Support NeoGAF

[OceanGaming]

Remember the game journalists were saying "Video games are maturing" ? Well, this is what maturing industries do actually, they consolidate.

 

[Fafalada]

Or might that result in a welcome consistency of quality and performance? A surge of exclusive titles to be proud of? Better optimised consoles?

That's decidedly not where it's headed. Acquisitions in question are aiming for distribution platform exclusivity, not hardware. MS success story is one where software is hardware agnostic as much as possible - and even Sony is gradually expanding their hardware support slate.

All that being said - it's too early to say we're headed for any drastic uniformity of consolidation. The major players that acquire studios (Microsoft, Sony and Tencent) are still letting them operate very autonomously. Some others (EA, Activision. Amazon etc.) do the opposite - but there's hope those companies won't carve out major market share.
Also - whether as result of acquisition push or just general industry growth - there seems to be a lot of money floating around in general at the moment - which is opening up more independent growth opportunities as well (money follows money basically) - ie. unless you're stuck on specific branding/IPs (in which case, you limit your own diversity choice, not the companies), the industry diversity is growing, not shrinking, at least for now.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Do you think there is a problem with variety in, say, streaming television content, or music, or film productions? Because here's the thing: most of that content is also...owned by like 4 or 5 major conglomerates, at most. They simply have subsidiaries that provide a different branding.

For example, do you prefer MTV, or VH1? Well guess what, it doesn't matter. They're both owned by the same company.

I don't get where all of these "ethical" concerns for acquisitions leading to consolidation are coming from, because not only is this something every maturing industry has gone through, but even within gaming we have seen consolidation in the past well before Microsoft. If you don't want consolidation in the games industry, then keep that same energy and speak out against consolidation in the wider tech industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the automobile industry, the healthcare industry, the film industry, the music industry etc. If you don't want consolidation in the games industry, then realize Microsoft aren't even the most aggressive in this respect; that would be entities like Embracer Group whom, to my knowledge, I haven't seen a single person drum up "concerns" over consolidation or monopolies towards, despite the fact they have absorbed more developers and publishers under them than any other company in gaming (and I'm not saying this is a bad thing per se, just illustrating how there are other companies just as if not more aggressive on this front).

I find it so weird when people turn Microsoft's acquisitions into some ethical quandary, as if people's human rights or civil rights are being violated, or as if these are hostile takeovers. None of that is true, so those talking points generally come across as flat and indicative of ignorance (willfully or not). "But think of the poor people on (insert console brand here) who'll no longer be able to play these games!" What, you mean now you care about that? What about when Sony took Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and a ton more IP normally associated with Nintendo, away from them in the mid '90s? When they took sequels to games like Tomb Raider away from Sega Saturn owners through exclusivity contracts? When they took Soul Calibur III away from Gamecube and Xbox gamers through, you guessed it, exclusivity contracts, when the series was just establishing itself as multiplat with the amazing SC II (SC III went on to be one of the worst-selling in the franchise, btw)?

This is what I don't like; the double speak and double standards. Where it's seemingly okay for one brand (usually Sony) to do one form of consolidation (exclusivity deals, timed or not), leveraging their market & financial advantages...but it's not okay for another brand (usually Microsoft) to do a form of consolidation (studio acquisitions) that leverage their own market & financial advantages. This double speak usually coming from a lot of the same people who in the past asked for Microsoft to be more competitive, but apparently they meant "competitive in a sense to appear as if competing, but not legitimate enough to threaten my preferred platform holder's brand".

I can't co-sign on that thinking; this is a free market and companies should be allowed to compete to the best of their ability as long as human & civil rights of people are not being violated, or any obvious legal laws being broken. If I were of age back in the '90s and could browse the UseNet posts of Sega & Nintendo fans making similar arguments against Sony then that (mostly) Sony fans are making against Microsoft today, I'd be laughing the same way back then as I do now. Why shouldn't Sony have leveraged owning their own production fabs, distribution channels, retail partnerships, expertise in electronics and huge amounts of financial wealth to incentivize 3Ps to develop on their platform? That was the right thing to do, it was up to Sega and Nintendo to adapt, not Sony to handicap themselves.

The same applies here; the free market's rewarded Microsoft with a near $2 trillion market cap and hundreds of billions of cash-on-hand, that's the reality of how things have played out. If they want to be more competitive with Sony and Nintendo, as long as they aren't violating people's civil or human rights, and aren't breaking any obvious legal laws...then let them do as they wish. If that means acquisitions, then that is their choice. If Sony and Nintendo can't compete on that front from a financial or resources POV, then it is up to them to adapt, or risk shrinking revenue & profit streams. It is not on Microsoft to handicap themselves because of that, I mean are people forgetting this is a highly competitive business market?

Myself personally, I don't root on for acquisitions. It's why you don't see me cheering on MS to acquire, say, Capcom or Sega, because from the public-facing evidence and trends we have so far, there is very little to point to either acquisition being anywhere near probable. However, I'm not going to turn away in disgust over such deals happening, either, because business is business, and these are always consenting companies. One willing to buy, the other willing to sell. That's how it goes, especially in the gaming space.

If people are "disgusted" by the prospect of one platform acquiring a publisher, which might take options away from them on their preferred platform, firstly they should understand that gaming is a privilege, not a right. It is not essential for survival to be able to play video games. If you for whatever reason cannot afford multiple platforms, then either join the ranks of millions over the decades who have gone entire generations missing out on certain platform exclusives, or find a cheaper hobby to be a part of and spend your money in. You are not entitled to a specific game just because you own a console platform, outside of whatever games that platform holder makes or commissions themselves.

Tschumi To some of your own concerns, these are not valid because the industry has already consolidated in many ways well before these acquisitions kicked off. For example, most devs already use UE4 and/or Unity, so there is already "engine consolidation" if you want to look at it that way. We are already getting reboots and remakes to games barely old or outdated enough for it (like the rumored upcoming TLOU Part 1 remake). We've already seen many once-popular genres die in popularity well before any of these recent acquisitions (shmups, 3D platformers, traditional survival-horror games, rhythm games etc.).

None of the worries you bring up can be attributable to Microsoft, Sony etc. acquiring studios, because these were thing already in the process of happening or already happened before the more recent explosion of acquisitions. The root reason for those things lie elsewhere, and not all of them necessarily for "bad" reasons (i.e from a financial and ease of development POV it's made more sense for devs to go to UE4, especially if they collab together. Makes it easier to share techniques and focus on the art of the craft instead of struggling to get the basics to work).

Microsoft has already bought more than a dozen studios by now. In the last 5 years or so, Sony only bought one (that already worked almost exclusively with them for decades).
The fact that it is so one-sided makes the aituation even worse. It's beyond consolidation and already moving towards a monopoly.

People really are underestimating its impact. It affects everything, from development economics to consumer choice in the long term.

Zero fucks given for Embracer Group, I see. 'Ya know, the company that's made more acquisitions than Microsoft & Sony combined.

Very "genuine" concern for industry consolidation there. Me thinks the sincerity only runs as deep as a particular company participating at a notable scale. Me thinks if it were another company doing so, this concern would be nonexistent.

Considering it's already nonexistent on your end for Embracer Group ....

Embracer Group mergers & acquisitions

You guys keep clinging to goalpost shifts like "never at this scale before"...well at one point studio acquisitions of any kind were unprecedented in the industry, but guess what? They started to happen, and it became normalized. And the industry only grew and got better because of it.

Considering there have been no major shakeups of exoduses etc., it's fair to say anyone with a neutral outlook on this could predict similar occurs with these larger acquisitions. Those who can't compete on that level, will adapt. If they can't, then they will lose marketshare. It's happened before to so many other platform holders (Atari, Intellivision, Sega, NEC, Nintendo, Microsoft etc.), I'm not about to worry myself about it if another megaconglomerate has to readjust their operations to operate in a new reality.

And the other reason I'm not gonna worry about that? Because with the platform holders we have today, I'm pretty damn confident each one can make adjustments as needed to developing market and industry realities. They have each literally done this in the past, I don't see how they would suddenly be unable to do so in the future.

 

[NahaNago]

It is easier than ever to create an indie studio these days and dozens of them are getting created every year. Microsoft buying a couple studios isn't that big of a problem. Considering Sony has only bought one studio I don't think adding them to this convo is realistic. You should be more worried over Embracer Group buying studios. Most studios I thought used unreal engine or unity these days either way.

 

[CatLady]

You’re right. They bought Insomniac, Naughty Dog, Guerilla, moneyhatted SF5, FF16, FF7, Deathloop, Ghostwire, and so on
All because of their incompetence.

Yeah, I think it's great, at least for me personally. It's fortunate Xbox is buying all my favorite studios so Sony can't moneyhat my favorite games. Even MORE fortunate Xbox got Bethesda before Sony was able to successfully moneyhat Starfield, one of my most anticipated games since it was first disclosed. Now instead of Sony keeping it away from Xbox and PC gamers, it will be day 1 on Game Pass.

 

[martino]

I don't get where all of these "ethical" concerns for acquisitions leading to consolidation are coming from, because not only is this something every maturing industry has gone through, but even within gaming we have seen consolidation in the past well before Microsoft. If you don't want consolidation in the games industry, then keep that same energy and speak out against consolidation in the wider tech industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the automobile industry, the healthcare industry, the film industry, the music industry etc. If you don't want consolidation in the games industry, then realize Microsoft aren't even the most aggressive in this respect; that would be entities like Embracer Group whom, to my knowledge, I haven't seen a single person drum up "concerns" over consolidation or monopolies towards, despite the fact they have absorbed more developers and publishers under them than any other company in gaming (and I'm not saying this is a bad thing per se, just illustrating how there are other companies just as if not more aggressive on this front).

i did and i raised the same point that most active and concerned people when it's about the right plastic boxes are always absent in those thread here :

Nobody to react and AstroTurf monopoly FUD or other morality/fairness problems when no plastic box involved ?
Of course not.
Meanwhile the underwater squall can slowly and steadily continue his course....

 

[Kilau]

I don’t like it at all. Again this is MS trying to shut the door on Google and Amazon. Forcing them to create their own studios and have no easy path to content for streaming.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

i did and i raised the same point that most active and concerned people when it's about the right plastic boxes are always absent in those thread here :

I stand corrected then, good on your part to keep it consistent. In general though it's been a rarity both here and around to see people focus on the "fears" of consolidation, or make accusations of monopolistic practices, when a certain platform holder isn't involved. Just makes their concerns come off more as trolling, and insincere.

A few years ago, when talks surrounding moneyhats was starting to gain momentum on the Sony side, I actually attacked deals such as Street Fighter 5 simply on the notion that the franchise was traditionally multiplat. In time though I came to understand the nuance of that deal, and Capcom's financial situation at the time where they did need the financial assistance, yet there I was blaming Sony for...stepping up to the plate and getting a deal going to assist them in the way they needed? In hindsight it made no sense for me to have those earlier opinions (this is all maybe a couple years ago); it's not Sony's fault Microsoft wasn't more aggressive to retain brand association between Street Fighter and their console platform!

That's basically how I look at these acquisitions now, on any side: the companies looking to sell, USUALLY open up talks with multiple perspective buyers. The buyer who can satisfy their needs the most wins out. This generally isn't predicated on past relations (legacy) or such, though it can factor into the picture if the party is otherwise within a desired ballpark monetarily speaking. These companies generally keep ongoing discussion/updates on potential deals with those employed under them, and provide enough notice internally when deals are conclude so, if there are employees who want to leave, they can generally do so.

Coming to these realizations made me also realize how stupid clinging on to talking points like "but the game was multiplat before!" or "they already have legacy on (x) system!!" or "players used to getting everything now won't be able to in the future!!!" really are; they're baseless, emotionally-driven responses that don't operate on much any logic & reasoning, or understanding of how in the world of business those things simply don't matter. Atari players have had to deal with missing out on games/devs etc. that used to come to their platform. Same goes for Nintendo, for Sega, for Microsoft and even for Sony going back to the PS3 era. None of this is new and yet in the past people were able to adjust as were the platform holders, one way or another. The same will happen going forward.

What those type of baseless emotional responses really boil down to, the part people don't want to say out loud, is that they don't want to upset the status quo where Sony is the dominant platform holder and gets every third-party release under the sun, and limits their first-party output as much as possible to only Sony consoles. That's the reality some of these people want, they want the PS2 days where the only "competition" you had was on the technicality of other platforms merely existing, not actually providing much of a market competition to Sony's ecosystem value (otherwise you'd of seen much better sales from Dreamcast, Gamecube an OG Xbox).

The reason they want that reality again is because to them it was a golden era in gaming. And you know what? It was. But that wasn't because of Sony; it was because of third-party developers who made games which, if the PS2 didn't exist, 99% likely would've still been produced and made, only with more priority towards Dreamcast/Gamecube/Xbox instead. Those games weren't getting made because PS2 existed, they were made and PS2 just happened to be a platform around to host them. Without its existence, most of those games would've just found another platform to host them (and many did even with PS2 being the lead platform for the development).

Ideally, I want an industry where all the platform holders are doing well, and I think if Microsoft can get their 1P content coming out regularly and at high quality, we'll truly be at that point. We could truly be on the cusp of a reality where all the active platform holders are not only extremely financially healthy, but also creatively firing on all cylinders, and we've not once actually had that manifest before if you really think about it.

So, it's a bit alarming that a lot of people, many of whom even asked for more competition in the first place, want to prevent that from happening because they're erroneously afraid of one platform holder buying up the whole industry, and think their preferred brand's platform holder is an idiot who can't adapt to changing market realities while still staying true to their brand and very competitive in their own unique way, even though that very same platform holder forced yet ANOTHER platform holder to do the very same thing in the '90s (and forced yet ANOTHER ex-platform holder out of the market as a console maker..although they kinda did a lot of that to themselves. Sorry, Sega. Love your consoles but...yeah :S).

People don't need to root for acquisitions; you and I for example, and some others too, I can say with confidence we certainly don't root for them, or timed exclusivity deals, DLC moneyhats, you name it. But some of these other folks should realize you can be neutral on the prospect of acquisitions while not being weirdly hostile towards the idea, considering how commonplace it is in other major industries, especially entertainment-driven ones.

If people want to get hostile about something, focus on hostile takeovers or corporate sabotage (i.e installing plants as CEOs at rival companies to bankrupt them so they can be purchased for cheap. Which, yes, is something Microsoft has done in the past, and I'm sure Sony has as well considering some of the industries they're involved in (music, television, film etc.). Nintendo? Not very likely tbh). Someone should remind them though that NONE of that is actually happening with these acquisitions, so their concerns are unfounded.

I don’t like it at all. Again this is MS trying to shut the door on Google and Amazon. Forcing them to create their own studios and have no easy path to content for streaming.

They don't care if you or anyone else likes it or not, they care about beating their competition. Same goes for Sony, same goes for Nintendo. No one told Google to shut Stadia down; they're literally one of the largest companies on the planet, right up there with Microsoft. If they gave enough of a shit about gaming, Microsoft buying Zenimax/Bethesda would've motivated them to try harder, not run away and pack up a promising venture.

Amazon at least seems to be trying, I think they can make something happen. IMO they still need a dedicated home console that can play games locally as an option, in order to be a true option, but at least they have some content in the pipeline and a commitment to stay the course, which is much more than be said about Google.

I'll put it this way; if Microsoft buying Zenimax made Google fold as hard as they did on Stadia, then Google was never a good fit to be a platform holder in the first place, let alone in contention with being a market leader. They are simply too weak on serious commitment to gaming and this is an instance where I'm glad Microsoft made their move.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Zero fucks given for Embracer Group, I see. 'Ya know, the company that's made more acquisitions than Microsoft & Sony combined.

Here we go again with Embracer. Embracer are not platform holders like MS so their games will mostly be multiplatforms. Most of it is also small AAs people never heard of that's why people don't care much.

It's not the same level as Doom, Wolfenstein, Elder Scrolls, Fallout etc but keep trying. Almost as bad as people that keep bringing up Sunset Overdrive 2, a flop that don't exist to make Sony look evil. So dumb.

 

[Kilau]

They don't care if you or anyone else likes it or not,

The OP asked what people’s thoughts were on it. I never implied they or anyone cares.

 

[Gen.Grievous]

It's not a good thing for the industry but it is inevitable.

 

[KAL2006]

It is frustrating but in the end I have so many games to play and so little time if something is exclusive on another system I just simply ignore it and play something else available on the system I have. Yes I can buy multiple systems and have the money, however I just don't feel that I'm running out of games to play on systems I own. The only way I would have to purchase another system if Street Fighter is exclusive to another system it would make me have to purchase whatever system it's on.

 

[martino]

....

I said it before here but those acquisitions even for embracer are still a ridiculous low amount of all studios /ip and the number of them is not something static or diminishing.
All this is mostly FUD done by the core fans of all closed box brands.....a public mostly fan of the brand and knowing/focusing too much attention on AAA alone (1% of the production)
But let's not forget some of them are also accepting the practice for the good and the drawback of it without disingenuous narratives.

 

[Ozzie666]

Honestly at this point, Microsoft and Sony should team up and just make one box, one vision. The same hardware inside the box, either with their own names or a shared name. The PC architecture is making it all so silly now, to similar. Share the cost of the hardware, share the profits from subs and services. Sell their games for their own profit. I know dream world stuff here, but it really feels like we are headed to a one box solution one day.

 

[Derktron]

OP makes it sounds like the studios are being held at gunpoint whenever they get an offer and are forced to accept the offer. You do realize that companies can get an offer and turn it down right?

 

[junguler]

i'm more worried about the talent that gets attracted to a big company and then leaves that company because of creative differences, how many years has it been since amy hennig left naughty dog for example and we still don't have a game made by her to play, same thing with jade raymond and countless other i'm forgetting the name of.

 

[MarkMe2525]

The only conclusion to capitalism.

 

[kyussman]

There aren't a finite number of game dev studios in the world....new ones are put together all the time....look at that one that just signed a deal with Sony,they are independent and just chose to make their game with Sony...next one might be multiplat.

 

[Bkdk]

There are currently more indie developers than ever on PC though, game engines are now doing their best to simplify the development of games. 10 years later people will be very likely to be able to make a decent indie games themselves as there are many pre made assets in the game enging and give you huge amount of options to make changes, both simple ones and more in depth ones. All you do will be paying month;y suscription for a powerful game engine.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I'd say costs associated with the production of top-tier content is the bigger problem for developer independence than Sony or MS. There aren't a lot of hostile takeovers in gaming, these are always situations where the selling party wanted to sell, outside of a private company where the owner just wants to put up a chair on the beach, finances are generally the driving factor there.

As far as monopoly talk, there is far too many developers out there to even be talking about that at this point. This isn't a market where only 3 or 5 options exist (mobile service for example), it's in those situations where mergers need to be looked at closely. MS even gives you the option of getting their stuff without a box at all, you can even use a third-party controller. Everything they have is very accessible to say the least.

 

[Zeroing]

OP makes it sounds like the studios are being held at gunpoint whenever they get an offer and are forced to accept the offer. You do realize that companies can get an offer and turn it down right?

you know the decision to get brought is often a decision of the owner/owners of studios? Sometimes you just want the money and the studio gets sold.

I remember doing a translation on a thread here of a small Brazilian studio and he was saying “a lot of people in the industry are worried, studio gets brought and the rich guy comes in and wants everything his way”

 

[Derktron]

you know the decision to get brought is often a decision of the owner/owners of studios? Sometimes you just want the money and the studio gets sold.

I remember doing a translation on a thread here of a small Brazilian studio and he was saying “a lot of people in the industry are worried, studio gets brought and the rich guy comes in and wants everything his way”

My point still stands.

 

[reinking]

I could be wrong but it seems we get as many new studio announcements as we do buyout announcements. I am not to worried yet even if the buyout trend continues. I believe there will be those devs that want to remain independent after buyouts that form their own studios.

 

[Jboemios]

Hey look. A sonier worried because MS could buy his favorito studio

 

[Dream-Knife]

It's not good. Exclusive's shouldn't be a thing in 2021.

Although games being so expensive to make does make it hard for there to be independent studios.

 

[RoboFu]

Kind of a dumb question. If devs want independence they would start there own company. If a dev doesn’t like that they have been sold they don’t have to work for the new company.

but also I’ve never seen any software dev company get sold without retainer bonuses for all.

 

[BigBooper]

They will work for a while on huge projects with all the money they need. They can pad their resume while padding their pocket, so when the sentiment downturns and creativity falters, they can jump ship to a better company. I don't think it's particularly bad.

 

[Zeroing]

My point still stands.

Yes but there's also the other option and most times is not black and white.

 

[Ian Henry]

I stand corrected then, good on your part to keep it consistent. In general though it's been a rarity both here and around to see people focus on the "fears" of consolidation, or make accusations of monopolistic practices, when a certain platform holder isn't involved. Just makes their concerns come off more as trolling, and insincere.

A few years ago, when talks surrounding moneyhats was starting to gain momentum on the Sony side, I actually attacked deals such as Street Fighter 5 simply on the notion that the franchise was traditionally multiplat. In time though I came to understand the nuance of that deal, and Capcom's financial situation at the time where they did need the financial assistance, yet there I was blaming Sony for...stepping up to the plate and getting a deal going to assist them in the way they needed? In hindsight it made no sense for me to have those earlier opinions (this is all maybe a couple years ago); it's not Sony's fault Microsoft wasn't more aggressive to retain brand association between Street Fighter and their console platform!

That's basically how I look at these acquisitions now, on any side: the companies looking to sell, USUALLY open up talks with multiple perspective buyers. The buyer who can satisfy their needs the most wins out. This generally isn't predicated on past relations (legacy) or such, though it can factor into the picture if the party is otherwise within a desired ballpark monetarily speaking. These companies generally keep ongoing discussion/updates on potential deals with those employed under them, and provide enough notice internally when deals are conclude so, if there are employees who want to leave, they can generally do so.

Coming to these realizations made me also realize how stupid clinging on to talking points like "but the game was multiplat before!" or "they already have legacy on (x) system!!" or "players used to getting everything now won't be able to in the future!!!" really are; they're baseless, emotionally-driven responses that don't operate on much any logic & reasoning, or understanding of how in the world of business those things simply don't matter. Atari players have had to deal with missing out on games/devs etc. that used to come to their platform. Same goes for Nintendo, for Sega, for Microsoft and even for Sony going back to the PS3 era. None of this is new and yet in the past people were able to adjust as were the platform holders, one way or another. The same will happen going forward.

What those type of baseless emotional responses really boil down to, the part people don't want to say out loud, is that they don't want to upset the status quo where Sony is the dominant platform holder and gets every third-party release under the sun, and limits their first-party output as much as possible to only Sony consoles. That's the reality some of these people want, they want the PS2 days where the only "competition" you had was on the technicality of other platforms merely existing, not actually providing much of a market competition to Sony's ecosystem value (otherwise you'd of seen much better sales from Dreamcast, Gamecube an OG Xbox).

The reason they want that reality again is because to them it was a golden era in gaming. And you know what? It was. But that wasn't because of Sony; it was because of third-party developers who made games which, if the PS2 didn't exist, 99% likely would've still been produced and made, only with more priority towards Dreamcast/Gamecube/Xbox instead. Those games weren't getting made because PS2 existed, they were made and PS2 just happened to be a platform around to host them. Without its existence, most of those games would've just found another platform to host them (and many did even with PS2 being the lead platform for the development).

Ideally, I want an industry where all the platform holders are doing well, and I think if Microsoft can get their 1P content coming out regularly and at high quality, we'll truly be at that point. We could truly be on the cusp of a reality where all the active platform holders are not only extremely financially healthy, but also creatively firing on all cylinders, and we've not once actually had that manifest before if you really think about it.

So, it's a bit alarming that a lot of people, many of whom even asked for more competition in the first place, want to prevent that from happening because they're erroneously afraid of one platform holder buying up the whole industry, and think their preferred brand's platform holder is an idiot who can't adapt to changing market realities while still staying true to their brand and very competitive in their own unique way, even though that very same platform holder forced yet ANOTHER platform holder to do the very same thing in the '90s (and forced yet ANOTHER ex-platform holder out of the market as a console maker..although they kinda did a lot of that to themselves. Sorry, Sega. Love your consoles but...yeah :S).

People don't need to root for acquisitions; you and I for example, and some others too, I can say with confidence we certainly don't root for them, or timed exclusivity deals, DLC moneyhats, you name it. But some of these other folks should realize you can be neutral on the prospect of acquisitions while not being weirdly hostile towards the idea, considering how commonplace it is in other major industries, especially entertainment-driven ones.

If people want to get hostile about something, focus on hostile takeovers or corporate sabotage (i.e installing plants as CEOs at rival companies to bankrupt them so they can be purchased for cheap. Which, yes, is something Microsoft has done in the past, and I'm sure Sony has as well considering some of the industries they're involved in (music, television, film etc.). Nintendo? Not very likely tbh). Someone should remind them though that NONE of that is actually happening with these acquisitions, so their concerns are unfounded.



They don't care if you or anyone else likes it or not, they care about beating their competition. Same goes for Sony, same goes for Nintendo. No one told Google to shut Stadia down; they're literally one of the largest companies on the planet, right up there with Microsoft. If they gave enough of a shit about gaming, Microsoft buying Zenimax/Bethesda would've motivated them to try harder, not run away and pack up a promising venture.

Amazon at least seems to be trying, I think they can make something happen. IMO they still need a dedicated home console that can play games locally as an option, in order to be a true option, but at least they have some content in the pipeline and a commitment to stay the course, which is much more than be said about Google.

I'll put it this way; if Microsoft buying Zenimax made Google fold as hard as they did on Stadia, then Google was never a good fit to be a platform holder in the first place, let alone in contention with being a market leader. They are simply too weak on serious commitment to gaming and this is an instance where I'm glad Microsoft made their move.

Excellent post. Summed up my thoughts to a T. Competition, creatively and financially, drives this industry. And if all the Big 3 and newcomers(such as Amazon, Samsung lol, etc) are going to bring that passion in the culture, we might as well witness another prosperous era and I am here for it.

 

[JoeyWestSide]

It's not becoming a problem. Asobo, bungie, remedy, people can fly, etc are all putting out decent stuff and seem to be enjoying their independence. I think this is the best time for smaller publishers to grow. Who was the take two arm that published outer worlds? Anyway, good time for single or double A games. I could see focus home, Annapurna and 505 games merging one day to compete thq Nordic. Or all of them merge together and dominate Europe.