470°

IGN: Five Developers Microsoft Should Buy

It's always a big deal when a major videogames publisher cherry-picks another independent studio from the wild, and Microsoft is known for some of the biggest and most controversial purchases in the industry. It swiped Halo from under Apple's nose to make it a timed exclusive for its debut Xbox console, it bought Nintendo's golden boy Rareware, and it dished out megabucks for Lionhead, employing renowned designer Peter Molyneux as creative director of Microsoft Game Studios.

Read Full Story >>
uk.xbox360.ign.com
Pikajew5270d ago (Edited 5270d ago )

IGN just got a whole lot more stupid
The only devs the MS should buy are the ones that make games for them mostly.

Grasshopper Manufacture makes multiplatform games mostly and they made more games on Sony and Nintendo systems than MS systems. So they will never go to MS

Insomniac Games only made Sony exclusives and is making their first multiplatform game they will never go to MS.

And if anyone gets Turtle Rock Studios it should be Valve

Whats next, IGN? Nintendo buys Epic and Sony buys Mojang?

Pacman3215270d ago

That would be epic if Nintendo buys Epic.

buddymagoo5270d ago

Knowing Microsofts past history with buying studios, I would hope they don't buy any.

ApplEaglElephant5270d ago (Edited 5270d ago )

If MS buys them, they will make exclusives for MS. cause ya know... MS will own them.

But we all know MS wont buy any hardcore studios. All the did was opposite. They gutted down studios. Canceled contracts. Bought Kinect studios. Converted studios to make kinect games.

yea..

SilentNegotiator5270d ago (Edited 5270d ago )

@buddymagoo
Agreed.

"Double Fine Productions"
*Vomits in mouth*
They already took RARE and shoveled Xbox Live/online gameplay and Kinect down their throats...it would be horrifying if they did that again with DF.

"Insomniac Games"
.....right, because they're obviously dying to be tied down and completely done with independence after releasing all 0 games with EA so far. /s

"Turtle Rock Studios
Games: Counter-Strike Source, Left 4 Dead"
So, the guys who ported counter-strike to xbox1 and co-created L4D? That's not really much of a rap sheet to go out and buy them.

nveenio5270d ago (Edited 5270d ago )

Microsoft can keep their grubby little paws off the devs as far as I'm concerned. They should stick to hardware and keeping Live in its prime. Good third-party developers will come naturally.

caseh5269d ago

@Pacman

That would be a horrible move if Nintendo owned Epic, not knocking Nintendo but their hardware hardly pushes the boundaries of technical superiority. Can you imagine what Gears would have looked like on the Wii, urgh!

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 5269d ago
saladthieves5270d ago

Before shopping for any studios, they should put some of their studios to good use...I'm looking at you Rare.

coolbeans5270d ago

You should define the term "good use". When looking at sales figures, the Kinect Sports series has probably been Rare's most lucrative franchise since the N64 days. In terms of "hardcore aim" (if that makes any sense), I'd certainly like to see Banjo-Threeie :D.

BlmThug5270d ago

I would love another banjo game

princejb1345269d ago

i don't think well see another banjo game for a while, with the disappointing sales of the last one
if rare does make it they should go back to the roots, no need for a car

Rifkens5270d ago ShowReplies(2)
hqgamez5270d ago

If Nintendo got Epic. I would flip.
Reggie must of had a gun towards Epic's President.

Sony buying Mojang. I could see that, but doubt it.
If IGN was to post Sony buying Team Meat.
Then I would call IGN 100% PURE IGNorant! I'm currently at 90%

Pikajew5270d ago (Edited 5270d ago )

I lost the my little respect for them with this article.

enfestid5270d ago

Valve already bought Turtle Rock Studios. Didn't work out too well. They renamed them "Valve South" before closing them down and asking everyone to relocate to Seattle. Michael Booth then restarted Turtle Rock Studios back in California with some of the original staff (some moved to Seattle to continue working for Valve).

showtimefolks5269d ago

not gonna happen i have said the same thing many times but not these studios just some smaller studios and let them work on something for a few years, but each time i was told by xbox community which i am part of that MS is more than a game company they rather lock down dlc deals for millions than actually spend that money for their future consoles.

what MS has done with xbox360 is pure genius and success but i am not sure if next time around the fate wouldn't be a bit different. Early on MS's message was we are hardcore we know gaming and gamers but than MS became that we want to be in your living room while giving you halo,gears,forza etc every 2 years or so. Gears franchise if there are future games will be on all 3 HD consoles and maybe even VITA.

but what the heck do i know i am just a gamer

sony will buy QD next after their next game which won't be heavy rain 2

sony is letting a new studio work on SLY 4 so taht's now a 2nd party studio

and IGN thing is if insomniac fails with EA they would much rather go to sony than to MS

also ready at dawn studio should get to do a new IP for ps3 they have the talent

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 5269d ago
NYC_Gamer5270d ago

i'd rather them build up some new studios

Tanir5270d ago

yeah, MS has no games and the reason why is because they dont have any studios, they r retarded

Noticeably_FAT5270d ago

Microsoft has never had a ton of first party exclusives, but they have scaled back more this past year because I feel like they are all looking and developing for the next Xbox already.

Game13a13y5269d ago

Yep, note to MS, MONEY CAN'T BUY EVERYTHING!

Disccordia5269d ago

MS started about 5 new studios a while back. Probably won't see any output until next gen though

360ICE5270d ago

Amen, Lionhead is their super studio!? Trying to go up against Nintendo EAD and Naughty Dog with eccentric Peter Molyneux is like going up against James Cameron with Tim Burton.

thehitman5270d ago

Yea exactly MS needs their own team(s) developing 3-4 games at a time dedicated to Xbox if they want to have a fighting chance next-gen. Even though they gave Sony a run for their money this gen Sony didnt stray from their gameplan they released lots of new AAA titles and acquired new studios at the same time increasing their porfolio. Now that Nintendo even looks like they want a piece of the 3rd party Pie MS are going to have an even harder time justifying their console purchase. XBL I think wont cut it anymore because I know Sony will bring their A game when it comes to online for the next playstation.

saladthieves5270d ago

They already have started to bring their A game, with especially the PS Vita.

I've been a PS+ user since it came out, and I can honestly say that it is pretty awesome. I've had to download lots of stuff at amazing discounts, and so much more, for free. I get so much bang for my buck, sometimes I feel that they are just throwing away stuff for free.

On the other hand Xbox Live compared to PS+ feels like it is not worth the price. It costs more but offers me far less. I've never had a free game, or content on Xbox Live, let alone EVERY MONTH. Microsoft would never make it happen, yet my PS3 is just piling up with them.

The only reason I pay for Xbox Live is to play online. Make playing online free and I'll cancel my gold subscription in a heartbeat, and I'm sure millions others would instantly.

So in terms of Sony being ready for next gen online, I say they've started already, especially if you look at the connectivity prowess included in the PS Vita.

moparful995269d ago

People try to play it off like xbox live is miles ahead of psn in terms of features, usability, and connectivity and honestly besides a few networking features and cosmetic differences xbox live and psn are dead even where it matters and thats playing games.. xbox live has x-game chat psn is free.. They are dead even.. Given the fact that the ps3's AAA exclusive portfolio is outpacing microsoft's by a large margin the only thing driving people to the 360 is the networking effect.. "My friends all play on the 360 so I want one"

beastgamer5270d ago

M$ been doing it wrong.
They invest in 3rd Party spending $$$ all day long. Who knows how much they pay Activison for 30 days dlc and each ad has their logo. If they paid Rockstar 50 million, who knows. For a greed copy and paste game that break records each year, Bobby must want some $$$ meaning 9digits figures.

I know MS had Bungie which are great developers, but Bungie left MS in 07, I guess they weren't having all the Hoopla.
I kind of feel Sorry for Turn 10 its like MS doesn't care about them, they just want them to beat Gran Turismo

saladthieves5270d ago

The problem with Microsoft is that they are relying on techniques, though proven to work, just happen to be short term solutions.

They are paying DLC exclusivity for 30 days, just so that their base can be the first to get it. This exclusivity isn't even for like a year, just 30 days! Their heavy reliance on mullti-plats is a problem they need to solve.

They could for example launch next gen and find that they have a very little list of exclusive games to go along with the platform. If they think that people will flock to their next Xbox because of their brand name instead of exclusive games then they could be very mistaken. Sony tried the same this gen and we all know how that turned out.

What they should be doing is building up a solid portfolio of exclusive list of games ready to launch for next gen. Kinect is all good and nice, but it shouldn't be their focus. Nintendo already proved that you can only ride the casual market for so long, until they get bored and move to something else (iPads, iPhones etc).

Sony learned from their mistake, and look at how many studios they now own, or the ones producing exclusive content solely for them. It's clear to them that they know a platform is as good as dead if it doesn't have games to play it on. They know what matters to gamers, the games.

DiRtY5269d ago

They opened three studios 6 months ago.

MS Soho
MS Vancouver
MS Family

gg no re.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 5269d ago
theunleashed645270d ago

insomniac like their independence if they didn't want to be acquired by sony they certainly won't likely want to be bought up by microsoft.

The Meerkat5270d ago

They should have gone for Bioware.

Swiggins5270d ago

Probably would've been a better choice than Insomniac.

Ulf5270d ago

EA owns Bioware, and MS wouldn't be able to buy EA without a major stock revolt.

John Kratos5269d ago

@Ulf He meant when Microsoft was publishing Bioware's games.

Alos885270d ago

A big no to the first three, I don't care about the others.

Show all comments (77)
40°

Xbox boss: Memory crisis could impact next-gen hardware pricing

Xbox boss Asha Sharma has discussed how component shortages will impact the company's plans for Project Helix.

Read Full Story >>
gamedeveloper.com
Lexreborn23h ago

This kind of proves this is an after thought product, most products like this are in r&d 5 years before they start mass producing. So they typically have the cost of components and things worked out long before assembly starts.

This is an assumption still, but I wouldn’t be surprised if project helix is similar to Scalebound,perfect dark and sod3. They had an idea but no actual execution other than concept stage. Being impacted by the ram shortage likely would also put this device 3-4 years out.

I’m not even sure MS has that endurance with Xbox yet

Fishy Fingers37m ago(Edited 34m ago)

I mean.... what?

We're at a point that Samsung wont even provide their own phone department ram because they can sell it at higher prices to 3rd parties (AI). Its more profitable to sell the ram than make their own devices with it.

You think because R&D starts 5 years ago the 3rd party component manufacturers will honour that price? They'll sell it to whomever is paying the most today, not some gentlemens agreement they made years ago. AI farms will buy more volume at higher prices than any console manufacturer will. It'll be the same for Playstation.

Profchaos1m ago

Helix is going to be stupidly expensive

50°

'The big things that we're thinking about'

In an exclusive interview with Game File, new(ish) Xbox boss Asha Sharma and Xbox chief content officer Matt Booty explain their vision for Microsoft’s gaming division

Read Full Story >>
gamefile.news
Agent751d 3h ago

A good start would be to release games to go with the console. My Xbox Series X has gathered dust virtually from launch. My advice would be to ditch a next console and release games on PC, PlayStation and Switch. Another idea would be a hybrid console based on Xbox Series X tech and go the same route as Nintendo. Another idea would be to pull out of gaming altogether. Plenty of options there.

160°

Xbox Game Pass Ultimate Price Update

Starting today, Game Pass Ultimate drops from $29.99 to $22.99 a month. PC Game Pass will also drop from $16.49 to $13.99 a month. Prices may vary by region.

Beginning this year, future Call of Duty titles won’t join Game Pass Ultimate or PC Game Pass at launch. New Call of Duty games will be added to Game Pass Ultimate and PC Game Pass during the following holiday season (about a year later), while existing Call of Duty titles already in the library will continue to be available.

Read Full Story >>
news.xbox.com
Neonridr6d ago

can't wait to hear how this is spun negatively.

darthv726d ago

Its nice there is some kind of drop... but is that all they really value CoD to be, a lousy $7 a month?

I was hoping it would drop by $10.

MisterBoots5d ago

That $7 equates to $84 per year - which is more than COD new ($69.99 + tax).

So - you can get the exact same thing - and save a few bucks - or you can skip COD and pocket the savings or use toward another game - or games if on sale.

That’s how I’m taking it - and is enough for me to sign back up after canceling the day it went to $29.99.

fr0sty5d ago

It's unlikely that COD is going to be the only title they stop offering day one, but we'll see how they play their hand.

VenomUK5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

Including Call of Duty in Game Pass is just leaving money on the table. When the Elder Scrolls VI releases hopefully Microsoft doesn’t launch it into Game Pass. Then it can make more profits and use it give more value to Xbox console owners!

1Victor6d ago

Can’t wait to hear how this will be spun extremely positive. 🤣
I wonder why knowing Microsoft thick head something must has happened in the background in the levels of Xbox one and Kinect 🤷🏿

fr0sty5d ago

Any price cut is a good thing in this day and age, but it also reveals a flaw in GamePass' design that we've all been calling out for years... it's unsustainable, especially with day and date releases on new games. COD won't be the only game they exclude, they're setting a precedent with it that they'll likely expand upon in the future.

At least they're being realistic about it now. I bet in the future we're going to start seeing them try to subsidize the high price of new consoles by making you buy 2-3 years of gamepass with it to get the console cheaper. I'm still not sure that'll be enough to save either the hardware or gamepass, but we'll see.

Neonridr5d ago

price cuts are good, the removal of Call of Duty is clearly something they are planning to leverage. But considering everyone around N4G claims Call of Duty sucks, it's not a big loss now is it?

LucasRuinedChildhood6d ago (Edited 6d ago )

Well, they're removing their biggest game from being Day 1 on the service so GamePass users can buy it instead. That's the intention.

They increased the price to $30, then removed COD and dropped it to still be above the old price.

It's an understandable compromise but the consumer Ultimately is getting less.

Think the calculation is that *most* COD users don't play that many games and aren't interested in GamePass. The GamePass users who do like COD would just buy it anyway. MS reportedly lost out a lot of money last year putting COD on GamePass.

Bathyj6d ago (Edited 6d ago )

Well Call of duty could just be the beginning. What other games can they trim from the service to get the price down? How long before it's just the Xbox core first party studio games and not the one to everquired?

Create an interesting scenario with Call of duty as well. Will people wait a year to play it? Does that split the fan base? Will it hurt to Call of duty more than a benefits Game pass? These are all legitimate questions which we will find the answers to in the coming years

And I don't consider my post negative spin just realistic observation. At the very least this backtracking can be seen as an admittance that the previous strategy of gamepass was not sustainable as most of us said.

darthv725d ago

I'd get rid of the EA and Ubisoft+ too. That should bring the price down more. The only game from either of those parts of the service i played was jedi Fallen order / survivor. both of which i also bought on disc so it was more of a convenience i didnt have to put the disc in to play when i was playing them via remote play. And really that is why i still use GPU and PS+. its the convenience of having the games ready to play from a remote location. I havent picked up my consoles controllers in at least a few years. I guess that makes me a bad gamer, but so what. i'm still playing the games, just not physically on the machines themselves. GCloud and Portal are my go to now.

GhostScholar6d ago

They’ll say no one is buying game pass so they had to drop the price , even though it’s been extremely profitable.

Outside_ofthe_Box5d ago

Why remove CoD if it's *extremely* profitable then? Why even increase it to begin with?

Outside_ofthe_Box5d ago

Always funny seeing those that defended the price hike go "how you gonna spin this now!" after the price drops.

You should be thanking those that called it out. Obviously this is a good thing especially with everything increasing nowadays.

Also, what happened to the reason why that the Activision acquisition was good for gaming was that CoD would be day one on GamePass? Another backtrack on that I guess...

What removing CoD on GamePass shows, is that it's not sustainable for for the more popular and/or bigger budget games because of the sales you lose out on like people have been saying since inception. It never made sense to put CoD on there unless you thought it's popularity would draw in a lot of subscribers which it obviously didn't. And if it was as sustainable as people claim they wouldn't have increased the price while putting it on there in the first place.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 5d ago
6d ago
KicksnSnares6d ago (Edited 6d ago )

New Xbox Boss the 🐐?

6d ago
Vits6d ago

In my region, it’s still more expensive than it was before the last price hike, but it’s a far more viable price point.

Losing Call of Duty from the service, honestly, has zero effect on me, and given they chose to make it so, it’s probably not the big seller they originally thought. Overall, it’s really good news, but I still think they have work to do on the tier structure, having Premium and PC at the same price point with different features feels odd.

Lightning776d ago

Yep take COD out. Them waiting a year is interesting but it make sense. They don't want certain ppl waiting 4 to 6 months they want fomo and maximum sales. Wait a year while the new one releases.

Ok so far so good.

Show all comments (46)