Support NeoGAF

[bender]

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

How'd my unsolicited dick pic get there

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Quick to the GAF art archives with this masterpiece. I love it. I'm getting a framed print, can you sign it mate?

How'd my unsolicited dick pic get there

And here I thought you'd have blue balls to keep with your Sony theme.

 

[IFireflyl]

This is what a significant lack of first party games does to you:



Someone please check on him.

This was classic:



He is horribly uninformed on this subject. In the first five years that the Xbox existed, Microsoft had acquired 7 studios. In the first ten years that the Xbox existed, Microsoft had acquired 9 studios.

By contrast, in the first five years that the PlayStation existed, Sony had acquired 1 studio. In the first ten years that PlayStation existed, Sony had acquired 4 studios.

Xbox fanboys want to act like it was Sony that started the acquiring spree, but they don't know their own history. At the time when Microsoft decided to jump into the console game Sony had only acquired one studio (which had been acquired in 1993). By the time the Xbox came out (November of 2001) Sony had acquired 4 studios and Microsoft had acquired 6 studios. If we exclude Sony's sole 1993 acquisition (which was long before Microsoft entertained the idea of getting into the console gaming business), we see that Microsoft acquired 3 studios (one of which was Bungie) from 1999-2000, and only after those acquisitions occurred did Sony began acquiring more studios.

Note: I'm not saying that there is anything inherently wrong with the acquisitions that occurred. I'm just saying that certain fanboys have this misconception that the Xbox was the underdog who was constantly getting shafted by Sony's acquisitions and exclusivity agreements, but the actual history shows that Microsoft started this. Again, I'm not discussing if these moves are right or wrong. I'm only discussing the actual course of events that can be proven.

 

[bender]

Quick to the GAF art archives with this masterpiece. I love it. I'm getting a framed print, can you sign it mate?

 

[Fabieter]

Jokes aside, do you see the length of the console bars in that chart? SNES was huge, Sony wanted in, Ninty/Sony failed and Sony brought in PS1 & 2. A new duopoly was created between Ninty and Sony with the demise of Sega. Later after that was done, behind the scenes MS was creating Xbox, released it NOV 2011 and broke the duopoly of the console market. In court one could historically and factually accurate argue Xbox increased competition in the market while Sony/Ninty shrunk competition. I think you'll find it's a pretty repetitive playbook in business but especially highlighted and a more extreme case looking at Sony of this time we're talking about. It's not a good look in court to now point the finger at the poster child whom for entered an existing dominated market and created sustained a third industry heavy weight competitor. Read that again.

GoodLuck.gif.

This court case is a fucking joke. If you want a direct comparison I don't see Sony selling their first party games on Nintendo's console back then, now MS actually does this and Sony complain? Laughable. The FTC are factually going to get hit pretty hard by the market, MS/Xbox don't have to do shit. The onus is on the FTC for the block, not MS for the buyout.

But Coudnt you also argue that sony made the industry more competitive when entering the sega/nintendo duopoly. Sega just couldnt hold a line with their poor decision making at the time.

Never saw either of them buying two massive publishers but I agree that ftc won't win the case tho. As long as ms supports steam I don't really mind.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Quick to the GAF art archives with this masterpiece. I love it. I'm getting a framed print, can you sign it mate?



And here I thought you'd have blue balls to keep with your Sony theme.

I keep it sealed for the safety of those around me. Once I unleash its full power it turns light blue

 

[Umbasaborne]

He saw one person about to buy an XBOX and says " xbox got npd on lock"
Lol what?

Yeah, there are definitely people out there, mentally ill people, who get straight up unhinged regarding game consoles. tribalism is subconscious, but most people know how to limit and supress it as to operate in social settings. Maybe they let it loose on message boards. People like tim dog don’t have that skill, its likely due to other undiagnosed disorders.

 

[jm89]

This is what a significant lack of first party games does to you:



Someone please check on him.

This guy is out of his mind. Even offered to work for free for MS to promote high in life which they didn't market that well.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

I keep it sealed for the safety of those around me. Once I unleash its full power it turns light blue

We just have to be careful when crossing the streams.

 

[anothertech]

Man the fuck up and give playstation some real competition

Stop whining like a little bitch

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

But Coudnt you also argue that sony made the industry more competitive when entering the sega/nintendo duopoly. Sega just couldnt hold a line with their poor decision making at the time.

Never saw either of them buying two massive publishers but I agree that ftc won't win the case tho. As long as ms supports steam I don't really mind.

Technically one can argue anything, doesn't make it a good idea or a valid argument that is accepted. Sony in, Sega out. It just does not get any more crystal for me. Obviously, the courts/judge(s) make the final ruling of who wins and who loses. I just don't see it healthy for the industry to block this.

On revenue, YoY and profits all the console competitors are doing some of their best years ever, with some peaks and troughs. Why regulate an industry that is performing historically the best ever and growing in new ways and new companies/money? e.g. mobile, subs, spread into TV or streaming, crossplay, work environment improvements, remote work ops, more indies/marketplaces, EPIC/fortnite, Tencent, Steam etc. There's no reason for the FTC case in the market currently or in the foreseeable 10-year future.

 

[IFireflyl]

Technically one can argue anything, doesn't make it a good idea or a valid argument that is accepted. Sony in, Sega out. It just does not get any more crystal for me. Obviously, the courts/judge(s) make the final ruling of who wins and who loses. I just don't see it healthy for the industry to block this.

On revenue, YoY and profits all the console competitors are doing some of their best years ever, with some peaks and troughs. Why regulate an industry that is performing historically the best ever and growing in new ways and new companies/money? e.g. mobile, subs, spread into TV or streaming, crossplay, work environment improvements, remote work ops, more indies/marketplaces, EPIC/fortnite, Tencent, Steam etc. There's no reason for the FTC case in the market currently or in the foreseeable 10-year future.

If this was a small acquisition I would agree. The problem is that this is one of the largest third-party publishers in the world, and this puts Microsoft's hands in more cookie jars than just console gaming. It impacts the mobile gaming market, the traditional console gaming market, and the subscription gaming market. On top of all of that, it's a console maker removing the ability to compete by taking a third-party publisher that multiple console makers have previously used (and currently use) off of the market. This isn't a small thing, and any regulatory body would be foolish to just wave this on through without getting into the weeds to determine if this deal should be blocked or not.

 

[ShadowkillXNA]

Projecting again?

Pointing out

This was classic:



He is horribly uninformed on this subject. In the first five years that the Xbox existed, Microsoft had acquired 7 studios. In the first ten years that the Xbox existed, Microsoft had acquired 9 studios.

By contrast, in the first five years that the PlayStation existed, Sony had acquired 1 studio. In the first ten years that PlayStation existed, Sony had acquired 4 studios.

Xbox fanboys want to act like it was Sony that started the acquiring spree, but they don't know their own history. At the time when Microsoft decided to jump into the console game Sony had only acquired one studio (which had been acquired in 1993). By the time the Xbox came out (November of 2001) Sony had acquired 4 studios and Microsoft had acquired 6 studios. If we exclude Sony's sole 1993 acquisition (which was long before Microsoft entertained the idea of getting into the console gaming business), we see that Microsoft acquired 3 studios (one of which was Bungie) from 1999-2000, and only after those acquisitions occurred did Sony began acquiring more studios.

Note: I'm not saying that there is anything inherently wrong with the acquisitions that occurred. I'm just saying that certain fanboys have this misconception that the Xbox was the underdog who was constantly getting shafted by Sony's acquisitions and exclusivity agreements, but the actual history shows that Microsoft started this. Again, I'm not discussing if these moves are right or wrong. I'm only discussing the actual course of events that can be proven.

Xbox fanboys are a bunch of gullible, ignorant, naive fanboy crybabies, who simply can't handle the fact that they're favorite videogame box can't keep up with the competition even with an oversized allowance from mommy and daddy to keep it afloat.
The competition (both) have been running rings around them since and it isnt changing.
They actually think spencer is competent for fucks sake.

 

[Raonak]

translation: Sony is making xbox smaller by making you want to buy a playstation instead

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

If this was a small acquisition I would agree. The problem is that this is one of the largest third-party publishers in the world, and this puts Microsoft's hands in more cookie jars than just console gaming. It impacts the mobile gaming market, the traditional console gaming market, and the subscription gaming market. On top of all of that, it's a console maker removing the ability to compete by taking a third-party publisher that multiple console makers have previously used (and currently use) off of the market. This isn't a small thing, and any regulatory body would be foolish to just wave this on through without getting into the weeds to determine if this deal should be blocked or not.

Is it big? Yes.

Does it create a monopoly? No.

Does it freeze out competition or price fixing etc? No.

There are too many players and segments currently for that. MS/Xbox won't even be number 1 after the ActiBliz deal, nor a deal of similar size in 2-5 years. Enough big players exist to push these market entrances or buyouts or mergers long term. So, what MS/Xbox buy King in the mobile space for example, Apple, Tencent, Google and streaming from various players all exist. If you include the Switch even at a half measure it's more competition for that segment.

Do the same with streaming e.g. Google, Amazon, MS/Xbox, nVidia etc. There's more than healthy competition there and large cash backed internationals who can spend or invest big in gaming.

Do the same with subs e.g. PS leading, Netflix entering, Ninty offering, Xbox growing. Healthy.

Do the same with consoles e.g. Switch, Sony, Xbox. Sprinkle in the history of Xbox bringing a third platform back to the console wars.

Pick any market segment and it's the same answer. Just because it's big and deserves to go through regulation does not mean it's a bad deal or harmful to the current or future industry and marketplace.

Phil's claim is true, not just for Xbox but for Nintendo as well. Sony want to dominate the console space, they all do. One doesn't get to call the other out when there's a room full of brands getting along. Nintendo just carves its own path. Sony and Xbox are more at heads, there is also a large cultural divide of East meets West in play.

 

[akimbo009]

Oh you are right. Maybe the announcement of the original xbox pushed Sega to the decision to discontinue the dreamcast. Either way my point was no one but Sega is to be blammed.

If anything, Xbox OG was a spiritual successor to dreamcast with early partnerships at it's launch with Sega.

The Dreamcast's Legacy Lives On With Xbox, Says Former SEGA America President

"The baton was passed to Xbox"

www.purexbox.com

 

[//DEVIL//]

You can clearly tell who the PS fanboys are in this thread. At least I’ll get to play Starfield on my Xbox when it releases. Pc players will enjoy it too. PS losses out, now you know that’s how it feels. I’m sick of all the fucking exclusivity deals Sony has with multi platform content in multi-platform games. Fuck off Sony PS. They can’t even keep a good IP going like Gravity Rush and kill the servers, fuck Sony PlayStation.

I am not following your fanboy logical hate here.

You are ok with MS having exclusive games ( regardless if it's a full in-house team or time exclusive ) but not ok For Sony when it does it ?

is this how it works for you?


MS has its exclusives, so does Sony. Buy the peasant console that has the games you want. or Just buy a PC and get both MS and Sony games ( at one point since they are all coming ) and just save yourself the headache.

Honestly buying both PS5 and Xbox SX at this point is cheaper than an RTX 4080 and you will enjoy the best of both worlds. you are not gonna have the best graphics or do PC stuff but we are only talking about gaming here.

Is 500$ for a console really that much to people? not saying I am rich or anything. I am barely middle class if that even ( lives on rent ), I still do not find 1000 every 6 years to invest in gaming hardware is a bad thing at all.

... Now I feel I owned myself thinking about it when I bought a 4090 for 1600$ -_- ( not really lol)

 

[DeepEnigma]

Imagine actually reading what someone wrote instead of imputing what they wrote. Nothing I said had anything to do with how much money COD makes. This is all about stopping players from leaving one platform (and one subscription service) over another. Period. It obviously has nothing to do with stagnation of video game development, which is what each company is arguing in their favor one way or another.

. . .or should be obvious.

Of course, the core argument is just that. However, one is stating CoD is important to their ecosystem, and the other is stating CoD is just a run of the mill middleware.

It's called elaborating.

 

[Airbus Jr]

Bro that colteastwood guy..hahaha...

 

[DeepEnigma]

Bro that colteastwood guy..hahaha...

Straight shill.

 

[cobaltorange]

jimbo got under his skin

That's horrifying. I love it.

 

[Kumomeme]

imagine thinking that Xbox is 'small'. this not count they already own Zenimax lol.

 

[Drell]

Is Sony encouraging this?

No but it's completly hypocritical to accuse your competitor of wanting to making them smaller when the subject of debate is the acquisition of the biggest publisher on the markert owning 30+ franchises among which are the biggest seller in the current video game market.
Let them do it, a deal is a deal. Wether it's blocked by the FTC or not is not my business, but Spencer and co should stop to cry in front of the public and just shut the fuck up.

 

[DeepEnigma]

No but it's completly hypocritical to accuse your competitor of wanting to making them smaller when the subject of debate is the acquisition of the biggest publisher on the markert owning 30+ franchises among which are the biggest seller in the current video game market.
Let them do it, a deal is a deal. Wether it's blocked by the FTC or not is not my business, but Spencer and co should stop to cry in front of the public and just shut the fuck up.

It's why I call him the gaming politician. Accuse the other side in which you are guilty of yourself.

Honk honk.

 

[feynoob]

Checked a few of his posts, wow. How can one be such a fanboy publicly at his age? I'd be embarassed to leave my basement and the dude is posting real life pictures while acting like he's 12. We are truly doomed as a species.

He is making free money from this.

 

[VeganElduderino]

Shut the fuck up and release some games

Next year!

 

[Spitfire098]

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Violin = Xbox.
Pincers = Evil PlayStation oppressive force keeping Xbox small.

So sad indeed.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Is it big? Yes.

Does it create a monopoly? No.

Does it freeze out competition or price fixing etc? No.

It is big.

It has the POTENTIAL to cause a monopoly.

It does HARM competition by not allowing other companies to compete on the same level.

This circles back to LONG TERM potential outcomes of this acqusition. Short-term, it may not have a big impact, but long-term as technology matures and people shift ecosystems it can be a very big deal, much more than many are letting on, and certainly it's why Microsoft tried to acquire them to begin with.

 

[DForce]

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

It is big.

It has the POTENTIAL to cause a monopoly.

It does HARM competition by not allowing other companies to compete on the same level.

This circles back to LONG TERM potential outcomes of this acqusition. Short-term, it may not have a big impact, but long-term as technology matures and people shift ecosystems it can be a very big deal, much more than many are letting on, and certainly it's why Microsoft tried to acquire them to begin with.

That's a nice buzzword laden reply with zero supporting evidence. Prove it.

It's more dangerous to have governments dictate which company can compete for market leadership or dominance. There is no merit to Sony being the spokes-company given its history, in part, killing Sega. MS aren't without their skeletons either but market historical facts and current trends paint MS in a far better light given the company they have direct consent and contractual agreements with e.g. Steam/Nintendo. There isn't an argument for monopoly here. The turnover doesn't warrant it.

• Tencent alone is larger than Xbox + all recent buyouts.
• Games like Fortnite are possible.
• Studios like Respawn are possible.
• The rise of Apple and Google mobile gaming are possible.
• Streaming has hit the mainstream.
• Subs are creating fierce competition with a great track record from the industry with Gamepass to date.
• Bungie was sold, bought back and then sold again to Sony. Where's the anti-competitive behaviour on that one? Sony timed exclusives is where.
• Steam still kills it too.
• nVidia had no issues entering a streaming market with subs.

People talk about no one can rival COD. Bullshit, that way of thinking is not based in reality. People are just bamboozled by the financial magnitude. Tell me with a straight face Vince and Respawn didn't branch out deep from behind COD inner circles to produce a campaign that rivals COD in terms of reception, the Titanfall series. They also produced a multiplayer that rivals COD in success and numbers, Apex Legends. Then they went right on into Star Wars and knocking it out of the park.

How exactly has any of what MS has done to date hindered a new studio forming to rival the quality of COD in terms of experience, scale, content, cost, sustain, anti-cheat, MTX etc. Look at the revenues from Fallen Order, Titanfall, Apex Legends. Look at the merch and world building. Sure COD has the turnover but given the decades of market establishment Respawn are bloody hot on their tails and things lie Jedi Survivor are just looking like more wins out of Respawn too.

Fuck off no one can rival COD. Given the timeframes and lifetimes of these franchises Respawn are doing fucking great at catching COD/studios over the last 5 years. Again market facts are going to hit this FTC case hard. What Phil says about Sony shrinking competitors share of the market for their own gain is true in both directions. Xbox wants to share the Sony install base revenue, Sony wants to block Xbox growth.

Again, I say bullshit to all of these sorts of replies. Prove your claims. I'll happily change my tune in the face of facts or evidence. Otherwise, it's just the same old-big-bad-anti-trust MS 'n' poor-little-woes-me Sony rhetoric.

 

[mansoor1980]

rumors , gossip , might be , may be.
really embarrassing these podcasts

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

That's a nice buzzword laden reply with zero supporting evidence. Prove it.

It's more dangerous to have governments dictate which company can compete for market leadership or dominance.

How do you prove a hypothetical?

I don't see the government dictating purchases of lesser scale.

How is buying up the biggest third party publisher in the consumer’s best interest? It leads to market distortions that can negatively impact consumers.

That’s not competing. Microsoft couldn’t make this acquisition without being a tech conglomerate. Why can’t Microsoft compete without wholesale buyouts of some of the largest publishers?

You talk about building a rival to CoD as if that’s such an easy and trivial pursuit. CoD has two decades of importance, history, and large swaths of dev resources to continually churn them out. It’s so entrenched that competing is an impossibility in that genre, no one comes close even if it’s of comparable quality. The brand is simply too big.

Titanfall is completely irrelevant in comparison, it’s not making a strong argument for your position

 

[Fabieter]

Technically one can argue anything, doesn't make it a good idea or a valid argument that is accepted. Sony in, Sega out. It just does not get any more crystal for me. Obviously, the courts/judge(s) make the final ruling of who wins and who loses. I just don't see it healthy for the industry to block this.

On revenue, YoY and profits all the console competitors are doing some of their best years ever, with some peaks and troughs. Why regulate an industry that is performing historically the best ever and growing in new ways and new companies/money? e.g. mobile, subs, spread into TV or streaming, crossplay, work environment improvements, remote work ops, more indies/marketplaces, EPIC/fortnite, Tencent, Steam etc. There's no reason for the FTC case in the market currently or in the foreseeable 10-year future.

Not healthy? You have to ask youself why is it needed for Microsoft to compete when in reality they already have more studios than sony and already took away a alot of games with Bethesda which means Sony getting less money in the upcoming years to stay competitive.

Phils statement is completely bonkers considering this.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

How do you prove a hypothetical?

I don't see the government dictating purchases of lesser scale.

How is buying up the biggest third party publisher in the consumer’s best interest? It leads to market distortions that can negatively impact consumers.

That’s not competing. Microsoft couldn’t make this acquisition without being a tech conglomerate. Why can’t Microsoft compete without wholesale buyouts of some of the largest publishers?

You talk about building a rival to CoD as if that’s such an easy and trivial pursuit. CoD has two decades of importance, history, and large swaths of dev resources to continually churn them out. It’s so entrenched that competing is an impossibility in that genre, no one comes close even if it’s of comparable quality. The brand is simply too big.

Titanfall is completely irrelevant in comparison, it’s not making a strong argument for your position

I'd recommend you check my post history on this thread and the other ActiBliz deal thread. It's all in there already. How to prove a hypothetical? You test it, again and again. You know the scientific method. As I stated above in other posts, the onus is on the FTC to block not MS for the buyout.

Never said it was easy as pie. You cannot unbiasedly say Respawn are not flying out of the gate, almost mirroring COD's path to success all those years/decades ago. Would you say Respawn is 10% there, 90% there? You get the idea. It shows competition with a specific example directly born from COD devs who split off to create Respawn, but by all means ignore the other top 10 points I put above. Right now your posts are baseless opinion and I question them. My opinions have supporting facts and links or graphics to "prove" the claim.

I'm still going to continue to play games on a bunch of systems and mediums, I find it interesting how varied the opinions and perceptions are on gaming industry dealings. It's going to be interesting post the sale closing and the FTC case should they not withdraw after agreeable concessions.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I'd recommend you check my post history on this thread and the other ActiBliz deal thread. It's all in there already. How to prove a hypothetical? You test it, again and again. You know the scientific method. As I stated above in other posts, the onus is on the FTC to block not MS for the buyout.

Never said it was easy as pie. You cannot unbiasedly say Respawn are not flying out of the gate, almost mirroring COD's path to success all those years/decades ago. Would you say Respawn is 10% there, 90% there? You get the idea. It shows competition with a specific example directly born from COD devs who split off to create Respawn, but by all means ignore the other top 10 points I put above. Right now your posts are baseless opinion and I question them. My opinions have supporting facts and links or graphics to "prove" the claim.

I'm still going to continue to play games on a bunch of systems and mediums, I find it interesting how varied the opinions and perceptions are on gaming industry dealings. It's going to be interesting post the sale closing and the FTC case should they not withdraw after agreeable concessions.

You cannot test something that’s unknown. The dynamics of platforms and sub services in the gaming industry are changing rapidly.

While the console is important now, the service may be more important later. What may not be a monopoly now could easily be monopolistic later.

I think Titanfall is better than CoD in terms of quality, but as mentioned before it’s not the quality but the entrenched brand loyalty at this point. Competing with CoD is impossible. EA has tried unsuccessfully for over a decade

 

[azertydu91]

Yeah that's a very credible source there, Xbox being 3rd in the country where they sell best sure is no indication of it being ahead WW.

 

[Victor Omega]

yal ppl funny. feeling are getting mad hurt.

mod just close it down lol

 

[3liteDragon]

I was just sorting my games out. I say vote with your wallet, and I did, this is my Xbox One/ X physical collection so far. My Xbox 360 collection is double this. I actually got to sort that out too…

I definitely prefer Microsoft over Sony for sure and will continue to support them. Sony is too restrictive for my taste.

I'm having a hard time figuring out if this is a troll account or not.

 

[Victor Omega]

also
Kumbaya Phil - Let's all play together no console/content war. Peace and love (powered by XBOX)
Bad guy Phil - We want to disrupt the market before amazon or apple /Sony isn't are focus.
Victim Phil - Sony is being mean

tell me I'm lying

 

[pasterpl]

also
Kumbaya Phil - Let's all play together no console/content war. Peace and love (powered by XBOX)
Bad guy Phil - We want to disrupt the market before amazon or apple /Sony isn't are focus.
Victim Phil - Sony is being mean

tell me I'm lying

There only 1 version of Jim - victim Jim - Microsoft wants to kill playstation, cod is the greates franchise ever, please regulators don’t allow ms to take our toys.

 

[Fabieter]

• Bungie was sold, bought back and then sold again to Sony. Where's the anti-competitive behaviour on that one? Sony timed exclusives is where.

The ftc checked and sony stated that there wont be any exclusives ever from bungie. Do you think ms would do the Same foe avb?

 

[sn0man]

So far Xbox is the only platform who has actively taken established series or games permanently away from users of other platforms.

Is this true? Hasn’t Sony or Nintendo done this at some point?

 

[StealthGoblin]

Is this true? Hasn’t Sony or Nintendo done this at some point?

I think Bayonetta counts, but I can’t recall Sony having done it. They do lots of timed deals, but they’ve never shut a platform out permanently.

 

[vivftp]

Is this true? Hasn’t Sony or Nintendo done this at some point?

So far all of the Sony acquisitions have been close partner studios who either exclusively made content for PlayStation, or were almost completely exclusive to PlayStation. An example of the latter would be Insomniac who made Sunset Overdrive for Xbox and some non-Sony VR games. The one exception is Bungie, and they've explicitly stated that Bungie games current and future will remain multi-plat.

Sony's acquisitions haven't really had any adverse impact on the industry at large or the other platform holders.

I think Sony would've been happy to let their partners remain independent, but with so many larger companies hoovering up studios, it makes sense they'd want to secure some partners via acquisition.

 

[GustavoLT]

I just wonder how many great games xbox should be releasing with that 70b spended!

 

[Pedro Motta]

I just wonder how many great games xbox should be releasing with that 70b spended!

and how many exclusive third party deals could be made..

 

[deriks]

Sony I don't know, but Sony-boys stopped to claim that Nintendo is doomed after fiding out that they're richer than an Oil Company, now they are a inch to say that Microsoft is doomed even thou the sales are good

 

[John Wick]

I stopped reading at " they're happy with what they all ready have".

That's total bullshit! You know damn well if they could afford to purchase entire publishers, needed or no, theyd do it in a heartbeat! Keep that shit 100%, my dude! No need for bullshit.

No they wouldn't. Your projecting Xbox fangirl nonsense because that's what MS does to compete. Remember when they wanted to buy Yahoo to compete with Google Search?
Are you seriously telling me that Sony and Nintendo couldn't afford to buy a couple of publishers? Are you seriously that brainwashed to think Nintendo and Sony couldn't afford to buy one or two of Capcom, Namco, Konami, Ubisoft, Square Enix, Embracer etc? Or just Take Two?
It's better for Sony and Nintendo to grow their own studios or buy up smaller studios and also have access to 3rd party games.