[HN Gopher] Sony to buy video game maker Bungie in $3.6B deal ___________________________________________________________________ Sony to buy video game maker Bungie in $3.6B deal Author : daveaiello Score : 225 points Date : 2022-01-31 18:08 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com) | jdalgetty wrote: | So it's race to buy up all the publishers? | disambiguation wrote: | yes, MS wants to create the "netflix of games" | zerocrates wrote: | Bungie isn't really a publisher... I guess they maybe self- | publish Destiny 2 now? | | Microsoft's last 2 big acquisitions have been publishers with | many underlying studios all included... I don't know that I can | think of Sony really ever doing that; they've mostly bought up | individual studios. Of course they're not nearly as big as | Microsoft is. | tantalor wrote: | > they maybe self-publish Destiny 2 now | | Yes since 2019 | | https://www.bungie.net/en/Explore/Detail/News/47569 | HWR_14 wrote: | In the same way Disney, Amazon, NBC and HBO (now ATT time | warner) are trying to buy all the back catalogs if content for | their streaming services. | | Being able to play any game from the past (x publishers only) | on your Xbox/ps for a monthly fee is a giant fight brewing. | syshum wrote: | >>now ATT time warner | | You mean Warner Bros. Discovery, since ATT is spinning off | the Media and merging with Discovery to from the new company | Warner Bros. Discovery | Apocryphon wrote: | Oligopolize _all_ the markets! | efficax wrote: | Sony is about to sunset Playstation Plus and Now and merge them | into a service that will try to compete with Xbox Gamepass, and | to do that you need games. | Scramblejams wrote: | Should I max out my PS Plus subscription because it's about | to get converted to something else at a favorable value | ratio? | enos_feedler wrote: | Its not just to compete with Gamepass, it's moving to where | the customer is. Over the next 10 years, where is the growth | in gaming going to come from? Hint: not selling more 400 watt | white and black boxes dedicated to gaming that plug into | screens. Sony and Microsoft are less interested in competing | with each other and more interested in protecting the total | market from Google, Amazon and Apple. None of those companies | have legacy console business, have enormous cash piles and | understand there is a bright future in gaming ($$$) | MisterBastahrd wrote: | Gaming will eventually be where if you want to play a game, | you just plug into a remote computer system pre-built for | it, and the only games that will still be installed on | consumer devices will be those which need extremely low | latency like shooters and fighting games. | saturdaysaint wrote: | To me the best explanation for this is as mutually-assured- | destruction insurance if Microsoft takes the biggest title in the | Activision portfolio, Call of Duty, away from Playstation. | | As a Sony fan, I'm cautiously optimistic that the relationship | could be more fruitful than that. I don't know what Sony's | creative secrets are, but they seem good at ushering high | quality, interesting games with broad appeal into existence, sort | of akin to what you see at HBO or Pixar. I would love to see them | exert that influence on a big multiplatform game. | wing-_-nuts wrote: | I know bungie doesn't own the halo ip anymore, but _wow_. Bungie, | halo, and microsoft will forever be linked in my mind. The fact | that sony is going to buy them? I feel like hell has frozen over. | What 's next? MS buying naughty dog? | im_down_w_otp wrote: | For my money the best IP that Bungie ever produced was "Myth", | specifically The Fallen Lords & Soulblighter. | | Sadly, they sold it off to Take Two Interactive who botched the | 3rd game in the series and killed off the franchise. | | I wish I could buy the IP off of Take Two and revive it, but | until then I just have to settle for playing the modern ports | that are still being maintained. | steveklabnik wrote: | Myth was absolutely fantastic. They recently put a Claymore | from it in Destiny, sadly it's not nearly as good as the | shotgun from Marathon or the grenade launcher from Pathways | into Darkness. | im_down_w_otp wrote: | I have Pathways Into Darkness on my vintage Quadra 650 | here. :-) | | Also, we should play Destiny. Not to turn HN into LFG or | anything. | rpmisms wrote: | I'd join the HN Destiny clan in a heartbeat | steveklabnik wrote: | If someone starts a Discord I'd be happy to join it! | AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: | Myth II still gets rounds at local LAN parties, in part | because of its modding scene. | im_down_w_otp wrote: | Indeed. :-) | | I'm the one that makes everybody install it to play it for | the first time so that everyone can experience the | agonizing embarrassment of their best laid plans being | thwarted by their own dwarves accidentally decimating | themselves by throwing their molotov cocktails straight up | into the air. "<BANG>... Casualties." followed by the | inevitable, "Argh! What?!? Noooooooo!" | | Never gets old. | password321 wrote: | Sony were making exlusive deals with Bungie for quite some time | now with Destiny so its not that surprising. | Ottolay wrote: | To me, Bungie is associated with Apple and the amazing Marathon | game series for Mac back in the 90s. | Unklejoe wrote: | I'll never forget the video of Steve Jobs himself introducing | Halo (right before Microsoft bought it). | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxdgo1rFcxU | itisit wrote: | > What's next? MS buying naughty dog? | | I doubt Sony would ever sell them. :) | pjerem wrote: | Well, nothing surprises me anymore since Microsoft bought Rare | two decades ago. Nintendo literally sold a part of its soul on | this deal. | | But yeah, it's hard to dissociate Halo from Bungie and | Microsoft. | tus666 wrote: | So will the gaming industry reshape as a Microsoft vs Sony | affair? | Hamuko wrote: | Doubt it, but it will definitely centralise. Microsoft, Sony, | Tencent, Take-Two... | pm90 wrote: | This seems more like something to calm investors rather than | interest in taking the IP anywhere. And... I get it, if you're | Sony you gotta show you're willing to play. | | Regardless of what MS has said I suspect people don't really | trust them, especially since the Sony/MS duopoly (Nintendo not | really competing in the high end console category) isn't a smooth | one. | | MS wants to dominate the market. XBOX game pass is doing | ridiculously well. If they can make XBOX the default console and | reduce Sony to a niche player they will absolutely do it. | sangnoir wrote: | I think it's hilarious. Microsoft buys the studio behind iconic | PS characters (Crash Bandicoot and Spyro), and then a few weeks | later, Sony buys the studio that made Halo?! | fractal618 wrote: | Halo on Playstation?? Cross Platform Halo?? | | It feels like I suddenly have butterflies in my stomach. <3 | vangelis wrote: | Sadly they don't own the Halo IP. | frenchie14 wrote: | Bungie does not have ownership of the Halo IP. When they became | independent of Microsoft 15 years ago Microsoft retained the | rights | cableshaft wrote: | No Halo. | | Destiny 3 will probably be exclusive to Playstation though. | capableweb wrote: | > we will utilize the Sony Group's diverse array of | entertainment and technology assets to support further | evolution of Bungie and its ability to create iconic worlds | across multiple platforms and media | | > We will continue pursuing our vision of one, unified Bungie | community, building games that value our community and meet | them wherever and however they choose to play | | https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220131005684/en/ | | Seems they'll aim for making it available for multiple | platforms, not PlayStation exclusive. | steveklabnik wrote: | It's not looking like Destiny 3 is ever going to happen. | There was even an interview from March of last year where a | director said that they think Destiny 3 would be a mistake. | | And on top of that, they've laid out Destiny 2's roadmap | until roughly 2024, and say that that's not the end then | either. | | We'll see! | whywhywhywhy wrote: | >There was even an interview from March of last year where | a director said that they think Destiny 3 would be a | mistake | | Destiny, especially Destiny 2 was really mismanaged by the | directors though. | | They do have another IP, Matter in the works though. | steveklabnik wrote: | I started playing in late 2019, but I'm up to almost 2500 | hours. Can't speak to before that, but it's only been | getting better and better as I've played, imho. | Tiktaalik wrote: | Makes EA's purchase of Respawn (Apex Legends) for $400M look like | an incredible deal. | excerionsforte wrote: | Can't wait to see the new IP Bungie will have for Sony to publish | ;) | steveklabnik wrote: | We don't know much about the new IP yet, other than: | | 1. 2025 is the target for launch | | 2. some job postings have indicated that it's probably | cooperative multiplayer in some form | w4rh4wk5 wrote: | I can't wait for PlayStation exclusives which will get shitty | PC ports. Yes, I am looking at you FF7 Remake selling for 70 | bucks. | 0xDEEPFAC wrote: | The masochist in me wants to see these mergers continue so that a | big enough power vacuum can appear for new indie studios as | creativity and "risk-taking" decline. | vangelis wrote: | Hopefully someone at Sony really liked Marathon. | monocasa wrote: | Or Oni. | alanwreath wrote: | just bring back Oni and do more Marathon lore | LegitShady wrote: | I can only see this as some weird way to respond to Microsoft's | purchase of Activision although they must have been in discussion | in advance of that. | | This is the meme: | | "Mom can we get an Activision" | | "You have an Activision at home!" | | Activision at home is destiny | px43 wrote: | Wasn't Bungie Microsoft's first real gaming acquisition? | | https://www.ign.com/articles/2000/06/20/microsoft-acquires-b... | | Almost 22 years ago. | jhbadger wrote: | It depends on what is "real gaming", I suppose. Microsoft | bought the Bruce Artwick Organization (creators of the classic | versions of Microsoft Flight Simulator) in 1995. | brokencode wrote: | Let's hope this goes better for Bungie than when Microsoft owned | them. It's kind of funny that they'd get out from under the thumb | of one corporate overlord only to find a new corporate overlord | 15 years later. | | I guess that points to how unbelievably hard it is for | independent game developers to survive, and it makes me kind of | sad. If it can happen to Bungie or Blizzard, it can happen to any | game developer. | | Gamers are notoriously hard to part with their money, even though | games can deliver an incredible amount of value for each dollar | compared to other types of entertainment. | | I've put hundreds of hours into certain games that I've paid $60 | or less for, whereas renting or going to a movie provides only a | couple hours of entertainment for something like $5-$20. | gehsty wrote: | Maybe free to play games that make money through micro | transactions, without pay to win mechanism (like buying skins | or hats!) are the way to sustainably produce games? Kinda like | a SAAS subscription instead of a purchase software outright | deal. | steveklabnik wrote: | This is the current business model of Destiny 2: there's free | to play, with expansions you can buy for a one-time cost to | give you more content, or microtransactions for cosmetics. | erulabs wrote: | I hear that metric a lot - dollars per entertainment-hour. It's | an interesting metric - but it's also important to remember the | 1.5 hour Marvel film almost certainly took more human hours in | the input side than virtually any video game. At least, my 10k | hours in StarCraft took far far far fewer human hours to | _produce_ than my 1.5 hours watching the Avengers. | | Sort of a "labor theory of value" for entertainment pricing, I | guess. | throwaway17_17 wrote: | I would really like to see that comparison, i.e. the 'human | hours' required, for a AAA game by a largish developer vs. | the average Marvel film. I may try to do some rough numbers | later because that just seems like an interesting thing to | know. | | Also, how far down the stack do you go for each. Both rely on | tools to make the production happen. Do you count hours to | make the digital editing software and fx programs for films? | Do you count the human hours to make Unreal4? | spelunker wrote: | Do you count the hours to design and produce the computer | hardware used to render the CGI for a film? Do you count | the years and cost of raising a child from birth to being a | member of the crew? | | I doubt they count hours towards tools etc developed as | they probably paid money for those. So, different bucket I | guess, and still important for the overall cost. | cecilpl2 wrote: | Paying money for a tool _means_ having a person develop | that tool for you. | spelunker wrote: | Obviously yes, but if you're attempting to add up person | hours worked for some project, I don't think you would | include the hours spent in say Mac OS. | slugiscool99 wrote: | Sure, but game devs use tools like unreal engine the | development time of which shouldn't be factored into the | human hours calculation | toyg wrote: | It really depends on the production - some of them, | particularly animated ones, had to develop their whole | pipelines from scratch as part of their early | productions. You can bet that time was accounted for as | part of production costs. Same for pioneer productions | like The Mandalorian (iirc costing $3m per episode, a | large chunk of which went into developing experimental 3d | soundstages). | | For the more common endeavours, then no, of course - they | just use what is there, or more likely outsource it to | specialised providers in the same way as they would | outsource e.g. building a website. | evrydayhustling wrote: | If you allocate all those hours to one gamer, there's no | contest. Check out the dev costs of games here [1] to the | "net negative" (no marketing) costs for movies here [2] -- 4 | games break $100M while you need $200M as a movie to get on | the list. So, twice as much for 2h of content! | | But if you factor in audience size, things get more | complicated. Red Dead 2 sold about 38M copies, a near record, | but Avengers Endgame reached something like 250-300M people | at the box office, even before streaming etc. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_vide | o_g... [2] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films | tsimionescu wrote: | Isn't a huge part of that money going to the actors, not | into more typical actual labor? | | Games take a lot longer to produce than films (in total, | per hour of content that may not be true). | toyg wrote: | Not that huge, really. A-list actors will get 10-20m | tops, add all the others and you're probably looking at | around 30m-40m over a budget of 300m-500m. | | The largest expenses are related to FX costs and | marketing. That's why the cost of low-effects movies | falls very rapidly under 100m, you can film a run-of-the- | mill romcom for less than 10m. | brokencode wrote: | The fact is that independent game developers struggle to | survive, so that is what I'm using as my yardstick for | whether they are making enough money. | | Dollars per entertainment hour is just a way to try to | convince gamers that it is reasonable to spend more on games, | but perhaps the better argument to make is that we need to | pay these companies more or they will go out of business or | move to scummy pay to win business models. | johnchristopher wrote: | That only works out if 1 hour of video games has the same | value as one hour of a movie. | | It's apples to oranges anyway, even when comparing games to | games. | gamblor956 wrote: | _also important to remember the 1.5 hour Marvel film almost | certainly took more human hours in the input side than | virtually any video game_ | | This is simply wrong. | | Marvel movies (and indeed, most studio releases) are | generally produced and released within a year or two. Only | the biggest blockbusters have crews in the hundreds, and it | is rare for a movie to have a crew in the thousands. For | example, Endgame is one of the most expensive movies ever | made...and production and post-production (i.e., VFX) took | less than 2 years. Dune (2021) was filmed and post-produced | in under 2 years. Tenet, Nolan's most technically complex | film, was actually filmed and post-produced in just over 1 | year. (But contrast to Avatar 2 and 3, which have been in | production for over 4 years and counting.) | | On the other hand, almost every AAA game of the last decade | has spent years in development with a crew of hundreds for | almost the entire time. For example, Red Dead 2 was in | development for _7 years_. Starcraft 2 was in development for | over 5 years. Destiny was in development for 4 years. | | Note that the above timeline _does not include_ pre- | production work (like writing the screenplay, casting, hiring | crew, raising funds) because in the movie industry pre- | production work proceeds very slowly (for example: Avatar 2 | was in pre-production for 7 years; Gemini Man for over 20 | years), but the actual production and post-production (i.e., | the actual making of the movie, editing, FX) happens at a | lightning pace. In the game industry, the creative parts | happen in tandem with the development of the game itself. | | Also note that while movies can have large crews, the | different teams aren't all working at the same time; for | example, film crews and other production crews rarely | interact with the VFX or other post-production crew. | toyg wrote: | _> the 1.5 hour Marvel film almost certainly took more human | hours in the input side than virtually any video game_ | | I'm not sure what you mean. | | A big Marvel movie costs around $300m-$500m to produce, these | days. AAA videogames can go over $300m-$400m I believe. It's | basically the same ballpark, as far as _input_ costs go. | However, a film results in 2h of _output_ enjoyment for a | consumer, whereas games get several multiples of that. | snarfy wrote: | Do you not remember beating StarCraft and watching the ending | credits scroll? | | It's a giant wall of text for 30 minutes. | HWR_14 wrote: | Bungir became a household name while MS owned them and they | launched an iconic franchise. How was that bad? | rodgerd wrote: | Prior to their Microsoft deal they produced a variety of | games with different settings (the Marathon universe which | linked to their earlier games and forward to Halo, Myth I/II | which were RTS with rich lore, and Oni which was a close- | combat game that functioned as a precursor to the likes of | Yakuza and Sleeping Dogs in terms of the mechanics). | | With Halo, the single-player and lore began to tail off to | focus on the multi-player market, and their other settings | and styles of games were all discarded in favour of an FPS | treadmill. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Why are so many people trying to make triple A games? It just | seems like there is too much supply and not enough demand. | Don't even most hardcore gamers only play a select few triple A | games? And aren't triple A games unpopular with almost all | casual and sports gamers? | | And most importantly - isn't there the LEAST growth in the | hardcore gaming segment? | Brave-Steak wrote: | password321 wrote: | There is an extreme demand. Many franchises like Pokemon are | still breaking sales records along with consoles. | | https://gamerant.com/pokemon-legends-arceus-sales-records/ | klohto wrote: | Pokemon isn't AAA | kbelder wrote: | What, there's a AAAA category now? | parkingrift wrote: | I think the word "find" is pretty descriptive. It's hard to | find people willing to turn down billions of dollars. This is | more like an indictment on M&A in the modern economy. Why | compete when you can simply acquire? | abakker wrote: | Acquiring is good! Not every company that wants to grow needs | to do something original, sometimes funding people doing | original things is good. Bad management is not a requirement | for acquiring companies, though it is frustratingly common. | adolph wrote: | They've done better the second time around: | | _The Wall Street Journal reports today that some analysts | estimate Microsoft paid between $20 million and $40 million for | Bungie in total._ | | https://www.ign.com/articles/2000/06/20/microsoft-acquires-b... | saynay wrote: | Isn't this the third time? I thought they were owned by | Activision for a bit, before leaving again. | Hamuko wrote: | Publishing agreement, not ownership. | willis936 wrote: | And yet they appeared to have an all-time low in creative | freedom during that period. | tylerchilds wrote: | They partnered with Activision to leverage them for | distribution in a ten year deal that they broke part way | through, iirc. | dogma1138 wrote: | Halo 1-3, ODST and Reach what exactly went wrong for Bungie | when they were under Microsoft? | | Microsoft, Activision, Sony they were never truly independent | no studio these days can afford too. | | Game development is a mess and a very expensive mess at that, | you need a sugar daddy if you would to survive. | w4rh4wk5 wrote: | Exactly. Just looking at the Master Chief collection shows | that the games were quite alright. | theandrewbailey wrote: | > Halo 1-3, ODST and Reach what exactly went wrong for Bungie | when they were under Microsoft? | | Bungie didn't like how Microsoft managed them. Bungie wanted | to do something other than Halo, but Microsoft wanted more | Halo. | | A Destiny reference can be seen in ODST: https://www.gameinfo | rmer.com/b/features/archive/2014/01/09/h... | umvi wrote: | > I guess that points to how unbelievable hard it is for | independent game developers to survive | | I thought companies like Bungie, Bioware, etc. sold out. | | i.e. it's easy to survive if you make blockbuster titles like | Halo or Mass Effect, but then a big corp comes by and offers | mega bucks to buy you and so you sell out. The solution if you | don't want to be "under the thumb of [a] corporate overlord" is | to not sell out in the first place. | HWR_14 wrote: | MS bought Bungie, and then Bungie had the money to make the | first Halo | bsimpson wrote: | I still remember when Bungie was one of the only companies that | made games for Macs. The Marathon trilogy was a memorable part of | my childhood. | | Then Microsoft bought them for Halo, and spun them back out (sans | Halo). Halo was first demoed by Steve Jobs - it was going to be a | Mac game. | jl6 wrote: | Marathon felt like such a huge deal at the time, with its funky | triangular prism box, its hyperliterate storyline, and its | novel network multiplayer modes. And yet it seems to get little | to no airtime in video game nostalgia mythology. | | Maybe it was just too niche as a Mac game. | HWR_14 wrote: | It was going to be an RTS. Pretty different if you ask me. | mig39 wrote: | Nah, here's a preview of Halo for Mac, in 1999. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebI5lkLRTdg Before Microsoft | bought Bungie. It looks almost identical to the Xbox version | from 2001. | | It definitely started as an RTS, but it had morphed into | Combat Evolved before Microsoft bought bungie. | ace2358 wrote: | Just to be clear, it was a mac game. It still came out and | Halo: Combat Involved ran beautifully on PPC and Intel (Rosetta | 1 translation?). | | Good memories of that game. I still haven't played marathon :0 | synthos wrote: | Who's left (as large distinct publishers/studios)? | | - Sony | | - Microsoft | | - Electronic Arts | | - Capcom | | - Ubisoft | | - Nintendo | | - Konami | | - Square Enix | | - Tencent | | - Take Two | | - Warner Brother Games | | - Embracer Group | | IP license biz model (Disney, Sega, etc...) | | I'd include Valve, but they just don't make games anymore | | edit: Added Embracer | 0xcde4c3db wrote: | I'm not sure I'd classify Konami as "large distinct | publishers/studios" anymore. Apart from the obligatory yearly | installments of PES and BeatMania, they seem to mostly make | gambling machines these days. | jackling wrote: | Half-Life: Alyx was made recently no? | syshum wrote: | Until we get an actual Half-Life 3 they should never be | called a Game Studio ;) | synthos wrote: | True, but is one game in a decade really notable? It was only | for a niche market. Compare to the mainstream | console/pc/mobile. | pphysch wrote: | I think Valve/Steam will get M&A'd when the current leadership | retires | 015a wrote: | Outside looking in, this feels like a far more valuable | acquisition than Activision for $69B. | | Call of Duty is valuable, but Microsoft has already said they | don't intend to remove it from PlayStation. That could change, | but so could CoD's importance to the video gaming industry as a | whole: its popularity has dropped with essentially every release | since BLOPS2. | | Outside of CoD: AB is a shadow of its former self; IMO the second | most valuable IP suite in the history of gaming (first: | Nintendo), but years of failed projects, brain drain, and poor | employee culture make acting on that IP difficult. Halo 4, 5, and | Infinite have suggested that Xbox can keep dying IP on life | support, but reclaiming the glory of Blizzard's past likely isn't | in the cards, at least on the medium term. | | In comparison: Sony paid 20x less for Bungie. What they lack in | variety of products, they make up for in, in my view, Potential. | Destiny is a great franchise, with lots of fans. The team brings | rock solid FPS dev & netcode experience (something Sony's first | party studios are at a deficit for). | | This spectacularly echos previous acquisitions from both | companies. Microsoft buys Halo, Gears, Bethesda, AB; all "glory | day IP" acquisitions with demonstrated historical mega-success, | but weaker more recent market success. Sony goes smaller; | Bluepoint, Housemarque, and Bungie; but despite being smaller | names, these companies have far more demonstrable ability to | produce triple-A content, tomorrow. In other words; Microsoft is | looking for name recognition to sell Game Pass; Sony is looking | for talent, which the PlayStation name recognition and marketing | machine can wring success out of. | | Most recent tactile example: Returnal was a massive success | despite being in a very niche genre, which directly led to | Housemarque's acquisition. Its hard to imagine it seeing the same | success on Xbox, especially since Xbox _did_ have an exclusive, | in a different genre, but with rather similar vibes, release | around the same time (The Medium). It was, to my eyes, a market | failure (but, of course, I have no insider info). | | I don't like centralization. But it is interesting to see these | two different strategies play out. | HWR_14 wrote: | Microsoft didn't buy Halo. They bought Bungie, then used them | to make Halo. They spin them off, keeping then Halo franchise. | | Okay, technically Bungie was working on a RTS game called Halo | when MS bought them, but it was after the purchase it shifted | genres and found its groove. | | In other words, this "echo" isn't really what you are saying. | Fuzzwah wrote: | Halo was most certainly an FPS before MS bought Bungie. | | https://youtu.be/ebI5lkLRTdg | w4rh4wk5 wrote: | True, but it was initially supposed to be an RTS, just a | bit longer before Microsoft stepped in. | mig39 wrote: | Did you watch the video? It was basically complete before | Microsoft bought it. They then ported it to Xbox. | | It may have been an RTS initially, but when Microsoft | bought Bungie, it was already "Combat Evolved" and near | release. | InitialLastName wrote: | I watched the video. The game in that trailer could just | as easily have been a tactical RTS with a cinematic | camera as a FPS (note the complete absence of first- | person shots). | mig39 wrote: | Right! For sure. | | But according to | https://www.vice.com/en/article/xwqjg3/the-complete- | untold-h... | | It was already an FPS by 1998, 2 years before Microsoft | was involved, and a year before the video shown above. | | They started as an RTS, then decided it was way too much | fun to actually drive the vehicles, and the rest is | history. | | Microsoft definitely helped with the development, but | Microsoft bought a FPS game, not an RTS one. | EA wrote: | HALO was originally based on Myth. That is when Halo was | briefly (conceptually) an RTS. It evolved into a Third | Person Shooter, and finally First Person Shooter. After | Bungie was acquired by Microsoft, they had a year to make | their game, so they made the decision to start over from | the beginning and create Halo as a first person shooter. | mig39 wrote: | Honestly, that would have been awesome! | | I loved Myth and Myth II. A space-based one would have | been great. | | I don't understand the timeline, though, as the videos | shown at MacWorld in 1999 (before Microsoft), show Halo | as a first-person shooter. The video is linked above. I | think it was a FPS long before Microsoft was interested. | I think Microsoft bought it specifically because of the | FPS game. | w4rh4wk5 wrote: | Believe me, I don't need to watch that video. I've been | there ;) | | A lot of development happened right before Combat Evolved | got released due to Microsoft injecting a lot of money. | It wasn't just an Xbox port of an already finished game. | Look at the E3 2000 trailer which is pretty much what has | been shown at Macworld the year before. Combat Evolved | looked quite different when it came out a year later. | Note that Microsoft acquired Bungie in 2000. | 015a wrote: | First of all; the original acquisition is not what I was | referring to, but rather: Microsoft's "maintenance" of the | Halo IP after Bungie itself left Microsoft's domain, and the | formation of a near-entirely new studio (343) to develop it. | Ok, they didn't buy the IP at that juncture; they bought a | studio to develop an IP they already owned. Use some | creativity and you can see the parallels are similar enough. | | Second: Do you recall the keynote where Bungie unveiled Halo | for the first time... at MacWorld 1999? For reference, | Microsoft acquired Bungie in 2000. I've literally never heard | the assertion that Halo was intended to be an RTS; my | understanding is that it was originally going to be a _third_ | person FPS, as the 1999 MacWorld trailer suggests, but was | changed to a first person FPS when Microsoft purchased them. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eZ2yvWl9nQ | steveklabnik wrote: | See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo:_Combat_Evolved#Prot | otype... | | The earliest versions were basically built on top of Myth's | engine, Bungie's RTS. It then eventually became a third | person shooter, and it was such at the MacWorld | announcement. It did turn into an FPS after the Microsoft | acquisition. | [deleted] | kipchak wrote: | Halo was originally designed as a RTS, but playing around | with it a bit they found it more fun to get the camera down | closer, especially driving vehicles. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weuRNxpDLUE | er4hn wrote: | Halo was an FPS and a spiritual successor to an earlier | series of theirs called "Marathon". The main characters, | weapons, and themes of the original game all skew very | closely to Marathon. | rodgerd wrote: | I miss the Bungie that pumped out Marathon, Myth, and Oni. | | (I will look forward to people who were screaming that | console makers mustn't be allowed to buy game authors and | studios seamlessly turn a 180 if it favours their tribe.) | steveklabnik wrote: | There's also tangential evidence that Pathways Into | Darkness, Marathon, Halo, and Destiny all exist in the same | universe. | | And with this recent 30th anniversary event, it also seems | like they kind of think of all of their various older IPs | to be in a multiverse of some sort. | | (And Pathways into Darkness was also an FPS, just like | those three Marathon games. Bungie has been doing FPSes for | a long time, 100% agree with you.) | moogleii wrote: | I think Microsoft's play was to further strengthen Game Pass to | the point that Sony can't deny it on their platform anymore (or | at least make it hurt more to continue doing so). It makes | sense that MS won't remove games from Sony's access, but it | does give them more levers to play with. "Hey this game is | 'free' on Game Pass (PC + XBox). You can still buy it for | PlayStation, though." | | And Sony's move is simply a defense against that. | hlbjhblbljib wrote: | What is AB? | generalpf wrote: | Activision Blizzard | scarface74 wrote: | You're forgetting about how profitable (and disgusting) | Activision's mobile play to win games are. | | Besides, MS needs content for its subscription gaming service. | It's not like consoles themselves are profitable. They are just | a means to deliver games to users. | mdasen wrote: | It feels the opposite way to me. Microsoft bought a company | with an extensive suite of IP that publishes a lot of games. | Sony panicked and bought a company that has one franchise | (Destiny). | | When looking at Disney, I see a company that has bought a lot | of deep IP catalogues. They've used that to really propel their | future and get high-value talent that wants to work in those | universes with a Disney-sized budget to tell their stories. | | Activision Blizzard may have cost 20x more, but Activision is | really profitable with a P/E ratio of 26 (at the $69B deal | price). Microsoft's P/E is 33, Google's is 26, Apple's is 29, | Amazon's is 58, and Netflix is 38 (even with the tumble in | price). So Microsoft bought Activision relatively cheap | compared to its earnings. Bungie is private so we don't really | know what their finances are like. Activision's cheap price | means that there isn't a lot of risk for Microsoft. Maybe you | believe that Activision is about to crater and no one will want | their games in the future. It's possible. It's also possible | that everyone is going to get tired of the extensive IP | catalogues that Disney has assembled. However, when the price | is that reasonable, you don't need the same explosive growth to | justify the investment. | | So Microsoft bought a business that even if it just keeps | performing as-usual will be a fine addition to Microsoft. It | also has the potential to be huge for Microsoft with a deep IP | catalogue, the potential for Xbox exclusives to help launch the | next-gen Xbox when the time comes, the potential for cost | savings with Azure infrastructure, and probably more that I'm | not thinking of. | | If Sony buys Bungie and just lets them do their thing, they | might get some good games. But it seems like Microsoft wants to | buy and pour some money in which seems like a recipe for bigger | successes. We've seen it with some of Microsoft's recent | purchases. They've poured money into GitHub and made it an even | bigger platform. They've poured money into .NET Core and | Xamarin/Mono to recapture developer mindshare. It seems like | Microsoft is likely to take similar steps with their Activision | purchase - and similar steps that Disney has taken with their | IP catalogue. | | It's possible that the small places Sony has bought have better | potential, but Activision Blizard is a profitable company at a | relatively cheap price which means that the purchase carries | relatively low risk while still offering a lot of upside for | Microsoft. | sensitivefrost wrote: | "Sony panicked and bought a company that has one franchise | (Destiny)." | | If you think Sony turned around and bought Bungie in the 2 | weeks since the Acti-Blizz acquisition was announced, I dunno | what to tell you. | Macha wrote: | On the flip side, it's highly unlikely that Sony didn't | know talks were ongoing for ActiBlizz, and may even have | been offered a chance at the same. | ezekg wrote: | Definitely. Especially considering they had (timed) | exclusivity of all COD content for years. | steveklabnik wrote: | > Sony panicked and bought a company that has one franchise | (Destiny). | | Beyond the fact that this has supposedly been in the works | for months, so not exactly a panic, Bungie has a new IP in | development, and has announced their plan to expand Destiny | beyond video games, to movies, books, and other media. So | while you're right in the sense that today, Bungie only has | Destiny, they've already been working on making that not | true, even if they're not there just yet. | AussieWog93 wrote: | Honestly, I'm not sure if Activision's IP catalog would | attract and retain high-value talent in the same way that | Disney's does. | | Yes, the catalogue is deep, but much of it consists of dead | horses that have been beaten for years or once-great icons | that were mismanaged into relative irrelevance. | | Budget constraints didn't seem to be what was holding them | back before, and I can't see Microsoft suddenly managing the | IP any better than Activision were (if anything, I can see it | going downhill faster). | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | They also get neat tech with the purchase - the blizzard | launcher is awesome. As far as smooth | downloads/deployments/go-lives are concerned that launcher | and the games its services are in leagues of their own, so | far beyond Microsofts own store it's not even funny (ignoring | the recent problem of Diablo 2 running twenty year old net | code causing problems with its recent launch). | w4rh4wk5 wrote: | > these companies have far more demonstrable ability to produce | triple-A content | | I am not so sure. At least not for Bungie. I haven't enjoyed | Destiny at all. Where on the other side, Arkane's Dishonored | and Prey are quite good. So are id Software's Doom, Doom | Eternal, and Wolfenstein. Fallout 4 was okay as well. | 015a wrote: | Sure; and the unfortunate reality is, Fallout 4 was released | nearly 8 years ago. Dishonored: 10. Dishonored 2: 6. | | id definitely puts out super solid stuff, consistently. | Arkane is also in that bucket (Deathloop is the better | example to judge recent efficacy of the team, not | Dishonored/Prey. And its great). But, that is counterbalanced | by... Fallout 76? Warcraft 3 Reforged? The state of WoW, | Overwatch, and Heroes? | | Xbox's acquisitions are a semitruck full of companies. The | good parts of that truck are good. The bad parts are... quite | bad. But the bad parts are built on really strong IP, which | carried its own high price tag. So the question becomes; | they'll definitely get value out of Arkane, id, and CoD, zero | question there; but will they get value out of the rest of | the ~$76B combined they spent, when so much of it is in | glory-day IPs and not in teams, employed today, that can | execute on that IP to deliver awesome content (no disrespect | intended to the teams who _do_ work on that content today; | but reality is in the metrics, revenue, etc)? | | Comparatively: Microsoft bought a semi-truck, Sony bought a | Miata. It's not the fastest car out there. It's not for | everyone. But it has its users and there's no question as to | Mazda's ability to put out another stellar model, nor | question around whether customers will buy it. Plus: very | affordable. Ok, that's a bad analogy. | philistine wrote: | Mobile gaming invalidates all your argumentation. Activision | Blizzard King has a large and successful mobile business that | makes more money than anything you've described here. Bungie | has none of that, which explains its far lower price. | MangoCoffee wrote: | >In comparison: Sony paid 20x less for Bungie. What they lack | in variety of products, they make up for in, in my view, | Potential. Destiny is a great franchise | | Strongly disagree. Bungie have one IP. while AB have many well | know IPs. Blizzard proven, you can make a new game out of old | IP. Warcraft is used to make Hearthstone the card game. | | you are comparing one franchise IP to multiple franchise IPs | and claiming Bungie is a better deal. that just stretching it. | cletus wrote: | > Call of Duty is valuable, but Microsoft has already said they | don't intend to remove it from PlayStation. | | They haven't said that. They have said they will honor their | existing contracts [1]. That's not permanent guarantee. I'm not | saying they'll pull it as soon as they can but it gives them a | lot of power. | | I'm not sure you realize just how big the CoD franchise is. It | pulls in _billions_ of dollars _every year_ by itself. | | As for Blizzard, yes the company has seen better days but their | IP is still valuable. Diablo 4 whenever it comes out will sell | a ton of copies. | | [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/20/22892860/sony- | microsoft-a... | sylens wrote: | > In comparison: Sony paid 20x less for Bungie. What they lack | in variety of products, they make up for in, in my view, | Potential. Destiny is a great franchise, with lots of fans. The | team brings rock solid FPS dev & netcode experience (something | Sony's first party studios are at a deficit for). | | I disagree. Destiny may have once had potential, but Bungie is | a studio that continually shoots itself in the foot. Just like | with Halo, they threw out years of work for the first Destiny | and essentially stitched together a frankenstein of the parts | to ship on time. It's why the story has never made sense, even | as they try to retcon various pieces to fit into a much longer | narrative. | | The game has also lost some of its early "looter shooter with | friends" charm and become a grindfest that feels like a job at | times, with content that is sunset only 2-3 years after it is | sold to consumers. Destiny 2 is also extremely hostile to new | players, bombarding them with dozens of vendors, currencies, | and no clear sense of where to start and how to begin grokking | the story. The original campaign has been sunset so if you | never played before, you will be missing the equivalent of the | first movie of a trilogy in terms of plot and characters. | | My hope for this acquisition is that it lets them course | correct the design of whatever they do next because I feel that | Destiny 2 is in decline. | samsgro wrote: | Generally agree, but on the other hand, the game feels a LOT | better since since the Activision divestment. | | In the last 12 months narrative team of Destiny 2 have REALLY | knocked it out of the park, with the seasonal plot actually | making sense and having some interesting activities (like | Battlegrounds). Some significant improvements in QoL too. | | While there definitely gaps as you say - the New Light | experience in particular needs some serious work - so long as | Sony lets the team continue on its current trajectory, there | may be hope. | sylens wrote: | I agree that the seasonal storytelling is better but they | have a very real problem with the game becoming Bounty | Collector. They also have basically abandoned Crucible, | which makes me think the new IP is where all their top PvP | talent is currently. | habeebtc wrote: | To actually finish all the content in each D2 expansion you | have to invest full time job kind of time in it. | | Destiny doesn't just feel like a job, in some sense it IS a | job. | | I thought they did a good job rehabilitating the first game | from the sorry shape it shipped in (see: the economics of the | loot cave). It is a mountain which can be climbed, and it is | fun to do so. (There is also a literal mountain to climb) | spaceisballer wrote: | I grabbed Destiny 2 and some expansions a while back on a | humble bundle. I had a blast, it was fun and could play | with friends. Then end game seemed to not have much going | for it. And it was confusing on what you could and couldn't | access. Came back to it after a break and with more | expansions out it just seemed even more confusing on what I | could and couldn't access. It's sort of the WOW problem, | the game is just overwhelming. There is so much content and | no clear way on what you can or can't access. The various | currencies alone are confusing. | willis936 wrote: | The child in me always kneejerk reacts "not my Bungie!". | How much of the Destiny trainwreck was publisher fingering? | Could the Bungie of 10 years ago have put out a game that | is fun, like they had consistently for the previous decade? | Of course, it was just those pesky publishers. | | Well, now the Bungie of yore is thoroughly dead. All of the | faces from the Halo Vid Docs have moved on. What's left is | a husk. Sony bought a hope. They also prevented Microsoft | and Bungie from teaming up again. Perhaps they fear that | duo. I wish them the best. | Macha wrote: | They've continued some of their worse monetisation and | game design decisions while independent for quite a few | years now, and stuff like the poor value of the 30th | anniversary pack is entirely their own mistake to make, | so I feel publisher meddling was a handy deflection for | Bungie to hide behind in many cases. | camel_Snake wrote: | > They've continued some of their worse monetisation and | game design decisions while independent for quite a few | years now, and stuff like the poor value of the 30th | anniversary pack is entirely their own mistake to make... | | This is an interesting thought. The 30th anniversary | *paid* content was a bit lighter than anticipated, | however the Free To Play content that came alongside it | was fantastic. Perhaps I'm just used to seeing phrases | like 'worse monetization' from the consumers perspective | rather than the business's, but most of the community | reactions from the 30th were positive, at least in | regards to what was paid and what wasn't. | wklauss wrote: | > Sony paid 20x less for Bungie. What they lack in variety of | products, they make up for in, in my view, Potential. | | Not really. Destiny has a smaller audience than CoD, and | Activision Blizzard is a huge purchase with lots a of valuable | IPs that go beyond CoD and can still grow (Bungie, OTOH, | currently only has Destiny in it's catalog). | | Bungie revenue was estimated around $300 million for 2019 vs. | $6,5b for Activision Blizzard, so price seems to be in line for | both purchases, around 8x annual rev. | | Keep in mind Microsoft has bought ton of small studios as well! | (Rare, Playground). | | Returnal is a good title, but far from being a success by AAA | standards (last time they reported sales of the game, in June | 2021. it was 560.000 copies). I think part of the aura of | success comes from being one of the very few exclusive titles | created specifically for the PS5. | 015a wrote: | Its important to put the Returnal numbers in context: it was | never supposed to be a triple-A hit. Housemarque is a small | (50-100 people) studio that traditionally made top-down or | side-scrolling bullet hell shooters; they developed Returnal | without being under the PSS banner (though certainly with | financial support for the exclusive title); and it has sold | 500k+ copies. | | Compare that to Rift Apart, which last I heard is more in the | 1-2M sales range. Insomniac is a true triple-A studio, with | more like 400-500 employees plus the full development support | of PSS's shared resources. Ratchet & Clank is a more broadly | known franchise, in a genre and aesthetic that is more age | and demographic accessible. | | Additionally, while this would equally affect Returnal & Rift | Apart; PS5 shortages do dampen all PS5 exclusive game sales | compared to more broadly available titles. | | Within that context, it's clear to me that Returnal was a | tremendous success. Not a Triple-A success, but its not all | about raw sales at the end of the day. Cost to produce also | needs to be considered. | | To be clear: I absolutely believe Xbox isn't just "all | triple-A all the time". They have the triple-A teams. They | have the smaller teams (Maybe not Rare/Playground as they're | huge nowadays, but: Ninja Theory, Compulsion, Double Fine, | World's Edge, maybe even Obsidian, plus their exclusivity | deals with Moon and Asobo). Its more-so a discussion about | their recent acquisitions strategy. | lvl100 wrote: | Clearly Microsoft making divestitures to get under the antitrust | hurdle. | awill wrote: | Sony didn't want to do this. Microsoft forced their hand. | | I'm sure Sony is terrified of a world where MS keeps buying up | hugely popular cross platform games and shutting them off. | | Sony said they want to keep Bungie cross platform. Maybe they're | doing this to barter for Call of Duty with MS. | kungito wrote: | Well Sony was always the one aggressive with exclusives, not | Microsoft. I only got PS5 to finally catch up on 5-10 | exclusives I've wanted to play for the last few years. If it | was only up to the specs everyone would go with Xbox Series X | steveklabnik wrote: | Supposedly it's been in talks for over five months, so unless | someone at Sony also knew about the Microsoft deal (which is, | of course, possible) it doesn't appear to be directly in | response to it. | ihuman wrote: | It could be in response to the Bethesda/Zenimax deal, not the | Activision-Blizzard one | donatj wrote: | Of all the companies they could buy, this one certainly feels | the most... Spiteful. | ngngngng wrote: | Another one! I'm interested to see how this plays out. Most of | Microsoft's acquisitions in recent years have been failures. | Studios that had been making iconic games were acquired by | Microsoft and in short order were only making shovelware (see | Rare post acquisition). | | Sony doesn't seem to have the same problem. Sucker Punch and | Insomniac are good examples of this, their output has been as | good as ever since being acquired by Sony. From the outside | looking in this seems to be because Sony understands how much | creative freedom means to these teams, and they don't inject Sony | management into the processes of previously successful game | studios. I'd love to hear more of an insider opinion on why | acquisitions over the last decade look so differently at these | two companies though. | sumtechguy wrote: | Wait wasn't Bungie a MS division at one point? | willidiots wrote: | Yes. Bungie was an independent studio back in the 90's, then | MS acquired them for Halo. Bungie split from MS in 2007; the | Halo IP remained behind under 343. | | They were under Activision during the Destiny era until 2019. | So if they stayed, they would've ended up back at MS. The M&A | merry-go-round continues. | Hamuko wrote: | They weren't under Activision, they just had a publishing | agreement with Activision in the 2010s, and retained all | intellectual property. | zppln wrote: | Hm, surely it must have been later than 2007 that they | split? Wasn't Reach made by Bungie? | HWR_14 wrote: | They split in 2007. MS then had them make reach as an | independent company. | theandrewbailey wrote: | When they announced the split in 2007, there was some | deal that required Bungie to make two more Halo games | after 3. Bungie released ODST in 2009 and Reach in 2010. | Xplune13 wrote: | Rare did go down after acquisition, but what others are you | talking about? Their biggest (Zenimax) one will start releasing | new Xbox and PC exclusive games from this year onwards, so it's | still early to call that one a failure. | | Mojang, is doing Mojang thing i.e. Minecraft and while they | haven't had a great success after that, they're still doing | fine. | | Playground games is doing Forza which is actually pretty | popular among racing players (perhaps the most popular). | | Obsidian haven't started to make Xbox and PC exclusives yet, | but they'll also start with that presumably next year. | | I don't know where you're getting "Most of Microsoft's | acquisitions in recent years have been failures." this. | | On the other hand, Sony's way of buying studios is way | different. Most of the times, they have already worked with | those studios in past to make a PS exclusive and then they buy | them. I agree that Insomniac is doing great (better than any of | Microsoft's purchases), but other than that, there isn't much | just like MS. | | I think we will get a better picture of whose acquisitions work | best after 5-6 more years. | DizzyDoo wrote: | Other one would be Double Fine, while it is relatively early | days since they were acquired in 2019, they seem to have been | just working on their projects since then. Psychonauts 2 was | very well received last year - from what I've read it seems | like the Microsoft acquisition allowed them to add a bunch of | content back into the game that they had previously cut for | time/budget, like boss battles - looks like it helped with | the overall game quality. | kupopuffs wrote: | Ensemble, FASA, Lionhead Studios, Access, Digital Anvil | | See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisi | tio... | Goronmon wrote: | I don't know if I would classify 15-25 years ago as "recent | years"... | monocasa wrote: | And frankly, Rare was a shadow of it's former self at | acquisition anyway. There were still some a couple of the | people left who worked on the games that made Rare famous | (e.g. Ken Lobb, Grant Kirkhope), but it had a huge amount of | brain drain around the early 2000s that left it in a state to | be one of the first game dev studios to be picked up on the | cheap by Microsoft. Nintendo want interested in supporting | it, and it probably just would have went under if not for | Microsoft. | craz8 wrote: | It's interesting that Sucker Punch and Bungie offices were | really close to each other - maybe 2 blocks? Although I read | that Sucker Punch recently moved, and I don't know the new | location. | | I can imagine them sharing all sorts of things between studios | now that they have the same ownership. It will at least allow | shared lunch time conversations to be less guarded | manojlds wrote: | Some of the best rated games this year (2021) including Sony | exclusive this year were from Microsoft / Xbox. | Hamuko wrote: | Like what? | frenchie14 wrote: | Rare was acquired in 2002 and their list of games since doesn't | look like shovelware to me [1]. Yeah, there's some misses, but | there's also some great games in there. The worst ones are the | ones tied to Kinect and MS has abandoned that venture. | | Also, MS acquisitions from the last 5 years have released | standout games: Psychonauts 2 and Forza Horizon 5 are two that | I played and loved and are certainly not "shovelware" | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_developed_... | awill wrote: | >>Rare was acquired in 2002 and their list of games since | doesn't look like shovelware to me | | I don't know.... Honestly Rare was just as good if not better | than Nintendo themselves. And that's a nearly impossible | feat. | | The n64 did as well as it did because of Rare. GoldenEye, | Perfect Dark, Banjo, Diddy Kong, Donkey Kong, Jet Force | Gemini etc.. post-acquisition, Rare didn't made the same sort | of games. So maybe they found new fans, but the old fans | hated it. Myself included. | sylens wrote: | There was a run of excellence on the N64 (Goldeneye, Banjo | Kazooie, Diddy Kong Racing, Jet Force Gemini, Perfect Dark) | but Banjo Tooie and Donkey Kong 64, in retrospect, are very | bloated games. As a kid, I loved them because there was | more content for my money, but I can't imagine replaying | them now. | xtracto wrote: | Shit I'm old. To me Rare were definitely one of the best | game studios for NES and SNES: R.C. Pro-Am, NARC, | Battletoads, Killer Instinct, Donkey Kong Country. I got | into University when the N64 came out, so I did not play it | . | [deleted] | z3c0 wrote: | Maybe it's not shovelware, but there's a pretty stark | difference in the caliber of games that Rare released after | their acquisition. | | This is the company that made Donkey Kong Country, Banjo & | Kazooie, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Conker, etc, so anything | short of iconic is a step down. | | However, I'll add that Viva Pinata is an oft overlooked gem. | indigodaddy wrote: | It's Wizards and Warriors for me.. loved that game. | supermatt wrote: | Feels like sony + ms are just going to shoot each other in the | foot. Gamers will end up with both consoles (sold as loss | leaders) to get access to the exclusives and then spread their | investment in games between the two. Lose/lose | evrydayhustling wrote: | Recurring online service payments are replacing game sales as | the guaranteed loss recouping strategy for consoles. Exclusive | titles will rely heavily on the online service, driving long- | term subscriptions and anchoring cross-platform DLC purchases. | | The loser is game devs, who must either (a) do extra dev AND | pay higher fees to integrate deeply with each platform, or (b) | integrate minimally with each platform and compete with titles | that get a leg-up from users' sunk costs into the network | service. | | tl;dr - the online service is the new console | SllX wrote: | Decent chance I won't have to change my setup from | PC/PS5/Switch for a good long while. When I last looked, | whatever we're calling the Xbox line now doesn't have enough | exclusives to personally justify any amount of investment in | the console given my arrangement and that looks unlikely to | change anytime in the near future. | theandrewbailey wrote: | It seems like all new Xbox games will be on PC[0], and | eventually Playstation games will be after some exclusivity | period[1]. | | Halo Infinite released same day on Xbox _and_ PC. That 's never | happened for a mainline Halo game before. | | [0] Phil Spencer confirms all first-party Xbox Series X games | are 'coming to PC' https://www.pcgamer.com/phil-spencer- | confirms-all-first-part... | | [1] Sony wants to bring more first-party games to PC | https://www.pcgamer.com/sonys-new-strategy-brings-more-of-it... | synthos wrote: | They both win if players have and keep both subscriptions | simultaneously | dr_orpheus wrote: | Yep, this feels to me like the direction this is going. Sony | and Microsoft scooping up game developers to make their | subscription worth it for the number of games relative to the | cost/month. And I think they've probably both gotten there | now. Plenty of people maintain Netflix+Hulu+...+..., so I | don't think its a stretch for people to put up $20/month and | get both of the subscriptions even after the initial cost of | the console. | esturk wrote: | That's actually not what they care about the most. Yes it's | great to have players that will buy both consoles and both | subscriptions. The companies don't worry about them as much | because they already know it's a guaranteed segment of the | market. | | What they care about more are players that can ONLY buy one | OR the other. That's higher on their priority list. This is | about buying the mind shares of tomorrow. | manojlds wrote: | Microsoft has said that they don't see Sony and Nintendo as | competition and the acquisitions are not about Sony. (but about | Google, Amazon, Apple etc) | | Phil Spencer also said he hopes Sony and Nintendo will preserve | the gaming ecosystem unlike those others. | MangoCoffee wrote: | i believe for MS, its all about the Xbox game pass. they need | as many games under game pass as possible in order to lure | people in to justify paying monthly for game as service. | pjerem wrote: | > Microsoft has said that they don't see Sony and Nintendo as | competition | | They all say this and ... that's just marketing/bs. How in | the world aren't they competing ? They are all battling for a | limited ressource which is your video game budget. | rodgerd wrote: | In the case of Nintendo, they've agreed to support cross- | play, which Sony refuse to. And their consoles and brand | are very different from XBox. Very few people are buying a | Switch instead of an XBox or gaming PC; they're more likely | to be buying it as another way of gaming. | Hamuko wrote: | The way Phil Spencer has been talking, it seems to me like | they're going to start putting all these acquisitions | exclusively on the Xbox, so I'm not sure sure about that | "don't see them as competition" or "hope to preserve the | gaming ecosystem". | endisneigh wrote: | Google should buy Take Two, make Grand Theft Auto Online, Stadia | exclusive, console unnecessary. $5/month. Checkmate. | 7thaccount wrote: | As a PlayStation owner, do I finally get to play Halo, or is this | everything except Halo? | AceJohnny2 wrote: | Bungie hasn't owned Halo since they were spun off from | Microsoft in 2007. | | Current Bungie is Destiny 2. | 7thaccount wrote: | Yuck, zero interest in that :) | | I wish Sony could make a decent FPS with a great story. | Something like Mass Effect or Halo. Killzone was okay I | suppose, but the story was lackluster and the combat involved | far too much hiding behind boxes. | myko wrote: | Destiny is the spiritual successor to Halo. Maybe try | giving it a shot! | BitwiseFool wrote: | I sense Sony is in dire straits when it comes to both IP | availability and their ability to compete with Microsoft. | [deleted] | zppln wrote: | Hm, last time I cared about this stuff was at the end of the | 360/PS3 generation and back then MS was in a really bad spot | with respect to first party production. To the point where I'm | actually amazed they're still in the fight. By the end of that | generation the Sony studios where really crushing it, whereas | MS' were just pushing GoW, Halo and Kinect shovelware. Has the | tables turned? | capableweb wrote: | > I sense Sony is in dire straits when it comes to both IP | availability | | Maybe you're referring to that they don't have many IPv4s | available, because Sony is in no lack of strong Intellectual | Properties when it comes to gaming. Guerrilla Games (Killzone, | Horizon Zero Dawn), Insomniac Games (Ratchet & Clank), Naughty | Dog (Crash Bandicoot, Jak and Dexter, Uncharted, The Last of | Us), Santa Monica Studio (God of War), Polyphony Digital (Gran | Turismo) and more are all part of PlayStation Studios which is | a division of Sony IE. Most of the studios in PlayStation | Studios are big time IP in the industry. | rvz wrote: | It would be silly for the existing mainline franchises of several | games to become exclusive to Sony, just like the same with | Microsoft with their recent purchases of Activision and ZeniMax. | Who doesn't want more money for multi-platform and cross-play | games? | | I would expect that the spin-offs or DLCs and the new IP from | those studios to make them exclusive. | bladegash wrote: | Interesting! I wonder how this bodes for Bungie's relatively | recent cross-play and cross-save functionality in Destiny 2 (or | future games). They executed on it extremely well and it has been | great to play on PS4 and Steam without any huge issues. | tapoxi wrote: | They claim no changes and they intend to remain a cross- | platform studio. | | So I wonder if this ties into Sony's upcoming PS Now | replacement gaming subscription service, you get Destiny | content while your PS sub is active. | bladegash wrote: | That's halfway reassuring at least. Wonder if it's gonna be | out of their hands though (e.g., Microsoft or Steam | inhibiting their ability to do it), as opposed to Sony | preventing them. | | It will be interesting to see if the transition the existing | Season system to being included with a PS subscription. I'd | imagine they'll keep expansions as separate purchases, but | seasons get pretty pricey on top. | glanzwulf wrote: | Capcom? Konami? Sega? Nah, let's buy this 1 old ass game. | | Hope Bungie has something in the works that is 3.6B | HideousKojima wrote: | Does Bungie even still own the rights to their older catalog | (not counting Halo obviously)? Like Myth, Oni, and Marathon? | glanzwulf wrote: | I don't think they do. I think Oni is with Take-Two. I | searched about that one a while back actually as I always | loved Oni and wanted to see it come back. | steveklabnik wrote: | Given that they recently put a bunch of weapons from their | older games in Destiny, but had to modify the names slightly, | I suspect the answer is "no". | camel_Snake wrote: | Their next game is called 'Matter' and is purportedly more akin | to Overwatch than Destiny. 2025ish is the current estimate. | topkai22 wrote: | I know Microsoft originally kept a minority stake in Bungie after | letting it spin-off. I wonder if they kept the investment and how | much. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-01-31 23:01 UTC)