Then provide some information on how Sony, a company with 20 times the income of Take 2 cannot make a similar sized acquisition.
Sony needs to prove they can invest in big publishers by buying a big publisher.
Will they? Well if they can afford to buy a publisher, they can afford sell games at $60.
Sony is capable of buying Take Two or EA, though it could be argued that that is over extending themselves and might expose them to risk that a much larger company would not be impacted by.
1 Like
Maybe, but they could just add easily make several large publisher purchases without the same risks. For instance buying Capcom for Sony would have a similar payoff period that Activision does for Microsoft while expanding their lead in console.
Xbox doesnât emulate consoles on existing Azure infrastructure to provide Cloud Gaming. They have to fund the hardware in the data centres. And likewise they do get cross charged (albeit at a very competitive price) for them being hosted there. People always assume Xbox gets their cloud infrastructure for free for some weird (naive) reason.
Does Playstation Network utilise Amazon Web Services?
But Take 2 bought them via merger no? Like with stock options. Similar how AMD got Xilinx or whatever it was called.
We need somebody like @profjjj here. Or maybe @Knottian for that discussion.
I maintain my stance that sony wonât be able to acquire anything that cost more than 5b with premium included. Microsoft does not returns from their spending because they can write off such expenses relatively easily.
Still it is nice to make Sony experience what Sega felt when Sony joined the console market.
Everywhere that I have seen has stated it was a cash and stock takeover of Zynga. If it was a merger, I believe an entirely new entity is formed, I dont see any evidence of that. Someone more educated on the topic might be able to shed some more light on any nuances.
Azure definitely has some addiitional tech built on top of it, but Sony also owns patents for proprietary cloud technology. Sony could have made their investments into datacenters. For instances during this whole first 2 years Microsoft sent a large portion of the chips they got for Xbox Series S/X to build out their datacenters, sacrificing console sales to build this infrastructure.
As a result Sony built its lead on Xbox in console sales but Xbox set itself up for their cloud gaming initiative. Sony could have done the same, but focused on producing consoles instead. That is a choice Sony made and a choice Microaoft made.
5 Likes
Because Sony are looking at a different distribution model for the cloud gaming. MS literally have Series Xs in racks. You dial into one when you do cloud gaming.
Sony arenât doing that, for whatever reason.
Have they got the finances to sink the sort of money Microsoft have into their service?
If a company really wanted to do something they would find a way with the financal aspects.
Realistically could they have offset the sales losses by putting PS5 blades into their server centres for Playstation Now/Plus/whatever the fuck they call it this week.
Microsoft obviously have the finances to take a short term loss to grow a service in the long term.
So many people always want to talk about Sonyâs lack of money. Why is that Microsoftâs fault or problem because that is completely a Sony problem.
And maybe if they did invest years ago, they would be worth a lot more today. And like someone else pointed out, why didnât they start their own music and movies/tv shows streaming subscription service? I never thought of this stuff until it was mentioned above by Brit or Sun.
Itâs almost as if despite being the only company that takes huge risks and heavily invests, Microsoft also has to be the company to help everyone else while also making sure their own shit never succeeds. I donât understand the thought process of people who say this.
Itâs like people saying Microsoft was the reason Stadia was shut down and itâs like, no, Google is damn reason why Stadia failed and was shut down. They have great tech and did absolutely fucking nothing with it. Didnât invest, shitty pricing model, etc. Itâs like, how is this Microsoftâs fault or problem?
This is why im loving the fact that Microsoft has gone nuclear.
Hell, it took 19 years for Microsoft to truly go all in with gaming via the ZeniMax acquisition and people want to feel sorry for poor little Sony despite the fact that theyâve been around for almost 30 years longer as a company so why arenât they worth more money? And that they had a 25 year head start. Itâs like Microsoft has to pay for everyone elseâs shit, has to make everyone elseâs shit great while also staying near the bottom. And theyâre like, no, fuck that. Which I agree with 100%.
Like Reggie said a long time ago for Nintendo, itâs time for Microsoft to kick ass and take names!!!
6 Likes
Itâs not about the finances, itâs about whether or not they want to.
Just because a company has larger cash reserves doesnât mean that they are inherently uncompetitive. This is what happens to mature markets they start to consolidate.
It is about finances. If Sony donât think they can afford to financially lose market position, then invariably it will dictate where they can direct their resources.
Microsoft is in the position to have multiple strategies at once in play financially for long term gains.
Youâre literally describing competition. If they canât compete, then they will be âbeatâ. Thatâs the entire plan of companies.
3 Likes
And that in a nutshell is what the CMA is worried about⌠Microsoft being the gaming Monopoly in both console hardware, subscriptions and game development.
Sorry, but no, what CMA is worried is that Sony could lose their market position lead.
4 Likes
