Xbox chief: Microsoft will 'absolutely' continue purchasing studios following Bethesda...

[Polycount]

Acquiring talent: Microsoft has been on what could only be called an acquisition spree lately. It's purchased several major gaming studios over the past couple of years, and more recently, it snagged Bethesda, one of the most well-known (and once-beloved) game developers in the world. However, if you thought the company was done, think again: Xbox chief Phil Spencer says more buyouts are coming.

There was a rumor (one we reported on) that the Xbox crew was looking toward Japan for some of its next studio purchases, but that news was ultimately proven false. However, there's still plenty of talent to acquire outside of Asian markets.

When asked whether or not Microsoft would continue buying new studios during this year's digital Twitchcon livestream, Spencer had quite an interesting response. "In terms of continuing to invest in new studios and new games and new content, absolutely we have to do that," he said. "It's important that we continue to build out the library of games that are available on Xbox."

Spencer is certainly right with that last statement. As it stands, the Green Team is sorely lacking in compelling exclusive content on next-gen consoles -- especially compared to its key competitor, Sony.

The PlayStation 5 already has access to fantastic exclusive content like Demon's Souls (the remake), the Spider-Man remaster, Spider-Man: Miles Morales, Astro's Playroom, and Bugsnax, with a whole lot more to come in 2021 (Horizon Forbidden West, anyone?).

"We'll double the size of our studios organization when we add Bethesda," Spencer continued. "...and we're going to continue to invest in great games so that people can find their next favorite game on our platform."

We wish Spencer and the Xbox crew the best of luck toward those goals. While it may not have a great exclusive launch line-up, it's not as if there's no reason to buy an Xbox Series X.

At least Microsoft always has Halo Infinite in its back pocket.

Xbox Game Pass is an extremely compelling deal (even after doubling in price), especially now that future Bethesda titles like Starfield and the Elder Scrolls 6 will arrive on the service at launch. Furthermore, the Xbox Series X (and S) can run every single Xbox game ever made, including those created for the original console.

We'll have our eye on Microsoft moving forward, and we'll keep you in the loop as it continues to bring new talent into the fold.

In the meantime, feel free to sound off in the comments with your thoughts on what the next Xbox acquisition might be. My bet is Ubisoft -- the studio already has an established relationship with Microsoft, after all.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/87620-xbox-chief-microsoft-absolutely-continue-purchasing-studios-following.html

 

[Adi6293]

I hope they buy as many studios as possible, the screech from play station fanboys its legendary

 

[dangh]

Great, trying to get monopoly in yet another area. They made mess everywhere else, now it's time for gaming industry.
Well, failed with mobile, hopefully will fail here as well. They have like 20 studios and maybe 2 good games.

 

[Tom Yum]

Personally, I hate this idea. Not because I'm a PlayStation fanboy or anything, but because monopolies are not good for anything. If MS wants exclusives for Xbox, why not create new studio's and produce compelling games. The only reason to buy large existing studio's rather than make new one's is to lock away IP into their walled garden, or reduce access to others.

There is a difference between someone like MS buying a small studio with interesting ideas but without the resources to realise them, than MS buying a Ubisoft or Bethesda. The former is a benefit to the industry, it enables games that otherwise wouldn't exist to become viable. The later is purely monopoly creation.

 

[VariableSpike]

I hope they buy as many studios as possible, the screech from play station fanboys its legendary

You do realise that the point is moot since no XBOX games are exclusive anymore? Sony sure as hell don't care, they have way too many first party studios already - the main thing is that more and more people are turning to PC's for their gaming (in my experience) , with the only reason behind getting a console is the exclusives attached to it, unless you are dead set on having a console, where it becomes an either or

I would say that this news is bad, but half the time game studios tend to wrangle themselves out (Io Interactive is an example), so hopefully the market decides as to whether this should keep happening

 

[kiwigraeme]

MS seem to be quite well run at the moment - so much better than say EA buying up studios .
Maybe MS want more diversity in games - not everything has to be BR , FPS etc etc .
Anyway have they destroyed Minecraft?-
So slightly optimistic - plus they have deep pockets to ensure more than todays bling is created

 

[DZillaXx]

Personally, I hate this idea. Not because I'm a PlayStation fanboy or anything, but because monopolies are not good for anything. If MS wants exclusives for Xbox, why not create new studio's and produce compelling games. The only reason to buy large existing studio's rather than make new one's is to lock away IP into their walled garden, or reduce access to others.

There is a difference between someone like MS buying a small studio with interesting ideas but without the resources to realise them, than MS buying a Ubisoft or Bethesda. The former is a benefit to the industry, it enables games that otherwise wouldn't exist to become viable. The later is purely monopoly creation.

Bethesda was looking to be sold. They went to MS first as they have a tight relationship with Microsoft. MS IMO probably overpaid, but its a deal both sides wanted. But lets not act like this wasn't good for Bethesda or the games they will make.

Microsoft has been very consumer friendly over the last few years and honestly don't see anything wrong with them saving a few more studios from death. As games are only going to not only be more expensive to make, but take longer to make. AAA games take major $$$.

MS makes a wide range of games and they do a pretty good job getting their titles out on as many devices as they can. They simply just dont focus on Action games. As a RTS fan gears tactics was great fun. I love XCOM and anything like it, they are the primary reason I have a gaming PC.

 

[bviktor]

I love how the PS4 like DESTROYED Xbox sales, yet you peeps worry about an Xbox monopoly. Name ONE thing where MS has a monopoly. Seriously. Just one.

What monopolies does MS have? Office? That hegemony is long broken by G Suite. Windows? Everyone gone mobile. Windows on mobile? Never was. Bing? LOL. Azure? Still lagging behind AWS. Outlook.com? No chance against Gmail. IE/Edge? They have like 3% market share. Xbox? 360, at its best, was only on par with the PS3, and that's about it.

You guys are stuck in the 90s or something.

 

[terzaerian]

Microsoft on track to become the next EA, it seems.

You guys are stuck in the 90s or something.

Because 2020 is such a great year to be stuck in.

 

[Adi6293]

You do realise that the point is moot since no XBOX games are exclusive anymore? Sony sure as hell don't care, they have way too many first party studios already - the main thing is that more and more people are turning to PC's for their gaming (in my experience) , with the only reason behind getting a console is the exclusives attached to it, unless you are dead set on having a console, where it becomes an either or

I would say that this news is bad, but half the time game studios tend to wrangle themselves out (Io Interactive is an example), so hopefully the market decides as to whether this should keep happening

I game on a PC myself but I do own an Xbox One X and I like it, I did have PS4 Pro but I found most of their games boring, the console was loud and the controller rather uncomfortable so I sold it. To me it doesn't matter that much and to Sony probably too but to a lot of console only gamers it does because they are very close minded so I do enjoy their crying about it

 

[dangh]

I love how the PS4 like DESTROYED Xbox sales, yet you peeps worry about an Xbox monopoly. Name ONE thing where MS has a monopoly. Seriously. Just one.

What monopolies does MS have? Office? That hegemony is long broken by G Suite. Windows? Everyone gone mobile. Windows on mobile? Never was. Bing? LOL. Azure? Still lagging behind AWS. Outlook.com? No chance against Gmail. IE/Edge? They have like 3% market share. Xbox? 360, at its best, was only on par with the PS3, and that's about it.

You aren't serious, are you?
Windows operating system has 76% market coverage.
Office has 87% market share in 2018. Please do not compare only Microsoft 386 to g suite, there is much more to that.
MS Edge have already 7% market share, so it growing fast from what you said 3pct.
Azure have 1/3 of the market share, and with the synergy of other parts of the puzzle gives it very strong position.
And then you have multum of smaller products, like Github, LinkedIn, ms teams, RPM, .NET, DB....
yup, pretty much keeps a monopoly in key areas.

 

[bviktor]

Windows operating system has 76% market coverage.

Among what? Desktops? Now count in tablets, phones, chromebooks et al. If you don't filter to just one specific device type, it's a 32% market share for Windows. PCs are disappearing from more and more places. That's exactly the point. I think the PR buzzword for this was "post-PC world". It's not the Windows market share on the desktop that shrinks, it's the desktop market share among devices that does.

Office has 87% market share in 2018. Please do not compare only Microsoft 386 to g suite, there is much more to that.

In which market? The cloud market is 60% G Suite, 40% O365. October 2020. I can't compare Office desktop to G Suite, since Google does not have a desktop suite. The desktop suite is a dying breed with collapsing sales, so it's perfectly irrelevant in this discussion about present and future trends of growth.

MS Edge have already 7% market share, so it growing fast from what you said 3pct.

Yeah. On the desktop. On all devices, 3%. Which is anything but a monopoly. It's the honorary mention category.

Azure have 1/3 of the market share, and with the synergy of other parts of the puzzle gives it very strong position.

I didn't say Azure is going out of business, I said it's nowhere near a monopoly.

And then you have multum of smaller products, like Github, LinkedIn, ms teams, RPM, .NET, DB....
yup, pretty much keeps a monopoly in key areas.

Neither of those examples are monopolies. .NET could only dream of the ubiquity of Java, Python or JS. GitHub adoption stands at 70% and shrinking, while GitLab is at 38% and growing (it's more than 100% since many companies use both). It's definitely not a monopoly. Perhaps it was, for a short while, way before MS actually bought it. But back then GitHub was way smaller too, because a ton of projects hosted their code on their own. Still many do, but fewer and fewer. It's just the same "cloudization" you see everywhere.

And the fact that you actually come up with "RPM" and "DB"(???) as actual Microsoft product names clearly shows you have no idea about the subject, you're just throwing jargon around.

You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term monopoly itself. "Strong player", or even "market leader" does not equal monopoly. Look it up before going into an argument about it.

Microsoft is in extremely good position as a company, because they very wisely diversified and grew their portfolio over the time. No one refuted or doubted that. But they'll most likely never have the monopoly they had with Windows, IE, and Office back in the 90s and early 2000s. Not as long as Google, Apple, and Amazon exist, and neither of those companies look like going bankrupt anytime soon.

 

[Rdmetz]

Personally, I hate this idea. Not because I'm a PlayStation fanboy or anything, but because monopolies are not good for anything. If MS wants exclusives for Xbox, why not create new studio's and produce compelling games. The only reason to buy large existing studio's rather than make new one's is to lock away IP into their walled garden, or reduce access to others.

There is a difference between someone like MS buying a small studio with interesting ideas but without the resources to realise them, than MS buying a Ubisoft or Bethesda. The former is a benefit to the industry, it enables games that otherwise wouldn't exist to become viable. The later is purely monopoly creation.

You realize Sony does this all the time right? Wonder why you can't play street fighter on xbox? Or why there won't be a sunset overdrive 2 for it?

Sony started it xbox gonna finish it.

 

[Rdmetz]

You aren't serious, are you?
Windows operating system has 76% market coverage.
Office has 87% market share in 2018. Please do not compare only Microsoft 386 to g suite, there is much more to that.
MS Edge have already 7% market share, so it growing fast from what you said 3pct.
Azure have 1/3 of the market share, and with the synergy of other parts of the puzzle gives it very strong position.
And then you have multum of smaller products, like Github, LinkedIn, ms teams, RPM, .NET, DB....
yup, pretty much keeps a monopoly in key areas.

Sorry but some statistics baed on office use doesn't show what the world is actually doing and most people have left Microsoft and the vast majority of their services behind I haven't installed office on my in 10 years and though I maintain a outlook account it's basically my backup backup backup email.

They invest in things like github to help the. Community not close it off and force people to use their stuff like it was in the 90's the facts are facts and the ms of today isn't the same as the one from back then.

They are just another massive company among quite a few others who all together control our lives but they certainly don't have a monopoly on it.

 

[Rdmetz]

Among what? Desktops? Now count in tablets, phones, chromebooks et al. If you don't filter to just one specific device type, it's a 32% market share for Windows. PCs are disappearing from more and more places. That's exactly the point. I think the PR buzzword for this was "post-PC world". It's not the Windows market share on the desktop that shrinks, it's the desktop market share among devices that does.



In which market? The cloud market is 60% G Suite, 40% O365. October 2020. I can't compare Office desktop to G Suite, since Google does not have a desktop suite. The desktop suite is a dying breed with collapsing sales, so it's perfectly irrelevant in this discussion about present and future trends of growth.



Yeah. On the desktop. On all devices, 3%. Which is anything but a monopoly. It's the honorary mention category.



I didn't say Azure is going out of business, I said it's nowhere near a monopoly.



Neither of those examples are monopolies. .NET could only dream of the ubiquity of Java, Python or JS. GitHub adoption stands at 70% and shrinking, while GitLab is at 38% and growing (it's more than 100% since many companies use both). It's definitely not a monopoly. Perhaps it was, for a short while, way before MS actually bought it. But back then GitHub was way smaller too, because a ton of projects hosted their code on their own. Still many do, but fewer and fewer. It's just the same "cloudization" you see everywhere.

And the fact that you actually come up with "RPM" and "DB"(???) as actual Microsoft product names clearly shows you have no idea about the subject, you're just throwing jargon around.

You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term monopoly itself. "Strong player", or even "market leader" does not equal monopoly. Look it up before going into an argument about it.

Microsoft is in extremely good position as a company, because they very wisely diversified and grew their portfolio over the time. No one refuted or doubted that. But they'll most likely never have the monopoly they had with Windows, IE, and Office back in the 90s and early 2000s. Not as long as Google, Apple, and Amazon exist, and neither of those companies look like going bankrupt anytime soon.

I posted my comment right before reading yours you definitely said it better but atleast we both are in agreement this guy doesn't understand the definition of monopoly.