Sony's future and possible studio/publisher acquisitions
- Thread starter Eternal_Wings
- Start date
SE is not a lock by any means lol, they just released a Switch exclusive last week, and have several more Nintendo exclusives in the pipeline. I don’t think it’ll happen
You misconstrue what I said.
I never said Pearl Abyss or CDPR can’t be bought by Sony. They absolutely could, I just said that I personally wouldn’t want that as it does nothing for me as a PS fan. Those studios don’t fit the PlayStation identity AT ALL, which is why I’m confused when ps fans say they want Sony to buy them. And those acquisitions would also push Sony further into a PC and gaas direction which is what I want them to get away from.
Square Enix is very different from those 2 in that a lot of their teams specialize in certain types of games that do VERY WELL in Japan and pretty much only in Japan for mobile and Switch. And who dominates Japan? Nintendo. They practically have a monopoly on that entire region. So why would Square sell to Sony when almost half of their teams make games that only Japanese mobile gamers and Switch owners like? It makes no sense. They have a strong partnership with Nintendo in Japan, successful mobile games that do well ONLY in Japan, and a strong partnership with Sony worldwide. They literally have their cake and eat it too, why sell?
I never said that Square can’t be bought, I just said that it’s far from “a lock” and that I don’t think it’ll happen. Unless the Switch 2 is a massive flop.
Lastly, bringing up MS is pointless
they’ve been fleeced not once, but twice. They grossly overpaid for ABK and both ABK and Bethesda sold to Microsoft only because they knew they were in trouble.Redfall - massive flop
Starfield - massive flop
Overwatch 2 - massive flop
WoW - dying
Hearthstone - dying
StarCraft - dead
Diablo 4 - decent start that became a massive flop
MW3 - worst rated COD and sold worse than both MW2 and MW2019
I don’t want Sony to just acquire for the sake of acquiring and get finessed like Microsoft did. Jim already made this grave mistake and wasted 3.7 billion on Bungie. They should stick to what made them successful in the first place and buy small studios that make sense…you know like EMBER LABS
Edit: I forgot to respond to the “smaller studios” part. Studios like Ninja Theory, Undead Labs, Doublefine, etc can’t be compared to giants like Square, CDPR, and Pearl Abyss. Whatever sales they lost from not releasing on PlayStation, Microsoft can more than make up for. They were all private companies that relied on a la carte game sales and publishing partnerships to keep them afloat between game launches. Unlike the other 3 listed that gross billions from several different revenue streams and have large institutional investors on board. So you are comparing peanuts to coconuts.
Last edited:
Well I disagree 100% and those studios would expand PlayStation‘s portfolio of games nicely.
Nintendo being dominant in Japan is not a good incentive for Square Enix to not sell to Sony. It’s a global market and their game do best outside Japan. On top of SE having other assets that can benefit Sony. Both companies make perfect business sense together.
Nintendo being dominant in Japan is not a good incentive for Square Enix to not sell to Sony. It’s a global market and their game do best outside Japan. On top of SE having other assets that can benefit Sony. Both companies make perfect business sense together.
So when you became a PlayStation fan, it was because of pay to win MMOs and microtransaction fueled gaas?
Yeah, me neither. But that’s exactly what a Pearl Abyss acquisition will net you. A CDPR acquisition will bring the burden of a PC launcher with zero DRM. Sony is already wasting too much time and resources on PC as it is and taking on a launcher and PC centric studio will just cause them to waste even more. No offense but you’re truly delusional if you think Sony will buy CDPR and not double down on PC. Thats exactly what’ll happen. Gaas and PC is what’s killing PlayStations hype and momentum right now and for some reason that’s exactly what you guys are pushing more for 
I’d love to be wrong about Square Enix, but I don’t think I am.
Let’s be honest, bethesda is kinda ass and thats probably the reason they sold in the first place. None of their games made any money or got critical praise last gen outside of Fallout 4, Doom and Doom Eternal
Thats why tehy were pushing all their studios to make crappy live service games
Thats why tehy were pushing all their studios to make crappy live service games
I dont think SE would make only playstation exclusive games if sony bought them. They'd continue to release on nintendo bc that's where the market for a lot of their smaller games is. And DQ.So when you became a PlayStation fan, it was because of pay to win MMOs and microtransaction fueled gaas?
I’d love to be wrong about Square Enix, but I don’t think I am.
D
Deleted member 223
Guest
Gaming on PC before Consoles was like cave paintings by early homo sapiens, with consoles being the first civilizational societies. To bring a tasteless comment by your fellow compatriot Joseph Borrell which I think does apply here unlike the target the original comment was meant for:
"Consoles are a garden. Nintendo and Sony have built a garden. Everything works. It is the best combination of gaming freedom, economic prosperity and market cohesion that the humankind has been able to build – the three things together. The rest of gaming is not exactly a garden. Most of the rest of the gaming world is a jungle, and the jungle could invade the garden." - Joseph "the EU gamer" Borrell.
Why that came about is still because of the fundamental weakness of the PC platform - mainly the corps involved in its creation and every-day life. The pillars PC rest on: Microsoft, with the OS, and Intel/Nvidia/AMD as the main hardware pillars. The basic construct and structure of PC's are dictated by them and PC is their modern creation (IBM and previous history not included). Mac being a less desirable construct by Apple following similar structure (differences being mostly it's more closed) - but this draws the point home that "PC" has a structure that's controlled by corps - not a living organism independent of any corp. That is to say, for example, if Apple dies, Mac dies. The PC construct does not revolve independent of these pillars and the own goals of these companies in their vision and performance of what PC is as a computing device. It's the reason you get monopolies and duopolies, in the OS, with MS, and in CPU's with Intel/AMD, or Nvidia/AMD for dedicated graphics processing. It's not a big pot - and American centric and dominated.
If say, the Chinese ever decide to break from this domination paradigm by American big tech with their own structure (and companies behind it), the only similarity between the PC you know today vs. a Chinese "PC" - or whatever the corps decide to call it - will be function: an all purporse computing device .... (and obviously as a first these Chinese companies will copy a lot, but with some fundamental changes, which will grow bigger as time goes by to separate and differentiate the computing devices). Happening with mobile phones already, see Huawei Mate 60 Pro - can happen to PC.
The point of all of this is that we're discussing defined computing devices with a purpose, and thus that translates into competition for adoption and consumption of a clientele disposable income. The more similar the purpose and products, the greater the likelihood the computing devices are competing for adoption and are engaged in a zero sum competition for clients and resources - both being finite.
It seems you're looking forward to that day. Either that, or you certainly at your core believe consoles will be phased out, and relatively soon considering the tone. What's there to say? Everyone choses a horse in the end, even if you lie to yourself that you do not. Your mind tells you what you believe. Although I'm not sure you understand exactly what horse it's - you think it's PC, an all encompassing construct for everything, when it's simply just a MS/Intel/AMD/Nvidia construct of PC.
As for random market snapshots. You have to first of all agree on which one you want to put forward, instead of various graphics with different numbers and who knows what methodology and sourcing of data. It's nice for the "arguing online folder" but that's about it in the seriousness of it. You can do a google search and its wild the number of results and the discrepancies you'll find between each graphic or article. Of course those in the data business will swear by their means and methods...with each source telling you in their marketing pitch how they're the best source, most inclusive source, and most correct. It's the data business, every single one is trying to sell you their more often than not - garbage. You can make assumptions about the sources of their data and what's included, and give more credence to some than others etc....but the devil is always in the details and in specificity. For one, I would never use that data to create a serious market strategy for any product - their salesman can say whatever they wish about how they get their data in their sales pitch - it will go into one ear and go out the other ear. You have to be very careful about the snakes-oil saleman with suit and tie in the data business.
For example, a 2010 snapshot:
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/2010-...ales-totalled-33-billion-last-year-apparently
World Software in 2010 Revenue (USD, Millions)Units (Millions)
Playstation 3 (Retail) $7,293 147
Xbox 360 (Retail) $7,242 150
Wii (Retail) $6,830 186
PC (Retail) $5,000 n/a
Steam (PC DD) $910 85
Playstation 2 (Retail) $756 19
iOS Devices (DD) $749 1905
Downloadable Content X360 / PS3 $300 n/a
Non-Steam Digital Download PC $250 n/a
Xbox Live Arcade (DD) $135 17
Playstation Network (DD) $90 10
WiiWare & Virtual Console (DD) $86 12
Btw I neither endorse that article nor the sources - but just to illustrate the point. Again the devil is in the details and the only way I could really trust that sort of data is direct access to origination - i.e - company statements. Even then you have to be knowledgeable in how you read the data - for these companies find a myriad of ways to obfuscate and mislead. For example, Microsoft being often a repeating offender of obfuscation with Xbox, and a cause of much online bickering in gaming circles. So, you take those considerations and extrapolate that to the whole industry, including private companies like Valve, and other niche companies on PC etc and your tolerances for error go through the roof instantly and beyond any meaningful certainty with which to make a serious analysis.
Consoles reached peak in units sold during the seventh generation, with PS3 selling about 87m units, Xbox 360, 84m, Wii 101m. Combined total more or less of about 260m. Obviously the metric that is important is not units sold per year or for a set number of years but revenue each given year by platform (individual and subset) dedicated to gaming.
Add to that, DS, 2Ds, PSP = 154m, 14.43m, 82m respectively. Gaming in handhelds before iPhones more or less.
Neither Steam, nor independent shops on PC were previously and up to that point, as you claim "bigger" than consoles for premium gaming by revenue generation. Def not in the 7th gen, or the 6th, or prior. Not WoW and all of Blizzard, on top of Jagex, on top of Steam (nascent digital distributor), on top of MS Windows Live were generating more revenue than all consoles combined. That is to say, the "up to 2020", as if to include all the years prior and in-between is clearly and flat out wrong - flat out. And neither is today btw. That is not me saying that PC has not seen a significant market share increase for premium gaming - it has - but the starting point was also low. And I chose the seventh gen for illustrative purposes due to a distinct reason - because it's the point of successful Microsoft intervention in the console market.
I think Microsoft's intervention into the console market with Xbox (Xbox 360 specifically) was a brilliant pointy blade driven deep into Sony (and consoles in general) to stop console dominance in its tracks and ensure the premium games market was shared with PC by way of development environment commonalities between PC and Xbox (guided by Microsoft at every step of the way). While the Xbox venture is now slowly dying off, the other strategic goal of shoring up PC and preventing a market split was mighty successful and the results speak for themselves. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish at its finest, which to MS amazement succeeded when Sony crash-landed with the PS3. Add to Microsoft efforts Valve's success story (in part successful due to the war to the bottom between MS and Sony on consoles), Nvidia doubling down on PC etc... and as you can see the PC camp fought off successfully its main threat - projected impending irrelevance in gaming coming off the PS2 (six gen era). That is to say, PC stakeholders were successful in avoding having Consoles do to PC what consoles had done to Arcade with respect to gaming. This PC upward trajectory has come about in no small measure thanks to the work of Valve which brought order to the platform with its digital distribution platform - basically what Sony and Nintendo did in succession for the industry since 1983 and still today via retail (and now a mix of both retail and digital). Obviously took a lot of time for the PC platform and for a PC player to catch up as anyone can see, and for the Xbox distraction to keep Sony extremely pre-occupied on its turf.
The number one question anyone should always ask themselves is wtf is Microsoft doing in console gaming? You're never gonna get an answer that makes sense, even with investors perplexed at Microsoft's venture, and their attitude. But it has always been simple for those that understand how these corp wars are waged - it has always been a long strategic war of platforms. Thus, "All in on Gaming", no matter the cost. Of course they won't say, all-in on Windows PC, too complex to explain plus you don't give out the play that you're entering another market to more or less sabotage consoles by guiding the market to places where you want it go and in the process ensure your own competing platform, and main bread, PC, stays in the game, which at the time was struggling in this aspect. BTW Microsoft was tackling consoles just as they were tackling mobile with Windows phone to fuck both Apple and Google, except of course they failed there but Microsoft was running both war campaigns simultaneously - similar modus operandi, similar goals.
Translation: "Sony already started in PC and they're already a Top 20 publisher in PC by way of Steam." Note: Epic's Game Store is insignificant for this convo.
That you bill Steam as an extension of PC is telling, and you can really tell who is effectively the PC market - Steam, even if you don't want to admit it. You contradict yourself with your other comments down further about whether or not Steam's digital distribution is an effective monopoly of the market. You'll eventually come to realize the many contradictions you're engaged in the more I break down your points to bits. And honestly I do this for other readers who need the critical thinking guide so to speak in a mountain of constant bullshit, obviously not for the sake of arguing with you cause I know for a fact you're a cheap intellectually dishonest BSer but lets not deviate.
According to Sony's graphic whose methodology for coming up with that ranking is unknown they're a Top 20 PC publisher. We do know Sony PC revenue, missing targets, is about 250 million more or less and that such figure, or a figure close to that is the basis for that claim.
Entertaining the idea, that says that Steam is more or less an effective market monopoly (since Sony publishing on PC is solely Steam dependent) and also that with ~ 250m in revenue you're a top 20 "playa" on PC.
According to this article, Steam revenue in 2022 is 8.7 Billion and Sony's is $26.9 billion with PlayStation. As you can see in the disparity, 3 times the size. Obviously to be fair to a PC storefront, you have to discount hardware sales (console, controllers etc) from that PlayStation number, and compare solely with software (in essence subtract about 6 billion and change). So Sony is at about 20 billion clean just for software distribution - the software it makes itself aka PlayStation "exclusives", and the software it reaps a cut from aka games from other publishers. Likewise what Valve does with Steam.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/547025/steam-game-sales-revenue/
So if you're a "top 20 playa" on PC with ~250m in revenue, in a storefront that topped ~ 8.7 billion revenue in 2022 you have to wonder what 250m in revenue positions you as in the console publisher ladder.... where just one console maker can get up to ~ 20 billion in revenue yearly. Top 60-70? Hec if you throw the other consoles in the mix, top 100?
Either that or holy Sony is bullshitting to an immense degree - which drives the point home about data dishonesty. What's it gonna be? common logical sense or appeal to authority or....
Something's gotta give.
Again to be consistent, I do not endorse those Steam numbers, but if you're going to push the data garbage with the graphics you're quoting you're gonna have to play ball with that one for sure.
BTW only PlayStation numbers can be endorsed due to publicly disclosed financials. Same for Nintendo. Even Microsoft's Xbox's numbers can not be used seriously because MS purposefully misleads with them with what they term to be "Xbox" and what is counted and not counted.
You can see how subtracting 8.7 billion out of 20 billion leaves about 11.3 billion that PC must account for just to get over the console market leader. And somehow you will be told that Blizzard's exclusive PC revenue (discounting console side revenue), Riot Games, Epic Games Store, Windows Store, EA Origins, Ubisoft Uplay, Jagex, and other PC centric devs on PC etc make up the rest of that 11.3 billion in revenue and I'll sit back and laugh at the process. Then I throw Xbox's console revenue's, and Nintendo's console revenues on top, and you're gonna have serious trouble making PC revenue estimates for Asia (China etc) to get it all to work nice and tidy. Also good luck with anyone taking estimates (educated guesses) seriously as opposed to hard data financials of publicly traded companies that is shared and scrutinized like we have from console manufacturers.
Btw the criticism is not just necessarily directed at the way you're presenting and interpreting data but it also goes for all those data merchants selling bullshit online, Statista, VGChartz, data.ai, Newszoo etc etc. etc. List is endless.
Wrong. PC, and digital distribution stores like Steam/Epic are also a direct competitor to Sony's PlayStation.
If the difference between a consumer that buys Diablo IV on Xbox and a consumer that buys Diablo IV on PlayStation is hardware choice then so too is hardware choice the only difference between a consumer that buys Diablo IV on PC vs. the consumer that buys Diablo IV for PlayStation. Look at the libraries, look at the games being bought and sold - the consumer profile similarity there is undeniable.
On PC, PlayStation and Xbox, the same burgers, made by the same chefs are sold. The only difference is the physical establishment and management of the establishment.
Same games are sold, same type of consumer, with same type of taste doing the consumption. It used to be that boxed-retail premium gaming on PC (before Steam or Epic's Game Store) was so insignificant relative to consoles that console manufacturers really didn't care much about PC. Moreover with the advent of MMO's tailored around keyboard and mouse (WoW/Runescape etc), PC's existed in their own niche sort of speak. With the introduction and take-off of Steam as a digital distribution platform - modeled on the console model - PC became a direct competitor to consoles that is simply impossible to ignore. Plain and simple. As Steam has shown, the platform model works on PC just as it does on console, its inspiration.
Thus it begs to reason that anything done by Sony to shore up consumer choice in the PC/Steam ecosystem only makes sure those consumers will have 0 incentive of switching ever to console - because the console market leader is not only signaling that it's not interested in getting them to switch but is also even willing to cross establishments to serve them food at their preferred place, in many cases even at a cheaper price. So not only is Sony making Steam, a direct competitor stronger, it's also signaling consumers, those that may consider switching platforms that they don't have to. Even those considering which product to chose at point 0 are given more reasons to chose PC than they had before. This also sends a strong message to third party developers that PC is a viable platform with lots of movement and that they should not necessarily prioritize consoles - or hec, even support it. This competition is as much a war for developers as its for consumers, and as with all polling usually shows - most devs prefer PC. It should be a travesty for a console maker to endorse that notion indirectly via PC software support. Just cause Microsoft did it at the expense of Xbox console hardware (cause they're number 1 PC stakeholder) doesn't mean it's proper for Sony to follow Microsoft to every pitfall there is in console business. If anything, it plays exactly into Microsoft's long term calculus - changing the game from within by being an active console market participant. The idiots at SIE, brain dead as they're, have followed suit to many idiocies and have made many mistakes - spanning over two generations now.
As I already told you I'm not contrarian to Sony's push to mobile and it does not concern the topic of strict device competition between consoles and PC. If I were talking about the Vita then I would have something to opine about how Sony should position and compete with mobile. So all the mobile graphs etc, ignored.
Also I'm not blind to the GaaS movement, and the numbers there. I do make a point that there are certain platform policies from Sony with PlayStation that encourage that market movement and trajectory as opposed to simply being net neutral. For example Pay-walling online with PS Plus being one abject mistake (following Microsoft) that encourages devs to go after the F2P multi-player centric game full of micro-transactions IF you wish to access the full PlayStation market (as opposed to devs doing traditional MP games which are limited and constrained to just PS Plus subscription base of 47m). That is just but one example - easy one to spot. There are more elaborate discussions to be had that deal with consumer expectations, curation and dev relations. Not the topic to deviate to. Moreover my beef with Sony's GaaS push has always been about portfolio balance, with my preference for existing competitive strengths, on top of the criticism for the PC co-op. I'm not against Sony exploring GaaS at all and funding some titles for that specific goal.
As for your comments regarding operations in Asia and the third world. I said my piece. In emerging markets there is purchasing power to support a console operation, and the more fine tuned and effective the operation, the bigger the market share.
Also good luck penetrating the Asian PC market by being an appendage of Steam on PC and selling Horizon Forbidden West there for example. Again, this either says that Sony views the PC market as Steam, because its publishing strategy on PC can be boiled down to: release on Steam or they're bullshitting and misleading everyone, including Sony's CEO (A CEO that has shown tremendous ignorance of how its subsidiary operates and the ins and outs of the market). Something tells me that so far that has been an abject failure and that the infamous 250 million in PC revenue is almost 95-99% Western gamer derived. Of course I have no way of truly telling unless I hack Valve's servers but I'm pretty sure I'm on the ball there. In a world full of educated guesses - I will bet taking a bullet for that one.
Lol, good luck telling that cool story to an indie dev. Hec, even publishers like EA have had to bend the knee. And according to Microsoft, Activision and Blizzard will soon as well. Almost as if MS is encouraging PC market consolidation around Steam with its new strategy to then suddenly swoop in and do a buyout - we already know by the ABK leaks that Valve is a most serious target for MS.
Love it - all the corpo bullshit - transparent as fuck. "Go where the market is" mantra at its finest. And where is the market? On Steam.
What markets in Asia? and growth in a percentage is meaningless unless illustrated in numbers. 100% of 1 is 2. "Shows me the money!!!" (ehm numbers). Percentage is fools gold for picturing scale.
Not gonna happen unless console makers fold in their duty (to the company and shareholders) to successfully differentiate and move the market forward. The computing power difference alone dictates so. Because that differentiation is not being exploited the way it should be properly exploited you're getting bites from the jungle. And many other things that console manufacturers are falling behind on. Above all there is a failure of executive leadership more so than failure of platform. The job is definitely tough.
Plain ignorant comment. Big business is tied to politics by the hip. See ABK deal. See Sony/PlayStation leaving Russia.
You will be surprised that for every PC sold Microsoft more or less sells a Windows license (how they got so rich and big in the first place). You will also be surprised that once inside the PC Windows ecosystem, consumers are more likely to buy a Microsoft product than say a consumer not having bought a Windows PC at all. Plus all the other things I have already detailed regarding Steam/PlayStation competition.
Again ignorant, illogical comment.
I've already written extensively why this is false and wrong. You know the posts - previous one in fact. You're wrong. That is not the issue at its core, although those in favor of the PC policy will make their dishonest pitches that way, and every PC stakeholder will applaud the console market leader making a strategic mistake - and the list of PC stakeholders is immense and long (MS, Epic, Valve, PC exclusive and centric devs, Intel, Nvidia, Dell, even a gaming mouse and keyboard manufacturer, on top of the media rats). You will never get a better fellatio. If your ardent rivals ever cheer or welcome a decision you made, you better double, triple, quadruple and quintuple check that decision - there is an angle you may probably be missing, big time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Also Yurinka is wrong about PC being a bigger market than console until 2020; Steam has a lot of users but you don't need to pay for an account nor do even half of Steam's users even buy games. A lot who do, buy them at heavily discounted prices, so the average Steam user is significantly lower in ARPU value than the average PlayStation or Nintendo customer.
A good chunk of PC's revenue growth up to 2020 was directly thanks to a collapse in Xbox's revenue during the exact same period, which actually just proves that PC does cannibalize into console sales and is a competing platform. But again, at least in Microsoft's case, they have vested interests in PC which a company like Sony lack, plus console gaming revenue means little to Microsoft's bottom line, so they are relatively unaffected by that type of bleed larger-scale. A company like Sony is not as fortunate if the same were to happen, hence their differing PC strategy which is probably or has already been adjusted even further BTS to prioritize the console and leave PC for significantly later ports of traditional titles and Day 1 for a good number of the GaaS/live-service titles (or at least some of them).
Another thing worth noting is that despite PC having several magnitudes more devices usable across it for modern games compared to the consoles, the revenue advantage it had in some of the years of the 2010s was rather paltry, further proving that the average ARPU on PC side is significantly lower than on the console side. And considering the bleed happening with Xbox that gen in many leaving for PC, a lot of that ARPU value is directly correlative to PlayStation and lesser so Nintendo (although in their case it grows after Switch's release).
In fact @Yurinka you are simply underestimating the degree of crossover between console and PC because the vast majority of PC's revenue growth in the 2010s came from console players going back to PC. That's part of the reason the Pro consoles were created, in fact: to keep console players in 8th gen from going over to PC at as high a rate many of them (particularly from 360) did near the last years of 7th gen.
A good chunk of PC's revenue growth up to 2020 was directly thanks to a collapse in Xbox's revenue during the exact same period, which actually just proves that PC does cannibalize into console sales and is a competing platform. But again, at least in Microsoft's case, they have vested interests in PC which a company like Sony lack, plus console gaming revenue means little to Microsoft's bottom line, so they are relatively unaffected by that type of bleed larger-scale. A company like Sony is not as fortunate if the same were to happen, hence their differing PC strategy which is probably or has already been adjusted even further BTS to prioritize the console and leave PC for significantly later ports of traditional titles and Day 1 for a good number of the GaaS/live-service titles (or at least some of them).
Another thing worth noting is that despite PC having several magnitudes more devices usable across it for modern games compared to the consoles, the revenue advantage it had in some of the years of the 2010s was rather paltry, further proving that the average ARPU on PC side is significantly lower than on the console side. And considering the bleed happening with Xbox that gen in many leaving for PC, a lot of that ARPU value is directly correlative to PlayStation and lesser so Nintendo (although in their case it grows after Switch's release).
In fact @Yurinka you are simply underestimating the degree of crossover between console and PC because the vast majority of PC's revenue growth in the 2010s came from console players going back to PC. That's part of the reason the Pro consoles were created, in fact: to keep console players in 8th gen from going over to PC at as high a rate many of them (particularly from 360) did near the last years of 7th gen.
I am not wrong, I was quoting the main market analysis firms such as IDC or Newzoo who always said in their yearly report until very recently that PC generated more revenue than consoles in gaming. They have the top publishers as customers, so their reports must be pretty on point.
The graph pretty much says the opposite: PC continues almost flat, with a tiny growth. Consoles in 2020-2021 had the covid bump + PS5 release + Switch peak year.
This is even less reason to buy them, wth is the point?
PlayStation already gets the big Square exclusives. SE acquisition is dumb from any angle you look at it
IMO, a Square acquisition would be a defensive acquisition to keep MS from taking them away.
If Square won’t sell to Sony, they damn sure won’t sell to Microsoft
This isn’t true though. This is what hardcore gaming community thinks but look at the casuals
The 3 biggest most watched YouTube trailers last night were God of War, Monster Hunter and Rise of the Ronin
Hardcore gamers are so out of touch with what the gaming community actually wants
its insane
there is more hype online for Rise of the Ronin then a Marvel Blade game
Resetera dont understand the bubble they live in. Its hilarious
You guys really need to stop letting everything Microsoft does send you into a panic. Blade was announced to have just started development and may not be even out until next gen. OD also looks to be in very early development. The fact that Hellblade still doesn't have a solid release date despite being at every Xbox show for what seems like years show MS are just blowing their load early to give the illusion of power.
PlayStation definitely needs to communicate better but these kneejerk reactions need to stop.
PlayStation definitely needs to communicate better but these kneejerk reactions need to stop.