Game Companies Buying other Game Companies

[Ryannumber1gamer]

15 minutes ago, Jango said:

Actually, it's well-known in the community that Toys for Bob had another Crash game (presumably a party game like Crash Bash) planned for 2021, but it's seems like it was delayed to who knows when. There were teases last year, just like Crash 4 and CTR, but nothing got announced yet. I wonder IF this game actually releases it will be exclusive to Xbox since it hasn't been announced to any platforms. 

The deal doesn't close until 2023, so any games out within that period doesn't have to adhere to any kind of deal. Beyond putting them on Game Pass as a form of good gesture, it's a fair assumption Overwatch 2, COD 2022, and if it's actually a thing - this Crash game will drop on everything.

That said, don't hold your breath for Spyro 4. A tease in an art book is barely a thing, and Toys for Bob being taken off both to be thrown into the COD mines absolutely means that at best, a Crash game might've been in the works, but likely not Spyro 4, and both most certainly not at the same time. If it happens, it'll happen most certainly after the deal closes.

[Empire88]

8 hours ago, azoo said:

I find Microsoft’s moves here very not-good for the industry and it’s gonna lead to some nasty one sided problems as a whole, but I’m not gonna sit here and act like they’re villains in comparison and Sony would’ve never done the same if they were making the same profits. All these corporations would. They’re evil, man.

Just making sure if it was directed at my comment but yes I agree. Hence saying it sets a precedent.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

1 hour ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

The deal doesn't close until 2023, so any games out within that period doesn't have to adhere to any kind of deal. Beyond putting them on Game Pass as a form of good gesture, it's a fair assumption Overwatch 2, COD 2022, and if it's actually a thing - this Crash game will drop on everything.

That said, don't hold your breath for Spyro 4. A tease in an art book is barely a thing, and Toys for Bob being taken off both to be thrown into the COD mines absolutely means that at best, a Crash game might've been in the works, but likely not Spyro 4, and both most certainly not at the same time. If it happens, it'll happen most certainly after the deal closes.

As far as it goes for Crash, nothing was set in stone, at best just highly hinted at. Could very well be dead in the water at the moment.

[Jango]

Words that I hope turn into actions. C'mon, Phill.

 

[Dreadknux]

I’m a bit late to the party here but Jesus Christ $70 BILLION?? That’s bananas!

I’m with others here that I hope this means real changes in the leadership and organisational toxicity/harassment we’ve seen from ABK to date. I hear they are getting rid of Kotick when the deal is done, but it’s more than likely he will get off with a golden parachute… he definitely doesn’t deserve it, and it’s sickening that he gets a big pay out, but I’m sadly not sure if Microsoft is really to blame for that.

Looking at that payout graph, it looks like Kotick would have walked away from the company with sacks of $$$ no matter what happened (I mean, the current board clearly would never kick him out for wrongdoing, even though it’s clear as day about his role in the issues the company’s facing)… that doesn’t mean Microsoft is right for potentially paying him off, but still. That whole thing really does feel like an unwinnable situation. Best I can hope for is that he f’s off and never darkens the door of the industry again.

As for monopoly or whatever on Microsoft’s part, this buyout is a bit crazy but it’s nowhere near monopoly/antitrust level. I’m also not really concerned about the whole ‘exclusive to Xbox’ thing. For one thing, we know now that COD is certainly staying with PlayStation on some level:

It makes sense because as someone said before, COD sells way more on PS over Xbox, MS would be cutting off a huge revenue stream if they suddenly made COD exclusive.

The other stuff doesn’t matter really. People complaining about their favourite games not hitting PlayStation… feels a little console-warry to me in all honesty. I didn’t want to buy an OG Xbox back in the day until Halo 2 and OutRun2 came out. Didn’t buy a PS2 until Persona 4. If you’re desperate to play the games, you’ll get the box that runs it. Gamers owe Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo no loyalty.

When you also consider that Microsoft is also working towards a console-less solution in xCloud, even the argument that you need to buy a second $450 box to play Activision games disappears completely. You can keep your PS5 and access Xbox exclusive titles via Game Pass streaming via browser or mobile. The barrier to entry here is going to be super low.

And given that Crash and Spyro are most definitely dead IP (honestly I’m surprised Crash 4 was even a thing… total fluke), there should be no concern over losing those two in particular to Xbox. If anything, Microsoft could do a Nintendo/Bayonetta revival situation and actually make sure these characters thrive (Phil Spencer has talked about Xbox needing more family friendly IP). Also it could mean past Xbox Crash games could be re-released as BC, which would be great.

[Tornado]

2 hours ago, Jango said:

Words that I hope turn into actions. C'mon, Phill.

 

I feel like $70 billion was a bit of an overpay if Spencer just wanted Toys for Bob to make another Spyro and Crash game, but the heart wants what it wants I suppose.

[Blue Blood]

1 hour ago, Dreadknux said:

As for monopoly or whatever on Microsoft’s part, this buyout is a bit crazy but it’s nowhere near monopoly/antitrust level. I’m also not really concerned about the whole ‘exclusive to Xbox’ thing. For one thing, we know now that COD is certainly staying with PlayStation on some level:

The other stuff doesn’t matter really. People complaining about their favourite games not hitting PlayStation… feels a little console-warry to me in all honesty. I didn’t want to buy an OG Xbox back in the day until Halo 2 and OutRun2 came out. Didn’t buy a PS2 until Persona 4. If you’re desperate to play the games, you’ll get the box that runs it. Gamers owe Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo no loyalty.

When you also consider that Microsoft is also working towards a console-less solution in xCloud, even the argument that you need to buy a second $450 box to play Activision games disappears completely. You can keep your PS5 and access Xbox exclusive titles via Game Pass streaming via browser or mobile. The barrier to entry here is going to be super low.

I'm actually kind of surprised to see this mentality. It doesn't have to have anything to do with console wars, and it's reductive for you to suggest that that's the driving force here. 

Microsoft's purchases are taking away from the audience in favour of subscription service model. Activision's titles have historically been multi-platform, as have Bethesda's. Players would be able to pick up their platform of choice and play the majority of games or there. Following these acquisitions, that will cease to be the case as Xbox exclusivity inevitably begins to crop up. It's already been announced to be the case for Bethesda's games like Elder Scrolls 6, and I've no doubt that it will eventually be the case for Activision's games in the future. Why do you think that the concerns have anything to do with loyalty? Just because CoD is staying with PlayStation for the time being and because Microsoft are going to honour agreements already in place (can you actually imagine them going against agreed contracts?), that doesn't mean that Microsoft won't start pushing the envelope in the future. I fully redirect them to do so. 

Consoles are expensive, but they mean that the audience has actual ownership. And they don't rely on an Internet connection. The console-less future of X Cloud, Stadia, Luna etc sounds like a bad future to me no matter how you look at it. I don't want to give up ownership of physical media and consoles, and I don't want to be expected to pay for multiple streaming services either. 

[Jango]

1 hour ago, Tornado said:

I feel like $70 billion was a bit of an overpay if Spencer just wanted Toys for Bob to make another Spyro and Crash game, but the heart wants what it wants I suppose.

I mean, it's not like it's the only thing they're thinking of with this huge aquisition, but I know you're being ironic. Crash and Spyro are only a small fraction of that cake, but if they're saying they'll continue to support these IPs (and not just your CoDs and Diablos), everybody wins. I for one am happy I won't have to turn my nose everytime I see that Activision logo in games I love anymore lol

[Dreadknux]

10 minutes ago, Blue Blood said:

I'm actually kind of surprised to see this mentality. It doesn't have to have anything to do with console wars, and it's reductive for you to suggest that that's the driving force here. 

Microsoft's purchases are taking away from the audience in favour of subscription service model. Activisions titles have historically been multi-platform, as have Bethesda's. Players would be able to pick up their platform of choice and play the majority of games or there. Following these acquisitions, that will cease to be the case as Xbox exclusivity inevitably begins to crop up. It's already been announced to be the case for Bethesda's games like Elder Scrolls 6, and I've no doubt that it will eventually be the case for Activision's games in the future. Why do you think that the concerns have anything to do with loyalty?

Consoles are expensive, but they mean that the audience has actual ownership. And they don't rely on an Internet connection. The consoless future of X Cloud, Stadia, Luna etc sounds like a bad figure to me no matter how you look at it. I don't want to give up ownership of physical media and consoles, and I don't want to be expected to pay for multiple streaming services either. 

I don't think my point is reductive. If your argument is not about console wars, then I fail to see what it is realistically about... if it really is just about hating the subscription model/digital (which feels a little like arguing at the sea for changing tides, sadly - an irrelevance in the face of the direction the industry is sadly heading), then simply buy an Xbox or continue to play these games on your PC. No problem. If you have a problem with that, then your issue is definitely limited to the box (or 'platform') you like to play games on, and that's where the conversation starts to get reductive.

This whole thing is definitely a content acquisition, not a "keep things out of the hands of [other platforms]" marketing tactic. If it was the latter, they left it a little late to start doing that, they've had three generations to buy everyone out! Microsoft quite clearly sees themselves mostly as a content provider now, not a video game console manufacturer. To ensure they become/remain a big content provider, they have to own content. Content that may be exclusive to the Xbox (digital) platform, yes, which may suck on some level... but what would suck more is if it was exclusive to Stadia's platform instead (a platform that has already largely failed and will likely be added very soon to Google's Graveyard of concepts). If Kotick was already shopping ABK around before Microsoft's acquisition, you can bet your bottom dollar none of these games would be hitting PlayStation anyway (especially if Facebook got a hold of it, as per rumours).

You're getting hung up on the term 'platforms', but for better or worse, the concept of "platforms" is starting to move away from something we all might be familiar with. You mention "platform of choice" but that will soon no longer mean Xbox + PlayStation + Nintendo + PC (and that is not where Microsoft's head is at with this acquisition). It will likely mean Xbox + PSPlus + NSO + Luna + Stadia. And you're right about multiple streaming services, I hate that idea... but is that any different to multiple consoles? If there isn't enough content to draw me to Stadia, I'll simply not subscribe to it. Much in the same way that if I didn't see enough content to draw me to a PS5, I'd simply not buy one (I did buy one, though).

I feel you about the physical argument, but it's already starting to fade away and will be sadly even less relevant in the next generation... the concept of 'ownership' is moving to services and digital at a breakneck pace, and I'm not sure how moaning about Microsoft actually doing something about it is going to pump the brakes on that movement of travel. At the very least, MS operates an Xbox store alongside Game Pass/xCloud which will not disappear even if physical consoles do, meaning there will continue to be digital ownership as long as Microsoft/Xbox exists (which will definitely be within our lifetime! Which is more than what I can say for Stadia).

[mayday2592]

 

Canadian guy eh makes a good argument as to why future Crash and Spyro games could still be multiplatform.

 

[KHCast]

4 hours ago, Dreadknux said:

And you're right about multiple streaming services, I hate that idea... but is that any different to multiple consoles?

Consoles are one time purchase where I know what I bought and for how much, whereas with subscriptions there’s been evidence to suggest many companies design them specifically in hopes people accidentally continue to keep paying for one’s they don’t even want/realize they have. And that adds up. It’s a massive confusopoly that’s designed intentionally to confuse their market, so the idea of subs on that basis alone being no different from physical purchases I personally can’t jive with. I already end up finding myself accidentally being Re subbed sometimes to a couple subscriptions due to occasional memory issues, so making that just the standard among gaming platforms just doesn’t seem fun for people like me that sometimes gets overwhelmed by them all. And that’s before you bring up how this can all be exploitative to people with mental health problems overall. It’s just not a model I can see naturally replacing the current model of buying a console anytime soon.
 

But then again, we’re in an industry where microtransactions routinely prey on people with mental health problems and addiction issues, and that’s become a normalized standard, so I could be wrong entirely, it’s the gaming industry after all 

[azoo]

I can now see what Microsoft's doing.

A friend put it to me this way: MS will still probably allow all of Activision's games onto Sony platforms, but for every sale of a PS5 Activision game, Microsoft still gets paid for it. Sony players get to keep most of their games, most likely, but Microsoft still comes out on top. 

It makes sense, and it's kind of genius. Evil genius? Maybe, but genius nonetheless.

Spoiler

Also, on subject of hating streaming/subscription services: I mean, you're still gonna be able to get your games, whether physical or digital, by paying for it once and being done for life. Game Pass isn't here to delete that ability or right. This service just manages to let you have as many as you want at a time and getting your worth out of them without having to pay the $50-70 a pop. If that's seen as anything but a good thing, then get with the times, old folks.

 

[KHCast]

7 minutes ago, azoo said:

If that's seen as anything but a good thing, then get with the times, old folks.

By itself in a vacuum sure, but in the context of what I just said in the above post, it’s not something I actively will cheer to replace the current models given all the issues I and @Blue Blood had explained. Hand waving it all as “ok boomer” feels a bit silly 

[Kazhnuz]

I'll honestly have to wait before knowing if there really won't be any "gamepass exclusive". The goal of subscription service are to get as many people as possible on their service (which is kinda normal), and honestly wanting to have exclusive content for these services would be a logical step (which is already present in streaming plateforms). So honestly, there are reasons for people to be wary about the possibility of having these models replace in part for some game the current system.

And tbh, as said KHCast : there are so much issue currently in the gaming (and entertainement) industries (abuse of addiction patterns with microtransaction, creating speculative plateforms on videogame targeting kids, jumping cryptoscams, massive companies buying other massive companies), that I can understand why people won't give benefits of the doubt on that matter. The landscape doesn't inspire really much confidence. ( And I'm not even talking here about workers' rights, which could be another complete subject on its own )

I agree tho that there would also be a subject on consoles as a whole, as they're proprietary walled garden that try to have only one company deciding what can be on the machine or not (exactly like on iOS), and that the new generation add their own new layer of issues (like the digital-only console).

[KHCast]

Question: Does this mean the original PS1 versions of the Crash and Spyro games after the merger will now be on Xbox, or do Sony own the rights to those versions of the games, so they will now be in a limbo where they can’t be distributed by either company?

[Ryannumber1gamer]

23 minutes ago, KHCast said:

Question: Does this mean the original PS1 versions of the Crash and Spyro games after the merger will now be on Xbox, or do Sony own the rights to those versions of the games, so they will now be in a limbo where they can’t be distributed by either company?

To my knowledge, Activision owns the rights to the games in general and a licensing deal would have to be made for further releases. While they were exclusives, the games were still published by Universal, who held became Vivendi Universal, who became Sierra, who were then eventually bought by Activision.

However, the original versions won’t be on Xbox for the simple reason that there’s no port available for them. The PS3 has both because it has a PS1 emulator built into the system and as such, they’re essentially just the PS1 ISOs being made available on the store for download to use on an emulator. 

Meanwhile, to release them on Xbox would require them to build their own emulator to emulate the games, and there’s not much point when feasibly, they could just throw a resolution upscale and FPS boost onto N. Sane Trilogy and Reignited, and have essentially the best versions of the trilogies available.

As for if they’ll be removed from PlayStation? No. Bethesda’s backlog are still available despite that acquisition being long over, and goes on sale regularly which to my knowledge requires some negotiation with the company to do so, and Microsoft published titles such as Minecraft and Psychonauts 2 are still readily available. Pulling the back library from other consoles to make ‘false exclusivity’ is a move that not only wouldn’t be worth it (you can track down most of these titles on disc easily pre owned), but would be a PR nightmare for them, so just keep them up and make some money off their purchases is the easier option.

[Tornado]

On top of that, while it would be completely trivial for Microsoft to create or outsource an emulator package to run those games and stand up to legal scrutiny (Sony lost that lawsuit already) and they could even do it so you can play your own discs (since Microsoft didn't cheap out on the Series X and it can play CDs), to do so as a current platform holder would be a bit unprecedented since Sony certainly wouldn't give their blessing for it; even if both series weren't completely remade from the ground up just a few years ago.

 

 

 

Certainly, I played Spyro enough where I can feel (and be annoyed by) the differences for how Reignited plays vs the originals just like the people playing N-Sane could vis a vis those; but in all honestly those remakes are good enough for 99% of the populace.

[Edward850]

3 hours ago, Tornado said:

and they could even do it so you can play your own discs (since Microsoft didn't cheap out on the Series X and it can play CDs)

Technically yes, however it's not sane to do so. The Xbox CD laser can't read the authentication mechanism of a PS1 disc*, so while it could technically load the contents, it could never tell the difference between a disc that is actually authentic to a straight up copied CD-R. They would both look identical to an Xbox. This would thus be unsuitable for either method of using the disc;

• If you just read it as a key and downloaded a repackaged version (necessary to work within the Xbox's game environment, as each game must be its own package for the hyper visor) then there's no key the Xbox could actually read for verification.
• If you read the game as is, then this is basically reading unsigned/unauthenticated code in a live environment, which is just all kinds of bad.

*this relied on a method not in spec of CDs, where it read the wobble of the grooves of a particular section of the disc. PS1 discs were printed with a rather explicit wobble imperfection, so if the wobble didn't match the PS1 disc drive would report that the disc wasn't genuine (it could still read the disc, but the games were programmed to read the information reported from the authentication chip, so the drive itself was still in spec for normal CD audio playback). Nothing about the Xbox optical drive is designed to report this information, because by design disc imperfections are supposed to be invisible to playback.

[Tornado]

I've seen the Technology Connections video. I stand by Sony's immediate objections to Microsoft including a PSX emulator in their ecosystem would be more of a deterrent than the chance of people running bootleg copies of 6 Playstation games.

[KHCast]

Welp, Sony retaliated. *groan*

 

 

 

 

[Kuzu]

Sony decided they weren't gonna overshadowed I guess.

[KHCast]

Looks like the games will remain multiplat (least that’s what they say for now)

 

 

Interesting to say the least, but overall I’m still hating that this is where gaming seems to be heading 

[Kuzu]

Sony really took losing COD personally 

[Tornado]

I have to wonder, uh... what exactly the fucking point is for Sony. You get a developer that's a name but primarily a name for things that they did a decade ago for a franchise they have nothing to do with and after most of those people involved with it left? You get a franchise with one really good game and one one that everyone already forgot; and for the low low price of half of what Microsoft spent for all of Zenimax and Bethesda and id and all of the franchises that company owns.

 

 

 

 

 

Microsoft buying Bethesda and Activision was a move that will probably be shitty for people who don't own Xboxes in the long run but at least you could see the immediate reason for them doing so.  This just seems like a flex for the sake of flexing; akin to Microsoft buying Rare seemingly just to say "hey we got Rare ha ha Nintendo fans" after everyone important jumped ship for Free Radical since they proceeded to do dick all with it for the following decade.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Grab your popcorn folks. It’s gettin gud!