Kena: Bridge of Spirits has received an ESRB rating for an Xbox X|S version
- Thread starter Puff
- Start date
come on, this is a huge stretch. this game for sure isn't even top 10.
i can give a credit, for a small studio, it was great game for it size.
What if it's a new controller design FOR that car? That's sell well, right? Right??
It would still end up coming to ps5
Acquisition fear mongering is over at this point
Too bad Sony does have any studios in PlayStation studios and has to go the Microsoft route of buying every studio out there.
Seriously the Microsoft Activision purchase left some of you with some deep PTSD when ironically it was the best thing that could of happened to Sony.
Also instead of buying Ember Labs a team of like 12 people Sony needs to spend less time closing studios like Pixelopus and London Studios
Dude they are potentially about to buy Paramount, while SIE have a limited number of studios seemingly taking longer to make games vs. last gen because SIE are only focused on AAA games which have increased in production costs and time of development.
And you want to tell me that even acquiring smaller game studios like Ember (who despite so many ITT trying to downplay them now since an Xbox version of Kena is coming, as a studio are still miles ahead of any of the Paramount game dev studios) isn't worth it? How is MS acquiring ABK the "best thing ever" for Sony? That just means more leverage for MS to make money off PS gamers and more leverage to push a multiplat strategy that will (most likely) influence Sony to do the same thing.
Also let's be real here: Ember Lab delivered far more as a small dev studio than Pixelopus or especially London Studios have managed for the past several years. So yeah, if Sony cared more about buffing up internal AA projects to offset the longer dev times for safer AAA titles getting Ember Lab to replace those other two would've been a smart move. Plus isn't there the notion Sony grows their talent and associates closer with them after a while? We're gonna pretend they couldn't grow Ember Lab?
Or maybe Sony are just led by bean counters instead of people with creative visions and a sensible balance of creativity & profitability like in previous eras? Surely the fault here could potentially be on them, right?
I'm not even harping on Kena getting an Xbox port, tho already a lot of those players are basically asking for it in Game Pass only proving the reason Microsoft despises them now and are pursuing 3P in the first place. I'm harping on how suddenly some PS gamers who were probably hyping Kena a couple years ago are seemingly downplaying the game now conveniently once an Xbox version gets announced.
It's almost as if the only reason they were really hyping it before was because it was an exclusive they could use in console warring
All companies, specially big ones like Sony, now and always, are run by businessmen who primarly care about their revenue and growing their business because that is their job. Because if not the companies would die due to needing money to continue running, and need grow to attract investors.Or maybe Sony are just led by bean counters instead of people with creative visions and a sensible balance of creativity & profitability like in previous eras? Surely the fault here could potentially be on them, right?
I'm not even harping on Kena getting an Xbox port, tho already a lot of those players are basically asking for it in Game Pass only proving the reason Microsoft despises them now and are pursuing 3P in the first place. I'm harping on how suddenly some PS gamers who were probably hyping Kena a couple years ago are seemingly downplaying the game now conveniently once an Xbox version gets announced.
It's almost as if the only reason they were really hyping it before was because it was an exclusive they could use in console warring
There is other people under them who is to have the creative visions and creativity (within the company strategy, available budget, ensuring enough sustanability in terms of ensuring that the games will sell well enough).
Console makers focusing more on paying for 3rd timed 3rd party exclusives than paying more for permanent exclusivity and buy the IP, specially for small games, is something that benefits everyone: that exclusive is cheaper for the console maker so with the same money can support more exlusives.
The dev can later to release it elsewhere and make more money from the game, and keep the IP for them just in case later they want make a sequel and that console maker isn't interested on it, while also giving more value to their studio (due to an IP that isn't important at all for the console maker). And well, it's better for players because more players will be able to play the game. In fact, in many cases these smaller 3rd party indie games sometimes even get supported with funding + marketing deals even without asking timed exclusivity in exchange (case of games like TMNT for PlayStation Indies).
After their pre-launch & launch marketing & PR campaign and related sales, which are a tiny portion of the total, just catalog fillers, these games don't matter for console makers. So they don't care if they own the IP because in most cases won't use it anymore and almost doesn't have value for a corporation of their size. And don't care if they get released later elsewhere because that doesn't affect them at all.
That doesn't apply only for Kena, but to all PS Indies titles (or the ones who signed instead with MS or Nintendo) independently if you love them or not. You personally may love one of these particular games and think their team could be a great addition to their 2nd party, or even to be acquired, but the people who makes sure they are responsible with their business side may find that the current/potential sales of that team are ok for a timed console exclusive but not enough for a 2nd party project or acquisition.
Last edited:
@Yurinka I don't need you to lecture me with a business seminar on the market or act as a PR spokesperson for Sony Corp. I would like you to actually engage the conversation from the POV of a hobbyist/gamer primarily, just for once.
I just explained you why companies and executives act as they do, which in many cases doesn't align with the personal opinion of a specific fan.
The irony is he knows nothing about business so is better off engaging as a blogger/fanboy.
Ahh yes buying a studio of 12 people that took 5 years to make Kena will fix Sony's slowing development rate.Dude they are potentially about to buy Paramount, while SIE have a limited number of studios seemingly taking longer to make games vs. last gen because SIE are only focused on AAA games which have increased in production costs and time of development.
And you want to tell me that even acquiring smaller game studios like Ember (who despite so many ITT trying to downplay them now since an Xbox version of Kena is coming, as a studio are still miles ahead of any of the Paramount game dev studios) isn't worth it? How is MS acquiring ABK the "best thing ever" for Sony? That just means more leverage for MS to make money off PS gamers and more leverage to push a multiplat strategy that will (most likely) influence Sony to do the same thing.
Also let's be real here: Ember Lab delivered far more as a small dev studio than Pixelopus or especially London Studios have managed for the past several years. So yeah, if Sony cared more about buffing up internal AA projects to offset the longer dev times for safer AAA titles getting Ember Lab to replace those other two would've been a smart move. Plus isn't there the notion Sony grows their talent and associates closer with them after a while? We're gonna pretend they couldn't grow Ember Lab?
Or maybe Sony are just led by bean counters instead of people with creative visions and a sensible balance of creativity & profitability like in previous eras? Surely the fault here could potentially be on them, right?
I'm not even harping on Kena getting an Xbox port, tho already a lot of those players are basically asking for it in Game Pass only proving the reason Microsoft despises them now and are pursuing 3P in the first place. I'm harping on how suddenly some PS gamers who were probably hyping Kena a couple years ago are seemingly downplaying the game now conveniently once an Xbox version gets announced.
It's almost as if the only reason they were really hyping it before was because it was an exclusive they could use in console warring
Dont forget your first comment said Sony doesnt need to buy paramount because it already has Sony Pictures. By your logic Sony doesnt need to buy more game developers because it already has PlayStation Studios. Also Microsoft hasn't influenced anything in gaming besides making online a more presentable feature for consoles players and achievements.
Yes Sony and Nintendo followed Microsoft in an online pay wall but Sony and Nintendo are the trend setters in the console space and very rarely follow microsoft. You can argue the 360 was a big part of the third person shooter craze as uncharted did look at gears and re4 for inspiration but there is no way 9 years ago when Nintendo announced they were making mobile games it was influenced by microsoft. There is no way in 2012 when Sony bought Gaikai for cloud gaming it was influenced by Microsoft. Most of Sony and Nintendos purchases and moves are influenced by share holders which due to the fact that xbox has barely ever dominated has little to do with xbox.
Ironically Sony buying Bungie was a responce to Microsoft buying zenimax but I really hope Sony doesn't look at Microsofts purchase of Activision and say oh ueah we need to do that as it has done nothing to stop the decline of xbox series sales. Also Sony making a more and more purchases just gives Xbox more leverage to start buying again so I don't know if Sony purchasing gaming studios is such a smart move right now unless of they know microsoft is infact right now in talks of buying another publisher.
Any way if your wondering what I meant by Microsoft purchasing Activision is the greatest thing for Sony is that
1. This woke microsoft the fuck up and realized they are spending way too much money in this sinkhole they call xbox.
2. That money Sink hole has forced Microsoft to port past Xbox games go PlayStation for the first time. Something only nintendo has been treated to since Banjo Grunties Revenge on the GBA in 2003. Nintendo has been able to enjoy game like Ori while PlayStation fans got nothing until this Activision deal went thru
3. PlayStation has been guaranteed a Call of Duty game for the next decade. There could of been a chance activision went under and Call of Duty would no longer be there for not only PS5 gamers or gamers in general. Activision was canning projects right and left to continue Call of Duty
4. Imagine if 2 years ago I told you Microsoft and Sony would drag this out in the courts for nearly 2 years and go so far to spend huge amounts of money to convince the CMA to change their minds to rethink their block on the deal and go as far as to even get senators attack Japan over it being so hard to buy Japanese companies only to do the most un expected thing and not only continue COD on PS for a decade but brought over a lot of their titles to PS5 and might even start doing day one releases with stuff like Marvel's Blade.
People were talking about this Microsoft purchase would open the doors to Apple, Amazon, and meta going after huge publishers and look what happened after this. The only big buys that have happened since were crystal dynamics buyout and take two making purchases. Imagine if Sony had tp compete against Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, and Apple, they weren't be able to compete. Sony is super lucky what happened tp Hollywood hasn't happened to gaming yet. Also while COD is making money off of PS gamers look at how much money PlayStation is making off of microsofts PS5 releases in a slow period of the year.
Sony couldn't of asked for a better outcome of this Activision purchase, there could be an alternate universe where the Activision purchases went thru with little hassle and Microsoft could of taken off COD on PS as soon as this year
Last edited:
@RE4-Station Bro you're gonna have to break that up into paragraphs for me to really read it IJS. And @Yurinka that's the thing, you are ALWAYS talking from the corporate POV as if the rest of us don't know what their goals are. We do.
We just also remember to talk from our own POV too because this business is a two-way street. These companies won't get their money if they don't provide what customers want, and if enough customers bail, the shareholders will too.
So ironically, we are probably more important than the shareholders/investors in spaces like gaming but a lot of gamers are too immature to realize it.
We just also remember to talk from our own POV too because this business is a two-way street. These companies won't get their money if they don't provide what customers want, and if enough customers bail, the shareholders will too.
So ironically, we are probably more important than the shareholders/investors in spaces like gaming but a lot of gamers are too immature to realize it.
No, the difference is that you think that your personal opinion is representative of what players like or want and that companies are wrong or will fail if not aligning with your personal preferences, or that companies should act following your personal tastes even if it goes against their interests.
And that they should take financially suicidal (in the long term) decisions just to appeal your personal preferences, that they won't take because doesn't make sense because as companies they have to grow their revenues and keep certain profitability.
Your personal preference (or mine) is not more important than the shareholders/investors. The market data that shows where and how all the players spend their time and money (plus related trends) is. Such market data shows the global personal preferences of all gamers and its evolution. Each player has a different opinion indivisually, which in many cases are conflicting.
But companies (and their shareholders/investors) try to appeal the maximum number of customers possible, so they care more about the market data that represents the totality of the players than personal opinions, specially the ones totally opposite to market data and trends.
Example: due to budgets increase, console market growth being very small and revenue from games sold being replaced by addons revenue, plus time spent on SP games being replaced by MP, Sony needs to expand to more platforms and to MP/GaaS chasing supersellers, and also grow in a top grossing genre they didn't dominate with first party: FPS. So acquisitions like Bungie, who produces hundreds of millions per year to them, are very logical.
You personally may hate shooters, MP, GaaS or Sony publishing games in non-PS platforms. And would personally prefer them to work only in their console, stay away from shooters, MP, and GaaS and acquire instead teams like Ember Labs. Even if way more people are going to enjoy Destiny and Marathon than the next Ember Lab game.
What I do is explain you why they take these decisions and why are good for them and better for the majority of players.
My personal opinion is that I don't care if they grow in areas where I'm not personally insterested (as can be the case of most shooters, GaaS, competitive MP, mobile or PC) as long as this gives them more money and users that help to continue making the type of games I like from them (GoW, Bloodborne, Uncharted, GoT, Days Gone, etc.), specially if as it is the case it's the only option they have to keep doing them.
As an example, they could fund the total whole budget of a high end AAA as could be Bloodborne 2, Death Stranding 2, Physint or Cory's new IP with the revenue Destiny 2 made in a year, or with the profit generated by PC ports of old games. I don't play Destiny 2 since its lauch and didn't buy any of the PC ports, but if their existance are needed to continue having the projects I like I'm perfectly ok with it, and I'm happy to see more players enjoying Sony games even if partially aren't the ones I prefer or if they play in other devices that aren't where I primarly play. And also Sony earning a lot of money that they can use on making more and bigger acquisitions.
If instead of expanding to these new areas they'd continue locked to non-GaaS SP games for PS, and would buy Ember Lab instead of Bungie and similar they would have to reduce the amont of big AAA games they do at the same time, would have to stop making games with top tier visuals, reduce their investement in new IP, and stop working in non-top selling AAAs titles because many of them don't sell enough to achieve the sales needed to make profitable a $300-400B+ current or next gen AAA game. They would have to limit to a few non-high end AAA games plus AA/AAA-ish games and as GaaS keep replacing game sales revenue maybe some day to stop making big games or to stop making games at all. And obviously would be earning way less money so they would afford less and smaller acquisitions.
I personally prefer the other scenario, a bigger Sony that can do whatever they want, covering more game types, game sizes, platforms and acquisitions.
man,Man
Reading some comments here
This forum is getting weird smh
reading your comments here
this member is getting weird smh
