Sony acquires Amber Japan, entering the Crypto exchange space

[voke]

Jesus christ u guys need to give it a rest. Sony doesn't need to focus on buying any more studios right now they need to focus on their core studios and putting stuff out. They doubled the size of SIE this gen alrdy. Xbox and embracer has shown what happens with unrestrained buying. Buying shouldn't be a priority. They don't need to buy studios and ip to get exclusives. Also ps isn't the only part of sonys business its a diverse company not just a gaming business.

This does not matter, they need to be able to show a longer developer list (with highest metacritic avg) than any other publisher until they are satisfied.

 

[mibu no ookami]

Yeah bro I'm just so over the whole exclusive mumbo jumbo. People around these parks sip too much marketing Kool-Aid, acquisitions change nothing because odds are you were playing those games anyway. The only thing that makes "exclusives" good is when a platform holder is throwing extra money at the team to deliver quality.

Good luck to everyone who wants Sony to keep up with a $3 trillion company's M&A

Think about it. Sony just two years ago spent nearly 4 billion dollars investing in SIE. The problem?

• Bungie is GaaS rather than single-player
• Bungie games didn't become exclusive

So immediately it was judged that the Bungie purchase was a bad one, because it didn't fit what fanboys wanted, which is more single-player 1st party exclusives.

The same chorus was shitting over Bungie for months, until they dropped one of the most successful games of the year in Final Shape. Now they've gone quiet on Bungie and shifted their focus to Firewalk and Concord. They're praying the game fails so that Sony magically re-focuses more attention on single-player games, mind you if you look at any slides with the level of investment, single-player investment grew compared to the past, they're just throwing more money into GaaS because that's where the money in the industry is.

They don't understand/care about the inherent risk involved with single-player AAA games.

But it's also why these same people aren't screaming from the rooftops about Astrobot. That's not really a game they can lord over Xbox fanboys, unless it wins GOTY, and then they'll hail it, even if they don't play it...

The mods need to do more to cull the console warring here and the fanboyism. I had such high hopes for this forum, but they've been pretty much dashed. Not sure how much I'll post on here after this year.

 

[ethomaz]

Yes because Sony's quick to invest in anything but PS. Billions for movie studios and now NFTs. Meanwhile, you have everyone and their mother acquiring IPs.

Still PlayStation delivery is being of the best ever this year

So what is really the issue if Sony have to run their other business?
It is not like they did not use $ billions the previous years with PlayStation buying studios.

They won't buy studios just for buy and get IPs lol... they will do if it makes sense.
IPs is something Sony doesn't lack at all... basically from all genres... they had so many to revive if they wish.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I'd be ok with Sony not making a gaming purchase for a decade. I don't see why studio ownership matter to us.

1: It'd mean more games for console owners

2: It'd mean shorter dev times by having more studios share work on game dev without relying on finicky outsourcing/contract-based work

3: It'd mean SIE consolidating more IP ownership and in-house talent vs. relying on 3P (something SIE themselves have said they wanted to do).

So clearly there are benefits to them making a genuine gaming purchase. And yes, studio ownership does matter; having studios and IP under your ownership affords leverage in market negotiations and increases valuation of your company in the market.

The funny part is that supposed "business-orientated" fans of the brand are overlooking ALL of this despite the fact it'd fit in line with what SIE have supposedly said they wanted to accomplish. Anything to excuse ineptitude, tardiness or inaction on SIE's part when it comes to certain gaming investments, eh?

 

[anonpuffs]

What the fuck

 

[voke]

1: It'd mean more games for console owners

2: It'd mean shorter dev times by having more studios share work on game dev without relying on finicky outsourcing/contract-based work

3: It'd mean SIE consolidating more IP ownership and in-house talent vs. relying on 3P (something SIE themselves have said they wanted to do).

So clearly there are benefits to them making a genuine gaming purchase. And yes, studio ownership does matter; having studios and IP under your ownership affords leverage in market negotiations and increases valuation of your company in the market.

The funny part is that supposed "business-orientated" fans of the brand are overlooking ALL of this despite the fact it'd fit in line with what SIE have supposedly said they wanted to accomplish. Anything to excuse ineptitude, tardiness or inaction on SIE's part when it comes to certain gaming investments, eh?

Is the purpose to make games more fun or for top executives to have more control over their partners?

 

[Evil Aloy]

I like how in this thread there are people that are actively arguing against their own interests. "I don't want Sony to have more studios and release games more frequently! More good games to play? Yuck!".

 

[voke]

I like how in this thread there are people that are actively arguing against their own interests. "I don't want Sony to have more studios and release games more frequently! More good games to play? Yuck!".

Sony acquiring a bunch of devs isnt going to make gaming better for me, promise you that. The only one that makes sense is Arrowhead, and that's because of their extended partnership.

PSN has bunch of new games released weekly for me to choose from. No, I don't need to see Sony stamped on more developers to be able to enjoy the content.

 

[Nhomnhom]

I like how in this thread there are people that are actively arguing against their own interests. "I don't want Sony to have more studios and release games more frequently! More good games to play? Yuck!".

Whatever makes Sony looks good it seems, and you can be sure that if Sony ever buys a publisher or studio, no matter who it is they'll say they wanted it all along and cheer it.

I'm past expecting much from Sony, as far as the PlayStation console goes:

 

[Ico]

Is the purpose to make games more fun or for top executives to have more control over their partners?

we dont talk about fun around here man, just numbers and growth /jk

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Is the purpose to make games more fun or for top executives to have more control over their partners?

Answer me how does buying an NFT company make games more fun, then?

Besides, buying actual game development studios (specifically for non-GAAS titles) would mean shorter dev cycles and/or more games from SIE in general. Which in its own way means more actual fun for gamers, specifically those who are into SIE's games or would like to see them return a bit more to doing some of their legacy-style games (which having more internal studios could help with, even if that's not the only means to get such done).

I never thought I'd see the day people would clap for a games platform holder buying an NFT company rather than developer studios, even smaller ones. Yet here we are :/

 

[voke]

Answer me how does buying an NFT company make games more fun, then?

Besides, buying actual game development studios (specifically for non-GAAS titles) would mean shorter dev cycles and/or more games from SIE in general. Which in its own way means more actual fun for gamers, specifically those who are into SIE's games or would like to see them return a bit more to doing some of their legacy-style games (which having more internal studios could help with, even if that's not the only means to get such done).

I never thought I'd see the day people would clap for a games platform holder buying an NFT company rather than developer studios, even smaller ones. Yet here we are :/

I don't care about what Sony Group does man. If a cool game is coming out on ps5 next week lmk tho id love that

 

[mibu no ookami]

Answer me how does buying an NFT company make games more fun, then?

Besides, buying actual game development studios (specifically for non-GAAS titles) would mean shorter dev cycles and/or more games from SIE in general. Which in its own way means more actual fun for gamers, specifically those who are into SIE's games or would like to see them return a bit more to doing some of their legacy-style games (which having more internal studios could help with, even if that's not the only means to get such done).

I never thought I'd see the day people would clap for a games platform holder buying an NFT company rather than developer studios, even smaller ones. Yet here we are :/

As soon as you tell us what this purchase has to do with SIE or NFTs...

 

[Neversummer]

Jesus christ u guys need to give it a rest. Sony doesn't need to focus on buying any more studios right now they need to focus on their core studios and putting stuff out. They doubled the size of SIE this gen alrdy. Xbox and embracer has shown what happens with unrestrained buying. Buying shouldn't be a priority. They don't need to buy studios and ip to get exclusives. Also ps isn't the only part of sonys business its a diverse company not just a gaming business.

This statement been said before

Competitor Xbox: buys Zenimax a major gaming publisher

Fan: in 2020 “Sony doesn’t need to buy studio”

Competitor Xbox: buys 3 more publishers in 2021, that publisher being the biggest ABK

Fan: “Sony doesn’t need to buy studio”

PS: seems like our fan is ok with 1 major AAA singleplayer game from our PS studios. Herman himself said “the goal is to ATLEAST release 1 major game per year from PS studios” that’s a terrible output

Competitor Xbox: hmm we bought 4 publisher where’s still missing a huge gap in Asia, buys an Asia base studio/publisher. Let’s buy Capcom/Sega/Square or Kadokawa

PS Fan: SONY BUY STUDIOS HELL BUY A PUBLISHER!!!

Competitor Saudis: buys Capcom
Competitor Tencent: buys Ubisoft
Conpetitor Disney/Comcast/Amazon/Apple/Google: buys Sega, EA, Take 2 & Square.

Leaving Sony with no option to buy a good publishers & only able to buy single existing studios or new studio w no ip or cadence

PS Fan: Sony why didn’t you buy studios or a publisher

Capitalism & competition doesn’t wait. You either secure your future or get left behind by being incompetent. Who’s to say PS is dominant in 5-10 years? For all I know all of these publisher who are own by PS competitors can say you know what where no longer gonna release games on PS console now where solely gonna focus on Nintendo, Steamdeck (because it’s also tied to Steam & PC) & mobile device like apple & android (because in the future these smartphone will be able to play AAA) & if smartphone don’t ever get powerful enough to play AAA Apple & Google will simply make a hybrid handheld w 3rd party support & the App Store heavily integrated

 

[Neversummer]

I don't care about what Sony Group does man. If a cool game is coming out on ps5 next week lmk tho id love that

If you care about PS you should care about Sony group. PS brings nearly 70% of Sony entire revenue/profit.

 

[Neversummer]

I like how in this thread there are people that are actively arguing against their own interests. "I don't want Sony to have more studios and release games more frequently! More good games to play? Yuck!".

Nah fr.

Same people will bring up how PS output is fine counting “PS studios” labeling from 2/3 party that aren’t own by Sony so don’t own studio or ip. Does Sony owns Rise of the Ronin? Does Sony owns Stellar Blade will likely not get sequels exclusive to PS & they will likely be release multiplat or we won’t see those franchise again.

Sony themselves said they wanted PS to rely less on 3rd party & wanted to be aggressive w consolidation & buy up ip.

Now some PS fans are doing just that & in the opposite side you have “PS fans” who are saying no no no Sony don’t do any of that seems counter if you’d want more games plus more justification to own & buy future PS console. It would be 1 thing to say Sony needs to buy studios/ip if they own Pokemon & Mario but Sony/PS ip comes nowhere near as iconic & power as those 2 Nintendo ip. Nintendo ip’s hold greater value & power then Disney & Nintendo has yet to fully expand them into media/parks. Even Nintendo is buying studios & they’ve seem to bring more games to the Nintendo platform then port games to direct competitors platform/storefront.

 

[Neversummer]

Whatever makes Sony looks good it seems, and you can be sure that if Sony ever buys a publisher or studio, no matter who it is they'll say they wanted it all along and cheer it.

I'm past expecting much from Sony, as far as the PlayStation console goes:

I’m actually cheering somehow someway MS pulls the cards & buys a japanese publisher like Sega or Square just to see these PS fan that said “Sony doesn’t need to buy studio/publisher” just to see FF, Neir or Sonic & Persona exclusive on Xbox & PC or even focusing on Xbox, PC & Nintendo do for 1-2 years skipping PS would be hilarious if you know the history behind those franchises & those 2 publishers

 

[Yurinka]

1: It'd mean more games for console owners

Console owners would still have these games if 2nd party or 3rd party exclusives.

The amount of games would be the same, the difference would be if their company is owned by Sony or not.

2: It'd mean shorter dev times by having more studios share work on game dev without relying on finicky outsourcing/contract-based work

A game development studio, lead or support teams, don't work faster or slower depending on who their owner is.

Regarding support/outsourcing, there are many of them both internal and external. If these support/outsourcing temas are busy can be replaced by somebody else, and can be hired on advance for multiple projects.

Acquiring support teams basically helps them to make sure they aren't busy with external projects, so have their favorite ones available to ease their roadmaps and get a better price.

3: It'd mean SIE consolidating more IP ownership and in-house talent vs. relying on 3P (something SIE themselves have said they wanted to do).

Yep. In addition to this there are other points they also mentioned and was the case:

• Get expertise and knowledge in certain game types/genres or areas where 1st party didn't excel (as could be GaaS/MP/FPS/multiplatform in case of Bungie, PC ports in case of Nixxes, etc)
• To consolidate a successful long term relationship

Regarding IP, when companies like Sony say they acquire to get more IP don't only mean to buy companies who have existing super popular IPs. They also mean to hire talent experienced on creating successful IP, meaning support studios like Valkyrie or Bluepoint, studios who don't own very popular IP they worked in (Bungie, Haven, Firewalk, etc) or studios that are specialized on IP that is for a relatively small niche but strategically may be important for them to disversify their offerings (as would be VR games with Firesprite or arcade action stuff with Housemarque).

Meaning, they don't only mean the IP they had when bought, but also the one they'll create, produce, develop or expand after the acquisition.

 

[ethomaz]

If you care about PS you should care about Sony group. PS brings nearly 70% of Sony entire revenue/profit.

Just a correction here... G&NS (the division PlayStation is) accounts for around 26% of total revenue and around 20% of the total profit... you can see here:

I really don't know where you guys get that Sony is basically PlayStation.
Not even when Kaz focused on PlayStation to recover the company it was most of the company's revenue/profit.

 

[Yurinka]

Same people will bring up how PS output is fine counting “PS studios” labeling from 2/3 party that aren’t own by Sony so don’t own studio or ip. Does Sony owns Rise of the Ronin? Does Sony owns Stellar Blade will likely not get sequels exclusive to PS & they will likely be release multiplat or we won’t see those franchise again.

PS Studios is a first party publisher, meaning all the games they publish are first party games and are first party output.

These games continue being 1st party games and PS Studios output independently if their lead dev studio is internal or not, or if Sony owns or not that IP.

And well, around 90% of the people who works on a 2nd party AAA game are Sony staff or outsourcing teams hired and managed by Sony/XDEV. The lead dev studio normally adds around 10% of the staff who works in a AAA game, independently if the publisher owns the lead dev studio or not.

Sony themselves said they wanted PS to rely less on 3rd party & wanted to be aggressive w consolidation & buy up ip.

Now some PS fans are doing just that & in the opposite side you have “PS fans” who are saying no no no Sony don’t do any of that seems counter if you’d want more games plus more justification to own & buy future PS console. It would be 1 thing to say Sony needs to buy studios/ip if they own Pokemon & Mario but Sony/PS ip comes nowhere near as iconic & power as those 2 Nintendo ip. Nintendo ip’s hold greater value & power then Disney & Nintendo has yet to fully expand them into media/parks. Even Nintendo is buying studios & they’ve seem to bring more games to the Nintendo platform then port games to direct competitors platform/storefront.

Every year there are way more games sold for PS than for Switch, part of it is because there are way more games being released every year on PS than in Switch.