Microsoft just bought ActiBlizz

[Fire Emblem Fan]

9 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

You can't just make casual, evidence-less accusations of a person like that. This isn't the...oh. I guess it IS the internet. 

Oh please, I wouldn't say anything even remotely similar to that if I hadn't looked into it myself first.

[lenticular]

13 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Being in the same genre isn't a problem. We could use more platform fighters, and stigmatizing them as clones is neither fair nor healthy for the genre.

For me, I'd definitely like to see more platform fighters, and I don't have a problem with more media crossover games, but I'd mostly rather that they weren't the same games. For the longterm health of the genre, it needs to be able to exist independently of its media tie-ins, so let's see more platform fighters with a roster of completely original characters.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of other game genres that can be used for media crossovers. Take all the characters and throw them into a kart racer or a hero shooter, as two obvious examples. Heroes of the Storm is a crossover MOBA. Kingdom Hearts is a crossover action RPG. Pretty much any genre can work, and assuming that gaming crossover has to mean platform fighter does no favours either to the genre or to the characters being crossed over.

The best genre to use for a crossover depends on which characters you're using and who the target audience is. If you want to do a crossover of Doom, Fallout, Call of Duty, and Halo then it should probably be some sort of a shooter. If you're making Age of Empires vs Warcraft and don't make an RTS then you're a fool. And if you're trying to do a crossover of the entire library of Microsoft IP, then you have to ask what you're trying to acomplish and who your target audience is.

My guess -- and it is just a guess -- is that if Microsoft tried to do a platform fighter that crossed over all of their characters, then it would probably end up being not as good as Smash Bros. Which would be no indictment on Microsoft. Smash Bros has had five iterations to really perfect its formula, it's had over a decade to work out deals with third parties for character inclusions, it has the advantage of a core roster of Nintendo characters who have a somewhat similar branding and aesthetic (a "typical Nintendo game" means something in a way that a "typical Microsoft game" doesn't). Smash Bros has all the advantages, and if Microsoft tried to mimic it, then they'd likely end up at "like Smash Bros, but not as good". Which would then give the impression that Microsoft are "like Nintendo, but not as good". They're probably better off doing their own thing rather than just chasing the market leader.

[Lord_Brand]

So basically, no other company ever should try to make a game like Smash? By that logic, no other company should ever try to make a mascot kart racer either since Nintendo has eight of those puppies under their belt, and any other kart racer is likely to end up as "Mario Kart, except not as good" (which isn't the case with CTRNF, I can tell you that). For that matter, don't do strategy RPGs since Nintendo has fifteen of those suckers with Fire Emblem alone. Platformer? Pssh, Super Mario Bros. has been doing that better for the past thirty years. In fact, why should any other company bother trying to make video games when Nintendo's been doing most genres for over two decades? Unless you're making a 2D fighter a la Street Fighter or an FPS like Call of Duty, why even bother? Nintendo's just going to do it better, right?

For what it's worth, my brother and I are planning a platform fighter with a completely original cast of characters...kinda. They're meant to be expies of other characters, but they're basically brand-new with no preexisting games as of now.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Lord_Brand

[Fabulously Olivier]

59 minutes ago, Lord_Brand said:

So basically, no other company ever should try to make a game like Smash? By that logic, no other company should ever try to make a mascot kart racer either since Nintendo has eight of those puppies under their belt, and any other kart racer is likely to end up as "Mario Kart, except not as good" (which isn't the case with CTRNF, I can tell you that). For that matter, don't do strategy RPGs since Nintendo has fifteen of those suckers with Fire Emblem alone. Platformer? Pssh, Super Mario Bros. has been doing that better for the past thirty years. In fact, why should any other company bother trying to make video games when Nintendo's been doing most genres for over two decades? Unless you're making a 2D fighter a la Street Fighter or an FPS like Call of Duty, why even bother? Nintendo's just going to do it better, right?

For what it's worth, my brother and I are planning a platform fighter with a completely original cast of characters...kinda. They're meant to be expies of other characters, but they're basically brand-new with no preexisting games as of now.

And here I am earnestly awaiting Chocobo Racing on the kart racing front.

 

Also, Fire Emblem kind of did destroy every other tactics RPG, lol. They're only just starting to come back in full force. 2022 looks absolutely loaded with them and it's awesome.

[lenticular]

3 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

So basically, no other company ever should try to make a game like Smash? By that logic, no other company should ever try to make a mascot kart racer either since Nintendo has eight of those puppies under their belt, and any other kart racer is likely to end up as "Mario Kart, except not as good" (which isn't the case with CTRNF, I can tell you that). For that matter, don't do strategy RPGs since Nintendo has fifteen of those suckers with Fire Emblem alone. Platformer? Pssh, Super Mario Bros. has been doing that better for the past thirty years. In fact, why should any other company bother trying to make video games when Nintendo's been doing most genres for over two decades? Unless you're making a 2D fighter a la Street Fighter or an FPS like Call of Duty, why even bother? Nintendo's just going to do it better, right?

For what it's worth, my brother and I are planning a platform fighter with a completely original cast of characters...kinda. They're meant to be expies of other characters, but they're basically brand-new with no preexisting games as of now.

No, that's obviously not what I'm saying. If you genuinely managed to read what I wrote and think that what I meant was "nobody other than Nintendo should ever make anything other than 2D fighting games and FPSs", then I am completely at a loss for how to react.

Look, both in business and in art, it's important to innovate. You have to offer something that is new or something that is better. It doesn't all have to be new and better, but there needs to be something there. Some reason to buy your product and not the other, pre-existing, popular one that the other company is making. And yeah, for a hypothetical Microsoft Smash-alike there are two immediate hooks: it would have Microsoft characters and it would be on Xbox. And that would be enough for some people. Maybe that would be enough for you. But it's also the sort of thinking that led to PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale, which hardly set the world alight.

I have to imagine that Microsoft aren't particularly keen to put the full force of their IP library into a title only to see it turn into a bit of a damp squib. If they are going to do a big marquee title that celebrates the diversity of their titles then they're going to want for it to be good and they're going to want it to be successful. A soulless Smash clone (used in the pejorative sense, here) is not going to do that. Maybe there's some game designer working at Microsoft who has an absolutely killer idea for a way to iterate on platform fighters and create a new genre-defining title. And if they do, then great, they should do that. But if they don't really have any fresh ideas and are just going to create Smash Bros But Worse because some suit told them to, then I think I'll pass on that.

[Fabulously Olivier]

Some genres just aren't all that different, tbh. Mobas are built on iteration more than innovation, and a lot of the most innovative entries in the genre notably failed. People don't generally heckle shooters or JRPGs for failing to innovate either.

 

As for what I'd like to see from a Microsoft Platform Fighter, I'd basically like it to be the Injustice 2 of Platform Fighters. Gear system and character customization (with competitive settings that disable these). Online casual PvE and PvP content that constantly rotates on a server and rewards gear. Social features like guilds that have players work together for rewards. Possibly a free to play model to complement that.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

11 hours ago, Fire Emblem Fan said:

Oh please, I wouldn't say anything even remotely similar to that if I hadn't looked into it myself first.

Ah. Well with a source like "I looked into it myself", how could I not be convinced?

I looked into it too. And here is the most credible source that I could find on the internet.

[Fabulously Olivier]

1 minute ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Ah. Well with a source like "I looked into it myself", how could I not be convinced?

I looked into it too. And here is the most credible source that I could find on the internet.

I was genuinely expecting a Playstation fanpage or an Alex Jones level far right rag when I clicked that.

[Lord_Brand]

7 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

And here I am earnestly awaiting Chocobo Racing on the kart racing front.

Same here! Chocobo GP looks fun.

4 hours ago, lenticular said:

No, that's obviously not what I'm saying. If you genuinely managed to read what I wrote and think that what I meant was "nobody other than Nintendo should ever make anything other than 2D fighting games and FPSs", then I am completely at a loss for how to react.

Look, both in business and in art, it's important to innovate. You have to offer something that is new or something that is better. It doesn't all have to be new and better, but there needs to be something there. Some reason to buy your product and not the other, pre-existing, popular one that the other company is making. And yeah, for a hypothetical Microsoft Smash-alike there are two immediate hooks: it would have Microsoft characters and it would be on Xbox. And that would be enough for some people. Maybe that would be enough for you. But it's also the sort of thinking that led to PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale, which hardly set the world alight.

I have to imagine that Microsoft aren't particularly keen to put the full force of their IP library into a title only to see it turn into a bit of a damp squib. If they are going to do a big marquee title that celebrates the diversity of their titles then they're going to want for it to be good and they're going to want it to be successful. A soulless Smash clone (used in the pejorative sense, here) is not going to do that. Maybe there's some game designer working at Microsoft who has an absolutely killer idea for a way to iterate on platform fighters and create a new genre-defining title. And if they do, then great, they should do that. But if they don't really have any fresh ideas and are just going to create Smash Bros But Worse because some suit told them to, then I think I'll pass on that.

Well, Nintendo did so many genres right and well that the attitude seems to be that if you try and do anything similar to what they did, it'll end up worse despite there being plenty of examples of other companies doing the genres just as well if not better. Examples:

• CTR was always a competent Mario Kart clone to begin with, and even helped innovate a little with its drift boost mechanic not to mention an adventure mode that felt more fleshed out than Diddy Kong Racing.
• Speaking of, DKR was also a good mascot racer for adding an adventure mode, multiple vehicles, two unlockable racers, and a reworked powerup system that allows for more consistency and strategy in how you approach a track. I'd love to see it get a remaster treatment like CTR did with CTRNF, or at least a sequel.
• Though Pokemon remains the most popular and successful RPG series to this day, Square Enix practically owns the Eastern half of the genre with Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest.
• Plenty of good platformers outside Nintendo's library exist, like Mega Man, Crash Bandicoot, and yes, even Sonic the Hedgehog. They've all had their ups and downs, but to be fair, so have Nintendo's games.
• The "vania" part of "Metroidvania" owes its existence to Konami's Castlevania series, which is also another example of a fine platformer series, one that managed to find its own niche (even if it does tend to get a bit repetitive). Castlevania's legacy lives on in Bloodstained.

I agree that innovation is useful, but there are only so many ways you can innovate before you start trying to reinvent the wheel, and that was PSASBR's main problem: it tried too hard to be like Smash yet tried to drift away from what we liked so much about Smash in the first place, like the main objective (charge up supers to knock out opponents instead of just racking up damage to send them flying) and a confusing moveset layout (you have three attack buttons, but they don't have any designated purpose unlike the Attack and Special buttons of Smash). PSASBR's problem is that it wasn't emulating Smash enough.

NASB and MultiVersus both seem to be doing a better job of retaining the core mechanics that make Smash work; NASB as I understand uses a strong attack button instead of smashes (thereby keeping each attack button's purpose clear) and MultiVersus puts an emphasis on teamwork, represented through moves that can help your teammates (something Smash itself might want to emulate in the future).

So, my question to you is: what does a Microsoft Smash clone (used in the non-pejorative sense here, thank you very much) need to do to stand apart from Smash itself and justify its existence? If you were put in charge of such a project, what kind of twist would you put on the gameplay? What characters would you select, assuming Microsoft wouldn't just cram all their most popular and famous faces in there like Doom Slayer, Master Chief, Steve, Banjo & Kazooie, and now Crash, Spyro, and Tracer?

As for me, I'd consider implementing my Action button concept that functions differently for each character. For some characters, it could serve as a second set of attacks or specials, while for others it could be used for mechanics like transformation or tag teaming (say, switching between Erik, Baleog, and Olaf Pokemon Trainer-style). The general purpose of the Action button would be to help each character play as closely to their base game as possible, adjusted for the 2D format.

[vanguard333]

22 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Are people just upset over the fact that the landscape of video gaming is becoming more entrenched in the arms race of acquiring exclusives for their platform? Or is actually because they might make some games you want to play for something you don't want to own? 

I can't speak for everyone else, but for me, I do think that this, as you put it, "arms race of acquiring exclusives" is harmful for the industry. I can't think of a single microsoft-owned property that I want to play, so there's definitely no bias from me in that area.

[Fabulously Olivier]

33 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I can't speak for everyone else, but for me, I do think that this, as you put it, "arms race of acquiring exclusives" is harmful for the industry. I can't think of a single microsoft-owned property that I want to play, so there's definitely no bias from me in that area.

I think it is important to emphasize "acquire" exclusives as a keyword here. 

 

Sony and Nintendo have been improving the industry by creating content. Their model drives them to make the best games possible in order to sell their platform.

 

Microsoft isn't creating anything with their aggressive acquisition strategy. They are acquiring. Moving. Depriving. They are taking very popular existing multiplatform franchises away from everyone else in order to cheat their way into matching the content quality that other platform holders built. And all of this because their own first party studios haven't been properly managed to create equally compelling content - not by a longshot.

[vanguard333]

39 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

I think it is important to emphasize "acquire" exclusives as a keyword here. 

 

Sony and Nintendo have been improving the industry by creating content. Their model drives them to make the best games possible in order to sell their platform.

 

Microsoft isn't creating anything with their aggressive acquisition strategy. They are acquiring. Moving. Depriving. They are taking very popular existing multiplatform franchises away from everyone else in order to cheat their way into matching the content quality that other platform holders built. And all of this because their own first party studios haven't been properly managed to create equally compelling content - not by a longshot.

A very good point; this isn't, "This console lets you play these fun games that we've built specifically to make the most out of it"; it's "This console lets you play these games that we've taken hostage". It's true for a lot of recent console exclusives and not just Microsoft, but Microsoft is acquiring them in vast quantities in a desperate bid to stay relevant in the games industry.

[Lord_Brand]

Yeah, even Microsoft's attempts at in-house development were the product of studios they'd acquired rather than created (*cough*Rare*cough*). Makes a prospective MicroSmash seem kinda shallow, like saying "Look at all these IPs we bought out that you can now only play on other systems if we say so!"

I'm just having a hard time seeing anything positive about this acquisition. I don't see what good it's going to do. The CEO of Microsoft isn't much better than the soon-to-be-former CEO of Activision-Blizzard, based on what I've seen said in this thread. The possibility of Crash and Spyro becoming X Box Whatever exclusives doesn't thrill me in the slightest (though based on how lenient MS has been with lending out their other acquired IPs to competitors, the fear of Crash and Spyro becoming XBW only seems like a small one right now). Even the prospect of MicroSmash doesn't really thrill me all that much.

[Fire Emblem Fan]

11 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Ah. Well with a source like "I looked into it myself", how could I not be convinced?

I looked into it too. And here is the most credible source that I could find on the internet.

Whoopdeedoo. It's not my job to convince you. Go be a dick elsewhere.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Fire Emblem Fan

[lenticular]

17 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

So, my question to you is: what does a Microsoft Smash clone (used in the non-pejorative sense here, thank you very much) need to do to stand apart from Smash itself and justify its existence? If you were put in charge of such a project, what kind of twist would you put on the gameplay? What characters would you select, assuming Microsoft wouldn't just cram all their most popular and famous faces in there like Doom Slayer, Master Chief, Steve, Banjo & Kazooie, and now Crash, Spyro, and Tracer?

I'm not going to touch on the rest of what you're saying, since you're arguing against a position that I have explicitly stated that I do not hold. But a direct question is something I can answer.

The first and most obvious answer is that I never would be put in charge of such a project, would not want to be in charge of such a project, and if I ever found myself in that position, the first thing I would try to do would be to get someone else to be in charge of the project. I am simply not qualified for such a position.

But OK, let's say that for whatever reason, I wasn't able to step aside. And that I wasn't able to suggest using another genre of game instead. In that case, I don't know what twist I would want to put on the gameplay. Oh, I could come up with ideas, certainly. That's easy. Ideas are ten a penny. But having a good idea, and then implementing it, and then making sure that the implementation actually matches the idea, and then making sure that it's actually fun to play, and then checking that there aren't any unintended consequence or degeneracies that the idea introduces, and so on and so forth. All of that is the hard part. I don't know how to build a Smash-beater. If I had some simple answer there that would actually work, then I'd be doing it, not writing about it online.

If I weren't the project lead but merely a player, I wouldn't be asking for any specific feature. My criteria would be "is this mechanically distinct or mechanically superior to be worth my time?" If it's introducing new mechanics, are they fun and interesting? If it isn't introducing new mechanics, is it doing things better than Smash Bros does them? In short, do I have any reason to be playing this other than the platform availability and the included characters?

In short: I don't have some grand idea for how to improve the platform fighter genre. If some game designer at Microsoft does, then that's great and I'm there for it. If some executive at Microsoft believes that a Smash clone is the way forward and tells a studio to work on it despite them not having any ideas and they produce a competent paint-by-numbers Smash clone, then I want nothing to do with it.

Does that at least help you understand where I'm coming from, even if you disagree with me?

Oh, and as for what characters I'd select: I largely don't care. Both for this and for Smash, I know that the characters who I would personally be most interested in seeing are not the characters who would help sell the game. I'm not going to get a rep from Black & White or Costume Quest any more than I was ever going to get a rep from Endless Ocean or Pullblox, so what's the sense of my fretting over it?

[Lord_Brand]

I apologize if I misconstrued your stance. I ask that you look over the part where I address PSASBR's issue of not being enough like Smash, in so far as the quality and clarity of its mechanics, as you yourself brought PSASBR up and thus I felt a need to address it.

As for the scenario where you are in charge, I presented that to give you an opportunity to provide your own input rather than have us just argue back and forth. If you would not want to be in charge of such a project, I understand. I was simply curious to know what kind of change or improvement you'd want to see that could justify MicroSmash existing. Although, considering games like Smash exist purely as fanservice, the novelty of the roster alone would be a major draw as you'd have a wide variety of Rare and now Activision Blizzard characters to pull from, on top of popular Smash requests like Doom Slayer and Master Chief. The fact that Banjo & Kazooie were one of the most popular additions to SSBU is, to me, telling that MicroSmash would have a lot of innate appeal based on its diverse roster alone. PSASBR could have had that, but they were too hung up on the whole rivalry theme.

Another factor that would work in MicroSmash's favor is that Microsoft is not doing poorly financially based on the fact they're willing to pay billions to acquire ActiBlizz. When PSASBR came out, Sony was hurting from the losses incurred by the PS3 and thus did not have the budget PSASBR needed, resulting in a game that couldn't even manage animated cutscenes when Nintendo's much weaker Wii had fully-animated CGI scenes. I've said before and I'll say again: PSASBR would have done much better on PS2. Sony had the money, and they had fewer franchises to represent and thus could have focused more on density, which PSASBR sorely lacked. Just imagine if Sony had rolled out a PS2 platform fighter with a roster like this:

Spoiler

• Spike
• Sir Daniel Fortesque
• Ratchet & Clank
• Captain Qwark
• Dr. Nefarious
• Jak and Daxter
• Sly Cooper
• Kratos
• Solid Snake
• Cloud Strife
• Squall Leonhart
• Zidane Tribal
• Tidus
• Ryu
• X
• Zero
• Leon Kennedy
• Crash Bandicoot
• Spyro the Dragon
• Lara Croft
• Gex
• Rayman
• Sora

Melee would have been creamed, just like how the Gamecube got creamed by the PS2 (much as it pains me to say so). At the very least, a PSASBR with this kind of roster and the budget of a high-end PS2 game would have posed some stiff competition. The ideal release window would have been near the end of the PS2's lifespan, to maximize the number of possible reps and to take advantage of the downtime between Melee hype and Brawl hype.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Lord_Brand

[lenticular]

22 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

I apologize if I misconstrued your stance. I ask that you look over the part where I address PSASBR's issue of not being enough like Smash, in so far as the quality and clarity of its mechanics, as you yourself brought PSASBR up and thus I felt a need to address it.

Truth be told, I've never actually played PSASBR. I only know of it by its less-than-stellar reputation. If you say that its biggest problem was deviating too far form an established formula, then I've no reason to dispute that.

23 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

Although, considering games like Smash exist purely as fanservice, the novelty of the roster alone would be a major draw as you'd have a wide variety of Rare and now Activision Blizzard characters to pull from, on top of popular Smash requests like Doom Slayer and Master Chief.

Honestly, this might be the root of our disagreement. Because I don't think that the fanservice is the biggest reason why Smash is successful. It's a contributing factor, for sure, but I think that the biggest reason why it's successful is that it's typically a lot of fun to play. The big roster of recognisable characters is the hook that draws people's attention, but the gameplay is what keeps people coming back from one instalment to the next. I believe that in a hypothetical alternate reality, Smash Bros gameplay would have been able to thrive on its own without all of the established characters, whereas merely having all the established characters wouldn't have been enough for the franchise to survive if the gameplay wasn't there. Of course, we'll never know for certain, since we live in a reality where it had both, and we can't really separate it, but that's my belief.

Regardless, we're only drifting further and further off-topic at this point, so I think I'm going to retire from this conversation now. I'm happy to just agree to disagree, but if there's anything else where you really want clarification of my position, feel free to send me a private message.

[Lord_Brand]

One other possibility I see is an ActiBlizz-centric platform fighter developed to celebrate Microsoft's acquisition of the company - still basically being their answer to Smash, but with a focus on ActiBlizz itself, something they could have conceivably put out at any time before Microsoft acquired them. That would probably be less exciting in the long run due to a lack of high-demand reps like Doom Slayer and Master Chief, unless they include them as "guests", but the tradeoff is that you can include a few more reps from ActiBlizz series themselves.

Still hoping for Crash in Smash one day. Banjo-Kazooie and Steve both made it. Now Crash and Spyro are two more names to add to Microsoft's list under Doom Slayer and Master Chief. And if a Smash 6 doesn't happen, that'll be an opportunity for Microsoft to make their mark. And if that game comes to Nintendo systems, I just might check it out.

On 1/21/2022 at 4:39 PM, vanguard333 said:

A very good point; this isn't, "This console lets you play these fun games that we've built specifically to make the most out of it"; it's "This console lets you play these games that we've taken hostage". It's true for a lot of recent console exclusives and not just Microsoft, but Microsoft is acquiring them in vast quantities in a desperate bid to stay relevant in the games industry.

I agree. It's rather sad that Microsoft is so creatively bankrupt that they have to eat up independent third parties in order to compete with Nintendo and Sony, both of whom had no problem finding developers able to put out genuine original IPs for their systems.

[vanguard333]

51 minutes ago, Lord_Brand said:

I agree. It's rather sad that Microsoft is so creatively bankrupt that they have to eat up independent third parties in order to compete with Nintendo and Sony, both of whom had no problem finding developers able to put out genuine original IPs for their systems.

Yeah; it is sad. It's also doomed; it might last them in the short term, but it's just not going to work long-term.

[Lord_Brand]

But unlike Banjo-Kazooie, who were allowed to flounder and lay dormant, Crash has been an active name for the last six years, and Spyro's seen a little action too. So Microsoft now has two active platform heroes to capitalize on. I just never imagined Spyro 4 was going to be a Microsoft title of all things...

While they're at it, how about a new Lost Vikings game, finally? Maybe a 3D title this time?

Edited January 30, 2022 by Lord_Brand

[Fabulously Olivier]

Sony has responded by buying Bungie. It obviously needed to happen because the Activision acquisition left them with a gaping FPS hole.

 

But what a wild world we live in. Microsoft now owns Sony's mascots and Sony now owns the studio who made Microsoft's mascot. It sounds like a joke.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

There's also a triple layer of irony since it was Activision publishing both versions of Destiny. Activision didn't own the IP, mind you. There was no danger of a Destiny 3 being exclusive to windows systems after the Activision buyout. But it was a contract that Bungie cut off two years early due to creative differences.

As for whether it affects me, it doesn't. I pretty much avoid live service games on principle. This is also probably not bad news for my PC gaming buddies that still enjoy Destiny. Sony says the series will remain multiplatform. It's also worth mentioning that Destiny is the extremely rare PS4 multiplayer game that Sony allowed to have crossplatform play with PC, so it's clear that Sony had a lot of faith in that brand that they didn't have for breakout indie games or B tier titles like Borderlands 3.

[Fabulously Olivier]

It does give them leverage, because they can pull Destiny 3 if Microsoft pulls CoD.

 

But perhaps more importantly, they could have a new exclusive FPS IP combining Bungie quality gunplay with Sony quality story. A win on both fronts that fills a gaping hole in Sony's lineup.

[Etrurian emperor]

So Sony felt a little left out and bought Bungie. 

Seems like a new era is approaching for the industry. Industry wide consolidation of companies under the big players might become the norm now. Maybe Nintendo can buy some of the more niche companies like Platinum or Koei.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Etrurian emperor

[vanguard333]

32 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Seems like a new era is approaching for the industry. Industry wide consolidation of companies under the big players might become the norm now. Maybe Nintendo can buy some of the more niche companies like Platinum.

I really hope not. There's a word for that kind of consolidation: Oligopoly. If the industry gets consolidated down to just a few companies, they will stop competing and instead divide up who has which turf; basically creating all the problems of a monopoly. Prices will skyrocket and quality will degrade even further. This one will be even worse because it's the console manufacturers consolidating the game companies.