Yeah. But interesting in that in the current topic we predicted a lot of acquisitions but were wrong on whom did them 
1 Like
I believe Ubisoft will take some time to streamline and cut some fat like Grubb mentioned before anybody would want to acquire them. Maybe it will increase the revenue and thus increase the potential takeover price.
That already very concrete. The premium seems okay.
So far we have the signs of
- Bethesda went away
- ABK went away
- EA wants to merge or be acquired
- Ubisoft is open to be acquired
- Square Enix is streamlining themselves by cutting off unprofitable parts
- Capcom buying out their USA business side to streamline themselves
- WB is selling off their gaming business
- T2 ???
…
1 Like
Are this point it does seem like everyone is up for grabs doesn’t it
This is just the inevitable outcome of capitalism. That statement isn’t intended as a value judgement of capitalism itself, but just as a statement about the realities of the pursuit of perpetual growth, particularly when it comes to forms of art.
When paths to growth start dwindling you either myopically focus on the path available to you (Activision/Call of Duty), you betray what got you where you are (Ubisoft/NFTs), or you start looking for exits because you are cognizant that the path ahead could get rough (Bethesda).
Joining MS, currently, is a safe bet because the Xbox division generally insulates you from the shareholders a bit. As long as the division is performing you have some breathing room. But no matter who acquires or merges with who the path always leads to the same place, perform or die. Whether its Tencent, or someone else, your goodwill will dry up eventually and you have to perform.
It isn’t directly comparable as MS has a more diverse business model for their Xbox/subscription business, but you can look at Netflix as an example. Eventually, despite the quality of what is being produced (Mindhunter) they will can it because its not getting enough eyeballs and they will double down on content that no one seems to actually like, but is drawing tons of viewers. The bubble of a subscriptions can only provide protection for so long.
3 Likes
Netflix is essentially a fast food chain these days. And consumer it seems to be going after big and famous IPs with legacy, that Netflix just does not have (they are trying though with licensed stuff, but most of adaptations are trash)
1 Like
I don’t think Microsoft had any chance of Insomniac unless they overpaid by a large amount. Issue with Insominac all of their valuable work is tied to Sony with Ratchet franchise and spiderman. So, don’t think it was possible to pull them away from Sony, so it is what it is there.
Also there are other efficient studios, but don’t think big pub is always the answer and sometimes value is finding efficient independent studios.
3 Likes
I think you can point to movie Hollywood/movie theaters as well. People lament the death of “small movies” and that there is nothing but superhero movies, but no one goes to see the smaller movies. Meanwhile every superhero movie makes a billion dollars. So of course they are just going to keep pumping them out. The day they stop making money, they will stop making them.
I went to see The Northman on opening day (fantastic movie) and there were maybe five people in the theater. Does it suck that gems like that dont get the attention they deserve in theaters, of course, but that is business.
1 Like
Sure does.
Also high five, I’m an Ohio boy and big time Buckeyes Fan.
1 Like
Some of you act like 2020 and 2021 never happened, ffs.
16 Likes
For context, €60 a share is just shy of 7.4 billion euros or 7.9 billion dollars total - the article suggests there’s some belief that they should be pushing for up to €100 per share which would be 12.3 billion euros (or 13.1 billion dollars).
For anyone who wants to check my maths, according to yahoo finance they have 122.77M outstanding shares which I believe represents the total number of shares that they have and is the number to use to calculate the total value if someone were to buy the company out. If I’m wrong be sure to correct me, I don’t do business stuff good y’know.
True that said 229 Million was cheap for such a well oiled machine like Insomniac. Even double would have been relatively cheap IMO.
I think they would have likely gone to Sony anyway but meh.
That is not how businesses operate though. Not smart ones. Assets have value and you don’t just blow double what something is worth because reasons.
MS has been incredibly open about what they want from studios and what they want is IP. Which insomniac, as talented as they may be, dont have.
I wouldn’t say their bulk 2018 acquisitions were about IP but yes I somewhat agree. I think there are always exceptions, e.g. when Elon Musk wanted to buy the ‘Tesla’ name even though at that time it had no value or recognition.
Prior to Spider-Man, Insomniac also wasn’t recognised as having that prestige (which they should have been IMO).
Insomniac has the Sunset Overdrive IP so we won’t get a sequel to that sadly (on Xbox atleast).
You are attributing a lot of different things that don’t exactly correlate. The issue behind the antitrust issues was Microsoft bundling software into windows which the u.s. government argued gave them a competitive advantage.
That main issue between U.S. and Microsoft at that time has no bearing whatsoever on if Microsoft would buy Valve. The only argument for the ruling having any ties to xbox would be the fact they are all owned by Microsoft. However, the crux of the issue was very specific. MIcrosoft legally created a product that consumers adopted enmasse. They got there marketshare without violating any laws. The only argument of wrongdoing was adding in additional software like Internet explorer which was argued to be extension of file explorer and not bundled software.
However, the sheer act of them acquiring Steam wouldn’t be a violation. For starters they wouldn’t need to bundle steam. Users go out and get steam on their own the same way many go out and get google chrome. Competitors to steam like the epic games store come bundled into the windows store for no additional fee. So even if they added steam to the windows store it wouldn’t be a competitive advantage as epic is already available via the windows store.
You also can’t legally sue Microsoft for bundling steam into windows before they A own it, and B even if they own it actually do it. Where they wouldn’t have a reason to. The FTC and DOJ wouldn’t really have a leg to stand on as far as anti-trust just from them owning the store itself unless they go back and decide IOS and Andriod are also monopolies. And apple and google bundling software like its games, movies, music into the store are also antitrust violations.
I don’t know how much interest Microsoft has or doesn’t have in owning valve. However, whether they do or don’t, the reasons you have laid out don’t correlate to a reason they wouldn’t be able to buy valve. A more likely reason they wouldn’t buy valve is because if you extrapolate out a decade its doubtful a marketplace like steam will be as necessary. As in a world where you can stream any game to any device. a storefront like steam starts to become something more like blockbuster video. While it seems crazy now. When netflix streaming came out it was viewed as crazy that streaming could overtake physical rental stores.
Yeah, it hasn’t even been six months since the last game they put out. Depending on how you want to tabulate releases it would either be December with Halo, or ghostwire tokyo in march. They also seem to act as if Sony just didn’t go from June 11 2021 to Feb. 18th 2022 without a first party release. And outside of MLB the show Sony has yet to release a first party game from Playstation Studios that wasn’t delayed from 2021 this year and even if god of war comes out this year doesn’t change that as it was supposed to come out last year.
2 Likes
I just think its important to keep in mind that there is a wholly opaque layer of these things we will never be privy to. Maybe MS wasn’t interested, maybe there was something in the review process that they didn’t like, maybe Insomniac only wanted to sell to Sony so they could keep working on the franchises they birthed on that platform. Its not always as simple as “offer them more money”.
1 Like
I appreciate your opinion, and you (and others) do make a point that possibly not bundling steam in windows might help, or at least might be used as an argument.
Also I suppose Epic itself would not be the suing party, but they could petition the FTC to sue to block an acquisition. Which I do still believe they would do as an interested party. I did look up some of the wording of how mergers are examined, and I still think this would be hard to get approved - much more so than in the relatively competitive video game publisher market where they’re buying Activision.
And I don’t really think they want them either. They need content more, and they wouldn’t actually get that much. They can do a better job by improving their own store and making it easier and better for apps and games to go through them without wasting the billions they would need to get the storefront.
1 Like
So they want to only sell after their stock reaches £60 which would be around £11 billion and then sell at a 50% premium for around £16 billion. Good luck with that.