Sony now own 14.1% of From Software (May be buying more)
- Thread starter Bryank75
- Start date
I don't care if Sony are the market leader. That's almost immaterial to the factor's I mean. All that means, effectively, is that whilst MS aren't matching Sony on AAA Blockbuster releases, and worse Sony is following MS into sandboxes like streaming and PC focus, we have a Sony that isn't being forced to do their best for the console/consumer. Get ready for 20 years of WWE style Lazy Sony without someone providing a challenge. My grandma could have told you in, what, 2013 that Vita needed L2/R2 buttons at the very least, and we still got the non-Oled revision and PSVitaTV/PSTV afterwards. The want for a portable machine isn't dead. I think Switch, Switch Lite, Steam Deck, and probably espeically the GPD Win 4 essentially being a Vita with L2/R2 shoulder buttons all prove that. That being said, I don't want any new players coming-into the core gaming market and fragmenting what's left even further. But still, Sony don't seem much interested in retaining their core experiences; and slow to react. They can do a marketing deal today for MS/TenCent to buy the company tomorrow, and Sony left on the hook to promote the game. If it's now an MS game like Deathloop/Ghostwire, will the PS versions sell well, or will people just wait a year or with the expectation it'll be *free on gamepass?
Sony are the ones whom supposedly need to be careful with money because they haven't got as much as the other big boys, but yet don't seem to be spending it to bolster their own offerings. Crash and Spyro, sure, maybe Sony don't have $70B and that's some egg on the face but it's understandable considering the amount of money in play. But they certainly had the money on hand to take SE's western branches on board, absolutely no problem. You can't both cry foul over others spending money, but then not use what you do have to help yourself as opportunities are lost. You have to spend money up front to reap so many rewards later, but they outweigh that initial cost x1000 over. You can't say there aren't enough devs to ressurect this IP, and then not capitalize on them becoming available?
I'll harp on Tomb Raider a little more to illustrate the wider point. I know Sony never owned Tomb Raider, but honestly that's a somewhat small detail. People think PlayStation, they think Lara Croft, I think that's fair to say. Any way you slice it, even if Sony put the series on ice and merely plundered the IP for Fortnite skins, MultiVersus roster etc, all those MTX transactions go to Sony as new Tomb Raider owner, not just 30% via SE. If they merely threw every TR back catalouge game onto PStore/PS+, they have the same opportunity for profit+ because they get the full sale amount. They can put back compat games as PS+ Monthly free games, or really solidly set-out their release timing staging (console release, ps+ monthly free game, director's cut/pc release etc.). Going back to TR, whatever is still around and kicking on mobile side, like Lara Croft GO, again it's some experience within the mobile sector that can contribute to what they're trying scratching to get re-rolling now (even though the music and anime sides have their own mobile game money-makers, and you perviously shut down minis/ps mobile division and lost any early momentum/advantage). As a quick aside, I think SE themselves also have several big Final Fantasy mobile games that generate a lot of money too? I just don't see how not taking Western SE a little bit sooner than taking Eastern SE makes any sense.
And that's just if they ice TR and live off the liscensing fees to others, or backend residuals on back compatability sales. If they do more with TR, and work things strategically, you can really start to benefit the wider Sony. Pressure's off Uncharted's back as far as sequel fatigue goes. Give each series time to breath and develop, perhaps bookends of a generation to push each other's boundaries as tent pole examples against each other, but in the mean time when not working on Uncharted 4/LL and TR Rise/Shadow in quick succession, there's the time for new IP exploration from both devs/their 2nd teams if Sony come in with the infastructure support/financial setup. And in the mean time if Sony want to do something like a PS AllStars 2 they own both characters, if Sony want to side-step a PS AllStars 2, they have two seperate characters to offer the likes of MultiVersus that might crop up yet. TR/Lara is just one exaple, there was others that Embracer got. I don't see the loss of Western-SE as a smart move by Sony, at all.
D
Deleted member 140
Guest
Sony should've bought FROM after the original Demons Souls, now they're too big and too expensive I think!
It's a small participation. Means Sony and Tencent can't force them do anything, and simply invested in the company to get dividends from their profits. And if Kadokawa decides to sell a bigger part of the company, to already have a good portion of it. Very likely they will continue making games for Xbox.
It's key for Sony to be the market leader this is the reason of why they have the support of all 3rd parties and why they have more 3rd party exclusives, and why they earn money that later can invest.
Vita instead was the opposite: it had a shitty market share so no big publisher -even Sony- considered that was too expensive to develop for it and wasn't worth it because its userbase was too small so it wasn't profitable to make big games for it. A Vita with L2 and R2 would also sell a shit because their main issue wasn't that: it was the lack of support of appealing big games and pricing of stuff like the needed external storage. So even if you (or me) want another Sony portable console they won't make it because it would be an unprofitable money sink for them and the publishers.
Switch has been successful because they merget the Nintendo userbases and dev teams of their home console and portable console teams into a single one and didn't have competition. So they are market leaders in portables. That userbase and dev team support wasn't the one Vita had, and Sony won't sacrifice all their high end AAA games to make instead portable games. If Steamdeck or the Chinese PC portables end being successful (we have no sales data making us think it's the case) and their prices go down in the next few years to make them similar to a portable console, then Sony could use these PC handhelds to put there their PC games, cloud gaming and remote play.
At the same time, mobile continues growing and generates over half of the gaming revenue and has the majority of the gaming userbase: part of the handheld console players are now there.
I think the only chance is to see something similar to a new Sony portable is to make their PC PSN store/launcher, to put there their mobile games too plus their cloud gaming, PS1/PS2/PSP emulated games and remote play, and then to allow Steamdeck and the Chinese PC handhelds use it and maybe team up with them or one of them. Once their PC PSN catalog gets big enough after some years with 1st and 3rd party games plus emulated ones then they could release their own PC handheld or simply partner with/buy one of the existing ones.
In the Jim Ryan era they spent more money on acquisitions and made more acquisitions than basically al the previous SIE eras combined. They rised their budgets+investments+stock repurchases budget to $30B, meaning it's possible to see them acquiring a publisher of the size of Capcom or Square. Or even both.
But for that to happen they also should want to sell and to sell to them. It isn't as easy as them wanting to buy and having the money for it.
Crash and Spyro were important decades ago, not now. Square Enix losed hundreds of millions of dollars with these studios, this is why they sold them. And were bought by only $300MB when the IPs alone pretty likely cost more, meaning something else is wrong with these studios and that the other big publishers didn't want to buy them. Even people like Tencent who invests in basically everything.
Regarding Sony, maybe they thought that already have enough studios who make this type of games, and that do them more successfully. So prefer to keep having them but as 3rd party and to invest instead on other things more prioritary and strategical for them and with a way bigger potential. I personally think that could have been a good acquisition for Sony, and that with their good management and extra budget these strudios would have thrived.
I can say that because it's a fact that they don't have enough dev teams to work in all the IPs they have. And many of them are dead because they were unsuccessful and unprofitable, so companies prefer to invest in stuff that is potentially more profitable than to lose hundreds of millions to make happy a singler user like you who likes an unsuccessful game that doesn't work in the market.
There are successful IPs that they have that they could revive (like Uncharted) but their devs are busy with other projects that strategically makes more sense to release now (TLOU remake and MP game, plus probably a new IP). If they continue growing as they have been, they may have one or two teams more inside ND so in addition to make a new IP they could work on Uncharted 5 before moving to TLOU3. This is an example.
Or cases like Sucker Punch or Guerrilla: their recent new IPs have been super successful, way more than any one they had before. So obviously they will work on these new IPs, and if have a 2nd team may try with another new IP taking advantage that their team became super successful (something ultra rare) on producing a new IP. To work on al older, way less successful (or unsuccessful) IP from them becomes very secondary and would only do it if they have a 3rd or 4th project at the same time in the same way Insomniac does.
Jimbo and Hermen are growing all their studios to help them work in more games at the same so to release games more frequently time using Insomniac as reference. So they can't do it now but who knows, maybe in the future they will.
The Go! series (they had multiple ones, like Hitman) did start performing very well and the next ones tanked. I think it's a case of a good adaptation of console IPs to mobile, something Sony is interested on. But I assume they aim to something way more ambitious and successful: things like Fortnite, Genshin Impact, PUBG, Minecraft, Roblox, Lineage or Pokemon Go.
They bought these studios and their IPs, but not sure if also sold them the rights for the back catalog. In cases like when Bungie bought Destiny from Activision or when From Software bought Tenchu from Activision the purchase didn't include the rights for the previous games. Meaning they bought the IP to -maybe- make future games, but they can't re-release the old ones with a new publisher, I assume they should do it partnering with that previous IP owner.
If that is the case, they could use TR for new games, Fortnite skins or movies, but not to publish again the old games unless it's partnering with the former IP owner.
The Final Fantasy games on mobile do an ok job. They make money adapting console IPs to mobile, something Sony wants to do. Even if the Final Fantasy games on mobile are way less successful than Sony's Fate/Grand Order, which since it was released half a decade ago or so, every year it's in the top 10 top grossing mobile games wordwide of the year.
From Soft is private, so nobody will be able to buy more shares until Kadokawa decides to sell another round. If desired Sony or Tencent could buy shares of Kadokawa instead, which is public (but unlike Fromsoft it works in many other industries not related with videogames).
Tencent didn’t buy part of Fron so that they turn around and limit their profit potential by games being PlayStation exclusive.
Sony would need to pay them like always.
Sony would need to pay them like always.
Minority ownership is not going to get you “hey lower your revenue for us” privledges.
Anything between the 2 companies would be via a contract just like before. AKA they’d pay for any sort of exclusively, so no they won’t just automatically.
Again you guys just have this all backwards.. you don’t sell a minority stake so that you can help the purchaser you sell it because they will be motivated to help YOU.
Sony got exclusives from them without owning any portion of them. Youre talking in definitive like you know the terms of sonys investment. None of us know until they tell us or from announces a new game.
You think they got an exclusive without any contract in place?
I just don’t even know what you are saying here… my point is Sony will need contracts with From the same as before.
Any exclusive will be through the same publishing arrangements they've had before. This just brings Sony and FS closer in an ongoing relationship, and more likely to foster those publishing deals
I agree here.
BTW From Software is not a public company so the sell of these 30% of shares had to be discussed and approved by the board.
They probably needed that money as investment.
BTW From Software is not a public company so the sell of these 30% of shares had to be discussed and approved by the board.
They probably needed that money as investment.
Last edited:
New Fromsoft PS exclusive announcement soon hopefully?
Tho have very low expectations with Hermen and Jimbo.
Tho have very low expectations with Hermen and Jimbo.
OP
OP
Sure... but the 70% could be sold to anyone else, and now Sony just owns 14% of a company they have no control over, who could decide to not release games on Playstation.
It really doesn't do much of anything but act as an investment for Sony.
Hate to be that guy but in a post-Uncharted world and considering the Tomb Raider series has been on a downward slope since the 2013 reboot, Sony didn't miss out on much TBH.
Tomb Raider's spent most of its life as a struggling IP. Its best years were 1996 to 2000. It had a resurgence in 2013 but took a massive hit just three years later, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider underperformed compared even to that game. That's without getting into the 2000s releases, which were either at best serviceable (the Crystal Dynamics games) or just outright terrible (Angel of Darkness).
Also IMO, it's an IP that's had to reinvent itself too many times, and its best interpretation is still the original Core Design version which has become misunderstood and assumed as sexist and exploitative as a false narrative by certain people, that unfortunately has now stuck, tainting any future attempts in that original image and scaring developers from taking that route.
Sony could just easily make a new Uncharted with a female co-lead inspired by classic Lara Croft and have a much more successful interpretation than a proper new Tomb Raider game from Crystal Dynamics would likely manage to accomplish.
Well there is also the possibility Sony buys more FS shares over time, but that would come down to if Kadokawa wants to make more shares sellable. And realistically, there's a very short list of companies able and willing to go into a bidding war for the rest of From Software. The only ones I can think of are Sony, Tencent, NetEase and Embracer Group.
But I don't think Embracer Group would be one to make the buy because they don't really go after companies with games the size of an Elden Ring. Tencent's purchases shares are squarely focused on mobile and some anime, so I'm not sure what buying the rest of FromSoft does for their business aims. That probably really just leaves Sony and NetEase, but all around it's kind of worthless to speculate who "buys" FromSoft because I doubt Kadokawa wants to sell them at all. Why do so, when they're printing money?
Reaction Castle GIF - Reaction Castle Speechless - Discover & Share GIFs
Click to view the GIF
tenor.com
I don't disagree with the points you make, I just don't think they automatically rule-out my opinion that Sony has the ability to rehab TR and then use it better in a wide range of initiatives. That it didnt happen I still consider a mistep.