Nurturing creative talent is not as simple as throwing money at it - Jim Ryan (Sony)

[winb83]

I don't know if Jim Ryan is in a position to lecture Phil Spencer and co about how to handle business. Ever since Phil Spencer was put in charge of Xbox they've made mostly good moves. I would say Phil is completely trustworthy as to how to handle those studios he's purchased. He seems to be mostly hands off letting them run things as they normally would but with Microsoft's money backing them.

Until 2014 Ballmer was in charge of Microsoft and Ballmer was a completely different animal than Nadella. Hell Nadella completely turned that entire company around from how it was under Ballmer. Spencer and Nadella came into their positions the same year and they've been in lockstep especially recently when Spencer convinced Nadella to go all in on gaming. Since Nadella took over Microsoft from Ballmer their share price has about gone up 7x.

Jim Ryan has predecessors that did a wonderful job. Spencer's predecessor torpedoed that brand. For both these guys this is really the first console put out under their watch completely. People here can say whatever they want but with Spencer and Nadella leading the charge they're going places.

 

[The Mad Titan]

It seems like Sony doesn't just buy studios outright. They funded games for exclusivity from smaller studios and bought them once they proved themselves.

I don't think Microsoft was playing nice for 3 generations. They just had poor leadership that didn't want to fund unproven money makers, never took the gaming industry as serious as Sony and Nintendo.

Now they have decent leadership who's doing what should have been done during the 360 era.

I don't think microsoft was playing nice for 3 generations either, not until last gen, and not until phil got there. If it was up to him I think there would be way more cross platforming. But between the fans, and sony by the end of last generation it was clear that, not only is that not going to work but the fans don't want that either.

As far as outright buying studio's sony doesn't because that's not something they can afford to do, and Microsoft had to have something under it's branch not only to say "we have exclusives" but for gamepass also.

People like to act like microsoft was out here buying up companies all last gen when in reality, they didn't have a single company bought until 2018 at the earliest.

Sony was purchasing companies all throughout last gen.


As far as having a working relationship with MS, bethesda def has that. As well as a couple other companies they picked up.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Sony bought what they could afford, microsoft is buying what they can afford.

For all of the xb1's life they tried to do the Kumbaya peace offering, everyone play together. But fans and stans made it clear that 1st and foremost they want exclusives, so microsoft open the wallet. Now you won't have a choice to play their games somewhere on some device, after 2022 things are going to look way different in the gaming industry.

The bold is not true. It's not 2005 anymore. They have 2 trillion yen ($18 billion) on hand just for acquisitions. Sony simply has a different philosophy where such things are concerned. That doesn't make them good guys or MS bad guys, they're just doing different things. MS is consuming large publishers/developers to make GP more appealing. Sony is fostering small-ish developers/IPs to make their ecosystem more appealing. I don't personally like the kind of consolidation MS is doing, but it is what it is.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

They have 2 trillion yen ($18 billion) on hand just for acquisitions

Where you get this number from?

 

[winb83]

The bold is not true. It's not 2005 anymore. They have 2 trillion yen ($18 billion) on hand just for acquisitions. Sony simply has a different philosophy where such things are concerned. That doesn't make them good guys or MS bad guys, they're just doing different things. MS is consuming large publishers/developers to make GP more appealing. Sony is fostering small-ish developers/IPs to make their ecosystem more appealing. I don't personally like the kind of consolidation MS is doing, but it is what it is.

It's not that where such things are concerned it's a completely different business model all together. Microsoft as a company is all about building streams of recurring monthly revenue. Game Pass is all about them having tens to hundreds of millions of people paying them $10-$15 a month religiously. To that end they need proven assets to attract customers. They need stuff people want and they need it now. At the same time they also work with small developers and get those games on the service as well.

Sony is far more cautious. They work with companies over a longer term before they consider buying them mostly. Sony is more like Apple where they want you into their ecosystem and they want to keep you inside it. Microsoft just wants you to sub to their service. I see Microsoft as more like Google. Sure Google would prefer you be on Android but if you're on iPhone they still want you as a customer and are more than willing to extend service to you anyway. Much of what Apple comes up with is a means to try and get you into that ecosystem. Much of what Google does it to monetize you regardless.

Google makes the Pixel but do they really aim for it to outsell the iPhone? I don't think they do. To Google you can be a profitable customer even if you're in Apple's ecosystem. That's Microsoft's approach you can still be their customer and be in somebody else's ecosystem. They'd probably like you to buy an Xbox but if you don't that's cool they still want to extend service to you. They can get a native app on your TV or on some other device you own and the overhead isn't $300-$500 to get a console it's $9.99 or $14.99 a month.

 

[The Mad Titan]

It's not that where such things are concerned it's a completely different business model all together. Microsoft as a company is all about building streams of recurring monthly revenue. Game Pass is all about them having tens to hundreds of millions of people paying them $10-$15 a month religiously. To that end they need proven assets to attract customers. They need stuff people want and they need it now. At the same time they also work with small developers and get those games on the service as well.

Sony is far more cautious. They work with companies over a longer term before they consider buying them mostly. Sony is more like Apple where they want you into their ecosystem and they want to keep you inside it. Microsoft just wants you to sub to their service. I see Microsoft as more like Google. Sure Google would prefer you be on Android but if you're on iPhone they still want you as a customer and are more than willing to extend service to you anyway. Much of what Apple comes up with is a means to try and get you into that ecosystem. Much of what Google does it to monetize you regardless.

Google makes the Pixel but do they really aim for it to outsell the iPhone? I don't think they do. To Google you can be a profitable customer even if you're in Apple's ecosystem. That's Microsoft's approach you can still be their customer and be in somebody else's ecosystem. They'd probably like you to buy an Xbox but if you don't that's cool they still want to extend service to you. They can get a native app on your TV or on some other device you own and the overhead isn't $300-$500 to get a console it's $9.99 or $14.99 a month.

Spot on

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

It's not that where such things are concerned it's a completely different business model all together. Microsoft as a company is all about building streams of recurring monthly revenue. Game Pass is all about them having tens to hundreds of millions of people paying them $10-$15 a month religiously. To that end they need proven assets to attract customers. They need stuff people want and they need it now. At the same time they also work with small developers and get those games on the service as well.

Sony is far more cautious. They work with companies over a longer term before they consider buying them mostly. Sony is more like Apple where they want you into their ecosystem and they want to keep you inside it. Microsoft just wants you to sub to their service. I see Microsoft as more like Google. Sure Google would prefer you be on Android but if you're on iPhone they still want you as a customer and are more than willing to extend service to you anyway. Much of what Apple comes up with is a means to try and get you into that ecosystem. Much of what Google does it to monetize you regardless.

Google makes the Pixel but do they really aim for it to outsell the iPhone? I don't think they do. To Google you can be a profitable customer even if you're in Apple's ecosystem. That's Microsoft's approach you can still be their customer and be in somebody else's ecosystem. They'd probably like you to buy an Xbox but if you don't that's cool they still want to extend service to you. They can get a native app on your TV or on some other device you own and the overhead isn't $300-$500 to get a console it's $9.99 or $14.99 a month.

Just to be more clear, I'm talking strictly about how each see acquisitions. And that lack of money wasn't the reason why they haven't been making similar acquisitions. I agree with everything else you're saying.

Where you get this number from?

Sony to spend $18 billion on investments, more acquisitions possible

 

[5n0man]

It's not that where such things are concerned it's a completely different business model all together. Microsoft as a company is all about building streams of recurring monthly revenue. Game Pass is all about them having tens to hundreds of millions of people paying them $10-$15 a month religiously. To that end they need proven assets to attract customers. They need stuff people want and they need it now. At the same time they also work with small developers and get those games on the service as well.

Sony is far more cautious. They work with companies over a longer term before they consider buying them mostly. Sony is more like Apple where they want you into their ecosystem and they want to keep you inside it. Microsoft just wants you to sub to their service. I see Microsoft as more like Google. Sure Google would prefer you be on Android but if you're on iPhone they still want you as a customer and are more than willing to extend service to you anyway. Much of what Apple comes up with is a means to try and get you into that ecosystem. Much of what Google does it to monetize you regardless.

Google makes the Pixel but do they really aim for it to outsell the iPhone? I don't think they do. To Google you can be a profitable customer even if you're in Apple's ecosystem. That's Microsoft's approach you can still be their customer and be in somebody else's ecosystem. They'd probably like you to buy an Xbox but if you don't that's cool they still want to extend service to you. They can get a native app on your TV or on some other device you own and the overhead isn't $300-$500 to get a console it's $9.99 or $14.99 a month.

Facts.


It doesn't sound like Microsoft is opposed to bringing gamepass to Sony and Nintendo platforms if that leads to revenue growth in the future.

Microsoft wants to operate in a completely different lane than the competition. Their focus seems to be on the future of how games are consumed.

 

[The Mad Titan]

The bold is not true. It's not 2005 anymore. They have 2 trillion yen ($18 billion) on hand just for acquisitions. Sony simply has a different philosophy where such things are concerned. That doesn't make them good guys or MS bad guys, they're just doing different things. MS is consuming large publishers/developers to make GP more appealing. Sony is fostering small-ish developers/IPs to make their ecosystem more appealing. I don't personally like the kind of consolidation MS is doing, but it is what it is.

I highly doubt all or even half of that is for there playstation or "gaming" sector. Buy more studio's right now will just cost them a lot of money to lock up exclusivity. Now if they are working on a gamepass like system it makes more sense, but right now spending money on buy a ton of 3rd party companies doesn't really seem like it would make much sense as they probably wont see a bunch of return from them.

Also what they are worth and have now, isn't what they are worth or had pre 2017

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

I highly doubt all or even half of that is for there playstation or "gaming" sector. Buy more studio's right now will just cost them a lot of money to lock up exclusivity. Now if they are working on a gamepass like system it makes more sense, but right now spending money on buy a ton of 3rd party companies doesn't really seem like it would make much sense as they probably wont see a bunch of return from them.

Of course it's not all for gaming company acquisitions. The article states as much. The point was simply that it wasn't a monetary issue. We don't need to be worried about them buying up a bunch of 3rd party companies for the reasons stated in my other post.

 

[iceberg_is_on_fire]

It seems like Sony doesn't just buy studios outright. They funded games for exclusivity from smaller studios and bought them once they proved themselves.

I don't think Microsoft was playing nice for 3 generations. They just had poor leadership that didn't want to fund unproven money makers, never took the gaming industry as serious as Sony and Nintendo.

Now they have decent leadership who's doing what should have been done during the 360 era.

November 15, 2001 to November 9, 2020: all successes were done in spite of themselves.

November 10, 2020 and beyond, a singular goal that is now baked into the DNA of the company.

You can't help what the past is as it is what it is.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...ng-attention-to-gaming-phil-spencer-says.html

Microsoft has been in the gaming business since the turn of the century. Finally it matters to the company from a financial standpoint.

"Amy Hood, our CFO, she likes to tell me I've made the spreadsheet now, and she says that can be a good thing, and I'm on the spreadsheet. So she's going to pay attention," Microsoft's executive vice president for gaming, Phil Spencer, said on stage at the Barclays Global Technology, Media and Telecommunications Conference in San Francisco on Wednesday.

XBox was the fukk around division for so long. Not anymore.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

 

[Gizmo_Duck]

I cant wait to see how Bungie grows after this

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I cant wait to see how Bungie grows after this

Hyped for cloud GAAS games huh

 

[Gizmo_Duck]

Hyped for cloud GAAS games huh

Just like to see sony nurturing talent