After Gobbling Two Publishers, Now Xbox Has Been Sniffing Around Ubisoft's IP

Love that phrase. I use it a lot. “Sniffing around.”

Im not sure how to feel about this. On one side, ubi has been under hostile takeover threats from tencent and others for years, something I would not want. On the other, MS has quite a few ips already built or acquired and there is no news of the studios going along with the IP, so not sure wed want them stretching themselves. EA is just evil, so ill ignore them. Ideally ubi would continue to move forward and improve, but I guess the least worst option if that isnt one would be msft buying part of the Ip. Maybe...

Microsoft can you please try not to buy gaming, others want to have fun too. Thank you.

And the monopolization continues, and they are going to use revenue from Playstation players to do it. This is why I won't be buying any games they bring over, they will go down the third party publisher route to make it easier to buy more Studios and IP and then in the future they could make a new console and make all their games exclusive.

I hope Ubisoft farted during this time!

Surely the competition authorities wouldnt allow them more monopolization ?

@Runex2121 I don’t think Tencent tried the hostile takeover. I know Vivendi tried and failed though.

Again with the shocking maths, @get2sammyb;

$75.4 for ABK + $7.5 for Zenimax = $82.9 billion, but then I suppose accuracy is not as important as clicks these days...

Great conspiracy theory, @UltimateOtaku91. Won't happen, but hey, who cares right?

Just how is it a monopoly, @Jrs1? Microsoft are going to be putting every one of the games they make on the PlayStation. So if it is never see the games again, or have Microsoft make them and put them on the PlayStation, then I fail to see the problem...

And your wish for fun will be granted, @Cikajovazmaj, because no matter what game rights, developers or publishers Microsoft do buy, the games they subsequently make will end up on the PlayStation, likely the same day they release on the Xbox too. So if it is a choice of the games never get made or Microsoft make them, the choice seems fairly obvious to me...

It's not just Ubisoft that are 'sniffing' around as EA and 'others' (maybe Embracer, Sony, TenCent etc) are also interested IF Ubisoft are considering selling some of their IP's - especially those that they don't feel can make and/or make profitably.

Assassin's Creed and probably Far Cry too are not on the table as these are likely two Ubisoft IP's that they can 'rely' on. Maybe Beyond: Good and Evil, Prince of Persia, Watchdogs and even Rayman though maybe Assets they no longer want/need and could sell to save them selling 'Ubisoft'

They've had some 'flops' like Xdefiant, Skull & Bones etc too so they may need to 'sell' some IP's to invest in their Stronger IP's.

@Fiendish-Beaver I have a feeling you have strong opinions on this subject.

@Fiendish-Beaver It might not be a monopoly now, but i’m sure you can see how it can make people anxious how one of the richest company in the world, who just bought two of the biggest publishers in the world in an unprecedented deal, where a record was broken twice for biggest amount of money spent for an acquisition in gaming, is sniffing around again so soon after.

To compare, the last acquisition Sony made before these 2 deals was Insomniac for $200 million. Xbox’s Zenimax deal alone was 35x that amount. Not to mention Microsoft are buying big third party publishers where Sony bought studios who were mostly making PS exclusives anyway.

People forget that Microsoft has been found guilty of monopolistic practices in the past. They are the third richest company in the world.

And to say they’ve earned it by making great games or having sold many consoles? Before their acquisitions they havent been able to really make compelling games for years, so the market is getting bought up by a tech company who has failed for 4 generations to compete creatively in the gaming space. And obviously it wasn’t by lack of funds since they have shown they have billions to spend. Sony doesn't have the same reserves and they managed to bring out games like HZD, GoW, Ghost etc. Sony has been in the wider entertainment industry for decades: movies, music, gaming.

Microsoft is a good tech company, but they just didnt have what it took to compete in a creative sector like gaming. That makes it even more sour that they are buying everything up. The creative sector doesn't belong to a company that failed to succeed in it.

Yes, they may not have a monopoly right now. But i’m not surprised that them sniffing around, to acquire more and more might ring some alarms with some people

In fairness, it’s not like MS could do worse with Ubisoft’s IPs.

…but MS has a way of surpassing my expectations, so maybe it COULD do worse…

@Mikey856 Release another console that bombs? Dude MS are moving away from consoles because that battle is lost and its why the next "console" is basically a PC but in console form. Starfield and Indy were meant to be big exclusives from them and well Indy is coming to PS5 next month and Starfield is all but confirmed.

Rayman has to be the most desirable IP that could realistically be up for grab.

Literally what is the point? Can someone explain it I must be thick. Most of their games are going multi format anyway. They are buying exclusivity but not using it !

@Fiendish-Beaver I wouldn't necessarily agree, as I'm not worried about MS not putting games on PS (if there are enough interesting exclusives I'll just buy the platform, which I tried with XSS but opted out), I'm worried about market getting monopolized by extremely large corporations with different priorities vs. fun gaming.
I'd say the same thing (and I did when they acquired Bungie) for Sony.
I would rather have AAA market with ultra safe, boring releases crash; and for second coming of indie gaming to happen, than to have one of these giants take whole space for itself.

The first ip they should take is splinter cell because its clear ubisoft doesn't know what the hell to do with the ip anymore

No, @Perturbator. Not strong opinions. Having come from a background in law enforcement, I just like accuracy and fairness. This article, from it's very headline onwards, is all about raising the ire of the PlayStation gamer, when in truth, there is nothing to be angry about. Would we rather see these games see the light of day, or is having Microsoft make them and put them on the PlayStation worse that not having them at all? It makes no sense to me. There are worse companies than Microsoft that could own these games, and even if Microsoft were the worst, they are going to be putting every game on the PlayStation, so exactly what is the problem...?

I understand what you are saying, @Cikajovazmaj, but what you get from if you follow through with your argument is that Splint Cell, Prince of Persia (or the like) never get made because you would rather that than Microsoft own the IP. That is what I don't understand. Under Ubisoft, these games will not be made. Surely it is better that someone makes them? If Tencent buys the IP, the games will likely never be made, and if they buy the studios that make them, they will not only not make the games, but will also close the studios, as they have been recently. I totally get that we don't what to see Microsoft owning every IP, but firstly, they are a long, long way from that, and secondly, it just seems daft to me that people would rather not see a game made, than have Microsoft be the ones to make them...

@jberg I remember vivendi, which was a while ago. I thought I read reports of tencent trying to do so more recently, but its possible im mixing it up with a different company.

@Fiendish-Beaver I understand what you’re saying. However there’s no guarantee Microsoft will ever make those games or that that is their intention with these IP acquisitions. They have many IPs they have been sitting on from earlier acquisitions that we’ve yet to see games from.

The bigger point i think is there’s an IP acquisitions spree going on, because the future of gaming is going to be subscription based. And the company with the most compelling IPs wins the race. Imagine Disney buying the biggest and most important movie and tv IPs, and other companies wouldn't have the funds to do the same. We could say yeah but they’re planning to put it on Netflix and HBO, until they’re not…. Then you just ended up with a Disney that owns everything and won’t share, thus a monopoly.

Microsoft shares everything now, but i can definitely imagine if they do keep acquiring publishers or IPs there could be a future where they decide to go back to the exclusive route. There are many roads to monopoly and i think Microsoft is well traversed in many of them.

It may seem like a contradiction, but i have no problems with what MS is doing business wise. I mean, it’s a business, and who can blame them for having the money to buy the market. But just on a personal level, and ofcourse as a Playstation enthousiast, it does worry me that MS could potentially ,as they have stated privately, spend Sony out of the market. It may come as a surprise to many people, but MS is not the underdog here

I do think MS should focus on the franchises it does own. Until it doubles Nintendo’s output (which has been roughly a game every two months on average for years) I think they have more than enough work to do in house.

Like I said in another article, this would be a waste of money for Microsoft and wouldn't make financial sense for Ubi. It's easy to make alternatives to the likes of Rainbow Six/Tom Clancy as well as Far Cry, and those names don't hold much intrinsic value these days anyway. The only worthwhile IP is Assassin's Creed, but Ubi would be stupid to sell it. Rare's Rayman doesn't sound half bad. But it probably wouldn't be French enough, and Banjo/Conker are readily available.

The other report I've heard, that they want to establish another company to co-own their biggest IP with Tencent-likes, sounds like a decent option. That way they can levitate the costs of making an Assassin's Creed while still profiting off of it. More importantly, it would put Ubi proper in a position where they can downsize significantly while still providing an out for current employees, and this smaller Ubi can focus on legacy IPs and new IPs — try to bring back that old Ubi magic. Which all sounds like a win-win for nearly everyone.

Strange the article title doesn't name EA as well; it is in the body of the article. Again, this post is presented to show Microsoft/Xbox in a negative light.

The title: "Microsoft has spent close to $100 billion on historically third-party publishers and developers over the past few years, but now it’s been sniffing around Ubisoft’s intellectual property as well." and the first paragraph: "Microsoft has spent close to $100 billion on historically third-party publishers and developers over the past few years, but now it’s been sniffing around Ubisoft’s intellectual property as well." really has nothing to do with the article itself.

Again, Push Squared with click bait and toxic console war flame fanning. Don't be the Fox News of game websites. Be better.

@RZ-Atom I agree it’s a bit clickbaity, but to be fair, they do mention publishers and developers who were historically third party. So i think they are including in the amount they spent on studios like Obsidian, Rare, Double Fine, Ninja Theory and Mojang who also developed for other platforms in the past. I don’t know how much they paid for those studios, but it only moves the needle closer to $100billion. Which is technically what they said, close to, not exactly $100 billion

@Fiendish-Beaver well, what you propose is just one possible reality
Maybe MS doesn't buy or make games in Ubis less popular IPs, like the ones you mentioned. Maybe they take PoP and make a live service game out of it. Them making another good metroidvania from the IP is realistically not a most probable outcome (mentioning that as I rather liked how PoP got reinvented).
So, if the question then becomes would I rather have old IP stay dormant and untarnished while making space for new IP, vs. have a giant exploit it for easy cash grab, I'd choose option one.

Didn't M$ promise the U.K court to not buy any more publishers at all and no more studios or I.Ps for the next 10 years if the ActiBlizz deal went through?
Liars as usual.

Would be good for Ubisoft and his reach library to join the Xbox Game Studios

@Zeke68 no, they didn't

@Zeke68 Honestly, given the nature of these proposed deals, I would assume Ubisoft approached Microsoft rather than vice versa.

So, unless they do something, I really wouldn't hold this against them.

It may be that the future is subscription based, @LogicStrikesAgain, but I think Game Pass as it currently exists will cease within the next 5 years. The next Xbox is likely to tank hard. And I mean hard! More than 50% of GP subscriptions are from those that have an Xbox. Some estimates put that as high as 80%. Microsoft recently put up the prices of GP, and also released their profits that showed just a 2% increase in revenue growth for Game Pass. These figures were put out not long after the release of CoD, so when you factor in what should have been a significant increase in new subscribers alongside the price increase, it actually paints a particularly bleak set of figures for GP. Estimates put the Series console sales at 30 million, which would suggest that there are at least 15 millions subscribers from console sales alone, although that figure could be as high as 24 million, or anywhere in between. Thus if the next Xbox does indeed tank and sells 20 million, or just 15 million units, then the number of subscribers drops accordingly. What all this means is that there is a tipping point at which GP, in its current guise, will cease to be sustainable, and so Microsoft will have then just two options: 1. end it completely, which I think is the least likely option, or 2. turn it into a first-party only service, which is where I think they are heading. Once GP is a first-party only service, Sony will allow it on to their platform, just as they have with EA and Ubisoft.

So, the upshot is, whilst I do not think that sales will completely cease for games, just as they have not for films, I do think physical media will be phased out in the not too distant future. As for subscriptions, people will sign up to whatever services best fit their needs. I, for example, have Disney, Netflix and Prime, but I could pick and choose what I have, or don't have, and that will be what will happen with Game Pass. People will either opt to have it or they won't. And so, were Microsoft to buy an IP from Ubisoft, then it would simply mean you could subscribe to them if you wanted, or you could buy the game, but in many ways, the fewer services that you need to subscribe to in order to play games, the better. I'd far rather all films were on Netflix, for example, as that would mean I could do away with Prime and Disney...

@RoomWithaMoose “ The only worthwhile IP is Assassin's Creed, but Ubi would be stupid to sell it.”

There rumors that they may be spinning off Assassins Creed into a business with Tencent

Weirdly, I think SIE could competently revive WatchDogs and Sony could also get a streamer involved for a live action series and/or anime.

If Ubi is done with it, I'd like to see someone have a good go, at least.

@Ravix I haven’t played Legion yet but I enjoyed the hell out’ve the first two Watchdogs. Such a shame Ubi put the series on indefinite-ice.

@Glorioso Yes they did. It was in the leaked courtdocuments just a few days after the trial.

@Mikey856
Christ let’s hope Microsoft don’t go all console exclusive. I would definitely miss some games if that happens. Doom is a good example maybe elder scrolls 6 if it’s a really good AAA.
Even the smaller games like Avowed and possibly south of midnight which seem to be exclusive so far would be good on PS5.

The problem being honest is not Microsoft’s but is Sonys. They need to get their act together and now hopefully the terrible GAAS is behind them they get back on it and maybe also look at some studio purchases.

I mean what have Bungie done since Sony took them.

Xbox going back to console exclusives isn't going to happen, a more likely scenario"exclusive to Gamepass". With enough of the industry under its control it can effectively force the service onto playstation.

I said it on purexbox but I can’t see what Ubisoft have that MS really need?

Rainbowsix/division - they have cod
Crew - Forza
Rayman - banjo etc

Farcry?AC? Probably crazy expensive and can imagine ubi want to keep them.

I think MS have enough available in back catalogue to not need any.

@PsBoxSwitchOwner CoD doesn’t exactly scratch the itch that Rainbowsix/division/Any Tom Clancy game provides. CoD is way too arcady and not tactical. Grabbing Ghost Recon and letting the coalition work on it would be cool since Ghost Recon is just another band of brothers game like Gears.

@AverageGamer Yeah, I mostly addressed that in the second paragraph. I think that's a much better option than wholly selling the IP. It's leveraging the IP to facilitate a grand company restructure. Which makes sense to do, as they're clearly unsustainable large right now.

A dare say it's smart business. Of course, that only holds if they can keep Ten-soft and Ubi-lite afloat after the fact.

@Mikey856 But that's not how it works. Creating an account is something you either have to do or heavily pushed into by 95% of AAA games so creating a MS account is no different. MS are going 3rd party because most people don't care for Xbox consoles anymore and its why the next system they put out isn't going after the console market. MS have "lost" and are pivoting to something else. We're not going to see a new Xbox in 7 years where all the games are exclusives again, there's a good chance the next "Xbox" will be the last Xbox.

@UltimateOtaku91 "This is why I won't be buying any games they bring over, they will go down the third party publisher route to make it easier to buy more Studios and IP and then in the future they could make a new console and make all their games exclusive."

So we shouldn't buy and enjoy Microsoft games today because maybe in 18-30 years they will make a super console and make all their games exclusives in turn destroying PlayStation? Will they also acquire all of Sony's & Nintendo's exclusives?

@Jrs1 there is no monopolisation from Microsoft you guys really need to stop lying more so to yourselves, how can Microsoft ever have a monopoly when they sell the worst? If anything it's the other way around hence why Microsoft is bringing everything to playstation

@JustinTimberlake Its not about sales, its about buying up devs,studios,publishers to generate sales. Anyway have you not got an album or something to be getting on with 😀

As much as I hate these massive acquisition, Ubisoft is a company that probably couldn't be made any worse, even if EA was to acquire it.

Also, I'd rather see Microsoft rebuilt Ubisoft from the ground up to make them great again, than have it dismantled by Embracer or another stupidly greedy group that shoots itself in both feet multiple times.

Again, @LogicStrikesAgain, I understand what you are saying about monopolies, but if you look at it another way, if you are paying £10 for Prime, £10 for Disney and £10 for Netflix, then you are forking out £30 for subscriptions. If Disney were to become the only one of the 3, and had all the output, you would only need to subscribe to Disney. Then the question is would they charge £30? More? Less? The honest answer is we don't know. The cynic in us says it would be more, but the truth is we just don't know, and it is just as possible that instead of forking out £30 each month on subscriptions, you may just pay £20 or £25...

@Cikajovazmaj all games come to playstation and pc anyway.

@Fiendish-Beaver but would Disney with no competition have all the shows that Netflix and all the other streamers have or will they greenlight fewer and fewer shows and movies? You're right. We truly don't know.

@HRdepartment You sound a little creepy lol!

I don't know to be honest Microsoft have gone back on themselves after the purchase of Acti/Blizzard they cut jobs closed some studios down and haven't really (as far as we know) got any projects going for dormant IPs that they acquired.

If they bought out Ubi then the CEO needs to go but if they did it would be a 2nd company that's had a lot of bad press, I mean look at Blizzard and the Cosby style room

@HRdepartment you and me, baby, ain’t nothing but mammals

M$ can buy the whole industry, doesn’t matter to me. ubisoft sucks anyway,

PoP, watch dogs, driver would all be good shouts for Ubi to sell

@themightyant Good point, forgot about "the orange one"

ABK was just mobile/COD anyway, other IPs were worthless & besides some of us.

Xbox reach is one thing of IP quality. They still sell on Switch/PS5. I'm not buying them on any platform, but many people are so good for them I guess. Xbox hasn't given me IPs/game design I like so I refuse to buy them/Gamepass play them. So retro/few modern it is.

Where is another Driver game with San Fransisco swap feature, Battlefield 2 Modern Combat same thing where is it EA, destruction sure but swap feature come on make it return/something just as good. Or can games not be too gamey anymore for audiences comfort? Sigh.

Ubisoft has the coverage of IPs (many they don't use either) but even then with how many haven't come out in years, many remade, many all over the place.

Tom Clancy games fans want to be realistic, I get that. So they have to work around that then Extraction. Or another IP it would have had it's goo used for I thought was cool then used in Extraction's format/Clancy IP when it should have been used elsewhere.

AC, Far Cry are doing well I guess but I mean Ubisoft's Mario Rabbids, Child of Light and more would just be killed off. Sure we got Ori and others but that's Indies, these small Ubisoft projects aren't Indies they are smaller teams making the more niche games.

AC is their new ever since 2007 milkable Rayman like Rayman was from the 90s to pre-2007.

But Ubisoft has their mechanics/formulas and their niche projects that 'sometimes' get noticed and some blown too far or just not advertised enough.

I bought Red Steel 1 & 2 but those are old and Wii only so never coming to be in VR or anything. ZombiU had it's moments. Mario Rabbids, POP Lost Crown, I'm getting onto their niche games over time that appeal to me.

I respect their mechanics ideas and ignore the formula which is why I don't buy their big games they don't interest me in how the mechanics are used even if they are fairly interesting sometimes.

The dealings and company side sure it is what it is, but their game output it varies.

Watch Dogs Legion's ideas made me go hmm Under the Skin has perks and could work as a live service game in a way even if a PS2 party game with characters getting coins and humans with different clothing you disguise yourself with and use perks/weapons to get more coins to win high score wise.

So Legion's perks idea/different characters idea was cool just not that well implemented to their formula of missions or felt like a world that looks good but it's not playground enough or well used around it.

Even Zombi U the same thing the inventory tension and your death can come and attack you but that's the thing they only go so far with them even if cool.

Sony other than Sackboy, Astro and Ratchet have mostly big IPs. Astro is the most new/niche ones out there as the others are cinematic new IPs or big long running converted/had staying power.

Microsoft has variety but they all still fit an eh design still.

Other then Obsidian able to get out what they have of Pentiment besides Grounded, Outer Worlds and Avowed.

Where is the Insomniac game in VR or another Song of the Deep project? No where because it doesn't happen.

Ubisoft still has many of those smaller scale projects and I see those going away.

Activision doesn't have those at all yet stays afloat with COD/King mobile games not the other ones like Crash/Spyro those have their fan bases but not Activision appealing numbers that's for sure.

The entire point I've been making for years is that consoles will be obsolete at some point.

Sony fans are delighted that the PS5 has sold better than the current Xbox. It's pointless.

Microsoft will win in the end because there won't be a PS7.

Everything will be about software and what games people want to play. Xbox will be an app that everyone will download and play games on and play wherever they want.

The more IP Xbox has, the greater the chance people will sign up.

Sony are going to fall by the wayside if they don't adapt soon.

@SMJ yes people have been claiming consoles will be obsolete at some point for the last 30 years 🙄.

All they have to do is try to get rid of this Ubisoft feeling to all of their games, otherwise no matter what they do it will always feel same old.

@Balosi Okay, so you believe there will be a PS7?

"Gobbling", "Sniffing around".
Ever work for a tabloid Sammy?

@SMJ There will always be a console to play games on, games are too expensive to only be in a subscription based streaming app. It's ok for TV shows, low budget movies, Anime and Cartoons as they do not have the same budget as AAA games, Big games need revenue from sales. Just like the big Movies they hit cinema for a few months first, that's where they get their main revenue from.

Unless you are saying Microsoft are going to pay absolutely every single console game developer huge wads of money to put their games onto gamepass? They would need to pay Take Two billions just for GTA lol

These bigger games need sales and to get those sales there will need to be a console, they can't just rely on PC as console casuals will not buy into PC gaming, and as we see with gamepass currently people aren't interested in streaming games on their mobile phones or TVs. Also if you're suggesting the future of gaming is streaming but we have to still pay full price for the games then that's also going to fail, we have already seen how unpopular that set up was with the Google Stadia.

The future of Sony for the next 20+ years is to have Playstation consoles in people's living rooms and bedrooms, the worse that will happen is that it will be an all digital future, but an all streaming future? No chance.

@themightyant how do you think it would go for MS considering Ubisoft have the rights to ABK stuff on xcloud? (Or whatever the exact deal was in the merger)

You think regulators would let them do more deals with Ubisoft? I know this one’s different but the other deal is still there

@UltimateOtaku91 I'm so distraught by the way that nobody on this site understands my point because they are so blinded by PS fandom (not necessarily you).

I will now give my opinion of the games industry over the next 20 years.

Bespoke consoles will be irrelevant after PS6 and Xbox Prime

Every 1st party title will be tied to an individual app that, regardless of the box under your TV, you'll be able to access anything you want to.

PlayStation games will be tied to a subscription. PlayStation will be an app.

Xbox games will be tied to a subscription. Xbox will be an app.

You will be able to "buy" games digitally on both subscriptions OR stream those games.

The only hardware you will need is a PC in disguise under your TV that allows you to store games from both parties.

I'm not saying there will be a full streaming shift in games until consumers allow it.

They will allow us to "own" our games digitally until consumers don't care enough anymore and then everything will be streaming.

That's how I think things will happen. It's not how I want things to happen.

It's the reason that, after 40 years of gaming to this point, I'll be retiring next gen and just focussing on my retro consoles.

Phew!

@SMJ What i think he’s saying is, where will all the other smaller publishers release their games on? Will Game Pass and PS Plus pay them to put every game that releases on their service? How about smaller studios? Where would all the thousands of studios release their games on? Will everyone transition to PC? Consoles will probably still be needed to release all the games not available on those subscription services

Being bought by Microsoft is like a dell knell for developers. So far every studio they've bought have failed to produce anything better than they did before they were bought. They all seem to have gone backwards for the most part, Bethesda and Starfailed which was, or is, just OK at best and not as good as Skyrim, Obsidian and Avowed, that's OK but nowhere near as good as the Outer Worlds. It's just a reinterpretation of Greedfall with shiny graphics.
They just don't get gaming and never will.

@LogicStrikesAgain I believe that indies will thrive under the future model of gaming.

If indie devs have one platform to aim for, doesn't it make it better for them?

I miss the days when a Sega Mega Drive game would be completely different from an SNES game.

But the way of the world now between consoles is irrelevant.

@cuttlefishjones Also, Microsoft were making video games when Sony were making Walkmans. Don't try and start an argument you will never win.

If they sold to any European companies, I'd be ok with that. If they sold to a US company, I'd be against that.

@SMJ I believe there will be a PS7 and Nintendos. I believe consoles will still be in high demand.

@SMJ I don't quite understand your answer. Don't get me wrong, i’m trying to understand. Maybe if i give an example? Where would the next final fantasy game be released on if there are no consoles? GTA? Or resident evil? Dave the diver? Does Sony or MS have to pay for each game to come to their service? And if they don't pay for it, cause they can’t pay for every game that releases throughout the year, where would the game then release on if there aren't any consoles?

Edit: Never mind, i get what you’re saying now, and i think you’re right!

“Sony are going to fall by the wayside if they don't adapt soon.”

Also agree with this statement, and therefore i think Sony should seriously consider acquiring some publishers and IPs of its own before they get picked up by other (richer) companies

@CutchuSlow Good for you. I agree that Nintendo will always be in hardware market.

I wonder that if Sony were interested, would they be referred to as 'sniffing around' Ubisoft too? Somehow I doubt it....

Microsoft changed the console landscape and has the money to do it. I can see them buying Ubisoft let alone its IP's.
Anyway got no time for Ubisoft as they put themselves in this position by following a particular 'modern audience' path with their games.

@cuttlefishjones But you cannot really say that can you as 'every studio they've bought' has not released a game yet, and 'some' of what has been shown has looked good. DOOM looks fantastic as an example.

Microsoft is now the good guy and unlike any other publisher will not sleep on old IPs, but release new great games to honor them in masses as they have successfully demonstrated in the past. So, if microsoft also takes over ubisoft and then finally provides a very large fraction of titles to playstation players, this can only mean that games become better, more creative and cheaper. Since that is what consolidation is about. /s

@Zeke68 I don't see Microsoft capable of making that promess, it's their business. When they agreed to deliver some of their business with UBI in the UK my mind put the possibility of a take over in the future.

Gobbling that's a word I haven't seen in awhile

@SMJ nintendo bailed out of the traditional console market and only makes handhelds now

playstation is gonna be all that’s left for console

@SMJ - you mean publishing games? Like the old gas powered games? They didn't own any studios back then.

It's only since they've decided to buy studios that they've managed to turn their output into corporate dross and it'll only get worse as the weight of their corporate structure buries any creativity that the teams may have.

if thats what it takes to get a new splinter cell then im all for it, at least Microsoft will put the game on all platforms

@PsBoxSwitchOwner more software, the future console wars are all about software not plastic boxes

@Superstar74 to make money?

There's another publisher I can add to my "Do not buy from" list

Welll, considering MS is releasing more and more of their stuff on PS…but still don’t think it’s enough to save them.

@nomither6 Nintendo reinvented the console market by making a home console that can also be used as a handheld.

@cuttlefishjones Microsoft have been developing games far longer than Sony. That's a simple fact. You calling them gas powered (in a really childish way) doesn't make them irrelevant.

Also, Xbox studios have some of the most talented and creative people in the entire industry. As you and many other PlayStation only fans will find out when you buy their games.

@SMJ nah, it’s just a handheld console that can connect to a tv.

that’s been done before already. the only “revolutionary” thing about it is that it can be played with different controller types…but so can a steam deck

nintendo is really good at marketing though, they really forced people to glorify a handheld console , could microsoft or sony had got away with that? i seriously doubt it.

@nomither6 The fact that it's more powerful when docked proves that it's a console first and handheld second.

And the Steam Deck came out way after the Switch. Nintendo made the handheld market relevant again which is why there's a million and one new handheld consoles that have been released since the Switch launched.

@SMJ It’s still far behind any modern home console & the steam deck is more powerful than it docked or not. No one is seriously using their switch as a third party machine. Why is the steamdeck considered a handheld despite doing the same exact thing a switch does but better?

i’ll wait…

@nomither6 The Steam Deck wouldn't exist without Nintendo creating the new market for handhelds.

The Steam Deck is a handheld. Valve describes it as such.

The Switch is a hybrid console.

What are you waiting for?

@SMJ “The Steam Deck wouldn't exist without Nintendo creating the new market for handhelds.”

This has nothing to do with anything; this doesn’t answer the question at all. Nintendo wasn’t the first console manufacturer either, and connecting handheld consoles to tv screens is not a new thing - at all.

“ The Steam Deck is a handheld. Valve describes it as such.”

& so is the switch. Are we really going by advertising vs literal facts? Remember hoverboards? did those things really hover despite the marketing & branding? It’s nothing more than glorification & nintendo being the golden child of the industry that gets away with everything. like i said, let sony or microsoft had tried this and people would have called it how they saw it despite what “a company says” .

the switch isn’t a hybrid, all it does is plugs into a tv , literally that’s it. same as a steamdeck, same as a gaming laptop , same as a vita

it’s just nintendo special treatment

@SMJ - You don't actually know who Gas Powered Games were do you? I'd suggest doing a bit of research before leaping to the defence of something you obviously know nothing about.

Besides I stand by my opinion. I've been gaming since I got my first VCS2600 (which I still have). These are all things I have lived through, not just looked up on Wikipedia or asked an AI about. But I'd start there if I were you. It might help.

@cuttlefishjones What a pathetic and self important comment to make.

Well done for gaming before me. You're a legend and everyone that reads your comments will bow down in awe.

@nomither6 Switch is more powerful docked.

Vita isn't.

Steam Deck isn't.

Gaming laptops aren't.

And, as I said, Nintendo have recreated a market that was dormant.

Steam Deck wouldn't exist without Switch.

ROG Ally wouldn't exist without Switch.

PS Portal wouldn't exist without Switch.

@SMJ "Switch is more powerful docked."

• It's not, it's just reverting back to its original/true power output since it no longer needs to reduce power intake to preserve the battery and risk overheating. it's just compression & decompression, and it all has to do with battery preservation & nothing more for the switch. It's no different than other forms of compression that's done with digital tech.

"Vita isn't."

• The vita doesn't need to downscale itself for its battery, it is performing at its initial output as intended at all times. the switch can't do that, because even by 2017 & 2020 standards, its outdated.

"Steam Deck isn't."

• The steam deck is a more powerful and efficient handheld regardless. I don't see a point mentioning it here, lol. The steam deck makes the switch appear like an ancient handheld.

"And, as I said, Nintendo have recreated a market that was dormant."

• No they did not. they killed off their home console market, and doubled down on their handheld console market. They advertised their latest handheld as one that could be connected to a television and played with a controller, and the gaming industry massively fanboys for them and sees it as a home console. I seriously don't get how advertising supersedes logic.... oh wait, its nintendo. just bow down.

never mind the other plethora of devices that also can be displayed on a television screen and played with controllers. cell phones included, lol.

@nomither6 The Switch outputs a higher resolution and frame rate when docked.

I don't see any problem with MS picking up the old unused IP's that Ubisoft is just sitting on. MS did release Quake and Quake 2 for modern consoles, along with making a new combination Doom/Doom 2 game. MS is likely to simply port the older titles to modern consoles to break even/ turn a profit.

@SMJ - I caught your dummy. You can have it back now.

But nice to know you admit to being wrong, even if you do so by making yourself out to be an uncultured child.