I'm not arguing the total number of individual people, I am saying its an interesting angle to come from. The 8.1 billion dollar Zenimax price tag would buy all 13 studios you note Sony has acquired, with ease.
It is because of Zenimax IP and more administrative staff and publishing infrastructure that the cost is so much higher, not just head count.
My point is that if people have such an issue with MS scoping up so many devs, then they should have an issue with Sony doing it too.
MS can make bigger moves because they have more money.
When Sony had the biggest pockets in gaming, they used their money to squeeze the connections. If Sony had MS's money, they would make bigger deals.
Sony as an entire company has been focusing on acquisitions. With the gaming side having to share the pie with other departments. These burst of buying devs are not just some organic thing. It is a company wide initiative to acquire.
Sony engages in similar behavior that people want to criticize MS for. Buying up devs.
And the only comeback people and mount, including you, is "Well, you know, it is kinda different because Sony bought them earlier, and made them better". But that has nothing to do with the fact they still acquired them.
But it IS different and you know it is different. Microsoft's acquisitions are all always established developers . Rare, Zenimax (Machine, iD, Tango, Arkane), Mojang were all established, big, triple A developers.
Yes it is different. But people were not complaining about the types of devs and the style of the acquisitions, or MS previous relationships. They were complaining about MS doing it.
And what motivated their comments is laziness to not read and article and the email it was based on.
Naughty Dog wasnt finished Jak when they were acquired. I would also argue that outside of Bungie, every acquired first party developer made better games AFTER the acquisition. Sony's MO appears to be working with developers, entering almost a 2nd party relationship, then buying the ones they feel are worth acquiring.
Microsoft tried nurturing 1st parties and it appears to me that either it wasnt working, or wasnt working fast enough, so have pivoted this generation to acquisitions.
Now is one strategy better than the other? I guess it depends on the metric. They both fill needs. But to compare them straight across is disingenuous.
I am not being disingenuous. Your problem is that I am not being charitable to Sony.
Sony main a major acquisition when they first got into consoles. They had the biggest pockets and used that money to squeeze Nintendo and Sega during the last PS1 and PS2 era.
MS started going after Bethesda, because Sony was buying up exclusively for their games. And was negotiating Starfield exclusivity.
The reason Gates and Ballmer went from laugh at the Xbox to approving it was a real concern of Sony getting monopoly power. Power their money help them get.
Are you being disingenuous for not talking about that? Or do you feel the added context was not needed given the scope of your argument.
Sony has used acquisitions regularly, you are correct. But to simply ignore the scope discrepancy is a pretty crazy omission.
My main point was that people can't be man at MS for acquisitions but be cool with Sony.
But people were not taking issue with that. So why would I respond to it.
www.polygon.com
