Phil Spencer Again Reiterates That Xbox Is 'Not Done' With Acquisitions

I think one of the most interesting things said in the WSJ article is that Microsoft only had five studios before the acquisition spree and now they have a whopping 23. That's just so crazy to me.

In terms of the next acquisition, surely it will have to be another big one like ZeniMax. Hopefully this time around though it's a Japanese publisher, even though I'm fully aware that it's difficult for a foreign company like Microsoft to acquire large companies in Japan. The most interesting ones would be SEGA, Square Enix or Capcom I think. Even though we haven't heard about Capcom wanting to be sold off, there was a rumour earlier this year about Square Enix wanting to be acquired and SEGA has encountered financial issues in the past year so they might also be considering being acquired. Either way, all three publishers have lots of recognisable IPs and most importantly they appeal to a Japanese audience so that would definitely help Microsoft to bolster its offerings on Game Pass.

I just want them to obtain Ubisoft. They are my favorite company and make my favorite games! I know it will Never happen, but I can dream!

@OliverOwen I also wanted Microsoft to acquire Ubisoft before but not anymore, unfortunately. The primary reason being of course all the negative things going on at Ubisoft, such as the sexual harassment. Microsoft is strongly against these sorts of things and I highly doubt they'd want to acquire Ubisoft now that these stories are out. They don't want to damage their public image, which they care about a lot.

The secondary reason is that Ubisoft is starting to focus more on developing free-to-play multiplayer games rather than actual single-player titles. If we're going to keep seeing games like Ghost Recon Frontline and XDefiant in the future, then I'd rather want them to stay away as far as possible from Microsoft.

@FraserG Yeah, I thought that was the case. For a split second though, I thought you managed to put together an article in just ten minutes after I sent you that tip, lol. I was like wow, you guys work very fast! Haha.

@LtSarge I would have to agree. I don’t think the values of those two organizations would integrate well.

The 1st one I think will be either asobo, followed by I think square West. I like to believe there is more to this partnership between t. I. And c.d. on perfect dark.Time will tell. Sega is my dream wish. Capcom would be sweet as hell but think they would go with Sony or possibly Nintendo if they were willing to spend that much.

@LtSarge I don’t think ubisoft is interesting on selling, but assuming it was: ubisoft had actually been at least trying to change the culture. MS won’t shy from an acquisition because of that unless any such contract forced them to keep the problematic managers.

As for the F2P ventures, Zenimax was doing the same. Do I have to remind you of Fallout Shelter and Elder Scrolls Blades? Or the monetization schemes in Wolfenstein Youngblood?

Honestly, I’d UBisoft ever decided to sell, I’m sure Microsoft will be the first one to enter that bidding race. And IP wise, it would be a great fit. Assassins Creed for one has always felt like an Xbox first IP in my head.

@Tharsman The toxic culture at Ubisoft is extensive, there's not going to be any significant changes after only one year. These things take time and acquiring the publisher now would not be a good look for Microsoft. It doesn't matter if you get rid of the managers, the damage to the company's reputation has already been done and it's way too early for Microsoft to want to be associated with Ubisoft like this. A partnership to add more Ubisoft titles on Game Pass is fine, but an acquisition is out of the question.

I don't think you understand the difference between ZeniMax's and Ubisoft's approaches. ZeniMax hasn't turned their core franchises into F2P multiplayer titles, games like Fallout Shelter and Elder Scrolls Blades are side projects. On the other hand, Ubisoft has publicly stated that they're going to focus on making more F2P titles of their core franchises along with the standard AAA games: https://www.purexbox.com/news/2021/02/ubisoft_to_focus_more_on_free-to-play_games_alongside_aaa_experiences

"but going forward [Ubisoft] will be moving away from that model to cater to more free-to-play games, which it believes is a model the gaming industry is heading towards."

In other words, they are taking core franchises like Ghost Recon and turning them into F2P titles. These are not side projects, these are the main games. If this is the direction they're heading, I don't want Microsoft to acquire them just so that we can get more generic F2P games on Xbox. Not to mention that since they are F2P, they wouldn't provide any additional value to Game Pass.

So what exactly would Ubisoft have to offer Microsoft going forward? F2P games? Negative press? I'm sorry, but if I were Phil Spencer, I would steer away from the topic of acquiring Ubisoft as of right now.

Xbox was so limited when Xbox One launched and now they have a huge umbrella under where a wide range of developers thrive.

Koei Tecmo next and make a new Project Zero game?

I would like them to acquire Ubisoft, Can you believe what Assassin's Creed and FarCry would be like with Microsoft watching over them..

@LtSarge "A partnership to add more Ubisoft titles on Game Pass is fine, but an acquisition is out of the question."

This does not make sense to me. It is fine to put money in the pockets of toxic management, but its not ok to take over the company and kick that management out the curb...

Financing a terrible company is way worse association practice than buying them and trying to fix them.

And the easiest change to such a toxic company is removing their HR department and replacing it with an HR department that actually is there to help the employees and not to protect the toxic management layers.

As for the F2P, again, Zenimax was headed that way. They were ruining their biggest franchices. Fallout 76, Wolfenstein Youngblood, they were going down the path of microtransaction. They acquired a mobile game dev because they where going to keep exploring that path. That does not mean they will keep going that path now that they belong to Microsoft.

If MS happened to acquire Ubisoft, its very likely most the native mobile development would start to slow down and likely halt entirely, since Xbox goal is to get to mobile through Game Pass Streaming.

You ask what would Ubisoft have to offer Microsoft? Some of the biggest IPs and development studious out there.

Farcry, Assassins Creed, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, those alone are just the surface and are huge sellers. If future entries of those became XBox Console Exclusives, that would be huge for Microsoft.

@LtSarge Not sure Microsoft would want to go into buying up a company that’s publicly trading. It’s a lot more likely that once it’s officially announced Microsoft is looking to buy up the shares, others will also jump in and put forward offers which would drive up the price and could start a bidding war. Much easier and safer to focus on buying up private companies like ZeniMax were.

I would be rather disappointed if they bought Ubisoft. Most of the games coming from this direction are the electronic equivalent to instant noodles ...

I don't get people who say I want Microsoft to buy this Studio or that Studio, where they are already playing that studios games anyway even without the acquisition

@Tharsman Once again, you don't seem to understand the issues that would arise for Microsoft if they acquired a company that has a poor reputation. If they absorb Ubisoft, people will start to associate Microsoft with sexual harassment and toxic culture because Ubisoft is a part of them now. On the other hand, Ubisoft games are already on Xbox. Putting them on Game Pass won't change anything in terms of Microsoft's reputation.

I don't really get your argument with ZeniMax. They "were" headed there, i.e. past tense. They're not heading there now and they weren't heading there when Microsoft acquired them. It's all about how you present your company's roadmap. Right now Ubisoft is basically telling everyone that they want to make more F2P games with their core franchises. So why should Microsoft invest in a company like that? That's clearly not a roadmap that aligns with Microsoft's aspirations, which is to add tons of exclusive games on Game Pass in order to increase its value proposition. If Ubisoft's games are F2P, then what's the point of adding them to Game Pass?

As for roadmaps changing, there's clearly no indication of that right now so you can't really use that as an argument because we don't have any information that they have changed their mind.

Ah yes, some of the biggest IPs turned into F2P games. I'm sure everyone wants that.

As of right now, Ubisoft is not a compelling acquisition due to questionable choices to their software output. It does not benefit Microsoft in long-term to acquire a company that will produce F2P games that add no value to Game Pass, which is the whole point of the acquisition spree if you didn't realise that. The only reason Microsoft is buying up studios is to bolster the Game Pass library, nothing else. If Game Pass didn't exist, Microsoft wouldn't be buying up studios now. So you're telling me that Microsoft is going to buy up Ubisoft and have them make F2P games that you don't need Game Pass to play? How does that make any sense?

On top of all this, there's the issue with Ubisoft's culture and that's not going to change anytime soon. Damaged reputation takes time to repair and because Microsoft is so strict about their reputation, they won't get anywhere near Ubisoft in terms of an acquisition.

@LtSarge "They're not heading there now and they weren't heading there when Microsoft acquired them. "

Yes, they very much were. Their last "big move" was bringing the F2P Elder Scrolls Game to Switch, and they tried to made a huge deal about it. They very much were stuck in that direction.

And honestly, you are placing way too much weight on the reputation thing.

You are also putting too much weight on the whole F2P side of Ubisoft. They wont stop making AAA games. They just happen to also be making mobile games.

And one final thing: no third party deal with game pass is permanent. Dont expect EA Play to be in Game Pass forever. So far, the longest deals are 12 months long. There is a chance some might get renewed or happen to be longer, but the only way to permanently get a full publisher's catalog into Game Pass, is by acquiring them, should they want to be acquired. And thats the biggest end point here, all this back and forth is pointless because I dont think the stockholders are interested in offloading the company, not at this time anyways.

@Tharsman Ok, so their last big move was back in May 2020 with Elder Scrolls Blades on Switch, several months before they were acquired by Microsoft. No other F2P games were planned to come out at that point and we know that because Microsoft doesn't get involved with the existing projects of acquired studios.

I'm not putting too much weight on the reputation thing at all. Do you not follow Microsoft, like at all? They are one of the few companies that are actually trying to establish a good reputation and they have the luxury of doing that because they are one of the wealthiest companies in the world. That's why reputation is a VERY important topic for them, so don't try to downplay that argument.

Again, I'm not putting too much weight on F2P at all. That's what Ubisoft has openly stated, they want to make more F2P titles. They are using the Tom Clancy brand to put out a game like XDefiant, and their next major Ghost Recon game is a F2P multiplayer title. You keep talking about Ubisoft having all these incredible IPs, but then you see them turn their franchises into a shell of their former selves. How exactly is that promising for their other IPs? Why should I want Ubisoft to be acquired just to get more F2P games? It doesn't benefit me as a consumer at all.

I wish they bought cdpr. Imagine xbox announces witcher 4 day one and fully polished bugfree cyberpunk on gamepass.

Hoping for a jrpg dev, that makes games similar to the tales of... Yakuza and the persona series. Doesn't have to be a big name company. If the games turn out to be awesome, a small company can become a big company.

I actually don't want Microsoft to acquire any well known brands that are releasing games on multiple platforms. Because they're doing well on they're own to release games for everyone. If Microsoft acquires them, then it won't be for everyone, just xbox, pc and gamepass.

I would want them to acquire small companies and give them the chance to become a well known company.

The thing is MS needs to continue expanding the Game Pass subs with more day one games.
So by that logic, it makes no sense to buy studios that put out limited amounts of games every few years, they need another publisher like Bethesda.

In an ideal world, the WB Games studios would be perfect as they cover a variety of genres Xbox needs such as child friendly games, fighters, 3rd person action games etc. The main problem with that is a lot are licensed games, which could cause issues.

If that wasn't a possibility, then another great one would be SEGA due to appealing to the Eastern and Western audience. They also own a good portfolio of PC studios, which fits Xbox's strategy.

To me, those are the only realistic 'big' publishers that could be willing to sell.
Square Enix or Capcom would also be superb, but to me, the chances of either of those are extremely slim.

@CutchuSlow Sony's approach to acquisitions is a lot better than Microsoft's. Insomniac, Housemarque, Bluepoint, etc. were pretty much Playstation studios before they were acquired (sure Sunset Overdrive was Xbox exclusive but Microsoft's to blame for that franchise not going further).

I know it's probably never happening, but all I want in the whole wide world is for Microsoft to buy Sega. The death of the Dreamcast broke my heart; this would give Microsoft a stable of
beloved franchises as deep as anyone's with every single genre represented by a classic. It would give Sega one platform (plus PC) to focus on again, and basically solve everything lol.

I just realized that "Dream on" is playing on the radio near my desk.....

@armondo36 No. Sega are fine with where they are now. They do not need to sell. Only game I like from sega tho is the Yakuza series and ATLUS's persona series. And I'd hate to see it go to xbox only. Sega Also have arcades in Japan, and maybe other businesses, so I doubt sega would ever sell.