Fact check: Microsoft didn't even know what they bought Rare. One of the execs famously thought they bought the rights to DK

1. Summary of the results

The statement about Microsoft executives not knowing what they bought when acquiring Rare is confirmed by multiple sources. According to Chris Seavor, a former Rare employee, Microsoft executives indeed demonstrated confusion about the intellectual property rights included in their $375 million acquisition of Rare in 2002 ^{[1] [2]}.

The specific incident mentioned in the original statement is corroborated: during a tour of Rare's studio after the acquisition, a Microsoft executive noticed Donkey Kong posters and asked "Hey that's great.. We own Donkey Kong right??" ^[1]. Seavor's response was described as a "massive sigh," indicating the executive's fundamental misunderstanding ^[1]. This confusion was particularly notable given that Donkey Kong was not part of the acquisition deal, despite Rare having developed games like Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong 64 for Nintendo ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement lacks important context about what Microsoft did actually acquire in the deal. While the executives were confused about Donkey Kong ownership, Microsoft did legitimately acquire Rare's actual intellectual properties, including Perfect Dark and Banjo Kazooie ^[2].

The statement also omits the broader context of Rare's relationship with Nintendo prior to the Microsoft acquisition. Rare had developed several games for Nintendo consoles before being purchased by Microsoft ^[3], which may have contributed to the confusion about which franchises transferred with the acquisition.

Additionally, the sources reveal that this acquisition has had long-term consequences, with recent developments showing Microsoft's continued struggles with Rare properties - including the cancellation of Everwild and significant layoffs affecting Rare staff as part of Microsoft's broader restructuring efforts ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement, while factually accurate about the executive confusion, presents the information in a way that could be misleading by:

• Oversimplifying the situation - suggesting Microsoft "didn't know what they bought" broadly, when the confusion appears to have been specifically about Donkey Kong rights rather than the entire acquisition
• Lacking specificity - the statement uses vague language ("one of the execs") rather than providing the detailed account from Chris Seavor that gives the claim credibility ^{[1] [6]}
• Missing the financial context - omitting that this was a substantial $375 million acquisition ^[2], which makes the executive confusion more significant from a business perspective

The statement appears to be factually correct but could benefit from more precise language and additional context about what Microsoft did successfully acquire in the deal.