• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Opinion Sony investor opines SIE in growth mode and could have a budget of $13-$18B for acquisitions

Badlucktroll

Junior Member
Aug 28, 2007
3,589
1,086
1,425
When i say my hopes and dreams about Konami people always give the laugh, and empathy emoji. Sony probably has our back guys. Just watch. 2022.
 

NorbertK

Neo Member
Jun 9, 2021
1
1
80
Of multiplatform publishers, yes, they are bad and should not be celebrated.

Having said that, if your competitor starts doing it and hints at acquiring even more publishers, you can't just sit on your asses. In my books, Sony gets a pass for buying one big multiplatform publisher, just because of that Bethesda's purchase, just to balance things again so it'd be 1-1.

If Sony buys two publishers, it's bad and should not be celebrated.
But Sony was the first one that buys a multipaltform developer and publisher. So...

"Psygnosis Limited (known as SCE Studio Liverpool or simply Studio Liverpool from 1999)[1] was a British video game developer and publisher headquartered at Wavertree Technology Park in Liverpool. Founded in 1984[1][2] by Ian Hetherington, Jonathan Ellis, and David Lawson, the company initially became known for well-received games on the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga. In 1993, it became a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) and began developing the original PlayStation and later became a part of SCE Worldwide Studios"

 
Jan 16, 2020
6,058
22,928
855
But Sony was the first one that buys a multipaltform developer and publisher. So...

"Psygnosis Limited (known as SCE Studio Liverpool or simply Studio Liverpool from 1999)[1] was a British video game developer and publisher headquartered at Wavertree Technology Park in Liverpool. Founded in 1984[1][2] by Ian Hetherington, Jonathan Ellis, and David Lawson, the company initially became known for well-received games on the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga. In 1993, it became a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) and began developing the original PlayStation and later became a part of SCE Worldwide Studios"


So true.

The Psygnosis buyout has haunted Phil for more than 20 years

It was only right that he bought the 2000+ developer Zenimax in retaliation
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
14,149
6,221
1,745
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
Shawn Layden recently said that AAA games cost something like $100 million to make last gen, and expected that perhaps double this gen. My question is this. Going forward, will AAA games really cost somewhere between $100-$200 million? Is that the total cost or does that include things like marketing as well?
I ask because it might help explain the justifications for such acquisitions as large as those being discussed here. It might seem prohibitively expensive to purchase something as large and expensive as a Konami or Capcom or whatever. But when juxtaposed next to the crazy trajectory of future game production costs... It might not seem all that expensive after all in the long run.

What Shawn Layden said was true. This is why they try to find new revenue sources with MP GaaS, remasters, dlcs, director's cut/complte editon re-releases, shorter sequels, releasing movies or tv series of the games, pc ports when the games are old, including them on subscription services, rising the launch full price to $70, etc.

These 100-200 million are only the development. In AAA they invest almost the same in marketing, PR & communications for each game. Companies like Sony are lucky because most of their AAA games seem to have good sales, so they can afford seeing to tank from time to time one of these games, but it could be an important issue if 2 or 3 of them tank pretty closely.

Right now, Sony gaming division has a revenue of $25 billion per year and they are in a growing trend so pretty likely they will make more in future years. Having such huge revenue helps them to afford these budgets while being safe, something that wasn't the case years ago.

If companies buy more studios will have higher revenue, so will be able to allow more big bets.
 

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
14,149
6,221
1,745
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
Yeah but neither push PS forward or elevate the status / quality IMO.

Just a bit of a waste from my perspective.
In a few years Firesprite + Fabrik made a well review AAA VR horror game plus a couple of smaller VR games of other genres -one of them also well reviewed-, did help Sony in some different small projects like experimenting on mobile+Vita with the Sackboy autorunner, co-developing The Playroom and The Playroom VR, while also co-developing Star Citizen as support team as they did back then with Killzone 2 when they were Livepool Studio.

They have a lot of staff from Liverpool Studios, Evolution and Bizarre Creations so can make new badass AAA VR friendly Wipeout, Motorstorm, Driveclub which personally would be PSVR2 system sellers to me (or well, a new arcade racer to compete vs Horizon or to make it MP/GaaS/eSports friendly if desired).

They are rumored to be working on a new Horizon game for VR codeveloped with London Studio. And Shinobi also mentioned that in recent years they've been hiring many talent from Naughty Dog, Rockstar, Rocksteady, Ubisoft and places like that.

So they have a lot of manpower, work in different big and small projects at the same time of different genres, they can also work in tech demos/R&D stuff so can free Team Asobi of these tasks to allow them to focus more in games, can release AAA VR projects, have pedigree from previous exclusive series, and support AAA projects from other studios, something specially helpful now that as AAA become bigger it's harder to find external outsourcing studios that aren't busy with other project.

May not be as glamourous as other ones, but sound helpful to Sony in several key areas.

He has done it multiple times now -- name-dropping Kojima and FromSoftware in the same sentence. Here is one example:
I assume he name drops them to counter false saying they abandoned Japan. He says their XDEV Japanese team continues working with teams like these two but now outside Japan Studio, that continues developing internal games rebranded as Team Asobi, same as Polyphony, and that they continue signing Japanese 3rd party exclusives.

They recently released Death Stranding Director's Cut with Kojipro, and FromSoft has been busy with Sekiro and Elder Ring but I assume -specially after their deal with Kadokawa and the success of Bloodborne and Demon's Souls remake- that they plan to continue working with FromSoft in the future. And well, FromSoft released a lot of PS console exclusive games since PS1. Same as Kadokawa (counting all their publishers and development studios other than FromSoft).
 
Last edited:

Bryank75

Member
Jan 12, 2018
11,238
27,191
995
Ireland
In a few years Firesprite + Fabrik made a well review AAA VR horror game plus, a couple of smaller and different VR games -one of them also well reviewed-, did help Sony in some different small projects like experimenting on mobile+Vita with the Sackboy autorunner, co-developing The Playroom and The Playroom VR, while also co-developing Star Citizen as support team as they did back then with Killzone 2 when they were Livepool Studio.

They have a lot of staff from Liverpool Studios, Evolution and Bizarre Creations so can make new badass AAA VR friendly Wipeout, Motorstorm, Driveclub which would be PSVR2 system sellers to me (or well, a new arcade racer to compete vs Horizon or o make it MP/GaaS/eSports friendly if desired).

They are rumored to be working on a new Horizon game for VR codeveloped with London Studio. And Shinobi also mentioned that in recent years they've been hiring many talent from Naughty Dog, Rockstar, Rocksteady, Ubisoft and places like that.

So they have a lot of manpower, work in different big and small projects at the same time of different genres, they can also work in tech demos/R&D stuff so can free Team Asobi of these tasks to allow them to focus more in games, can release AAA VR projects, have pedigree from previous exclusive series, and support AAA projects from other studios, something specially helpful now that as AAA become bigger it's harder to find external outsourcing studios that aren't busy with other project.

May not be as glamourous as other ones, but sound helpful to Sony in several key areas.


I assume he name drops them to counter false saying they abandoned Japan. He says their XDEV Japanese team continues working with teams like these two but now outside Japan Studio, that continues developing internal games rebranded as Team Asobi, same as Polyphony, and that they continue signing Japanese 3rd party exclusives.

I know, I heard they are working on something cool too. I do have concerns to the overall vision and goals of the acquisitions though going forward if they keep on being of a similar vein......

They need an acquisition / several that are exciting and actually even up some of the damage done by MASFT's acquisitions.

Square or From or buy Atlas from Sega..... or ArcSys & IOI. Something that really mixes things up and adds genres and niches to the lineup.....

Many people complain about PS not having 1st party JRPG's and now there are way less WRPG's and neither of these have been in any way thought of let alone addressed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kokoloko85

Bryank75

Member
Jan 12, 2018
11,238
27,191
995
Ireland
Ok.

Take 2, Square, From, Capcom and Metal Gear+Castlevania ips from Konami.

Enjoy eternal dominance.

I'd say just Square....

Capcom had a resurgence but these things go in waves.... PS will have their own Monster Hunter Style game and own part of Dimps and could buy ArcSys to fill the fighting game niche along with partnering for the Marvel license or using various anime ones.

From is pretty secure but Sony could increase their stake in Kadokawa and install some board members to represent them.

Konami are difficult but it would be awesome to get their hands on those IP's.... Konami is incredibly greedy though and put greed way above product quality.

Square have the biggest portfolio of IP, the closest relationship to Sony and the most longterm potential.....however they need guidance. If they took the western studios and put them under PS Studios and improved them gradually and folded anything that didn't work...... then integrate publishing operations to make Square more efficient.... and then focus the game production around PlayStation alone.... I think you'd really have an incredible level of diversity and quality coming at a high rate annually.

The downside is cost, layoffs, restructuring....disruption to regular business... unexpected side-effects etc.

Square makes over half their money from mobile games....so that would really fit into PS strategy and their IP's are more suited to that style of game and audience in asia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dabaus and yurinka

Edgelord79

Member
Sep 24, 2020
1,220
1,546
440
A conversation about Sony acquisitions wouldn't be complete without the term "organic" thrown into the mix as if other companies are okay to just throw money away and have no one to answer to. Sony just happens to be very good at identifying needs and risk compared to others. They really are a model.

I expect Sony to be much more active in the next couple of years as consolidation picks up steam. The term cash on hand isn't equal though and the ability to sustain loses even with CoH is dramatically different between companies. The threshold for acceptible risk is much different when talking about cash on hand too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Heisenberg007

Bryank75

Member
Jan 12, 2018
11,238
27,191
995
Ireland
A conversation about Sony acquisitions wouldn't be complete without the term "organic" thrown into the mix as if other companies are okay to just throw money away and have no one to answer to. Sony just happens to be very good at identifying needs and risk compared to others. They really are a model.

I expect Sony to be much more active in the next couple of years as consolidation picks up steam. The term cash on hand isn't equal though and the ability to sustain loses even with CoH is dramatically different between companies. The threshold for acceptible risk is much different when talking about cash on hand too.

True, particularly when PlayStation has most of the game-buying audience on lock...... they already make up 70% or more of Capcom, Square and Namco sales in the AAA / AA space.

Plus many of them have involvement in Anime and other industry links to Sony or related companies.

Right now I am waiting for the MSFT quarterly to see if they announce GP numbers.... if GP doesn't hit 30 million soon, I would not only doubt future acquisitions but I would question the future of many of the developers they bought already. It is a massive cost to keep all those developers running if you are getting barely any income from the whole model.

The free 8 month GP subs in India were worrying enough.... but patience reveals everything.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
14,149
6,221
1,745
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
I know, I heard they are working on something cool too. I do have concerns to the overall vision and goals of the acquisitions though going forward if they keep on being of a similar vein......

They need an acquisition / several that are exciting and actually even up some of the damage done by MASFT's acquisitions.

Square or From or buy Atlas from Sega..... or ArcSys & IOI. Something that really mixes things up and adds genres and niches to the lineup.....

Many people complain about PS not having 1st party JRPG's and now there are way less WRPG's and neither of these have been in any way thought of let alone addressed.
I agree that would be nice to get studios who excel in genres they don't cover with 1st party, it would help them to expand in areas where they excel.

Good examples would be Capcom or ArcSys for fighting, or Atlus/Ryu Ga Gotoku from Sega or Square for JRPG. But the thing is that many -including the top ones- fighting games and JRPG already are PS console exclusive, for a cheaper price that would cost them to buy these companies. And almost all the other ones of these genres that aren't PS exclusive are already released on PS and it's their main platform in terms of users and revenue, so they have these markets dominated. So to have them would be cool but Sony doesn't need 1st party JRPGs or fighting gams because they already have these genres secured with 3rd party.

If I was them I'd buy Capcom, Sega, Square and (specially to milk anime IPs) ARC System Works since they also would provide a lot of nice PS Now catalog content for the future once these subs and streaming will become important, plus mobile games, movies, tv show and anime material plus Knack joining Marvel vs Capcom. But I would understand if they think they don't need to do so, or if these companies simply don't want to be acquired.

IOI only has Hitman and Kane & Lynch which are good but and I think they could make a good Syphon Filter reboot but I think it would still be pretty similar to several other 3rd person action adventures they have and if desired they could focus one of their teams a bit more on stealth (example: GoT 2) and release it with a higher overall quality. I think IOI would be more helpful for MS than to Sony.

They've been doing acquisitions to help them improve in VR output (not only Firesprite+Fabrik, Housemarque too), potentially AAA arcade racers and shooters, AAA development support, porting and remakes, extra manpower to milk existing IPs (Bluepoint+Firesprite). They also made big 2nd party investments on shooter? MP GaaS on big names (Destiny/CoD/Ubi key people) that I assume may end in acquisitions if their projects are successful. They seem to be investing on PS Now tech and seems will invest on mobile (I assume specially targeting Asia with maybe acquiring a big Asian mobile+PC F2P company from China/Korea/Japan) too.

I think Quantic Dream and Supermassive would be good acquisitions too, it would keep their genre for them since there's basically nobody else doing that at AAA level. They released successful, good reviewed games for them, which also have potential to turn their future projects into VR friendly games, to use their IPs on cinema and to give them cinema IPs.
 
Last edited:

onesvenus

Member
Aug 26, 2004
1,524
2,218
1,635
Before arguing a shitty strawman, go back and read my posts where I specifically mention money and time.
Yup, in all these quotes from all your posts in this thread you are obviously saying that money and time are equally important than talent and it's me who can't read, you are right 🤦‍♂️

Making top tier games at the level of ND and Rockstar isn't just about fucking money. It has more to do with talent than anything else.... like at all.

Look at all the best dev teams in the industry... (yes "teams" being the operative word)... these devs have all been around for a very long time and have built up a company culture, work processes and streamlined work-flows, engine and dev toolchains, together with fostering their talent and honing their craft over the course of multiple console generations. Money had very little to do with their success.

There is not a single example of a studio in this industry that you can point to, that was acquired providing immediately greater resources and thus was able to instantly put out GOTY-level games because of a bigger dev budget.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
5,258
4,965
425
they already make up 70% or more of Capcom, Square and Namco sales in the AAA / AA space.
You think that's true including PC? I am trying to square that with comments from the COO of Capcom trying to make PC 50% of their revenue.

Also you got any company level sources of data for revenue by platform? I am trying to find it but its a bit tough. Square does it by game category which is a bit vague to me.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Bryank75
Sep 6, 2021
231
725
285
Idk if it’s been mentioned in this thread but one of the more reliable insiders Shinobi retweeted the article.
Yup. Last time he teased an acquisition, GAF made fun of him only for Bluepoint acquisition to be announced the day after.

He knows things for sure and he actually works in the industry.
 

Bryank75

Member
Jan 12, 2018
11,238
27,191
995
Ireland
You think that's true including PC? I am trying to square that with comments from the COO of Capcom trying to make PC 50% of their revenue.

Also you got any company level sources of data for revenue by platform? I am trying to find it but its a bit tough. Square does it by game category which is a bit vague to me.


Yeah, they are about 66% of Capcom overall software sales....I rounded up a bit. That includes PC and Nintendo and Xbox.

You can check that out in their Investor relations section.

You can also see where the PC sales are important for them.....it breaks it down by region and it is for asia / china that they want to be on PC. Western sales for their games on PC are okay but nothing amazing.

It was recently spun that MHW sales outside Japan were higher on PC (slightly) but if you examine the figures...



Only Asia was ahead for PC (excluding Japan), if they used the same logic and left out non-Japan Asia...PS4 would have been double the number of PC.

What they are really projecting with the PC growth is gaming growth in China.... which due to new laws will be massively stifled.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
14,149
6,221
1,745
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
Yeah, they are about 66% of Capcom overall software sales....I rounded up a bit. That includes PC and Nintendo and Xbox.

You can check that out in their Investor relations section.

You can also see where the PC sales are important for them.....it breaks it down by region and it is for asia / china that they want to be on PC. Western sales for their games on PC are okay but nothing amazing.

It was recently spun that MHW sales outside Japan were higher on PC (slightly) but if you examine the figures...



Only Asia was ahead for PC (excluding Japan), if they used the same logic and left out non-Japan Asia...PS4 would have been double the number of PC.

What they are really projecting with the PC growth is gaming growth in China.... which due to new laws will be massively stifled.
I don't have the numbers, but if we get the PS4 JP retail number and compare to this PS4 total we could get an estimate of their % of digital sales in Japan. This tweet is interesting, too:

MHW really skyrocketed their sales in the west. Regarding their PS4 Japanese sales maybe aren't decreasing, but instead moving from physical to digital.
 
Last edited:

Tripolygon

Member
May 6, 2012
4,856
7,584
1,160
NYC
But Sony was the first one that buys a multipaltform developer and publisher. So...

"Psygnosis Limited (known as SCE Studio Liverpool or simply Studio Liverpool from 1999)[1] was a British video game developer and publisher headquartered at Wavertree Technology Park in Liverpool. Founded in 1984[1][2] by Ian Hetherington, Jonathan Ellis, and David Lawson, the company initially became known for well-received games on the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga. In 1993, it became a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) and began developing the original PlayStation and later became a part of SCE Worldwide Studios"

Continue reading the page.

Despite being owned by Sony, Psygnosis retained a degree of independence from its parent company during this period and continued to develop and publish titles for other platforms,[27] including the Sega Saturn[28][29] and the Nintendo 64.[30] This caused friction between Psygnosis and Sony, and in 1996 Sony engaged SBC Warburg's services in finding a buyer for Psygnosis.[31][32] However, though bids reportedly went as high as $300 million (more than ten times what Sony paid for the company just three years before),[33] after six months Sony rescinded its decision to sell Psygnosis. Relations between the two companies had improved during this time, and Sony became reconciled to Psygnosis releasing games for competing platforms.[34] Shortly after, Psygnosis took over distribution of its own titles, a task that Sony had been handling following the buyout.[35]
They later restructured, Sony sold some of the licenses to their games to another 3rd party publisher. While i understand why people would point to Psygnosis as a major 3rd party buyout, it is not the same. They still remained fairly independent for a long time and still published games for other competing platforms.
 
Last edited:

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
Jun 22, 2004
7,879
719
1,795
I’d like to see them expand San Diego and make more multi-platform sports titles.

Slowly pushing EA out of that market.
I think the fastest way to push EA out is for Tencent to acquire them once as part of their expansion into the West Though that may not be the kind change that's for the better...

And that doesn't affect either MS or Sony. See above.
'Yet'.
MS is in pretty direct line of fire as TC ambitions are very much in the 'one service to get all games' and they've had more experience (and success) to date with it than MS. They just haven't had their sights set internationally until more recently.
Sony's more down-the line, but TC has flirted with console like boxes for a good while now, it's entirely feasible they'd launch a WW-box some-day.
 

onesvenus

Member
Aug 26, 2004
1,524
2,218
1,635
TC ambitions are very much in the 'one service to get all games' and they've had more experience (and success) to date with it than MS
Any more info on this? I was not aware of Tencent having something like Gamepass or xCloud
 

GhostOfTsu

Member
May 11, 2018
1,001
2,125
535
But Sony was the first one that buys a multipaltform developer and publisher. So...

"Psygnosis Limited (known as SCE Studio Liverpool or simply Studio Liverpool from 1999)[1] was a British video game developer and publisher headquartered at Wavertree Technology Park in Liverpool. Founded in 1984[1][2] by Ian Hetherington, Jonathan Ellis, and David Lawson, the company initially became known for well-received games on the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga. In 1993, it became a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) and began developing the original PlayStation and later became a part of SCE Worldwide Studios"

I thought only thicc_girls brought up Psygnosis when he ran out of arguments lol

It was in 1993, get over it! I'm sure Atari and Amiga are still pissed they missed these B-rated games. Good thing Phil avenge them!
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjimenez666
Aug 28, 2019
4,847
9,846
650
www.instagram.com
The Square investment was to help them out their money problems after the Final Fantasy movie tanked.
Okay but it was still an investment, and that is more to the point of what I'm speaking to: it was an investment from a platform holder into a major 3P publisher entity. Someone could still claim it was "defensive" (if they want to use terms like that, which some ITT are doing) because if Sony hadn't made that investment, another party would've and that could have impacted facets of Sony's level of cooperation with Square going forward. It could have even prevented a Square & Enix merger which would have its own implications.

See how easy it is to twist purely business-driven decisions from large corporations into morally-coded terms implying some are "conveniently" just and others are "conveniently" unjust? That's what I'm against.

You always fail to mention the only thing that matters in your (endless) posts about this subject. The IPs.

Sony didn't buy any big IPs with their acquisitions so there's no impact at all. Organic or not, it changes nothing for Xbox.

Also, Embracer and Tencent are not platform holders so again nothing changes for their releases on consoles. Most them are small AAs, PC only or mobile anyway. You will never convince people to get angry about it. There is no double standard with them vs MS. You can drop it.

"Always fail" well you apparently always never read because I've talked about that before. However, that only pertains to a fraction of what I'm even touching on.

Again, someone tell me how purchasing Nixxes was a "defensive" acquisition? As if connotating an acquisition suddenly makes it a justified or heinous transaction. You purposefully only limit the scope to IPs (last I checked, buying timed exclusives is essentially the same and achieves a similar effect in spite of that content potentially coming to another platform well after its relevance has worn off) and limit the definition of acquisitions to large publisher purchases, both of which conveniently already frame your narrative to emphasizing only certain types and only when certain parties are involved.

Why does "industry consolidation" only matter to you when it's a platform holder? Can not a large investment group like Embracer or a corporation like Tencent shunter studios that they buy, enforce policies dictating the type of content in those products or bleed creator talent out of those studios once purchased? We've literally seen this with Tencent and Leyou but people like you just want to ignore that, or maybe you just don't pay enough attention to notice. And everything I just mentioned, can have a measurable effect on a decent bit of 3P content that would otherwise come to console platforms, which can affect the sales performance of that content, which can affect the amount of revenue platform holders can get off the sales of that content, so yes it DOES affect platform holders too.

If you're positing people should only get angry/upset when a 3P developer or publisher of a certain size/stature is acquired, then you're essentially part of the problem when it comes to the hypocrisy around talk of acquisitions. You're effectively of the same ilk that bandies about ethically justifying specific acquisitions (always incidentally in favor of a certain platform) on grounds that grown people who do business in the real world don't give a shit about. That your talking points always ironically shift along with which ones are the flavor of the week from a given source that falls on one side or the other of the dialectic.

If acquisitions are bad, then keep that same energy for all of them. If they're good, keep that same energy for all of them. If some are bad and some are good, you better make damn sure your rationality doesn't boil down to idiotic buzzwords and flavored talking points (which yours do, as do the majority of everyone else's ITT) trying to moralize them (good or bad) in ways that have nothing to do with verifiable human or civil right violations of peoples involved. Because that's really the only time you can frame an acquisition along ethical/moral lines.

Because outside of that, every single one we've seen, from all companies engaging in them, have involved consenting parties on both ends, following the laws and procedures, guidelines etc., and involving no violations of rights, human or civil, of any involved parties or employees who work for the involved parties. Yet time and again, every argument regarding acquisitions such as yours and plenty others, always happen to conveniently frame some as moral/ethical/justified and certain "other" ones as immoral/unethical/unjustified, with rationalities that amount to a toddler playing with cat poop in a schoolyard.
 

Swift_Star

Member
Sep 5, 2021
483
814
280


Hypocrite GIF by Lagoona Bloo
My god, this is gold.
 

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
5,258
4,965
425
Yeah, they are about 66% of Capcom overall software sales....I rounded up a bit. That includes PC and Nintendo and Xbox.

You can check that out in their Investor relations section.

You can also see where the PC sales are important for them.....it breaks it down by region and it is for asia / china that they want to be on PC. Western sales for their games on PC are okay but nothing amazing.
Struggling to find it so if you got a link, would really appreciate it.
 
Mar 7, 2017
3,057
6,377
520
Yup, in all these quotes from all your posts in this thread you are obviously saying that money and time are equally important than talent and it's me who can't read, you are right 🤦‍♂️
First you claim I'm saying money and time aren't important; which I didn't. Now you your chaning it to equally important. Moving the goal posts.

Money and time aren't equally as important. At all. They are important but not nearly as important as talent. Not even close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rea

onesvenus

Member
Aug 26, 2004
1,524
2,218
1,635
First you claim I'm saying money and time aren't important; which I didn't. Now you your chaning it to equally important. Moving the goal posts.
I did not claim that but reading my first post I can see how that can be interpreted. When I said you left money and time out of the equation I meant as downplaying their importance, not totally removing them.

Money and time aren't equally as important. At all. They are important but not nearly as important as talent. Not even close.
Let's agree to disagree
 

Edgelord79

Member
Sep 24, 2020
1,220
1,546
440
You can have all the money and time in the world and it won't equal a top tier game.

You need talent, which is the most important factor that you seem to want to insist on leaving out of the equation.
Talent uses money and time as well. In some cases less and in some cases more. Your comparison isn't apt. One uses the other.

Talent is not really a fixed variable like time and money. I understand what you are trying to say, but they aren't really congruent to compare.

Of course talent is important. Nobody is going to dispute that. Having all the talent in the world won't save you from bad management either or from other logistical hurdles which in turn would amount to large monetary and time costs.
 

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
14,149
6,221
1,745
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
Talent uses money and time as well. In some cases less and in some cases more. Your comparison isn't apt. One uses the other.

Talent is not really a fixed variable like time and money. I understand what you are trying to say, but they aren't really congruent to compare.

Of course talent is important. Nobody is going to dispute that. Having all the talent in the world won't save you from bad management either or from other logistical hurdles which in turn would amount to large monetary and time costs.
Talent, time and money are needed to make top tier games. Proper -or at least decent- management is part of the things included inside the talent to make great games.

In any case, Sony has a good track of releasing every year a steady amount of some very good games in terms of sales and reviews, many of them even GOTY nominees/winner level. They don't seem to have management issues working on their current scale.
 

lh032

I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
Mar 8, 2021
1,867
4,131
470
I understand Sony prefers the "organic growth" , but i hope they acquire reputable studios/publishers with existing IP as well, new IP is riskier and needs more time for growth imo.
 
Last edited:

graywolf323

Member
Jan 19, 2008
9,907
965
1,410
Richmond, VA
But Sony was the first one that buys a multipaltform developer and publisher. So...

"Psygnosis Limited (known as SCE Studio Liverpool or simply Studio Liverpool from 1999)[1] was a British video game developer and publisher headquartered at Wavertree Technology Park in Liverpool. Founded in 1984[1][2] by Ian Hetherington, Jonathan Ellis, and David Lawson, the company initially became known for well-received games on the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga. In 1993, it became a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) and began developing the original PlayStation and later became a part of SCE Worldwide Studios"

when they were first getting into video games, they bought them before the PS1 even released

why do people keep throwing out this comparison as if it's somehow equivalent to Bethesda roughly 20 years after the original Xbox released?
 
Mar 7, 2017
3,057
6,377
520
I did not claim that but reading my first post I can see how that can be interpreted. When I said you left money and time out of the equation I meant as downplaying their importance, not totally removing them.


Let's agree to disagree

Sure we can agree to disagree, but I think the empirical evidence is on my side.

There are so many examples of small extremely talented indie devs producing incredible games, examples of larger talented studios with copious resources but putting out superb games in very short timeframes (e.g. Insomniac games).

There are barely any examples at all that one can point to of studios with low talent, high resources and lots of time making GOTY-tier games. I can't think of a single one... can you?
 
Mar 7, 2017
3,057
6,377
520
Talent uses money and time as well. In some cases less and in some cases more. Your comparison isn't apt. One uses the other.

You're all trying to re-frame the argument as "talent versus time and money", when in actual fact what I'm arguing about is "talent versus more time and more money".

If a studio is sufficiently staffed for the development of a game with a given scope, and they are given sufficient time to achieve their vision, throwing more time and money at the developer won't change the quality of the game in a meaningful way. The resource and time cost requirements of the project are already met.

So all those arguing that time and money are equally as important as talent are predicting their argument on a false premise.

Talent encompasses the skills, knowledge and expertise of the creatives on the team, the toolchains and technology they produce and utilise, as well as the skill and expertise of the production and project management functions who help guide the development path and lead the project to a timely, on-budget completion.

It's talent that wins.

Talent is not really a fixed variable like time and money. I understand what you are trying to say, but they aren't really congruent to compare.

Of course talent is important. Nobody is going to dispute that. Having all the talent in the world won't save you from bad management either or from other logistical hurdles which in turn would amount to large monetary and time costs.

Again your premise is faulty. The management skill and expertise fall under the category of talent. When I make the argument that talent is most important for a development team, I'm not just talking about the programmers and artists. I'm talking about the skill and expertise of everyone on the entire dev studio team, especially the creative leads and management.

I really don't see how there's any logical argument against this point.
 
Last edited:

Rea

Member
Jul 7, 2020
1,016
4,045
455
You're all trying to re-frame the argument as "talent versus time and money", when in actual fact what I'm arguing about is "talent versus more time and more money".

If a studio is sufficiently staffed for the development of a game with a given scope, and they are given sufficient time to achieve their vision, throwing more time and money at the developer won't change the quality of the game in a meaningful way. The resource and time cost requirements of the project are already met.

So all those arguing that time and money are equally as important as talent are predicting their argument on a false premise.

Talent encompasses the skills, knowledge and expertise of the creatives on the team, the toolchains and technology they produce and utilise, as well as the skill and expertise of the production and project management functions who help guide the development path and lead the project to a timely, on-budget completion.

It's talent that wins.



Again your premise is faulty. The management skill and expertise fall under the category of talent. When I make the argument that talent is most important for a development team, I'm not just talking about the programmers and artists. I'm talking about the skill and expertise of everyone on the entire dev studio team, especially the creative leads and management.

I really don't see how there's any logical argument against this point.
Great post.. well said!
Well Done Clapping GIF by MOODMAN
 

CuNi

Member
Sep 4, 2014
1,532
1,486
835
Germany
I think the issue is not that Sony doesn't wants to acquire more studios, it's that it's competing with MS. They got so much money on their hand, they could buy everyone sony is interested in for double the price and probably still not care about what they just spend.
 

bitbydeath

Member
Nov 25, 2015
16,473
28,531
1,285
I think the issue is not that Sony doesn't wants to acquire more studios, it's that it's competing with MS. They got so much money on their hand, they could buy everyone sony is interested in for double the price and probably still not care about what they just spend.
If that were true they would have bought Insomniac who are one of the best, if not the best studio around.

It takes more than money to make a sale.
 

CuNi

Member
Sep 4, 2014
1,532
1,486
835
Germany
If that were true they would have bought Insomniac who are one of the best, if not the best studio around.

It takes more than money to make a sale.

Sorry, I should have clarified that I mean this besides the "organic growth" aspect. Obviously a company already closely working with Sony would not sell out to MS, but I was having the impression that this thread was talking more about third party developers for both Sony and MS.

They usually only care for money, sadly.