Jump to content

Microsoft looking to buy EA, Valve and PUBG


Stargazer2600

Recommended Posts

So I came across this nice little bit. Recently it came out that Microsoft is in real bad need of exclusives. The sales for the Xbox one are not good compared to the PS4. Microsoft is really looking to try to recoup the money they poured into the Xbox one but they need the exclusives to do it. It makes some sense, EA has been under loads of fire and there latest games haven't sold well (even though I though Andromeda was fine). However, EA is massive and its been swallowing smaller game studios like nothing, If Microsoft got that, they would easily have more exclusives than Sony, Idk, i'm curious to see how this plays out. thoughts?


link

Edited by Stargazer2600
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft should of brought out exclusives years ago. Right now the only exclusives they have that are any merit are Halo, Gears of War and Forza.

 

Get rid of Phil Spencer. Bring in someone who cares about the well being of Xbox.

 

Their exclusives outright suck compared to what the PS4 has offered up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with MS, specifically their Xbox division, has always been that they spend money stupidly. The spend millions upon millions to market shit, Halo 3 had Mountain Dew for it ffs. How is that necessary spending? And instead of investing in New IP, building [and supporting] their own studios... they just buy studios, then close [or ruin; Rare] them. And they just pay out the ass for TIMED exclusives That's the dumbest use of resources ever. Why are you paying money to get a game you were going to get on your system anyway? And they bought Minecraft for billions. :/

Spending millions, potentially billions on EA and/or Valve would be such a waste of money. It's cheaper to invest in your own games and studios and BUILD SOMETHING. MS just wants to buy everything to get somewhere, rather than start from the basics of... you know, making games. That's their problem. It will continue to be their problem at this rate. You can't just keep throwing money at the issue, MS.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind if Microsoft bought EA and PUBG Corp. There aren't a lot of EA games that grab my attention either way, the last one that did was Titanfall 2, and Dead Space a long time ago. So it's fine for me.

 

I'm also pretty sure Valve ain't in hell gonna let themselves get bought, Gabe wouldn't let go of the cash cow he is deeply hugging right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Elvick_ said:

The problem with MS, specifically their Xbox division, has always been that they spend money stupidly. The spend millions upon millions to market shit, Halo 3 had Mountain Dew for it ffs. How is that necessary spending? And instead of investing in New IP, building [and supporting] their own studios... they just buy studios, then close [or ruin; Rare] them. And they just pay out the ass for TIMED exclusives That's the dumbest use of resources ever. Why are you paying money to get a game you were going to get on your system anyway? And they bought Minecraft for billions. :/

Spending millions, potentially billions on EA and/or Valve would be such a waste of money. It's cheaper to invest in your own games and studios and BUILD SOMETHING. MS just wants to buy everything to get somewhere, rather than start from the basics of... you know, making games. That's their problem. It will continue to be their problem at this rate. You can't just keep throwing money at the issue, MS.
 

 

They had a thing going back in the mid and late 2000s. The Xbox 360 was doing a lot better than the PlayStation 3 initially, which was very expensive ($500 - 600) and had a rocky start. It took a long while for the PS3 to get good. Microsoft already had Halo 3 and the Gears of War games, so a bit of merchandising wasn’t going to hurt them much. 

 

However in the past five years or so Microsoft has done a lot to damage their reputation. They have poured millions of dollars into games that ended up being canned and they lack any new IPs that grab peoples attention. Phil Spencer wants to cut the strings on single player games (or at least limit them) and focus more on a multiplayer experience. He’s one of the idiots out there who wants everything to be digital. So far that hasn’t worked out in his favor much. 

 

Too late to fix things now. The Xbox One has done horrible in the past couple years and I very much think the Scorpio is utterly worthless. What good is their library if they’re just going to release their games on Steam anyway? Between the Xbox One and PC I’d much prefer to play on the PC.

Edited by Spaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spaz said:

 

They had a thing going back in the mid and late 2000s. The Xbox 360 was doing a lot better than the PlayStation 3 initially, which was very expensive ($500 - 600) and had a rocky start. It took a long while for the PS3 to get good. Microsoft already had Halo 3 and the Gears of War games, so a bit of merchandising wasn’t going to hurt them much. 

 

However in the past five years or so Microsoft has done a lot to damage their reputation. They have poured millions of dollars into games that ended up being canned and they lack any new IPs that grab peoples attention. Phil Spencer wants to cut the strings on single player games (or at least limit them) and focus more on a multiplayer experience. He’s one of the idiots out there who wants everything to be digital. So far that hasn’t worked out in his favor much. 

 

Too late to fix things now. The Xbox One has done horrible in the past couple years and I very much think the Scorpio is utterly worthless. What good is their library if they’re just going to release their games on Steam anyway? Between the Xbox One and PC I’d much prefer to play on the PC.

So you're just forgetting RRoD which cost them massive amounts of money to deal with?

And unfortunately did not cost them in terms of market share, which it should have since it's unacceptable to *knowingly* launch a system with overheating problems and all you do is poke more holes in the casing. They knew it needed a hardware redesign, but they shipped it anyway to get out first. It worked sadly, but it still cost them something. And it further cost them to just keep dumping money on games they'd have gotten anyway. Because PS3 was hard to develop for developers would've naturally skipped it, as they did anyway. And some may have had issues, given that PS3 didn't even launch with devtools available according to Cerny when he was talking about the PS4.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Elvick_ said:

So you're just forgetting RRoD which cost them massive amounts of money to deal with?

And unfortunately did not cost them in terms of market share, which it should have since it's unacceptable to *knowingly* launch a system with overheating problems and all you do is poke more holes in the casing. They knew it needed a hardware redesign, but they shipped it anyway to get out first. It worked sadly, but it still cost them something. And it further cost them to just keep dumping money on games they'd have gotten anyway. Because PS3 was hard to develop for developers would've naturally skipped it, as they did anyway. And some may have had issues, given that PS3 didn't even launch with devtools available according to Cerny when he was talking about the PS4.

 

Why are you nitpicking?

 

I'm aware of what's going on at Microsoft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...