Wrong thread 
Why was it posted here? 
With the Activision purchase taking quite a long time, I am increasingly of the belief that the next purchase(s) should be independent studio purchases that fit under the various publishers that Xbox will have.
I’d really like to see a quick expansion of XGS, Bethesda and Activision.
With XGS, focus on acquiring some independent studios that have either been close partners or add creativity to the team. I’m think developers such as Asobo, Certain Affinity, Drinkbox Studios, People Can Fly, Hello Games, Supergiant Games.
With Bethesda, focus on studios that complement their portfolio and studios that they’d be comfortable in letting work on their IP. I’m thinking Behavoir Interactive, Double 11, IOI, Rebellion Developments, Flying Wild Hog, CDPR.
With Activision focus on studios that can help revive some great billion dollar franchises like Guitar Hero and Skylanders. Ill be honest I dont know the best candidates for this today lol.
Overall, I want to see an independent studio acquisition spree to grow Xbox like one that no platform holder has done before, adding 8-15 studios.
4 Likes
Publishers on the market are much more important than single studio acquisitions. With a single studio you can make a deal to make it produce exclusive games, but with a publisher it is close to impossible as the publishers have many teams and studios. Not to mention they often have its own roadmap and stakeholders and thus it is even more difficult deals with them - let’s say Game Pass deal did not bring benefits - stakeholder will oppose the future one and so on.
I am personally waiting for some other acquisitions from other big parties.
I don’t think Microsoft has a choice anymore…they will have 7-8 studio spending sprees like they did in 2018 or whole publishers. If you want to move the gamepass needle upwards in meaningful ways they have to be big moves.
4 Likes
Do you think that under xbox, activision will be interested on something that isnt cod? Hopefully with a new leadership they will be interested on other franchise because so far I can only see them investing on new studios to support cod
They have been mentioned other games time and time again and how they are gonna talk to the teams to see what the teams want to work on…Yet people still claim that “Microsoft will only support COD” 
I think so, absolutely. Phil Spencer was quoted on the below after the acquisition:
“I was looking at the IP list, I mean, let’s go!” Spencer said. “ ‘King’s Quest,’ ‘Guitar Hero,’ … I should know this but I think they got ‘HeXen.’ ”
There is a clear opportunity to add diversity to the ecosystem. They dont even have to pull teams off of COD if they acquire new studios for those other IP or even use 3rd parties. I think Activisions 3rd big IP are quite different from someone like Rare or Bethesda who is super protective of their IP.
I don’t think Microsoft are going to do anything to hinder the profits of Call of Duty, but I think it’s pretty clear the yearly release structure is not sustainable at this point. They’re throwing more and more people at these games and they’re still starting to come out buggy or missing features. At a certain point they have to pull off the throttle and get the development into a healthier space, and step away from the yearly release structure, and focus on quality over quantity. Expanding and acquiring additional teams to support the franchise is another way they could add to this. Either way, I think in doing this it would free up resources across the rest of Activision and get them back to making the games they want to make - which is something Phil Spencer has indicated he wants to do and has been a major part of their acquisition mindset up till now.
Did I said microsoft will only support cod?
I know, xbox is clearly interested on their oegacy, but I am talkig about the leadership of activision
Is rare how people think that the leadership at activision is the same one as xbox, I never mentioned xbox or phil spencer, I was talking about activision, and sure once the qdquisition ends xbox will be the chief, but you dont see phil making orders at vethesda to make a new fallout or anything else
I think the big difference is the fact that ABK will answer to Phil directly. The structure that’s already there isn’t going to stay the same, as Microsoft is bringing in their own culture to ABK.
Phil Spencer doesn’t make orders at Bethesda because they give studios a relatively high amount of freedom to make the kind of games they want to make, that doesn’t mean that nothing will change in how these studios and publishers are run. There’s been an internal push from Call of Duty teams for a while now to step back from the unsustainable yearly release structure - and I’m sure given the choice the other Activision teams would rather be working on their own projects. Just by treating these studios the same way Microsoft has treated the rest of their acquisitions we’re likely to see changes like these in Activision (not to mention there’s been every indication Bobby Kotick will be leaving once the acquisition is complete, so there’s going to be leadership changes either way). So whether or not we’re talking about the leadership of Activision or Xbox or whatever doesn’t really matter.
1 Like
I know that, but still that doesnt mean that phil or others at xbox will be taking the orders, how are you sure that the new leaders are going to be interested in old franchises? And no, by new leaders I am not talking about xbox because I am sure several people will think that
Well the only thing we could do is wait, because even getting a brand new leadership doesnt secure that
Because game pass and Microsoft eventual dive into their own mobile store need more than just CoD, even if the new leadership (some old if they prove themselves trustworthy), isn’t interested in old franchises. The big thing is that CoD won’t be 90% of their output even if it means new franchises being created to cater to Microsoft’s future plans.
Then ms will need to take the orders, because so far activision has veen doing well with only cod, atleast in terms of success
Bethesda didnt changed all their plans to fit the gamepass model did they
Because Bethesdas output isn’t 90% concentrated into 1 franchise, as for what Microsoft will do, they will likely grow the teams that are on CoD and provide outside support to keep the franchise running (like CD, Eidos ect). While freeing up the other studios to either do new IP or work on old IP, but I doubt things will stay as they have been at ABK.
Ubisoft is probably the best way to fix Activision, and arguably the most interesting and organic acquisition because of its ties to Activision and Microsoft. If Microsoft was actually talking to other publishers before ABK, I’m willing to bet Ubisoft was among them, and it will make even more sense once ABK is done. SEGA was probably also concerned. What do you think ? Ubisoft to help Activision (and Xbox) through its support studios (and of course continue to develop its own licenses), good or bad idea?
4 Likes
Ubisoft is not in position to fix anything 
I do wonder if Ubisoft will eventually consider allowing to hire their studios without selling them. They have too many of them.
I maintain my stance that Microsoft won’t be buying Ubisoft in any shape or form.
4 Likes
What?