Nate drake on resetera made this post as part of the same rumour so it's not "aside from all the rumours" it was the same rumour in 2020 (not 2019) that was blatantly denied by Bungie:
No, NateDrake specifically stated what Bungie wanted in response to why the deal fell through. He also doubled down on his podcast.
You're seriously saying Bungie denied it, as of we would
ever know otherwise when it comes to these private deals? You, the guy who constantly talks about how Phil Spencer is a PR mouthpiece and how MS is all PR this/PR that, don't understand public denial PR when it comes to companies? Y'know, that's done by practically every corp?
You don't need a pic, the exact post is here and the CEO shutting down the rumour in the thread title (not sure if we can link that place):
Post in thread 'Rumor: Microsoft has been in talks to acquire Bungie multiple times but they fell through each time due to Bungie's high price
[Up: CEO Denies]' https://www.resetera.com/threads/ru...high-price-up-ceo-denies.286211/post-45288653
Perfect, thanks for doing my job for me.
I love how you're downplaying a very well known, credible leaker stating something that came out to be
100% factually correct WAY in advance (Bungie's stupulations for acquisition) as well as Bungie's
very long history of wanting to stay independent and weasling their way out of not one, but two of the biggest gaming corporations in the world.
The second thing and why I mention the 'begging' is that you assume MS and Sony wouldn't have approached Bungie but that "Bungie went to MS first".
The rumors in 2019 and again in 2020 were all about Microsoft. It's not about who went to who, it's that we know MS and Bungie were in talks and the "price was too high," which Nate confirmed the price being independence and $2bil. Which is exactly what happened if you remove the retention bonuses (that is paid out over the years and not a lump sum, btw).
You make it seem like Bungie approached MS asking to be bought and then as a last resort went to Sony.
Sony were in talks with Bungie for months, and most likely didn't wholly agree to the terms Bungie wanted (notice it did not change after Microsoft bowed out) but were still trying to work out a more favorable deal that's in
Sony's best interest.
This is why many believe that the ABK announcement rushed Sony's hand despite being in talks with Bungie for months prior but only just then moving forward to Bungie's terms. Rats always love to shout "but it wasn't a response since they were in talks for months prior!" as if that had any credence to the timing of the announcement. That's why, even PS fansites, mention Bungie coming out on top.
This isn't a slight to Sony, no need for your damage control. Sony might've not gotten preferential terms but they still was obviously very interested.
Companies don't go to other companies asking them to buy them.
Bethesda wanted to be acquired, only went to MS.
ABK wanted to be acquired, Bobby made phonecalls looking for the highest bidder, and out of 5 companies MS was chosen (after some back and forth).
Platinum Games said they're down to be acquired but want their creative freedom respected. (hint: we will never know if they approached a company unless it's rumored, leaked, or came to fruition).
There's probably dozens of examples in gaming alone but aside from that companies look to be acquired and/or merged all the time. Some company philosophies are predicated on just that; buy low, invest/grow, sell high. Embracer is widely believed to be doing this very thing.
Natedrake is a sony insider (mostly) and just knew some conditions for a possible merger, not once did he corroborate the shut down rumour of them being in talks with MS or fight the denial by the CEO.
So him commenting on something that ended up being true is irrelevant, but him
not commenting on something is your proof?
Even if you assume that the rumour was in fact true and the CEO is lying; the fact that retaining independence (ie not being able to lock up multiplatforms to the platforms benefit rather than Bungies) shows that Sony were OK with an aquisition where the dev remains multiplatform and MS were not. That's the whole point of this discussion. The idea the poster was pushing is that Sony is the same and would have wanted to lock down the dev if it could make deals.
That's some spin if I ever saw some. If Sony was so content with multiplatform first party games (despite only MLB The Show being on Xbox and that was pried out of their cold hands by MLB), then explain this: why were Sony in talks with Bungie for so many months and ultimately ended up on the leaked terms Bungie required, and
ever so timely, right after MS was announced to be buying ABK? Since Bungie fit into their plans
so well, why such a long wait? Let me guess, all a coincidence, just like Nate's leak years prior, amirite? Right.
Psygnosis and Bungie show that's not what is important to them.
Oh, so it's okay to mention Psygnosis now? Sorry, it's hard to keep up with the goalposts.
The fact that you believe that Sony, who pays hundreds of millions for year exclusive CoD modes and timed exclusive maps/betas/etc., will acquire CoD and suddenly stop all that and promise platform parity well beyond industry norms, is hilarious. The only reason CoD was never timed exclusive
at all was due to how much it would cost them due to how much CoD makes on Xbox per year. And you're reasoning? Bungie. Despite Bungie doing known Bungie things.
sorry, but a Sony evangelist on a forum isn't going to change the consensus that exists.