Microsoft interested in buying Warner Bros. games division

[erek]

Could be a lot of exclusive games for Microsoft!

"Microsoft hasn't made a big power buy for its Xbox branch since it bought Minecraft in 2014 for $2.4 billion. This deal ended up being the most lucrative purchase in Xbox history, and Minecraft is now the world's top-selling game of all time.

Furthermore, Microsoft has already made a number of high-profile studio acquisitions throughout 2018 and 2019, folding in smaller AA studios like Obsidian, inXile, and Ninja Theory into its first-party banner.

Microsoft could definitely afford to buy WB Games for $4 billion, but we're not sure they actually will. Not only would Microsoft have to spend the money upfront to acquire the studios, but they'd also have to pay for the games to be made. This is extremely expensive and would add many more millions to its current development budget."

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/7363...-buying-warner-bros-games-division/index.html

 

[KazeoHin]

they aren't worth $4 Billion. They aren't worth $1 Billion.

 

[Derangel]

they aren't worth $4 Billion. They aren't worth $1 Billion.

According to whom?

 

[KarsusTG]

Could be a lot of exclusive games for Microsoft!

"Microsoft hasn't made a big power buy for its Xbox branch since it bought Minecraft in 2014 for $2.4 billion. This deal ended up being the most lucrative purchase in Xbox history, and Minecraft is now the world's top-selling game of all time.

Furthermore, Microsoft has already made a number of high-profile studio acquisitions throughout 2018 and 2019, folding in smaller AA studios like Obsidian, inXile, and Ninja Theory into its first-party banner.

Microsoft could definitely afford to buy WB Games for $4 billion, but we're not sure they actually will. Not only would Microsoft have to spend the money upfront to acquire the studios, but they'd also have to pay for the games to be made. This is extremely expensive and would add many more millions to its current development budget."

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/7363...-buying-warner-bros-games-division/index.html

Honestly, with all the gamer flame wars about xbox vs playstation the console population has been blind to the truth, In the end Xbox is going to win because most AAA PC games are console ports and the console is getting closer and closer to just being a pc. Microsoft is slowly pushing their buy it once, play it anywhere platform and it will inevitably win out. Acquisitions like this are just them going further down that road and shows they are serious about it.

 

[zehoo]

Having Batman and other DC characters be an xbox/windows exclusive could be a good thing for Microsoft. (assuming usage rights are included in the sale) However, the more I see on what is coming out of the studios that MS recently purchased, the more I think the games will just end up being Microsoftified (turned into mindless droll with no soul).

 

[Conman]

According to whom?

Disney bought all of Star Wars for 4 billion.Games, toys, movies, and merchandise. Warner Brothers game division worth 4 billion?

 

[KazeoHin]

Honestly, with all the gamer flame wars about xbox vs playstation the console population has been blind to the truth, In the end Xbox is going to win because most AAA PC games are console ports and the console is getting closer and closer to just being a pc. Microsoft is slowly pushing their buy it once, play it anywhere platform and it will inevitably win out. Acquisitions like this are just them going further down that road and shows they are serious about it.

funny enough, I see it as the opposite. The fact that I can buy Halo Infinite on PC means I have no desire for an Xbox.

 

[DJ Lushious]

EA, Activision, and Take Two are also interested. Of the 4, I feel Microsoft's games division is the lesser of all evils. This is going to be an interesting story to follow.

 

[Derangel]

Disney bought all of Star Wars for 4 billion.Games, toys, movies, and merchandise. Warner Brothers game division worth 4 billion?

It wouldn't surprise me. WBIE makes A LOT of money. They also have a pretty good IP profile and a number of studios. If purchasing WBIE granted video game licensing rights to DC and WB properties it could easily be worth that much.

 

[Ebernanut]

While I wouldn't really want another game company to get gobbled up by EA or one of the other behemoth publishers I think that MS would actually be a worse place to land. Based on their current software divisions I think it's likely that they would cut even more corners in production than EA and I doubt the monetization situation would be any better, on top of that the inevitable exclusives are bad for the industry as a whole.

 

[KarsusTG]

funny enough, I see it as the opposite. The fact that I can buy Halo Infinite on PC means I have no desire for an Xbox.

That is kinda my point. The end game is to have it where if you have it for pc, you will also have it for xbox and vice versa... It is already that way with tv shows/movies on xbox. Ultimately, you will buy games from the unified platform and either stream them to your computer from the xbox or if you have a gaming computer, play them on that. But since every console generation gets closer to just being a pc, the goal is to replace your gaming rig with a device that can be both computer and console so you wont need it. You have to remember, the multi thousand dollar gaming rigs you see on these forums are really only the top .001% of gamers. This next gen xbox will already be better than the majority of gaming pc's listed on the steam index.

 

[Mchart]

It wouldn't surprise me. WBIE makes A LOT of money. They also have a pretty good IP profile and a number of studios. If purchasing WBIE granted video game licensing rights to DC and WB properties it could easily be worth that much.

They’ve got LOTR as well.

The Shadow of games are great, but I’d love to see some more studios take on making different types of LOTR games again.

 

[cybereality]

Don't they own F.E.A.R? It's due for a reboot.

 

[staknhalo]

According to whom?

Always buy stuff on sale, has Steam Sales taught you nothing?

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Big implications for titles made by Monolith and essentially all following Batman games.

EA, Activision, and Take Two are also interested. Of the 4, I feel Microsoft's games division is the lesser of all evils. This is going to be an interesting story to follow.

I'd say Take-Two is. They are not tied to one platform like Microsoft is. If Microsoft has it, then every title WB makes would never hit a Sony or Nintendo platform ever again (let alone alternative OS').
I'm already annoyed that they bought inXile and Obsidian. Perfectly good RPG's could be coming to other platforms if not for Microsoft.

 

[DJ Lushious]

Big implications for titles made by Monolith and essentially all following Batman games.

I'd say Take-Two is. They are not tied to one platform like Microsoft is. If Microsoft has it, then every title WB makes would never hit a Sony or Nintendo platform ever again (let alone alternative OS').
I'm already annoyed that they bought inXile and Obsidian. Perfectly good RPG's could be coming to other platforms if not for Microsoft.

Microsoft's strategy is to bring games to both PC and their Xbox platform, so the bolded/italicized confuses me. I assume you mean the *Nixes with "alternative OS'", but the second implies they won't be coming out for PC.

And, to be fair, the *Nixes do have game support, but the native library is still dwarfed by Windows. Not to knock the *Nixes, though; I am very much a fan and have spun up and administrate many distros across my IT professional career.

Exclusivity deals suck real bad for games, but Sony is grabbing exclusivity and timed deals by the dozens. And it pains me greatly. However, it's seeming that Microsoft needs to fight fire with fire, in this regard. And, again, I say that gritting my teeth, as I can't stand exclusivity/timed deals.

 

[vegeta535]

I can see MS flopping this generation again and just shutting it all down and killing off all these studios.

 

[Shoganai]

I can see MS flopping this generation again and just shutting it all down and killing off all these studios.

They’ve gotten very good as this.

 

[Armenius]

Big implications for titles made by Monolith and essentially all following Batman games.

I'd say Take-Two is. They are not tied to one platform like Microsoft is. If Microsoft has it, then every title WB makes would never hit a Sony or Nintendo platform ever again (let alone alternative OS').
I'm already annoyed that they bought inXile and Obsidian. Perfectly good RPG's could be coming to other platforms if not for Microsoft.

Take Two? Need I remind you of the NBA 2K series and Evolved fiasco?

 

[DJ Lushious]

I can see MS flopping this generation again and just shutting it all down and killing off all these studios.

Microsoft is focusing on services as the forefront of their new business models. Software as a service's revenue per user is a much more lucrative venture, so your post's scenario is about as realistic as a llamacorn becoming president.

 

[Twisted Kidney]

Always buy stuff on sale, has Steam Sales taught you nothing?

If it's still for sale in a couple of years, I'll grab the GOTY edition of the company with all the stock DLC for 10 bucks.

 

[Hornet]

I really dont want Microsoft turning all those franchises into Xbox exclusive.
I'd rather have third party developers having those franchises and continue releasing them on multi platforms.

 

[Mchart]

I really dont want Microsoft turning all those franchises into Xbox exclusive.
I'd rather have third party developers having those franchises and continue releasing them on multi platforms.

If I can play the game on my PC I don’t really care. Meaning, the only bullshit platform is PlayStation. I don’t really care if it’s an Xbox game because it’ll come out on Windows regardless.

 

[Armenius]

I really dont want Microsoft turning all those franchises into Xbox exclusive.
I'd rather have third party developers having those franchises and continue releasing them on multi platforms.

Nearly all first-party games from Microsoft released in the past 2.5 years are "Play Anywhere," so you can also play them on a Windows 10 PC and soon across all Windows 10 devices. The only one I know of that isn't Play Anywhere is the MCC.

 

[JustinCorrigible]

Nearly all first-party games from Microsoft released in the past 2.5 years are "Play Anywhere," so you can also play them on a Windows 10 PC and soon across all Windows 10 devices. The only one I know of that isn't Play Anywhere is the MCC.

I believe that also applied to Shadow of War, IIRC. Happens to be a WB game. I bought it on Xbox then noticed one day it was Installable on Microsoft store.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Microsoft's strategy is to bring games to both PC and their Xbox platform, so the bolded/italicized confuses me. I assume you mean the *Nixes with "alternative OS'", but the second implies they won't be coming out for PC.

And, to be fair, the *Nixes do have game support, but the native library is still dwarfed by Windows. Not to knock the *Nixes, though; I am very much a fan and have spun up and administrate many distros across my IT professional career.

Exclusivity deals suck real bad for games, but Sony is grabbing exclusivity and timed deals by the dozens. And it pains me greatly. However, it's seeming that Microsoft needs to fight fire with fire, in this regard. And, again, I say that gritting my teeth, as I can't stand exclusivity/timed deals.

Speaking of confusing: typing apostrophe Nixes is way more confusing than just typing "Linux". Or Unix. Linux is actually less characters than "*Nixes"... but I digress.
It's not just Linux support however. It's also macOS support. However even discounting macOS and Linux from the conversation having DC based games on PS4/PS5 and Switch is preferable to Windows/XBox exclusivity. I assume that also will include mobile. Which was my point and still is my point. As much garbage as people want to talk about Apple, Microsoft is just as bad in terms of exclusivity. No one else will have it if they do.

Take Two? Need I remind you of the NBA 2K series and Evolved fiasco?

Not sure what fiascos you're referring to. I just know that Rockstar as an example is under their banner and they make good titles. And they are allowed and given the time to make good titles. I would support that over being locked into Xbox and Windows exclusivity.

 

[HockeyJon]

they aren't worth $4 Billion. They aren't worth $1 Billion.

Facebook paid $19 Billion for WhatsApp, so you never know what people can convince rich tech companies they’re actually worth.

Heck, Nikola is worth $14.5B as of the time I write this and they haven’t even sold a vehicle yet.

 

[DJ Lushious]

Speaking of confusing: typing apostrophe Nixes is way more confusing than just typing "Linux". Or Unix. Linux is actually less characters than "*Nixes"... but I digress.

What a very odd thing to focus on. "Nixes" as a meaning for all the different distros of Unix/Linux that are out there. But does it really matter how many characters I'm typing?

having DC based games on PS4/PS5 and Switch is preferable to Windows/XBox exclusivity. I assume that also will include mobile. Which was my point and still is my point. As much garbage as people want to talk about Apple, Microsoft is just as bad in terms of exclusivity. No one else will have it if they do.

This sentence is sure misleading and it muddles up whatever point you're trying to make. And your assumption of mobile shows your disconnect to the world at large right now. Microsoft has a game on every platform available, Sony, Nintendo, and mobile called "Minecraft." Cuphead and Ori and the Blind Forest are 2 Microsoft titles that are also on multiple platforms. Not to mention, Microsoft is now supporting Steam as a venue for game releases.

Maybe you have an axe to grind or you've not been paying much attention to the Xbox division over the past few years. It's pretty amazing how much of a turnaround they've made over the draconian past you use as the basis on your post. Which, to be crystal clear, I am in 100% agreeance that they used to be bad, but it's a great disservice to not give credit where credit is due with the current state of affairs.

At the end of the day, we can only hypothesize what would happen and I don't want to even think of a future where Activision has bought up WB Games.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

What a very odd thing to focus on. "Nixes" as a meaning for all the different distros of Unix/Linux that are out there.

I figured that out if it wasn't apparent.

But does it really matter how many characters I'm typing?

The point was you obfuscated what you were trying to say in all forms. Used a term I've literally never seen before ever (and this forum as an example is full of sysadmins). And to top it off made it more complicated to write rather than easier. More or less in my mind defeating the purpose of trying to use any form of "short hand" in your writing.

This sentence is sure misleading and it muddles up whatever point you're trying to make. And your assumption of mobile shows your disconnect to the world at large right now. Microsoft has a game on every platform available, Sony, Nintendo, and mobile called "Minecraft." Cuphead and Ori and the Blind Forest are 2 Microsoft titles that are also on multiple platforms.

Every game that Microsoft has that is "multiplatform" was multiplatform before they purchased it. Minecraft being the most obvious example. Ori being another. You could also bring up The Outer Worlds. And Wasteland 2. All of which were purchased by Microsoft and not developed by them from the beginning. Microsoft has agreed to allow all of their purchased studios to finish development on titles that were originally announced to be multiplatform (how generous of them). But that doesn't mean that they don't continue to, afterward, have said studios be Microsoft exclusive. Or in fact continue all of their studios that were exclusive to continue being exclusive.
Also Cuphead isn't a Microsoft title. It is developed by StudioMDHR http://studiomdhr.com/about-us/ And they are independent.

For what happens afterwards, here are some examples of titles released in the last 5 years that are Microsoft exclusive because they purchased them:
Hellblade: Senua's Sage (A perfect example of them moving their acquired studios to exclusivity after allowing them to finish their multi-platform releases)
Bleeding Edge
All of the Halo games. (Halo 5, Halo Online, Halo Wars: Definitive Edition, Halo Wars 2, Halo Recruit, Halo: Fireteam Raven, Halo Infinite)
All of the Forza Games and also all of these ones here, other than mobile since Microsoft no longer has a mobile platform.
Every new Rare Game (after they were purchased), including notably Killer Instinct.
The Entire Gears of War series.
State of Decay 1/2
Age of Empire Franchise
The Fable Franchise
The Mechwarrior Franchise

Not to mention, Microsoft is now supporting Steam as a venue for game releases.

They also "support" Amazon, Walmart, Target, and Best Buy. Where they sell their platform exclusive titles is irrelevant. Being on Steam doesn't make you multi-platform. It's not a platform. It's a store.

Maybe you have an axe to grind or you've not been paying much attention to the Xbox division over the past few years. It's pretty amazing how much of a turnaround they've made over the draconian past you use as the basis on your post. Which, to be crystal clear, I am in 100% agreeance that they used to be bad, but it's a great disservice to not give credit where credit is due with the current state of affairs.

As I've clearly demonstrated. They deserve zero credit and continue to operate the same, even if they are "kind" enough to allow their purchased game studios to follow through with their word and finish up their multi-platform titles.

At the end of the day, we can only hypothesize what would happen and I don't want to even think of a future where Activision has bought up WB Games.

They have operated more or less exactly the same. Activision would at least be multi-platform. And as I stated before, Take-Two would be the least of the evils.

 

[Armenius]

Speaking of confusing: typing apostrophe Nixes is way more confusing than just typing "Linux". Or Unix. Linux is actually less characters than "*Nixes"... but I digress.
It's not just Linux support however. It's also macOS support. However even discounting macOS and Linux from the conversation having DC based games on PS4/PS5 and Switch is preferable to Windows/XBox exclusivity. I assume that also will include mobile. Which was my point and still is my point. As much garbage as people want to talk about Apple, Microsoft is just as bad in terms of exclusivity. No one else will have it if they do.


Not sure what fiascos you're referring to. I just know that Rockstar as an example is under their banner and they make good titles. And they are allowed and given the time to make good titles. I would support that over being locked into Xbox and Windows exclusivity.

Rockstar is given leniency because they have a proven track record of selling a lot of games and retaining a large player base that generates a large continuous revenue stream. It's not because they necessarily make "good titles."

Evolved was released with little content and exorbitant microtransactions. After the game had seen even the dedicated few players slip away years prior they decided to relaunch as free-to-play in "Stage 2" and the game didn't even last half a year before it was completely dead again. The game so very little sales because of it and Turtle Rock was once again left in publishing limbo.

Every game that Microsoft has that is "multiplatform" was multiplatform before they purchased it. Minecraft being the most obvious example. Ori being another. You could also bring up The Outer Worlds. And Wasteland 2. All of which were purchased by Microsoft and not developed by them from the beginning. Microsoft has agreed to allow all of their purchased studios to finish development on titles that were originally announced to be multiplatform (how generous of them). But that doesn't mean that they don't continue to, afterward, have said studios be Microsoft exclusive. Or in fact continue all of their studios that were exclusive to continue being exclusive.
Also Cuphead isn't a Microsoft title. It is developed by StudioMDHR http://studiomdhr.com/about-us/ And they are independent.

For what happens afterwards, here are some examples of titles released in the last 5 years that are Microsoft exclusive because they purchased them:
Hellblade: Senua's Sage (A perfect example of them moving their acquired studios to exclusivity after allowing them to finish their multi-platform releases)
Bleeding Edge
All of the Halo games. (Halo 5, Halo Online, Halo Wars: Definitive Edition, Halo Wars 2, Halo Recruit, Halo: Fireteam Raven, Halo Infinite)
All of the Forza Games and also all of these ones here, other than mobile since Microsoft no longer has a mobile platform.
Every new Rare Game (after they were purchased), including notably Killer Instinct.
The Entire Gears of War series.
State of Decay 1/2
Age of Empire Franchise
The Fable Franchise
The Mechwarrior Franchise


They also "support" Amazon, Walmart, Target, and Best Buy. Where they sell their platform exclusive titles is irrelevant. Being on Steam doesn't make you multi-platform. It's not a platform. It's a store.


As I've clearly demonstrated. They deserve zero credit and continue to operate the same, even if they are "kind" enough to allow their purchased game studios to follow through with their word and finish up their multi-platform titles.

All those games you listed are multiplatform because PC is a platform. We get it: You have irrational hatred toward Microsoft.

 

[DJ Lushious]

Every game that Microsoft has that is "multiplatform" was multiplatform before they purchased it. Minecraft being the most obvious example. Ori being another.

You're wrong about Ori (see below) and Microsoft absolutely could have made Minecraft an Xbox/PC exclusive. They didn't and that doesn't fit within your argument, but it is a clear example that Microsoft is not as draconian as they have been in the past.

Also Cuphead isn't a Microsoft title. It is developed by StudioMDHR http://studiomdhr.com/about-us/ And they are independent.

You're not wrong about them being independent, but the fact is that the Xbox Games Division funded the entire production. Ori with Studio Moon also includes Microsoft having a heavy hand it. Neither of these titles could be released on any other console without Microsoft's say-so.

From the horse's mouth, on the topic of Cuphead coming to Switch:

There are many levels to this question: On the business side, i can't talk about that at all, but I'm sure you understand. I can say that Microsoft has legitimately, no PR fakeness, been an amazing partner. Chris Charla is awesome, Phil is awesome, everyone over at MS is awesome. This would not have happened without them.

Thomas Mahler, of Moon Studios, on discussing Ori's arrival on Switch:

Amazing, we've received sooooooo many mails ever since the Switch released to put it on there, so it was really cool when we brought this up with Microsoft that they actually were open to it instead of just saying straight up no, which is what I kinda would've expected. So Kudos to Phil and crew who allowed us to please Nintendo and Ori fans this way

Here is Thomas Mahler on what the relationships with Microsoft, themselves, and Ori is:

And no, we're not owned by Microsoft. Microsoft owns the Ori IP, but we're still completely independent.

There's a reason why I brought these 2 titles up.

For what happens afterwards, here are some examples of titles released in the last 5 years that are Microsoft exclusive because they purchased them:
Hellblade: Senua's Sage (A perfect example of them moving their acquired studios to exclusivity after allowing them to finish their multi-platform releases)
Bleeding Edge
All of the Halo games. (Halo 5, Halo Online, Halo Wars: Definitive Edition, Halo Wars 2, Halo Recruit, Halo: Fireteam Raven, Halo Infinite)
All of the Forza Games and also all of these ones here, other than mobile since Microsoft no longer has a mobile platform.
Every new Rare Game (after they were purchased), including notably Killer Instinct.
The Entire Gears of War series.
State of Decay 1/2
Age of Empire Franchise
The Fable Franchise
The Mechwarrior Franchise

And a number of the examples you're listing are available on PC. That's a whole lot more than what Sony and Nintendo is doing with their exclusives. Credit where credit is due, though, as Sony is now releasing 2 of their exclusives on Steam: Death Stranding and Horizon Zero Dawn.

Thomas Mahler gave a comment about this very thing that I think is very relevant to this discussion.

Microsoft is making some very clever strategic moves and most people seem to not see the forest for the trees.

The future isn’t about which box you own.

They also "support" Amazon, Walmart, Target, and Best Buy. Where they sell their platform exclusive titles is irrelevant. Being on Steam doesn't make you multi-platform.

You can dismiss this on semantics, but Microsoft was staunchly against releasing games on Steam. They've pivoted and it's a win for us gamers.

It's not a platform. It's a store.

I'll still argue that it's a platform, but, yes, it is also a store. There a countless games I can only play via Steam, by starting the Steam client, and only by purchasing through the Steam channel. I'll go on record and say the Epic Games Store is also a platform.

As I've clearly demonstrated. They deserve zero credit and continue to operate the same, even if they are "kind" enough to allow their purchased game studios to follow through with their word and finish up their multi-platform titles.

Who are you quoting Microsoft being "kind" from? You have an axe to grind, it's quite clear.

They have operated more or less exactly the same.

They haven't and just because you are ignorant to, or have chosen to ignore, their progressive changes under Phil Spencer's leadership doesn't make them any less real or any less beneficial to gamers. So, no, I don't see Microsoft acquiring WB Games as the most evil scenario. And I can imagine a future where some of these titles in this hypothetical acquisition would still remain multi-platform.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Rockstar is given leniency because they have a proven track record of selling a lot of games and retaining a large player base that generates a large continuous revenue stream. It's not because they necessarily make "good titles."

Evolved was released with little content and exorbitant microtransactions. After the game had seen even the dedicated few players slip away years prior they decided to relaunch as free-to-play in "Stage 2" and the game didn't even last half a year before it was completely dead again. The game so very little sales because of it and Turtle Rock was once again left in publishing limbo.

Good to know. We all still don't really get a vote anyway. But it's interesting to speculate about game division purchases. Microsoft is the one with the money, so you guys will likely gain your wish. Still rather them not though.

All those games you listed are multiplatform because PC is a platform. We get it: You have irrational hatred toward Microsoft.

This is an absurd statement. My point is that Microsoft is keeping titles for themselves. Saying that "Windows is a platform" when Microsoft owns both Windows and XBOX is an absurd counter to the point that we'll never see these titles on Playstation or a Nintendo Console or alternative OS'. In short any platform that Microsoft doesn't own no one else gets. But apparently I have to speak in a very obtuse manner to make a point that I think is obvious.
Axe to grind or no, on those titles I'm 100% right. Everyone of them are Windows/Xbox exclusive.

You're wrong about Ori (see below) and Microsoft absolutely could have made Minecraft an Xbox/PC exclusive. They didn't and that doesn't fit within your argument, but it is a clear example that Microsoft is not as draconian as they have been in the past.

The short answer is we've seen for decades where they've been. It's going to take a lot of years in the future before I think there is actual change in terms of their leadership. I could go pick back through everything you've stated, but frankly it isn't worth the time. I standby my statements.
If Hellblade: Senua's Saga makes it to PS5 we can have a whole other discussion as evidence for your case. Until then they're operating under the same MO in my book. Because most of this comes down to what companies do and not what they say.

 

[DJ Lushious]

If Hellblade: Senua's Saga makes it to PS5 we can have a whole other discussion as evidence for your case.

Well, now you're just moving the goal post. So, you're right, having this dialogue with you "isn't worth the time."

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Well, now you're just moving the goal post.

There are no goal posts for me to move. Microsoft hasn't changed. That was my initial hypothesis. Anything that proves that is on the table.
Additionally: reread my above posts. Senua's Saga was one of my initial points in the first place. And it would go a long way to prove your point. More to the point: it proves mine. Or did you ignore that I brought up this title specifically above showing that Microsoft hasn't changed while you talked about multi-platform titles that Microsoft bought and continued to allow to be multi-plat?
Seems to me then you're just not reading what people are saying. These next generation of games after a studio is bought shows far more about what Microsoft does rather than a mid-development game that gets purchased (which is directly what Senua's Saga is). A point you tried to argue against, sighting Ori again when that was purchased mid development. I've read what you've said. You clearly haven't read what I've said.

So, you're right, having this dialogue with you "isn't worth the time."

Works for me. Especially considering that you're not reading pertinent parts of the discussion enough to warrant expending the energy.

 

[DJ Lushious]

A point you tried to argue against, siteing Ori again when that was purchased mid development.

This is you, again, moving the goalpost. When a studio, IP, or team is purchased is absolutely irrelevant and some weird condition you've created to invalidate my counterpoints.

Saying that "Windows is a platform" when Microsoft owns both Windows and XBOX is an absurd counter to the point that we'll never see these titles on Playstation or a Nintendo Console or alternative OS'.

I gave you an explicit quote from Moon Studios stating Microsoft owns the Ori IP. Again, simply put, it doesn't matter when that purchase happened (2011, in case you were wondering). It's a product that is completely owned by Microsoft, published only on Xbox and Windows platforms for years under different leadership, and is now available to gamers on a Nintendo console.

Yes, the titles/franchises you listed above are Microsoft exclusives. I understand your point that, of all the potential suitors, Microsoft is the only one that is not a multiplatform publisher, by your definition. This, coupled with your viewpoint, makes them the worst-case scenario.

My stance has been to point out that current Microsoft leadership has done some unconventional things that involve them publishing on non-Microsoft platforms. Does that guarantee the Xbox Games Division, if they purchased WB Games would release a Superman (it'd be nice to get one of those again, done right) or Mortal Kombat game on PlayStation 5, Nintendo Switch, and/or Atari VCS (this last one's a joke )? No, of course not. However, it's not a stretch to think that they could, since they have done so with other IPs they own.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

This is you, again, moving the goalpost. When a studio, IP, or team is purchased is absolutely irrelevant and some weird condition you've created to invalidate my counterpoints.

I stated all of these things from the beginning. You replied with what you replied with. So you're stating that you haven't really countered what I talked about from the beginning. Besides, I thought this conversation wasn't worth having.
Everything I've stated is directly relevant. Properties they own into the future become exclusive. Their past, present, and titles launching into the future show that. As I stated at the beginning: only their purchased properties that were multi-plat from the beginning have been "allowed" to be multi-plat. Everything else following that acquisition is not.

I gave you an explicit quote from Moon Studios stating Microsoft owns the Ori IP. Again, simply put, it doesn't matter when that purchase happened (2011, in case you were wondering). It's a product that is completely owned by Microsoft, published only on Xbox and Windows platforms for years under different leadership, and is now available to gamers on a Nintendo console.

Your link works against you. Because as they themselves state, they aren't owned by Microsoft. Microsoft apparently is just their publisher. I'm exclusively talking about Microsoft owned properties.

While the game is published by Microsoft Game Studios, the team remains wholly independent. If anything, the relationship has given them many of the benefits of a first party development while being able to maintain their unique structure, one seemingly poorly fit with the typical first party system.

Yes, the titles/franchises you listed above are Microsoft exclusives. I understand your point that, of all the potential suitors, Microsoft is the only one that is not a multiplatform publisher, by your definition. This, coupled with your viewpoint, makes them the worst-case scenario.

I'll gladly tell you my biases. I don't have an interest in Microsoft consoles and I'm not a huge fan of Windows. There's the cards on the table. But I'm not wrong when I say that having exclusives in general is bad for everyone. Especially when dealing with properties as large as the entire DC universe and/or all the properties from other companies like Monolith.
As much as I love Nintendo as an example: it would be really annoying if every Marvel property was exclusively licensed by Nintendo and the only Marvel properties ending up on Switch. I see this as no different. So although I'm bias (everyone is) my bias is towards having more and or all titles ending up in more places so that there is greater opportunity to pick the platform you want and enjoy them on the platform you want. Especially when dealing with properties that are as big as the DC Universe.

My stance has been to point out that current Microsoft leadership has done some unconventional things that involve them publishing on non-Microsoft platforms. Does that guarantee the Xbox Games Division, if they purchased WB Games would release a Superman (it'd be nice to get one of those again, done right) or Mortal Kombat game on PlayStation 5, Nintendo Switch, and/or Atari VCS (this last one's a joke )? No, of course not. However, it's not a stretch to think that they could, since they have done so with other IPs they own.

They are still doing things counter to your 'stance'. And doing things counter to apparently what they themselves say. So until that changes it's fairly irrelevant. Especially considering you're talking about a title that most people don't even recognize (I had to Google and Wiki this title - and as your own link points out, they aren't owned by Microsoft) and all of their mainline ones (eg: Halo, Forza, et al) still aren't multi-platform. With the only major exception being Minecraft, which as I stated is a title that was already multi-plat when they purchased it. These have been the points since the beginning. Senua's Saga is again revealing who Microsoft is. They allowed Senua's Sacrifice to finish with being multi-plat since it was already in development when they purchased it. And then Ninja Theory's titles after that? Microsoft exclusive.
This is why I said what I said: if Microsoft has truly changed like you think they have, they'll bring that to other platforms. But I highly doubt they will, especially as they've used Senua's Saga as a part of their XSX advertisement materials.

 

[DJ Lushious]

I applaud you for being transparent on your stance and am a bit surprised to hear you say Nintendo is your preference. Not surprised in a demeaning way, just, well, I didn't really know who you favored, only who you did not.

Besides, I thought this conversation wasn't worth having.

Yeah, well, maybe I wound up enjoying the discourse.

Everything I've stated is directly relevant. Properties they own into the future become exclusive. Their past, present, and titles launching into the future show that. As I stated at the beginning: only their purchased properties that were multi-plat from the beginning have been "allowed" to be multi-plat. Everything else following that acquisition is not.

I'm sorry, but I don't know why we're not on the same page here. I am citing Ori and the Blind Forest and Cuphead as titles that weren't multiplatform to begin with. Does it fall back to the Windows and Xbox are the same platform mentality? If so, it's an unconventional stance; the PC sector is considered its own platform, separate from the consoles, so this is the framing of my thoughts when approaching this topic.

Your link works against you. Because as they themselves state, they aren't owned by Microsoft. Microsoft apparently is just their publisher. I'm exclusively talking about Microsoft owned properties.

Microsoft owns the intellectual property and that is something I made a point to communicate by quoting Thomas Mahler. So, would you please help me understand why you feel this is an example that works against me?

But I'm not wrong when I say that having exclusives in general is bad for everyone. Especially when dealing with properties as large as the entire DC universe and/or all the properties from other companies like Monolith. As much as I love Nintendo as an example: it would be really annoying if every Marvel property was exclusively licensed by Nintendo and the only Marvel properties ending up on Switch. I see this as no different. So although I'm bias (everyone is) my bias is towards having more and or all titles ending up in more places so that there is greater opportunity to pick the platform you want and enjoy them on the platform you want. Especially when dealing with properties that are as big as the DC Universe.

I don't completely agree with you that exclusives are bad. For example, you won't hear me complaining that if I want to play Super Mario Odyssey (an outstandingly near-perfect game), then I need to own a Switch. If I want to play Uncharted, I need a PlayStation. That's the nature of the console space and 1st party titles, which is why I wind up with every console each generation.

Microsoft gets some goodwill with me in this regard now, in that they are being much more open now (still some ways to go, though). I don't need to exclusively own an Xbox One to play Halo or Forza Horizon any more; I can play these titles on PC. Add Play Anywhere as another support of that goodwill. I love how I can buy a game once and choose which platform to play. Sony did this, as well, with some games that could be played across the PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, and PlayStation Vita.

These practices are gamer-centric and that, to me, carries a lot of water.

The scenarios that make me frustrated are 3rd party exclusives and timed deals. Having to wait 3 months to play Control's DLC or Call of Duty content, because Sony purchased timed exclusivity, are examples.

Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3, the example you used, falls closer to the 1st party examples for me, since Nintendo funded that game completely (like Microsoft did with both Ori titles and Cuphead). And those scenarios I am okay with, as well.

If Microsoft buys NetherRealm Studios, though? Then that flowchart takes me back to the Super Mario Odyssey and Uncharted 1st party umbrella.

Especially considering you're talking about a title that most people don't even recognize (I had to Google and Wiki this title - and as your own link points out, they aren't owned by Microsoft)

Which game are you referring to here? Ori or Cuphead?

And, in the interest of maintaining an equal ground, my bias is leaning Microsoft right now. For most of this console generation, however, I was firmly planted in Sony's court, but Sony has become quite scummy to me lately. I have found the Xbox Games Division to be doing some really great things that I feel put me, the gamer, at the forefront. Xbox and PC Game Pass tips the scales even further, making the Xbox my platform of choice.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I applaud you for being transparent on your stance and am a bit surprised to hear you say Nintendo is your preference. Not surprised in a demeaning way, just, well, I didn't really know who you favored, only who you did not.

I wouldn't say Nintendo is my favorite. But I brought them up as another example of a platform who I wouldn't want to get exclusivity deals with going to as they notoriously are another company that does no dev work on any platform other than their own. In that particular way, Nintendo and Microsoft are the same. The point was to show that even if (or though) I have a bias against Microsoft exclusivity, the issue is less about Microsoft themselves as much as it is an issue with exclusivity itself. Talking about Microsoft and how they've been exclusive in the past and continue to be is my point all along. And I'd rather have publishers that will not horde IPs.
We could get into an entire other discussion about Nintendo and how they are incredibly good at what they do. And they don't tend to acquire other studios or other IPs, although they have on occasion created deep connections with third party studios (Retro Studios comes to mind).

I'm sorry, but I don't know why we're not on the same page here. I am citing Ori and the Blind Forest and Cuphead as titles that weren't multiplatform to begin with. Does it fall back to the Windows and Xbox are the same platform mentality? If so, it's an unconventional stance; the PC sector is considered its own platform, separate from the consoles, so this is the framing of my thoughts when approaching this topic.

They aren't though. Anymore than trying to split up iOS devices from Macs or Nintendo consoles from their handhelds. Or heck Dell desktops from their laptops. Or Surface using Intel chips versus Surface using ARM chips.
If Microsoft developed for other OS's then we could have an entire other discussion about how they've opened up onto other platforms. However, they're exclusively on their own platforms. It's a hard argument saying that they're really separate especially considering that the Xbox is essentially driven from Microsoft IP whether on computers or not (e.g.: specifically running DirectX rather than say OpenGL/Vulcan. All of their titles don't require any special coding to get onto Windows once it's programed/coded for Xbox, etc).

Microsoft owns the intellectual property and that is something I made a point to communicate by quoting Thomas Mahler. So, would you please help me understand why you feel this is an example that works against me?

That's fair.

I don't completely agree with you that exclusives are bad. For example, you won't hear me complaining that if I want to play Super Mario Odyssey (an outstandingly near-perfect game), then I need to own a Switch. If I want to play Uncharted, I need a PlayStation. That's the nature of the console space and 1st party titles, which is why I wind up with every console each generation.

Microsoft gets some goodwill with me in this regard now, in that they are being much more open now (still some ways to go, though). I don't need to exclusively own an Xbox One to play Halo or Forza Horizon any more; I can play these titles on PC. Add Play Anywhere as another support of that goodwill. I love how I can buy a game once and choose which platform to play. Sony did this, as well, with some games that could be played across the PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, and PlayStation Vita.

When a studio creates first party IP they get to do what they want with it. The hardware at the end of the day doesn't matter as much as trying to push sales for first party titles. The Nintendo Switch is really just a vehicle to push Nintendo titles in the way they want to, which notably is using their propreitary control schemes. I have no problem with this, in the sense that they are a business and get to control their own business decisions and should continue to allow to do so. However that same mindset is an issue if you want to play big studio games the way you want to.

Some examples of companies that have reversed this trend after understanding multi-platform development is good for them:
The most notable is Square-Enix. They've come around to see that publishing all of their games on everything more or less just prints them more money. No longer is Final Fantasy or Kingdom hearts Playstation exclusive. And we all benefit from this. Also Deus Ex and Tomb Raider are now on basically every platform (even macOS and Linux). When Microsoft does that for every title, even I'll give them credit.
Terrible Konami has realized there is more money in the PC space. And they long since gave up platform exclusivity. Although they did for a long time develop specific titles for only specific platforms. It's now more or less possible to play MGS5 anyway you want to play it and that's a lot better than being 'forced' to buy a PS4.

These practices are gamer-centric and that, to me, carries a lot of water.

The scenarios that make me frustrated are 3rd party exclusives and timed deals. Having to wait 3 months to play Control's DLC or Call of Duty content, because Sony purchased timed exclusivity, are examples.

On this, I agree with you. Which is also why I feel like Epic and their store are a plague.

Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3, the example you used, falls closer to the 1st party examples for me, since Nintendo funded that game completely (like Microsoft did with both Ori titles and Cuphead). And those scenarios I am okay with, as well.

I actually didn't bring up this. I more or less "created" that idea of Nintendo getting exclusive rights as an example of something I wouldn't particularly appreciate. However, doing a licensing deal like that is less of a problem than if they had licensed the entire IP in perpetuity. That's really different. Which is more or less what we're talking about here with Microsoft getting all of the DC IP.

If Microsoft buys NetherRealm Studios, though? Then that flowchart takes me back to the Super Mario Odyssey and Uncharted 1st party umbrella.

Ehhhh obviously this is where we disagree.

Which game are you referring to here? Ori or Cuphead?

Ori.

And, in the interest of maintaining an equal ground, my bias is leaning Microsoft right now. For most of this console generation, however, I was firmly planted in Sony's court, but Sony has become quite scummy to me lately. I have found the Xbox Games Division to be doing some really great things that I feel put me, the gamer, at the forefront. Xbox and PC Game Pass tips the scales even further, making the Xbox my platform of choice.

Which is fair enough. Microsoft exclusivity is good for you. And if things benefit the victor you like it's easier to have less of a problem with it. I'm obviously just not on that same page.

 

[Sweet Dee]

I didn't know Warner Bros Games Division was in such high demand lol.

 

[JustinCorrigible]

I didn't know Warner Bros Games Division was in such high demand lol.

Come on now, bird. Microsoft is Brainiac and wants to steal all the DC Universe.