Topic: Which Studios Should Microsoft Acquire Next?

They should make some of their own games!! Like Sony an Nintendo do!!

@jordan1992 And like those, they also bought Studio's to make GAMES. All of Sony's Studio's were 'purchases' too - Psygnosis, a big multi-platform studio/publisher became Sony Computer Entertainment and bought Naughty Dog too although they never OWNED Crash Bandicoot because Sony only bought the Studio, not the IP. Same with Insomniac and Spyro for example.

Its not just those Publishers with their 'own' platforms either, EVERY big Publisher is a 'big' publisher because they acquired other Studios and/or Publishers to improve their own output of Games. Whether that's Embracer, TenCent, EA or Ubisoft, they got to where they are, got the 'IP's' they have by Purchases. Over time, they do create 'new' IP's - ND went on to create Jak & Dexter because they didn't have the 'rights' to make Crash games anymore so were 'forced' to create something 'new'.

Without 'Studios' they can't make their OWN games - that's why XB1 struggled so much as MS decided to invest in their OWN output rather than rely on 3rd Parties (games like Titanfall, Dead Rising, Sunset Overdrive for example) and so went from owning '5' Studios (Mojang, Rare, 343, Turn 10 and the Coalition) to building up to over 20, soon to be over 30 studios so they can make their 'OWN' games.

It doesn't matter whether 'Skyrim' was a 'multi-platform' release for example but ES6 now isn't because MS 'own' the IP, the Studio and will be funding the entire development 'exclusively' for Xbox. They 'own' the Studio now, just like Sony now own Insomniac, Naughty Dog, Bungie, Sucker Punch, Housemarque etc and financed them to make games exclusively for Playstation. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Doom, Wolfenstein etc are MS owned IP's now.

You have Redfall and Starfield coming this year - both games owned and developed by Microsoft owned Studios, MS owned IP's as well as Forza Motorsport, Hi-Fi Rush and Minecraft Legends. Ghostwire - another MS owned IP is also coming soon.

If you want to play this 'pathetic' game, why don't you list EVERY game released by Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft since 'E3' 2021 (not even 2yrs ago) and see who has released the most of their OWN games. I think you'll find that Xbox released the most - even if some didn't come to Xbox Consoles Exclusively or even 'first'. Deathloop and Ghostwire are MS's OWN games, Minecraft too. Age of Empires is MS owned and released on PC first, Flight Sim - the 'true' next Gen ONLY game also released to Console. We also had FH5, H:I, Pentiment, Grounded, Hi-Fi Rush etc with Minecraft Legends, Redfall, Forza and Starfield coming 'soon'.

In the 'same' time, Sony have released GT7, H:FW and GoW:R. Of course Deathloop and Ghostwire 'helped' bulk out their 'exclusives' - but first Party games are quite thin on the ground and also 'bulked' up by 're-releases' of OLD games like Last of Us Part 1. I don't know what Nintendo have released themselves as I don't keep up with Nintendo games.

Point is, ALL Publishers bought up Studio's, IP's etc to improve their output and portfolio of IP's. Whether they 'own' a Platform (like MS, Sony or Nintendo) or not, they still bought Studio's and IP's. Square Enix owned 'Tomb Raider', now its owned by Amazon (after buying it from Embracer). Embracer own Crystal Dynamics now and EA own Codemasters - that's how they 'grew' to make their 'own' games.

@BAMozzy To say all studios are purchased is also untruth. Sony purchase naughty dog but founded Santa Monica studios. Ubisoft purchased red storm and founded Ubisoft Montréal.

Not all publishers are equivalent. In this regard Microsoft has purchased most of it studios. Sony has had a higher degree of organic growth. Ubisoft is almost all grown organically rather than purchased.

It’s human nature to be more impressed when someone says I made this rather than I bought this.

@Ryall Wow - Sony have formed A Studio - so did MS of course with 343i, the Coalition and most recently, the Initiative. The MAJORITY of Sony studios were Acquired - not created.

They have all BOUGHT studio's - the ONLY difference is that when a Platform holder, like Sony or MS, that Studio becomes a First Party and that often means 'Exclusives' thereafter from that Studio, whether they ONLY made 'exclusives' before (like undead Labs, Playground Games) or made 'ALL' multi-platform releases before, its irrelevant. You didn't whinge at Embracer buying half of Square Enix or EA buying up Respawn or Codemasters. What happened to Acclaim or Ocean - two BIG publishers?

As for 'Human Nature' - So I should ONLY be impressed by Sony Santa Monica as Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, Guerilla, Bungie, Insomniac, Housemarque etc etc were all Bought so I shouldn't be 'impresssed' by those decisions. That's still buying the 'Talent' behind IP's and/or Owning their Creations. Sony may not own Halo, Crash or Spyro, but they own the 'Studio's' who created those through 'purchases'.

All Publishers have 'bought' their Studios and/or IP's - Ubisoft were no different in that regard - they started off as a Distributor and built up studios with 'no IP's' until they bought Red Storm and the Tom Clancy IP and bought the rights to the Prince of Persia and Myst Series. They also acquired rights to Driver and bought Massive from Activision. Looking at the 'list' of Subsidiary Studios under Ubisoft, half are 'acquired' and they bought numerous IP's too...

Every Publisher has bought up Studio's and/or IP's. I can't not think of ANY that have not. I'd also argue that its also not the most 'cost-effective' way to grow to try and build up Studios from scratch, find a suitable place to set up a studio, hire the right staff, buy all the studio gear they need to make games etc etc when you can buy a ready made studio with IP's or even in the process of making a Game - a 'functioning' studio - especially as it takes 'years' now to make a game - you can't churn out games every 'year' or two like they did 10yrs ago.

I am 'still' impressed by Redfall or Starfield - regardless of whether they are now ONLY Xbox games or not. I am no 'less' impressed knowing that Microsoft bought Zenimax over two years ago now and since they took over, have been funding the Talent behind Prey, Dishonored, Elder Scrolls etc to develop, polish and release these games 'exclusively'.

Its human nature to be a 'fanboy' and cry 'fowl' when the Competition uses their money they earn to 'grow' organically by buying up talent, IP's etc to 'compete' with the rest of the Market that use their money to 'grow' too...

@BAMozzy It’s certainly true that buying studios is a normal part of a publishers business. Buying work for hire studios such as Nintendo is acquisition of Next Level Games, Microsoft acquisition of Ninja Theory and Sony’s acquisition of Insomniac is completely non-controversial.

Likewise, buying exclusivity on a new IP is uncontroversial no one complained about Sunset Overdrive, Forspoken or Octopath Traveller.

When it comes to sequels games like Final Fantasy 16, Bayonetta 2 and Rise of the Tomb Raider it’s more debatable. I’m familiar with the argument that a game like Bayonetta 2 wouldn’t exist if Nintendo hadn’t funded it. But when an exclusive is a sequel to a multi platform game it still feels wrong.

I think Microsoft should buy companies like Remedy and Moon studios that need a published a fund there games anyway.

They shouldn’t be buying companies like EA, who have sufficient funds to develop anything they wish to anyway.

I know from a consumer standpoint it wouldn’t be significant lessening of competition. But in terms of companies that can provide 10s of millions of dollars to a developer to produce a game, it would be significant. Less people to pitch to means less game is getting made.

Who owns what in this industry is a bit of a rabbit hole.

@Ryall For every Studio that gets bought up, another 10 start up in the hopes that one day they can be a 'Mojang' and get bought for a big fee as the 'best' independent Studio's don't tend to be independent for long - most hope to get Picked up by a Publisher - but if its the likes of EA, TenCent, Embracer Group etc, it doesn't matter to 'most' because they still 'expect' to access their games. When EA bought Codemasters, no one seemed to care much - despite closing other Studios - because whilst that made EA stronger to Compete with their Games, they still expected to play Codemasters on their platform of choice.

Amazon owns Tomb Raider now - maybe they'll make a Tomb Raider game only playable on Amazon Luna to get people in - no-one cared when SE sold it to Embracer or really cared when they sold Tomb Raider for a BIG sum - but they will if it means no more Tomb Raider on 'Playstation' for example.

No-one really cared about CoD or Activision - Vanguard was a disaster - it sold, but didn't keep much of an active user base to 'sell' more content to. Activision was 'dying' and hated by gamers for its practices etc etc, MS steps in and buys them, suddenly they are 'vital' to the industry and essential to gamers to remain 'independent' for the sake of 'consumers'.

As people have noticed, Sony's 'issues' that also fired up their fanboys even more, only started after the Bungie deal concluded. All their fuss has caused more analysis on 'anti-competitive' behaviour, bad practices, monopolising markets (Japan for example) and using their 'dominance' in market share to bully devs/publishers (Epic vs Apple) and use their influence (inc financial persuasion) to stop 3rd Party Publishers from releasing their IP's elsewhere, that is 'anti-competitive' and vastly different to buying Studio's/IP's that you then OWN and will be paying the salaries of the devs to make games exclusively for your OWN platforms to Compete, to be 'stronger' to try and 'sell' more Hardware units, to be 'more' competitive instead of Sony running away with the market share.

Several bad games and/or some bad PR can really hurt an independent company and see them 'crashing' - its happened many times in the past as the Competition is STRONG - new games release every week, all of which could be the 'next big thing' that sells way beyond expectations or that 'everyone' wants to keep playing and playing and spending money on that 'hurts' those trying to earn your money and time - regardless of which developer made it, who owns the Studio, who published it etc etc.

If CoD was exclusive, which obviously would hurt MS as they'd lose a 'big' active online community ready to buy the next game, it would still be 'competing' for gamers time/money along with Fifa or Fortnite or Battlefield of Starfield or Spider-Man or Last of Us or whatever other games people want to spend time/money on. Exclusives bring you into a Platform, its the way the platform 'treats' you as a Consumer that will keep you playing more than just exclusives.

As I have said, this deal isn't 'anti-competitive' as it only makes MS stronger as a Platform to 'Compete' against the very Dominant Sony who are already taking a 'big' lead in sales again this gen. Other factors maybe involved, but in order to 'Compete' with the draw of Spider-Man, Wolverine (Massive IP's that kids will want so grow up 'Playstation') as well as Last of Us (massive HBO success), Uncharted, Ghost of Tsushima, Horizon, God of War (Aloy and Kratos are 'big' mascots), Gran Turismo (massive racing IP that transcends gaming too) etc etc etc Award Winning games made by Award winning Studios - that is what MS is 'competing' with and so need 'big' IP's - and you don't create big IP's overnight - they take 'years' to develop and then 'years' to develop a massive fanbase that you can say would rival the pull of Spider-man or Wolverine for example when it comes to buying hardware.

Whether its buying a studio like Remedy or a group of Studios like Zenimax or A/B - its still buying 'Talent' behind well known IP's - whether the Studio owned them or not (Max Payne for Example) and Studio's that 'could' have remained '3rd' Party and therefore still release everywhere but the point is that its still studio's/talent and/or IP's and buying Publishers in particular helps MS be 'Competitive' immediately - not wait years for those 'studio's' to start making 'exclusives' as they own Publishing rights so immediately start earning money on those IP's and of course add well known games to their own IP Portfolio - just like EA rely on their 'IP' Portfolio to get you into their games where ever you play - they are 'competing' for your time and money! Buying '8' Studio's separately wouldn't necessarily come with any IP's they can use immediately to bring players in and certainly wouldn't bring in any 'publishing' money either to start recuperating costs.

Developers these days still have numerous options - even Self Publish through ID@Xbox or EA Originals, or maybe Ubisoft will or Sony, or Nintendo or Steam. There are more and more options for developers these days they don't 'need' a big Publisher to get their games into gamers hands. If they get 'big' enough, they'll probably want/need Publisher Support to invest in their 'ideas' to make their games because paying for studio time, wages etc over 4-6yrs making a game with little/nothing coming in as you have 'no' products selling to bring in revenue is very difficult - hence Ninja Theory had to fund Hellblade by being a Studio for Hire and that money allowed 20 people to make it. Others have resorted to crowdfunding or selling 'early access' betas to 'keep' bringing money in whilst they keep 'adding' and building the game - Sounds like Live Service games too LOL...

Point is someone could be the next Mojang and create the next minecraft, maybe EA will transform Battlefield under Vince Zampella (creator of CoD) and that becomes the next big game, maybe one of the MANY FPS games on Steam early access becomes the 'next' big game everyone needs to copy to 'compete'. CoD Warzone was A/B trying to compete with PUBG, Fortnite & all the other BR games that threatened to leave CoD (and A/B) in dire straits...

COMPETITION

New Studios get started and bought before they even make anything too - Sony own Amy Hennigs new Studio for example after she and EA fell out. Some will get 'bored' and want to create their own studio's instead of working to make some others dream games so will create studios to make their own games that will get published and eventually the Studio will 'need' partners or need to sell to keep making games to 'compete' with all the other games on the market...

There is competition 'everywhere' and options for devs too so I wouldn't worry about the 'loss' of A/B as an option for 'independent' Studio's looking to get their 'Project' made - its more likely MS would help them to get their game made for Game Pass than it being Published by A/B because they think it will be commercially successful enough to make it worthwhile to them...

Mario Golf: Super Rush
The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword HD
WarioWare: Get It Together!
Metroid Dread
Mario Party Superstars
Pokémon Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl
Big Brain Academy: Brain vs. Brain
Pokémon Legends: Arceus
Kirby and the Forgotten Land
Nintendo Switch Sports
Mario Strikers: Battle League
Fire Emblem Warriors: Three Hopes
Xenoblade Chronicles 3
Splatoon 3
Bayonetta 3
Pokémon Scarlet and Violet
Fire Emblem Engage
Metroid Prime Remastered
Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe
Bayonetta Origins: Cereza and the Lost Demon
Advance Wars 1+2: Re-Boot Camp - upcoming in April 2023
The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom - upcoming in May 2023
Pikmin 4 - upcoming in July 2023

A few of these weren't made by internal Nintendo studios, but are funded, published, and sometimes owned outright by Nintendo, so I think they count.

@Ralizah Not that I care at all about Nintendo at all but I was referring to Brand NEw games - not remakes, remasters etc as well as ONLY first party too because the complaint is MS has NO games - refusing to count anything not made by Microsoft and 'brand' new, never 'release' anywhere before games. Forgetting games like Deathloop or Ghostwire because they were released on PS first, forgetting Minecraft because its not Exclusive, forgetting games like Pentiment and Grounded because they are not AAA looking and on top of everything else, its mostly Sony Fanboys going on about 'Games' so the Comment was meant to show that MS released more over the 2yrs than Sony - if you ONLY count AAA first party brand new games because everything else is 'old' news or 'paid' for exclusivity...

@BAMozzy I think the frustration is that Nintendo and Sony both have pretty reliable output from their respective development teams, which seem to be well-integrated into their company culture, whereas Microsoft goes entire years without much of anything to show for itself, and issues seem to keep cropping up once big exclusives do start dropping. If Microsoft can get into a better rhythm with its first-party releases, there'll be less visible dissatisfaction from Xbox fans and also less trolling material for Playstation fans.

It doesn't really need to be "AAA" stuff, either. Not exclusively, at least. Almost nobody complained about Hifi Rush, did they?

@Ralizah I can understand peoples frustration as they see MS acquiring studios but seemingly haven't released many AAA First Party Exclusives - even MSFS didn't 'count' when it came to Console in 2021 because PC had it before and AoE4 doesn't get mentioned either because that hasn't yet come to Console. Games like Psychonauts 2, Deathloop, Ghostwire, Minecraft Dungeons and now Legends too haven't counted either because they are NOT exclusives. Grounded and Pentiment don't seem to count either because they aren't AAA games.

As far as I can recall - the ONLY 'new' games (not older games finally being ported to PS5 (like LoU: Part 1 for example) that Sony First Party Studios released on PS5 were Horizon:FW, GoW:R and GT7. Their 'exclusives' were bolstered by Deathloop and Ghostwire but these are still MS releases. MS have released MSFS, FH5, Psychonauts 2, H:I, AoE4, Deathloop, Ghostwire, Hi-Fi Rush, Grounded, Pentiment, Minecraft Legends etc as well as DLC in FH5, HI, MSFS, ESO, F76 - all 'content' that takes time to develop.

Undead Labs took 5yrs to make/release SoD2 yet a much bigger, AAA budget SoD3 hasn't yet released - not even 5yrs after joining MS. Double Fine, InXile and Obsidian have ALL released games - just not ALL exclusive (Psychonauts 2, Outer Worlds & DLC, Wastelands 3 & DLC) but because they aren't exclusive, seems like Xbox has NO games and MS can't get games out.

In 2018, MS expanded their Studios from 5 to 13 (less than 5yrs ago) and only added another 8 just over 2yrs ago (Zenimax purchase) yet games are taking longer and longer to develop, as well as we had a global pandemic and numerous other global issues, new hardware releases, new 'engines' etc. So when have these 'new' Studio's really had the time to make the big AAA exclusives to compete with the likes of Ghost of Tsushima (released 6yrs after Infamous 2nd Son) or even sequels like Horizon:FW (released over 5yrs after Zero Dawn with a LOT of assets they can reuse), GoW:R (released over 4yrs after GoW). Forza Motorsport, the 'new' one, is being built from Scratch and its taking Turn 10 more than 5yrs already - a Studio that was turning out a 'new' Motorsport every 2yrs, but starting from scratch, its coming up to 6yrs this October since FM7 released so expecting those 'newly' acquired Studios or the one they set up less than 5yrs ago to be well into their stride with Exclusives in their repertoire out already is somewhat unrealistic - especially as 'MOST' were working on games that were already promised to release on Playstation that MS honoured - but those games were still released by MS so should still be acknowledged - even if you couldn't play them specifically on Xbox Console at the time they first launch (Ghostwire, Deathloop, AoE4, MSFS, Gears Tactics etc).

It seems worse because Sony had GT7, H:FW and GoW:R last year. They also had Deathloop to help 'compete' with H:I, FH5 etc in the Holiday 21 season so MS releasing 'Deathloop' on Xbox (which doesn't count because it released on PS5 first), Pentiment (not a AAA game), Grounded (not 'new' as they could play it in Beta) and Ghostwire (again doesn't count because it wasn't on Xbox and 'helped' Sony's Exclusive line-up) in 2022 can't 'compete' with Sony - although as I said, if you go from E3 2021, Sony's list doesn't grow as they had 'nothing' new from their First Party studios (R&C & Returnal released before E3) but MS released MSFS (Console version), FH5, H:I, Psychonauts 2, Deathloop (PS5/PC) and AoE4 (PC) in that short period so I do think MS are 'releasing' games and I think more 'new' games than Sony too. Gears 5 or FH4 'Series' versions don't count so why should Last of Us: Part 1 - just because Sony 'sells' it rather than offer a 'free' update and use Smart Delivery to install the Series X version - doesn't mean its not a 'native' port - so I won't count 'remaster ports' either.

Instead of 'complaining' about the lack of games, look at the timescales AAA games - especially 'polished' and ready to launch AAA games are taking to make. 5yrs is perhaps the 'minimum' expected for a AAA type graphical showcase games that get the most positive noise and the ONLY studio's that have been under MS for 5yrs or more are 343, Rare, Mojang, the Coalition and Turn 10. EVERY other studio wasn't under MS 5yrs ago - Compulsion took 5yrs between their '2' releases, Undead Labs took 5yrs between SoD 1 and 2, their two releases, Ninja Theory released Bleeding Edge, Playground released FH4 and 5 and the Initiative was a brand new Studio created - those 5 were announced at E32018 so not 5yrs ago yet. Obsidian released Outer Worlds & DLC, Grounded and Pentiment, inXile released Wastelands 3 & DLC and Double Fine released Psychonauts 2 after joining MS late 2018. Zenimax only closed just over 2yrs ago - but 'collectively' have released Doom Eternal DLC, ESO/F76 DLC, Ghostwire, Deathloop and Hi-Fi Rush with Redfall and Starfield soon since MS took over.

They should take some inspiration from their 360 heyday. Start making their own again and recover some of that wow factor that the console had.

@GarbonZoni
The biggest games on the XBox 360 were made by third party companies.

@ZuneTattooGuy Exactly...

Morrowind and Oblivion were 'Xbox' exclusives made by Bethesda - now owned by MS. Mass Effect and BioShock too were Exclusives on 'Xbox' for a time. Gears was made by Epic exclusively for Xbox and Playground weren't 'owned' by MS when they brought Forza Horizon to Xbox 360 exclusively.

I'm sure you can think of others too that were not made by 'first Party' Studios. Bethesda however is a 'First Party' Studio owned, funded and published by MS, so Starfield is their 'own' game. MS own the IP, the Studio, the Publishing etc and had a significant input into the development of this game. ABK will 'become' First Party and 'every' game developed from Completion of the deal is a MS owned IP made by MS owned Studios, funded & Published by MS etc...

To make their 'own' games, they either need Studios creating 'new' IP's or 'buying' 3rd Party IP's/Studios, paying for 'exclusivity' - timed or otherwise. You can't make games without Studio's - Sony bought the majority of theirs too.

@ZuneTattooGuy @BAMozzy Wow, I must've been looking through rose tinted glasses guys. I've just been having a look and the only game I played on 360 they made was 1 vs 100. The reason I mentioned their 360 heyday was more to do with the variety , scope and the wealth of creativity on that console.
But I'm glad you pointed that out as I had no idea they were that sparse on the game front back then. You live and learn eh! .
Well hopefully with the ABK acquisition and any future purchases they can get their Library as varied as it was back then. 360 was one of my favourite gaming gens.

Buy a few small studios like Asobo and IO Interactive.
Make one final big publisher purchase in couple years, SEGA, only to have a footing in the Japanese Market.
And then get done with buying publishers. Microsoft can't keep buying everyone. It's not a monopoly now just because they bought Activision, but it will be if they don't stop at some point.

@Magabro There is a Reason that Publishers tend to cost the most - that's usually due to owning the Publishing rights and owning IP's. With MS buying ABK or Zenimax for example, they 'own' the IP's and Publishing rights to ALL their IP's and 'released' games - 'great' if you want to add those 'old' games to your Backwards Compatible hardware and Sub Services.

Bungie cost Sony over 10x the amount it cost them to buy Insomniac. That's because Bungie are Publishers of Destiny where as Insomniac didn't own 'Publishing' Rights to their IP's. If you buy the Tomb Raider rebooted trilogy, Money goes to Square Enix as the Publisher - not to Amazon as the IP holder.

Buying a Studio tends to buy you the 'creative' talent that may/may not own ANY IP's they created. Its an 'investment' into the Future as you can't start making money back until that Studio has something to sell. Buying a Publisher gets you their IP's and their Published Catalogue and starts earning money the second you 'own' the Company. Every game sold, even 'old' games, go to the Publisher, which is now under new management.

You need 'IP's' too of course - and Publishers own IP's - not necessarily the Studio's who created those IP's. Crystal Dynamics didn't own Tomb Raider themselves for example and now that IP is 'owned' by Amazon, but Amazon isn't making Money from Tomb Raider yet, because Square Enix still own the 'Publishing' Rights to the games they released - they can't make another 'Tomb Raider'.

Buying Studio's is great if you have a LOT of IP's or you believe will create new IP's for you to build up your portfolio but can take 'years' before any investment in them starts to pay off. Look at the Studios MS did buy - Ninja Theory, Compulsion, Double Fine etc - MS has to wait until they have released games to start 'earning' their investment back - so not only do you have the 'cost' to acquire that Studio, you also have the costs in running that Studio until they have a Product out to start bringing money in. As soon as they bought 'Zenimax', ALL the 'old' games that were still selling (Doom:Eternal, Fallout 76, ESO, Wolfenstein etc) are bringing 'money' in.

I don't want a 'Monopoly' either but if we are going to a Subscription based service with each 'Publisher' owning their 'own' service because they aren't 'selling' games on 3rd Party Hardware, then I would rather 2 or 3 Publishers remain - whether its MS, Sony and Nintendo, TenCent, EA and Ubisoft or TakeTwo, Capcom and Sega. I don't want to have to Subscribe to '15' different Sub Services to play ALL the games I want. Its bad enough with TV/Movies with all the different services - Amazon, Netflix, HBO, Disney+, Paramount etc etc So I would welcome Consolidation in that scenario.

We have 'consolidation' in Hardware - 2 or 3 'Consoles' as others fell - 3rd Party Publishers don't want to get into 'Hardware' but may want to get you to Sub to their service - especially if Streaming negates 'Hardware'. We already have EA and Ubisoft Sub services - as well as MS, Sony and Nintendo Sub Services. Amazon has Luna now and own Tomb Raider so maybe will keep that 'exclusive' to Luna to help them build up their user base and buy up some of the other Publishers - taking them away from the 'Established' gaming platforms that MS is trying to keep supported - if you believe that Apple, Google and Amazon are 'keen' to get into that market...

Buying a Studio doesn't also guarantee you are buying the Creative Talent behind IP's. MS owning ABK won't give them the creative minds behind CoD as they 'left' and created new Studio's. Glenn Schofield, creator of Dead Space, formed 'Sledgehammer' and made CoD games, left Sledgehammer and formed another Studio who made the Callisto Project. The creator of CoD is now in Charge of Battlefield - the game CoD was created to 'beat'. Epic created Gears - not the Coalition who now make Gears, Bungie created Halo (now owned by Sony) but both those IP's are 'owned' by MS so MS can make those games, make money from them, give them to their Studios or commission a 3rd Party Studio to make exclusively for Xbox - so IPs and Publishing Rights are where the Money is - not the Studio without IP's/Publishing - its just 'potential' - hence a lot cheaper and will take so much longer to start paying dividends - as we see with the 'lack' of Content from all those acquisitions by MS in 2018. When they bought Zenimax, there was an 'instant' benefit to MS - all those 'older' games on Game Pass selling Subs, money coming in from sales of 'older' games etc etc, and of course adds a lot of recognised IP's instantly to their portfolio.

Sony could buy the Studio responsible for making Final Fantasy for example - at a relatively low cost - but they wouldn't own Final Fantasy or make any money from the 'old' Final Fantasy games as the IP is owned by Square Enix and they 'could' give the IP to another Studio and keep making money from the IP. Sony wouldn't start making money until that Studio has a Game out on Playstation to sell. However, if they bought Square Enix, they'd own Final Fantasy and the Studio who made it. That Studio can keep making FF exclusively for Sony and Sony would own ALL the older 'published' SE games and could put them into PS+ or pull them from Xbox etc...

70bn is a lot of money - compared to 3.5bn for Bungie, 7bn for Zenimax or 230m for Insomniac... Insomniac has a longer more diverse history than Bungie, but Bungie owns Some IP's and Publishing Rights. However that 70bn is for all the IP's and a long history of Published content too...

@BAMozzy wow, that was a very long answer
But you do have a good point... if the videogame market is going in the same direction as the streaming market, having fewer services to subscribe to is better for the consumer. I miss the days when Netflix was the only subscription you needed, now I'm subscribed to five different streaming services just for movies and TV. I can't subscribe to five different videogame services...

@Magabro
Sony doesn't have the deep wallets to make major studio purchases. Buying Sega would tank Sony's Financials.

@ZuneTattooGuy you're right. On the other hand I could see Apple, Google or Amazon buying Sony... and then they would have the deep wallets to buy a big publisher like Sega. Or even another huge publisher, like EA or Take Two...

@Magabro Exactly - Consolidation for the Gaming market would be 'better' for Consumers - up until a point where it can become a 'monopoly'. You don't want 'just' Netflix as they could push prices up and reduce quality/quantity of content because you have no 'competition'. But add Amazon Prime and Disney+, you have 'competition'

The reason nVidia were 'blocked' from buying Arm was because there are only '3' competitors in that market, and if nVidia acquired Arm, they'd have a major advantage over AMD and could 'monopolise' the market, force AMD out.

The main reason my post was 'long' was to point out the difference between buying a 'Studio' (helps if that Studio has 'just' made an Exclusive for you as they have a 'product' selling to bring Money in) and buying a Publisher. If MS bought 'Bethesda' from Zenimax, they wouldn't own the Publishing rights to Bethesdas 'old' games so would need to 'negotiate' with Zenimax to put those games in Game Pass. Also, any sales of those 'old' games goes to Zenimax. By buying Zenimax, they have those Games for Game Pass as well as the IP's owned by Zenimax and the Studios behind those games.

When Sony bought Naughty Dog, ND made R&C because they didn't own Crash. Bungie can't make Halo, Epic can't make Gears etc. So you get 'creative' talent but often have to 'wait' for them to 'create' something to start recuperating the 'costs'.

Owning a Publisher not only gets you IP's, it gets you 'everything' they have Published - which is 'great' for MS looking for 'immediate' benefits as they now own those 'old' games to put them into Game Pass (assuming they don't have 'expired' third party Licences - like Marvel, Transformers, James Bond etc). That's why you got a 'Zenimax' games in Game Pass soon after Completion and why older ABK games will come to GP too.

It can get 'complicated' if you buy a Studio (like Rare) who own the Assets/Software to a Game (Goldeneye), but another Company (Nintendo) own the Publishing Rights and its 'complicated' by another 3rd Party Licence (007, James Bond and the JB theme tune) so things get difficult.

Cost may be significantly higher for Publishers because you are buying 'history' - their Back Catalogue as well as any IP's and Studios they own. Buying a Studio is much cheaper, but you are buying 'potential' based on their 'history', but need to invest in them to realise that potential and start recuperating that investment.

A lot of Studios at 'Publishers' do lack the creative talent that put that Studio on the Map - they leave to set-up their own Studios - Respawn was the creative talent behind Call of Duty that left Infinity Ward, and now the creative talent is 'head' of Battlefield, the franchise CoD was created to 'beat'. How many Game Studio's has Glenn Schofield created? So even after having Vicarious Visions closed by EA, he set up Sledgehammer, after leaving Sledgehammer, he set up another studio and made the Callisto Project. So even if you 'buy' a Studio, you have no guarantees the 'Creative' talent comes with it, it may just be a 'workforce' used to making a certain game over and over again. Buying the Publisher gets you their IP's, their Back Catalogue etc - hence more cost...