I think buying developers can be considered a normal part of this industry. Publishers not so much. The way I see it, Sony and MS have very different ways of going about this and goals too. Sony invests in and purchases developers that they see potential in or already have a relationship with, for the most part. We've seen a lot of great games come out through this method and original IP. Even with their Bungie purchase, it was about strengthening the brand - they get Bungie's knowledge and expertise with GAAS games. Some people like to make jokes about organic growth, but it really has been so far. Developers are purchased not only for what they create and their knowledge, but also for how that can strengthen the company as a whole.
100% accurate read on Sony's take with acquisitions. Anything they acquire, they first off want to be completely supportive of the studio culture and also nurture the studio towards maximizing the potential of their ideas. They aren't necessarily interested in acquiring IP, in part because they have a good number of big IP themselves which they've created. With Bungie they just happened to also get Destiny but the intent of that acquisition wasn't driven by acquiring the Destiny IP.
I don't see that with MS. You already know my thoughts on this. Their acquisitions are designed with a very different goal in mind. Look at how many titles have already been removed from other platforms. And now we know how ABK and their plans for Cloud gaming fit into all this. With MS, it's not about enriching the industry or strengthening XBox - it's about control and the initial steps to establishing yet another monopoly. This is a company that, at this point, will cause nothing but harm to the gaming industry. And we all know they couldn't care less about the industry or gamers, as well. It's solely about control and money.
We can actually take the Bungie/Destiny example with Sony and contrast it with Microsoft because during this whole episode with ABK, we
rarely ever saw Microsoft talk about the actual
creative talent that were part of ABK and what the acquisition could do for
them. Or even what it could do in terms of Microsoft helping bring back some classic ABK IP. Yeah Phil gave lip service to wanting stuff like Guitar Hero back, but they did not get into detail about a creative vision for it, mainly because they see Guitar Hero as another cash cow, like how it was during the 6th generation.
The vast majority of MS's talk around the acquisition have been about how it'd make them more "competitive" in terms of gaming revenue, not in terms of what actual new content or classic content they could enable ABK to create/bring back in ways beyond just being a funder. It's been either that, or about bringing the games to more people (again, primarily financially-driven and was also an ESG argument which regulators aren't very interested in. The FTC explicitly stated that at least in regards to themselves; CMA & EU probably aren't too divergent from feeling similar on that point).
Microsoft have said almost nothing in terms of how they would creatively enable ABK to do more, and do better, under their wing. Not saying mentioning it would have won regulators over (maybe it would've made for some more convincing arguments, though, when combined with what they were already doing), but it sure as hell would have done a lot to convince me and surely many others to be more comfortable with MS acquiring a gaming asset as big as ABK because, ultimately, I think you need to bring something to the table both in terms of funding and guiding/nurturing talent to grow and achieve more than they maybe could have independently.
And Microsoft's track record in proving they can do those things is nowhere near as impressive as Sony's, which would have made them getting into discussions on ABK being creatively beneficial for ABK's teams a nice consolation and inspired a bit more confidence in their ability to maybe have the acquisition work out beyond just bringing in more money for Microsoft.
But then you have missteps like RedFall come out and they just reaffirm all the earlier worries so, in a way, it makes you glad that MS might not end up with ABK so that they're forced to tighten up what they already have.
WIth Sony and Nintendo, I get that they're in it to make money but I also get the sense they care about games. I don't get that at all with MS. People say they need to change their leadership to someone who can put out games. I agree but, even more importantly, they need leadership who love games. Because, right now, they have absolutely no one like that in charge.
I mean between RedFall, how shitty the version of Ghostwire Tokyo is on Xbox consoles, letting HiFi Rush just die off (even after the shadow drop, they could have done a promotional campaign to boost awareness that it was available) etc., it's pretty easy to see that the upper management at the division don't have an innate passion for games, or at least the process of game creation and marketing their games (or carefully building an IP brand out of their games), the way Sony and Nintendo do.
Personally I think there are a good number of creative leads and people at the actual studios who DO care about games in that way. That's probably why we've seen some of them leave, and will probably see more of them leave through the rest of the year. And okay Phil Spencer plays games...so? Lots of people play games, but most of them aren't game developers and may have a passion for
playing games, but playing games and making them are two different things.
As well, I get what you're saying about consolidation. I would also say it's a natural part of the business - after all, it's happened before and will happen again. It's just a company like MS consolidating an industry is always and has always been a bad sign for fair competition and consumer choice.
Edit: I also agree with your thoughts on Sony purchasing a publisher and why it's potentially less troublesome. It shouldn't be ruled out, but we'll have to wait and see on that.
Well, Sony recently reduced their acquisitions budget by 20% so they may not be eying a publisher, though it's worth keeping in mind that companies don't have to be purchased with just cash. Cash, stock, and I'm sure other things, can be used together. I guess there may even be cases where a company might sell under their value to a buyer if they can get other advantages and perks, bonuses etc. from the buyer in question.
.
