do not need to attempt to purchase a publisher as it just put thems square within regulators line of sight. Instead, the course they are doing works best as they can pick and choose successful devs to purchase very easily without any regulatory push back. So far Sony has pretty much tighten up successful studios that have done great work on Sony platform and made sure they secured them away from purchase by anyone else. Now they can expand on a few more choice purchase to work on any particular weakness in their development output as I believe they still need more diversity in their product line.
The Bethesda deal was too big and it started this escalating spiral and now everything is going to be stupid one way or another. Sigh.
I miss the old days.
It's insane even after owning all that IP, Xbox is still somehow smaller than PS. It would be interesting to see the revenue breakdown for both Xbox and PS.
The deal looks bad for Sony, particularly since they tried so hard to stop it, but in reality it poses no threat to their continued dominance of the console market and as for subscription services they've barely tried to push PS+ outside of their own platform anyways and Xbox isn't competing there. But like I said it does look bad to the uninformed shareholder and that unfortunately might put them under pressure.
I think this is spot on and I agree. From the outside looking in, it looks terrible. The reality though is it's not that bad. Spiderman 2 coming out to 90's is just another reminder. Sony just needs to keep doing what they are doing and they will retain a large majority of their fan base.
How can Sony compete against an actor that has been basically underperforming in the sector and is mostly able to compete because it has money from other sectors? What is happening in the video home console industry is basically the least good competitor buying the market. This is not very promising for a healthy home console market.
Analysts just wanting news/something to comment on or fanbases to get riled up. They don't always have to attack/counter attack just because people say so analysts or fanbases.
Regardless of if I even buy/care about what either company does people will be loyal/play whatever they want that appeals to them across platforms. Like me many of us play multiple platforms and decide what to play on either due to cost, controller (feel/touchpad as a big select button/triggers, etc.), vibe/genres maybe, if the personality/themes are appealing people will buy it, if the artstyle/game design/progression and others that too, accessible (Gamepass/smart delivery/whatever copies you see physical if that applies then the digital stores) among other factors.
If Activision current/old IPs barely get used then well that's that. Xbox BC, SWAT PSP on PS+ or something to happen or not. Whatever Gamepass deals, what budget for the games to be met with Microsoft money/support/delays/Xbox only or all consoles/PC but Microsoft still benefiting.
Sony does what they do now for a reason. Games, console sales. Not always services like Microsoft does with Gamepass, Office and more just like Adobe Creative Suite subscription. We either do or don't care about their IP/cinematic direction/live services, the other creative titles that don't sell well but appeal to a certain audience and more then the focus on variety they had of PS1-3/PSP/Vita. The dormant IPs are for a reason I guess even if many greats in there. Whether a way to re-introduce them, whether sales, whether TV shows/movies instead of game cost. Licenses (aka WipEout with it's music for example besides it's mobile state of WipEout Rush being who knows).
Their audience grew up so they changed IPs per gen due to that and to reflect the times.
Sony has bought up studios in the past, they had WRC/F1 exclusive during PS2 just like MLB The Show because they were Sony studios making the games (RIP Evolution) they have enough their comfortable with I assume.
Hence why we saw a PC porting, VR studio for Horizon Call of the Mountain and more besides Insomniac just joining even though they worked closely with them for years outside the Universal days of Spyro to Ratchet onwards. They had their Move/PSN inclusions as well as any other first party studio of PS3.
Microsoft can have the studio volume but if the sales/IP appeal in marketing of story, gameplay, themes, worlds and more are what they are of quality then just quantity.
Whatever trend focus either does besides the shooter/sports/racing console the Xbox gets seen sometimes as besides however many JRPGs, however many this and that end up on it it won't change some impressions.
Gamepass is what it is, PS+ is what it is but if the games, the PC space, streaming, third party deals and more, console revisions to get new people excited as well then it will happen.
Unless we see something exciting I'm not missing out on my particular taste when it comes to first party games (none really interest me right now with some of the IPs I did care about going directions not interested in) on an Xbox/PS at the moment only third parties currently. I mostly care about BC/retro titles at this point.
People need to see beyond the now. This isn't about weather Sony is doing fine, its weather or not they can keep up in the end.
The reason shareholders are possibly pushing Sony to buy a big publisher is because Sony needs a bigger output if they plan on competing against Xbox, ABK, BGS etc.
Sales will start turning if Xbox manages to release 5 AAA games a year to Sonys 2. Customers will start seeing the value on the other side. Especially now that GamePass is in the same picture.
This is why Sony are going all in with the Online/MP games because that's where the money is. Without that focus, Sony is basically funding Xbox with CoD sales and many other ABK IPs.
let's agree to disagree !!! Sony will allways dominate because they are for the players, offer a better experience and have the best AAA games. MS as the biggest software company in the world, suck on making games, so they have to buy companies that make relatively good games, it's just sad.
Everything you stated has nothing to do with how the business works. You want to elaborate for me by what you mean by they offer the better experience? Best AAA games etc?
Even if Xbox is gobbling it all up they still can't release high quality 1st party games and can't even take responsibility and hold Bethesda with an iron first for redfail
Under pressure should be better defined with a least a source for such. Also, there should be an end goal for a likewise transaction. For MS the main goal of the ABK buyout was clear -> boost to GamePass offering and subs.
Sony is still more about traditional console sales on how they measure success and I really don't think appeal can be raised that much by such a transaction. PlayStation is on top of its game and I would say it is already in a position where the appeal for it is already well into high diminishing return as far as required investment is concerned. If Sony were to buy an ABK-like publisher like Take-Two then maybe I'll see them selling 125M to 135M PS5 instead of 115-125M.
Of course, if the goal is to shift and also raise their service offering to better compete with MS on that ground then the pressure makes more sense. But if that's where the pressure is coming from there's an obvious first step to take in a change in policy regarding first-day releases which, absent of it, any acquisition would only show marginal ROI.
lol why is this comment downvoted :D fully agree with this. Needs to be an end goal to acquisitions. That being said - some would say that acquisitions at this point might be needed for Sony to compete at all. If Sony is going to try to compete only with its current exclusive lineup - i think it could become a secondary platform and ecosystem to MS overnight if and when we start seeing major releases from Bethesda and Activision become exclusive.
Exactly except I think Sony is too stable and strong for a realist path to exist for them to lose their current position overnight.
I'll try to expand more on what I mean. Sony will react for sure but they have ample time to do so. They have this gen in lock and CoD for the next 10 years at the very least. And I think Sony's last few acquisitions should grow under their leadership quite well and bolster their offering closer to the end of the gen and ready for the next.
MS acted with urgency to gain back relevance which they lost with the Xbox One fiasco, GamePass is the product that gave back confidence in MS that Xbox could succeed and that the investment was sound they just needed to act swiftly and decisively.
For Sony, there's no urgency so they can react in many different ways and it's not clear on which ground Sony would sacrifice short and mid-term profit margins with a massive acquisition to obtain a position they already boast. Of course, Sony still has a few $b set aside for acquisitions ($7-8b if I recall correctly), so I do expect acquisitions just not on that level.
Also, people forget that the vast majority of ABK's value is related to King, about $50b of its value actually. Of the remaining ~$18.7b you also have to take into account the premium that MS had to pay over ABK market value, and then the remaining value is majorly attributed to CoD Which Sony has no need to answer to short or mid/term.
Then you take into consideration Sony is currently in a massive lead position and Sony have all the card to play the game as efficiently and profitably as possible unless they suddenly change the way they measure their own success like MS did when they changed their measure of success to GP subscriber count.
Sony needs to buy Fromsoftware to calm the waters.
Square Enix sounds like a good candidate for Sony.
Square is reeling from the effects of selling exclusivity on too many games to Sony and Nintendo as it is, the new President/CEO seems to be moving them back toward full multiplat releases as a result. Not sure they would want to sell to Sony currently.
Not sure if Sony will go for any publisher honestly, they have about $15b cash on hand, enough to buy any but 2 major publishers I believe (EA and Take-Two), but buying a publisher would take a pretty significant chunk of that cash, so Sony may decide to go for several more single studio acquisitions instead.
They have assets they can spin off and shares they can afford to sell to reduce the need to spend their war chest.
Correct they have many avenues of revenue raising , they reorganised their financial services sector with the main plank being moving back to 100 % ownership and reincorporated their bank to make better use of the financial side of Sony.
in a Sony quarterly statement there was an addendum made by the CFO in response to questions surrounding Sony's capacity to make a major acquisition this was around the time of MS taking over Zenimax so its out of date, stating that they had $28 Billion in a mix of cash and liquid assets available for use and growing not including in his words cheap prearranged lines of credit and other financing options, he pointed out that those figures were there just to answer the concerns raised about Sony's capabilities in regard to any major acquisitions and any deal would not be tied to those assets and like your comment rightfully suggests they most likely would be done using a combination made up of those
assets alongside a variable range of other options depending on the type and scale of any deal.
The losses SE had were curiously on the multiplatform efforts not on the exclusivity.
Essay Pro