Sony's future and possible studio/publisher acquisitions

[Old Gamer]

Some people sell even if they don't want because their finances suck and their only alternative is to fire a huge portion of the company or to go bankrupt and selling is their only option to avoid it.

Ask Mixer how well it worked out for them.

 

[historia]

Ask Mixer how well it worked out for them.

Great example like how MS want to force themselves into a market they know jack shit about.

Same for Nokia, same for Zune.

 

[Yurinka]

Ask Mixer how well it worked out for them.

Great example like how MS want to force themselves into a market they know jack shit about.

Same for Nokia, same for Zune.

Their owners won a good chunk of money selling that to MS.

By selling the company they make sure that will continue alive after some years. After that, it's responsability of the acquirer to make it work and if aren't able, to shut it down or sell it to someone else.

But in the moment that they have to decide between shutting down their company or to sell it to a big company like MS, the best option for everyone is the 2nd one.

Does MS suck at making thrive companies or brands they acquired? In many cases yes, both inside and outside gaming. But that's a different story than owners of a company trying to save it when having awful finantials.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

PS worldwide sales -counting both digital and retail- are way, way bigger than the Switch ones.

And yet Nintendo makes more profit in gaming than PlayStation. That's what I am talking about here: profit, not revenue. Revenue isn't the reason Sony wants to grow in live-service GaaS area, or publish on PC. Both of those are driven by need to increase profits.

Japan is a small portion of these worldwide sales: this is why all Japanese companies stopped making Japan only games, or games targeted mainly to Japan, and instead target a worldwide audience.

The problem in this thinking is that Japanese games are somehow not globally appealing. Yes some games aren't, but others are. RE4 is a globally appealing game, and Capcom didn't change much anything from the original to Remake in terms of artistic elements to make it globally appealing, vs. the original's 2005 release.

The Japanese console market itself may not be large in terms of overall global sales, but Japanese devs & pubs are huge contributors to overall games industry revenue globally. The more Japan-esque games you speak of still exist in the console space, but are mainly tied to the Switch & PS4. Or, they've moved over to mobile. But if you're thinking games like RE4 or Tekken 8 have been changed to target a global audience, then that isn't necessarily true at all.

Maybe there are areas where they work with more Western talent, like for mo-cap, face modelling or voice-acting work, and certainly for region-specific marketing, but the actual game design itself is still firmly rooted in core elements of those series going back years or decades, with some QOL features added to the mix.

No, in the case of gaming SIE makes >25B in revenue per year (with billions of profits) and MS makes around 15B (with very likely billions of loses).

I'm pretty sure Xbox brings in some amount of profit annually. Probably between $1.25 - $1.5 billion with all said and done. They sustain way more losses than Sony & Nintendo, but not to the point where they aren't making any profits at all, IMO.

Part of the play for ABK is to also throw their profits & revenue into the Xbox division's, btw. Inorganic revenue & profit growth.

If some day CoD leaves PS (for minimum 10 years will stay there), most CoD PS players will continue on PS playing other games. So Sony won't lose most of these profits.

You don't know that; you also don't know the crossover ratio of COD players who are PS enthusiast in part because of COD being on PS, or PS having preferred access to COD. COD might be the center point that anchors them into the PS ecosystem to play other 1P & 3P games.

CoD will continue so its profits will continue. Sony will spent the marketing budget they were spending on CoD now in other games, very likely 1st party shooters. So it will be more profitable for Sony specially considering Sony gets 100% of that revenue instead of 30% or 20% (meaning, they need way less sales with 1st party games to make the same revenue and profit than with CoD sales).

That's true, but that also gets offset by the money Sony has to spend to develop, market & support those 1P shooters. Things they didn't have to do with COD, since they don't make that game.

Let's say CoD has a 80%-20% deal. A 1st party game of the same budget and price would need to generate 5 time less of revenue to generate the same revenue to Sony. So let's say a CoD sells 10M units on PS. A Sony shooter would need to sell 2M units to make the same amount of revenue.

Not actually true, because Sony has to develop & fund that 1P shooter themselves. Now I don't know what budget COD games have, but I'll just randomly say $150 million (it's potentially more than this).

Sony's game would need to actually sell a bit north of 4 million to bring in similar profit, because of the sunk development costs to make the game (and adding marketing on top, they'd probably need it to sell north of 5 million to equal the profit they'd get from COD selling 10 million on PS).

Regarding profit, obviously the CoD marketing costed Sony less money than the one needed to make a 1st party AAA GaaS shooter so would need to sell way more than these 2M to get the same profit they were getting from CoD. But well, the recent Sony AAA sold or are in track to sell over 15/20M units. Some of their shooters will sell around that (in most cases less I think, but on top of that they'll get way more money from the DLC/MTX/passes/etc).

In 3-5 years:

• Sony will have in the market like half a dozen 1st party shooters
• SIE's revenue and profit coming from shooters will be way higher than now
• As a result of SIE growing their investment in all areas (not only in games, software, 1st party or shooters, they will be generating way more revenue and profit, and their userbase will grow continuing the current trend
• CoD PS revenue and profit will represent a smaller percent of the total SIE revenue and profit than now
• CoD PS MAU will represent a smaller percent of the PS MAU
• Some CoD PS players will stop playing CoD because moved to the Sony 1st party shoters

So if CoD would have left now Sony wouldn't be worried because only a tiny portion of their userbase actively plays it and it represents a tiny portion of their revenue. But in a few years, CoD will be even less important for SIE.

You're assuming this live-service/GaaS shooter approach actually works out. What if it doesn't? Most of Sony's marquee AAA hit those 15-20 million unit numbers due to things like their story/narrative, blockbuster set-pieces, epic scale and in the case of things like Spiderman, the license/IP involved. A lot of this isn't beholden as part of live-service/GaaS shooters. So far nothing we know of Fairgame$, Concord, Marathon or even Helldivers 2 suggests they will play into those aforementioned elements.

So, if that ends up being the case, how are they going to hit those numbers? FWIW even other big non-COD shooters on the market with some history to them, like Splatoon and Battlefield, are not pulling 15-20 million sales numbers, so how are you so confident Sony's will? Even if they're the best-playing shooters on the market, 15-20 million is a big ask.

Now, could they do a mix of lower unit sales but making up the rest of that money through MTX/DLC? Possibly. But again, it's a big gamble, and the shooter space is crowded. I think it would be better for Sony to diversify their live-service/GaaS pushes into non-traditional genres and try doing something big there. Looks at games like Fall Guys, Among Us, Only Up, or even get quirky with stuff like Mario Party...these are all popular games or do enough with their niche to be well-known. Now imagine them with Sony's level of polish and support behind them.

Rather than chasing the next COD or Fortnite I think Sony should be going after setting the standard of what comes besides yet another shooter in the market, but that's just me.

And well, to leave PS would be a super idiotic idea for MS because putting it day one on GP most of the (non-mobile) CoD revenue is going to come from PS because they will lose a big chunk of the PC and Xbox sales. So make sure MS will renew the deal 10 years from now.

I think more PS users will catch on to shelling out $70 (or more) every year for the next COD while Xbox gamers get it "for free" in Game Pass Day 1, and opt to just get the game through Game Pass, especially if they are mainly playing it for the campaign. Otherwise why be a guinea pig parting with that $70 every year to enable other people to get the game for significantly less? Over time I think that reality will catch on to more PS COD players and you'll see a shift as a result.

Also I'd refer you go re-read the leaked emails and unredacted documents from the FTC hearing regarding Microsoft; you can call it a conspiracy theory if you want but you're also dealing with a company that has a history of wanting to snuff competitors out of the market. And, they have laid that intent fully out WRT Sony. This is the same company that just admitted they knew Starfield could sell 10 million on PS5 but made it Xbox console-exclusive anyway.

By that same logic, there is nothing stopping them from pulling COD off of consoles like PlayStation; regulators like the CMA and EC have said it's "just fine" to do so, we already know MS are doing that with future Zenimax releases wholesale (very little if any "case by case"), we know what Phil Spencer really wanted to do with Minecraft and feels it was a mistake to leave it multiplat...

How much more evidence do you need to prove that Microsoft are not above stripping something away from PlayStation, even if it means money left on the table, if that can damage the brand? Which, BTW, is Microsoft's long-term intent ("spend Sony out of business")? Microsoft in no way needs gaming revenue nor profit to survive; their presence in gaming is just a long-term play to outlast smaller competitors via offsetting any gaming bleed with the vast profits from non-gaming sectors, and assume control of the market through that method. They've done this in the past and they're trying to do it again.

You argue about COD being on PS as if in good faith of Microsoft doing what's best to making money off the IP and gaming. But this is a company which has shown, when they're ready to pump massive money into something, it's not merely to make that money back. It's chiefly about pushing & squeezing out any other smaller competitors in that exact same space.

Stop giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Yurinka]

And yet Nintendo makes more profit in gaming than PlayStation. That's what I am talking about here: profit, not revenue. Revenue isn't the reason Sony wants to grow in live-service GaaS area, or publish on PC. Both of those are driven by need to increase profits.

Sony makes way more revenue than Nintendo.

The only reason that prevents Sony having also way more profit than Nintendo is that Sony reinvests all that revenue on future stuff like making a bigger number (and also more expensive games) plus also in growing expanding themselves in many areas.

That means Sony will make even more revenue in the future than now. And if they reduce in the future their aggresive invesments then they'll have way more profit.

To reinvest revenue to grow is smarter and better than to keep it as profits in the bank.

If Sony wouldn't have acquired Bungie they'd have posted way more profits. If Sony wouldn't have grown all their teamns they'd have posted more profits. If instead of greenlighting like 30-40 games to be developed at the same time they would have only greeenlighted around a dozen they'd have posted more profit.

But it's a better idea to do what Sony did. And they can do it if they have way more revenue. And that's why companies are analyzed looking at the revenue as main metric and not the profit.

The problem in this thinking is that Japanese games are somehow not globally appealing. Yes some games aren't, but others are. RE4 is a globally appealing game, and Capcom didn't change much anything from the original to Remake in terms of artistic elements to make it globally appealing, vs. the original's 2005 release.

I -and the Japanese companies- know that some Japanese games like the Capcom, Square Enix or Nintendo blockbusters, or some recent FromSoft games like Dark Souls, Sekiro or Elden Ring have worldwide appeal. Or games like Tekken or the Kojima ones.

And that many games that these or other companies made targeting the Japanese audience only and that in most cases were only released in Japan didn't. They also saw that the sales of the games with worldwide appeal were way bigger than the Japan only ones. So obviously companies kept shifting their focus to chase a wider, global appeal.

The Japanese console market itself may not be large in terms of overall global sales, but Japanese devs & pubs are huge contributors to overall games industry revenue globally.

The Japanese console market is large, but the worldwide console market is way, way bigger. As I remember, like 5 times bigger.

But if you're thinking games like RE4 or Tekken 8 have been changed to target a global audience, then that isn't necessarily true at all.

I didn't mean this. I meant that companies like Kadokawa would focus more on games like Elden Ring, Sekiro or Dark Souls than in games as Love Live! School idol paradise, Metal Max, Root Letter: Last Answer, Relayer, Demon Gaze or more particularly, weirder Japan only games that we don't know at all.

The first group are games which are popular worldwide. The second group are way less popular games worldwidem, specially outside Japan. There's a small amount of people who care about them and only from Japan.

Maybe there are areas where they work with more Western talent, like for mo-cap, face modelling or voice-acting work, and certainly for region-specific marketing, but the actual game design itself is still firmly rooted in core elements of those series going back years or decades, with some QOL features added to the mix.

They don't need all that: look at Nintendo. Games can be low budget games made in Japan with Japanese devs only. The thing is that in terms of game genres, gameplay mechanics, character design, artstyle, setting etc. there are things that may be appealing to a part of the Japanese western but that doesn't work in the rest of the world.

I'm pretty sure Xbox brings in some amount of profit annually.

Probably between $1.25 - $1.5 billion with all said and done. They sustain way more losses than Sony & Nintendo, but not to the point where they aren't making any profits at all, IMO.

Microsoft said to the regulators that their gaming division only had 2 profitable quarters in all their history (meaning, since the start of the original Xbox).

You don't know that; you also don't know the crossover ratio of COD players who are PS enthusiast in part because of COD being on PS, or PS having preferred access to COD. COD might be the center point that anchors them into the PS ecosystem to play other 1P & 3P games.

There have been researches that shown that there's a big overlap of PS users who also have Xbox or a gaming PC. The CMA even did a poll for CoD PS players to know if CoD being on PS was a reason of having bought that console or if they would leave if it went exclusive and only like a quarter of them said yes.

But more importantly than that, I know that the PS CoD MAU is less than 8% of the PS MAU and that Sony is growing in many areas and Sony will market other games instead of CoD, so over time this % will become smaller in the future.

If CoD would go platform exclusive the majority of players would stay on PS, but even if all these players would leave they would have been quickly replaced by other ones thanks to the PS growth.

And well, I also know that Sony and MS signed a deal to keep CoD on PS for at least 10 years and that they'll renegotiate to extend it once it expires. So this discussion is pointless because during at least a decade people will continue playing CoD on PS.

Not actually true, because Sony has to develop & fund that 1P shooter themselves. Now I don't know what budget COD games have, but I'll just randomly say $150 million (it's potentially more than this).

Sony's game would need to actually sell a bit north of 4 million to bring in similar profit, because of the sunk development costs to make the game (and adding marketing on top, they'd probably need it to sell north of 5 million to equal the profit they'd get from COD selling 10 million on PS).

We don't know the exact numbers, but in any case do you think that the next games being made by Bungie, Firewalk, etc. plus TLOU online and so one for sure they'll sell more than 5 million copies each. And most of them, more than 10. Including a couple of them will sell over 20 million.

You're assuming this live-service/GaaS shooter approach actually works out. What if it doesn't? Most of Sony's marquee AAA hit those 15-20 million unit numbers due to things like their story/narrative, blockbuster set-pieces, epic scale and in the case of things like Spiderman, the license/IP involved. A lot of this isn't beholden as part of live-service/GaaS shooters. So far nothing we know of Fairgame$, Concord, Marathon or even Helldivers 2 suggests they will play into those aforementioned elements.

So, if that ends up being the case, how are they going to hit those numbers? FWIW even other big non-COD shooters on the market with some history to them, like Splatoon and Battlefield, are not pulling 15-20 million sales numbers, so how are you so confident Sony's will? Even if they're the best-playing shooters on the market, 15-20 million is a big ask.

The previous GaaS games made by the people from Bungie, Firewalk or Haven (Destiny, Rainbow Six Siege, Assassin's Creed, The Division etc) sold way more than these 15-20M and on top of that must have made a shit ton of money with addons. They also have experience on releasing the fastest selling new IPs in gaming history record numbers (AC, Watchdogs, Destiny, almost The Division).

Then there's TLOU Online or Deviation, which can also be super successful but are more a question marke.

Helldivers 2 is a different case, they are more a Housemarque-like case. A small boutique team that made very good games for a small niche and very successful in that context, that now made the jump to a AAAish size.

And then we have GT7 or MLB, Sony GaaS that already are a big success.

I think that out of the dozen GaaS there will be at least 2 or 3 super huge hits. Then 2 or 3 flops (case of the Deviation game if canned) and the other ones will perform ok/good (Firewall Ultra, Sony London new IP or Twisted Metal) or very good without being a huge hit.

Jimbo said that out of their dozen GaaS, if a couple of them become a big hit they'll be happy. The majority of the gaming money now is on GaaS. Sony already has a ton of super selling non-GaaS, so in addition to invest more than ever in non-GaaS they are trying to invest in GaaS too.

I think more PS users will catch on to shelling out $70 (or more) every year for the next COD while Xbox gamers get it "for free" in Game Pass Day 1.

Otherwise why be a guinea pig parting with that $70 every year to enable other people to get the game for significantly less?

To pay for GPU around $200/year during a generation or so isn't "for free" or cheaper than a single $70 payment + PS Plus Essential.

Over time I think that reality will catch on to more PS COD players and you'll see a shift as a result.

Over time the PS revenue, profit and userbase will continue growing, with or without CoD because CoD is only a tiny portion of it.

By that same logic, there is nothing stopping them from pulling COD off of consoles like PlayStation; regulators like the CMA and EC have said it's "just fine" to do so, we already know MS are doing that with future Zenimax releases wholesale (very little if any "case by case"), we know what Phil Spencer really wanted to do with Minecraft and feels it was a mistake to leave it multiplat...

Yes, the CMA and the EC didn't see any issue with the acquisition regarding consoles, for them would be ok to make CoD exclusive on consoles tomorrow. The only thing that worried the CMA was the cloud gaming market (EC was fine with it like the rest of the regulators).

They are also fine with Bethesda games being exclusive, because they represent a tiny portion of the market, where PS heavily dominates Xbox, and don't affect it at all.

How much more evidence do you need to prove that Microsoft are not above stripping something away from PlayStation, even if it means money left on the table, if that can damage the brand? Which, BTW, is Microsoft's long-term intent ("spend Sony out of business")? Microsoft in no way needs gaming revenue nor profit to survive; their presence in gaming is just a long-term play to outlast smaller competitors via offsetting any gaming bleed with the vast profits from non-gaming sectors, and assume control of the market through that method. They've done this in the past and they're trying to do it again.

Microsoft, like Sony, Nintendo or any company wants to improve their business getting more revenue, profit, and market share. To outperform their direct competitors. Because they are companies, not charities.

And as part of that, they sign 3rd party exclusives or make acquisitions. Like Sony. But the companies they acquire or 3rd party exclusives they sign represent a tiny portion of the market. They improve their brand and doesn't damage the rival one.

You argue about COD being on PS as if in good faith of Microsoft doing what's best to making money off the IP and gaming.

No, I think MS, Sony, all the regulators and people with functioning brain that MS bought ABK to make more money than they did before. And know that in consoles they make money mostly with CoD, and mostly on PS.

So considering that it's pretty suicidal to include all their games day one on GP for Xbox and PC, killing a lot of their sales there, to remove CoD from PS would be too suicidal even for MS standards, as would be to remove Minecraft from PS and Nintendo.

It isn't good faith, it's business. If to keep CoD and Minecraft console exclusive would generate them more revenue and profits, they'd do so. But isn't, so they won't do it.

 

[Cool hand luke]

I don't really care if PC or Trumpbox lose access to their titles at this point, so would love Sony to acquire Take 2, Larian, CDPR, Capcom, From software, and Square Enix. Sony needs to start leveraging their multimedia capability, and these companies' storied IPs and talents would be a perfect fit.

 

[historia]

I don't really care if PC or Trumpbox lose access to their titles at this point, so would love Sony to acquire Take 2, Larian, CDPR, Capcom, From software, and Square Enix. Sony needs to start leveraging their multimedia capability, and these companies' storied IPs and talents would be a perfect fit.

Lol Trumpbox, more like Losebox.

Trump means beat someone at something.

 

[FatKaz]

Trump means beat someone at something.

Those era guys probably would vote trump if he threw his support for the acqusiton.

 

[historia]

Those era guys probably would vote trump if he threw his support for the acqusiton.

Oh wait that Trump, I haven't heard of this guy from long ago.

 

[shrike0fth0rns]

Hi passionate gamers,

I wanted to discuss with you which studios and maybe publishers we will see in the upcoming days, months or years. Don't get me wrong, it should be not a fire to lit console-wars. I just want to hear your opinions which studios or even publisher are realistic. You see the landscape of the gaming industry turned into an arms-race with companies like Microsoft, Tencent and Embracer Group, buying studios or publishers like there is no end. So we heard it more than one time confirmed from Sony execs like Jim Ryan or Kenshiro Yoshida they're not finished by long. So not long ago they hired a Director for acquisitions and complex mergers for Playstation division. So every thought, rumor or even maybe leak would be appreciated. Looking forward to exciting discussions with you!

Charts of possible targets and possibility - Credit to Desodeset (ResetEra)

Publishers	Value	Price	Staff	Properties	Regions	Benefits	Negatives	Chance
CD Projekt RED	2.35B USD	3B+ USD	1000	Cyberpunk	Eastern Europe	Premium releases	Known crunch problems	Possible
				The Witcher (video game rights, board games, visual novels and merchandise rights)		WRPG experience	GoG as a DRM Free Store
				Project Hadar		Multimedia success	Cultural problems? (Poland is known as anti-liberal state)
						Huge potential for GaaS Spin-Offs
Pearl Abyss	2.00B USD	3B+ USD	1000	Black Desert Online, Crimson Desert	South Korea	Geographical diversity	Could be blasted by North Korean nuclear bomb.	Possible
				DokeV		MMO Experience
				Plan8		Multiple Upcoming GaaS Titles
				EVE Online
CAPCOM	5.58B USD	7B+ USD	3000	Resident Evil, Devil May Cry, Dragon's Dogma, Pragmata	Japan	Premium Releases	Not aware of any	Very likely
				Monster Hunter, Exoprimal		Appealing for both West and Japan
				Street Fighter		Street Fighter-EVO Synergy
						Different Types of AAA Games (Horror, Action, RPG)
						Large legacy beneficial for PS+ Premium
Square-Enix	5.43B USD	7B+ USD	4000-4500	Final Fantasy	Japan	Most popular AAA JRPGs	Many AA titles that don't fit SIE strategy	Very likely
				Dragon Quest, Kingdom Hearts, Nier, Forspoken		The biggest MMO currently	Not the best management
				Tons of smaller IPs and JRPGs		Big potential on Mobile	Subsidiaries that are hard to intergrade (Taito, Gangan Comics). Could be beneficial for Sony Group.
						Large legacy beneficial for PS+ Premium
Warner Bros Games	2-4B USD	2-4B USD	2000	Lego License	US/UK/CAN	Premium Releases	Licensing issues	Unlikely
				Mortal Kombat		Mortal Kombat-EVO Synergy	Majority of titles are WB Discovery IPs
				Potential DC/Warner Bros Pictures Licenses		E-Rated Games	Not on sale currently?
						Superhero AAA Games
Hi-Rez Studios	1.5B	1.5B	500+	Smite	US	GaaS experience	Not aware of any	Possible
				Paladins		Multiple projects
				Rogue Company		Easier to integrate
						Established console presence
Ubisoft	3.58B	5B	20000	Assassin's Creed	EU	AAA Experience	Huge workforce	Very unlikely
				Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, The Division		Established franchises	Bad management and culture
				Far Cry, Watch Dogs, BG&E		Large catalog beneficial for PS+ Extra and Premium	Lack of originality
				Just Dance, Rayman, Anno		Worldwide presence	Under control by Tencent
Embracer Group	6.47B	9B+	15000	Tomb Raider, Deus Ex, Legacy of Kain, Thief	EU	Huge variety of IPs	Huge Workforce	Unlikely
				Lord of the Rings, Hellboy		Beneficial for PS+	Unproved in AAA development
				Borderlands, Metro 2033, Dead Island, Saints Row		Presence in games/multimedia/comics	A lot of smaller devs/IPs
				Tons of smaller/midsized IPs (mainly from Europe)		Worldwide presence	Risky business
Sega Sammy	3B	4-5B	7500	Yakuza, Persona	Japan	Arms in Japan and the West	A lot of non-gaming activities	Unlikely
				Sonic		Variety of genres	Most of the franchises are not blockbusters.
				Fantasy Star, Virtua Fighter		Large legacy beneficial for PS+ Premium	Many PC oriented devs
				Total War, Company of Heroes, Football Manager		Multimedia presence

Part II of potential M&A targets (Studios) for SIE .

Studios	Value	Price	Staff	Properties	Regions	Benefits	Negatives
Kojima Productions	100-200M	100-200M	150	Not any	Japan	Extremely Effective Team	Build around one person
						Prestige Developer	Too weird for mass audience
						Interests in transmedia projects
						High tech level
Arc System Works	100-200M	100-200M	150	Guilty Gear, BazBlue	Japan	Effective team	"Too anime for PlayStation"
						Specialized in fighting games
						Synergy with EVO
From Software	860M	900M+	350	Sekiro, Tenchu, Armored Core, King's Field, Elden Ring (may be partially?)	Japan	Specialized in RPG Games	Not any
						Unique style
						Prestige Developer
						Effective team
						Blockbuster Developer
Unseen	0-50	0-50	20 - 50	Not any	Japan	Low cost	Start Up Company
						Can produce original and interesting titles	Too weird for mass audience
							High Risk
JP Games	50-100M	50-100M	20 - 50	Not any	Japan	Low cost	Start Up Company
						Can produce AAA JRPGs	Previous Tabata's failures
						Prestige Developer	High Risk
Arrowhead Games	50-100M	50-100M	100	Not any	Sweden	Specialized in Co-Op Games	Not proven in AAA Games
						Established relationship with SIE
Remedy Games	235M	300M+	300	Alan Wake, Control (?)	Finland	Proven in AAA Games	Latest titles are not best sellers
						Good Storytellers	A partnership with Tencent (3.8%) for project Vanguard
						Potential in GaaS	Publishing deals with Epic and 505
People Can Fly	250M	300-400M	500	Painkiller, Bulletstorm, New IP	Poland	Potential in GaaS	Have a little success in latest titles
						Multiple projects	Deals with other publishers (Square Enix currently)
Rebel Wolves	50-100M	50-100M	20 - 50	Not any	Poland	Low cost	Start Up Company
						Huge potential in WRPGs	High Risk
Techland	1.5-2B	1.5-2B	400	Dying Light, New Fantasy IP, Call of Juarez	Poland	Blockbuster Proven	Might have problems with crunch culture
						Experience in Action RPGs
Lucid Games	0-50	0-50	150	Not any	UK	Good Support Studio	Not proven in AAA Games
						Established relationship with SIE
Ballistic Moon	0-50	0-50	50 - 100	Not any	UK	Low cost	Not proven in AAA Games
						Already has relationship with SIE	Start Up Company
						Could produce unique horror games	High Risk
IO Interactive	100-200M	100-200M	300	Hitman, James Bond License	Denmark	Proven in AAA Games	Already making a game for Xbox (MS might be preferred buyer)
						Unique style	Unknown status of Hitman IP
						Effective team
Asobo	100-200M	100-200M	200	Plague's Tale	France	High tech level	Already making a game or two for Xbox (MS might be preferred buyer)
						Proven in Third Person Storytelling Games	Publishing deal with Focus Home
Larian Studios	100-200M	100-200M	300	Divinity	Belgium	WRPG Experience	Tencent has 30% Stake
						Unique style	May not fit SIE Strategy
Jetpack Interactive	0-50	0-50	50	Not any	US	Good Support Studio	Too small to be acquired. Better to be a partner
						Established relationship with SIE
Ember Lab	0-50	0-50	50	Kena	US	Unique animated experience	Might have problems with management
						Fitting SIE Style of games
						Established relationship with SIE
Firewalk Studios	100-200M	100-200M	100 - 150	Not any	US	Low cost	Start Up Company
						Big Potential in GaaS	High Risk
						Team of experienced devs
Deviation Games	100-200M	100-200M	100 - 150	Not any	US	Low cost	Start Up Company
						Big Potential in GaaS	High Risk
						Team of experienced devs
Humanoid	100-200M	100-200M	20 - 50	Not any	Canada	Low cost	Start Up Company
						Huge potential in WRPGs	High Risk
						Team of experienced devs

I’d trow sega in the garbage. IO, hirez, people can fly are mid asf

 

[historia]

I’d trow sega in the garbage. IO, hirez, people can fly are mid asf

CBU I, CBU II, CBU III, CBU IV, Fromsoft sound cooler.

 

[DForce]

Yes. EA, Take 2 or Bandai Namco are way bigger than Square, Capcom or Ubisoft and they are way smaller than ABK so they would be easier to acquire (if MS or Sony wants to acquire and their shareholders want to sell) regarding having issues with regulators due to their size and impact in the market.

As happened with acquisitions of Bungie, Bethesda or Activision Blizzard King, the acquisition of any big publisher would need to be approved by the regulators. As of now, only ABK caused some issues with regulators because even if they are a very small portion of the market, they are the biggest 3rd party in consoles.

The problem is who buys them: MS had issues with market regulators even if MS has a 20% market share in some players. Imagine what would have happened if it would have been Sony, the ones with 80% market share there, the ones trying to buy.


They can use that because it's true.

They are in the last position of the console race and their main competitor Sony heavily dominates them, specially in top markets like EU and Asia by a huge distance.

ABK, even if the top 3rd party publisher in consoles, only represents a tiny gaming market share, even in console or in PlayStation.

So MS acquiring ABK would change things much, it only would help MS to get closer to Sony but still behind, and without basically hurting PS's market at all, because it's so big that even if they'd remove ABK from there -CoD will continue for at least 10 years- wouldn't be almost noticiable.


MS tried and failed to acquire several publishers and developers in the recent years. It may also been the case of Sony, as en example with Kojipro, Ready at Dawn, Quantic Dream or Supermassive. Maybe Sony wanted to buy them and maybe they didn't want to sell, or at least not to Sony because wanted to remain multiplatform or wanted to sell to the highest bidder and wasn't Sony. Same goes with MS.

Sony is perfectly fine as they are, they can afford to continue doing their current strategy which is smarter than just to buy a bunch of known brands:

Growing all their internal dev teams to allow them make more games. Acquiring support studios to rely less on external outsourcing, acquiring PC porting teams to don't need to waste main dev team resources on ports, licensing these IPs to movies, tv shows, theme park rides and soon mobile games too. Sony also has been spending more than ever in 2nd party and 3rd party exclusivity deals.

In the last 4 years acquired studios like Insomniac, Bungie, Bluepoint or Housemarque, plus new studios with the key talent from Bungie, Liverpool Studio, Evolution or the top Ubisoft games. Invested more than ever in VR, revamped their game sub and in terms of 1st party lineup they're expanding in shooters/MP/GaaS while also growing in their traditional game types. They are developing more games than ever, being around half of them new IPs.

Once they solved the chips issue in a few months PS5 will be back to be the fastest selling console in gaming history. More than doubling the userbase of their direct competitors while also having record numbers in engagement and also in game subs and accesories sales.

Sony is doing great and will continue doing great, in fact better than before because they have been investing to grow in all areas so they will grow in userbase, revenue and profit. And pretty likely, as they estimate, in market share too. Even if MS acquires ABK and specially considering they'll keep CoD on PS (which only affects under 8% of their PS revenue and userbase, a percentage that after some time will be smaller) at least for 10 years.

Like MS, Sony will continue growing and making acquisitions, but the ones that make sense and when it makes sense. Sony doesn't need to make big acquisitions and pretty likely wouldn't be allowed to make big console publisher acquisitions because they already are too dominant in that market.

EU accepted Microsoft's remedies as they were giving 10 year deals for cloud gaming.

FTC knew the console concerns, but couldn't get passed the government officials.

CMA dropped their console concerns but blocked them based on the cloud. Now we have to wait and see what this restructured deal looks like.

CMA was originally concerned because they had a large market share over the cloud market and they wanted it to grow, now that seems to have been dropped.

What helped this get deal passed for Sony is that Bungie remained independent. As the market leader, Sony may be more willing to make structural remedies compared to Microsoft since they're trying to gain ground on Sony.

So there are many avenues that make things different when Sony goes out and try to acquire one publisher. Bandai is huge, but that's primarily because they're big outside of the gaming division.

While acquiring up and coming studios such as Haven, they're still unproven studios.

If they somehow acquired Capcom, they would have established franchises such as Street Fighter, Devil May Cry, Resident Evil, and More. This will also allow Sony's other studios to use their IPs to make games (such as Bluepoint).

Konami is another example. They have strong IPs, but they also make products outside of the gaming division. Sony already hs a good relationship with Square and Capcom and it wouldn't hurt to acquire them if they opportunity was there.

 

[Yurinka]

What helped this get deal passed for Sony is that Bungie remained independent.

Bungie isn't independent, it's a 100% owned SIE subsidiary that won't be under PS Studios and will continue using their label as full multiplatform publisher.

But will be under SIE, reporting to Jimbo and collaborating and coordinated with SIE publishing and PS Studios, specially for GaaS.

Regulators didn't care about Bungie because will continue full multiplatform and it's tiny compared to the market size, it's many, many times smaller than ABK.

While acquiring up and coming studios such as Haven, they're still unproven studios.

They are not unproved, there's a ton of key people there who worked in many top tier AAA games, including multiple record breaking new IPs and top performing GaaS.

This will also allow Sony's other studios to use their IPs to make games (such as Bluepoint).

After remaking Demon's Souls, Bluepoint worked as support team in GoW Ragnarok and after it seems to be working in another game as support studio while starting to build a proper game design team, which they never had and it's needed to develop their own game as lead studio.

Konami is another example. They have strong IPs, but they also make products outside of the gaming division. Sony already hs a good relationship with Square and Capcom and it wouldn't hurt to acquire them if they opportunity was there.

Bungie, Firewalk and Haven staff worked in gaming history sales record breaking new IPs as Assassin's Creed, Watchdogs, The Division or Destiny. Konami, Capcom and Square not. They also worked on top performing GaaS such as Destiny, Rainbow Six Siege or more Ubi GaaS stuff, while Konami, Capcom or Square Enix only have Final Fantasy XIV as top performing console/PC GaaS.

Also, Konami doesn't have enough inhouse devs to work in AAA games outside their football game and maybe some remaster or remake. Konami, Square and Capcom are in a great finantial position, their best in over a decade. I love some of their IPs, Capcom is my favorite company ever but they won't want to sell.

On top of that, these and many other Japanese publishers, like Sega or Kadokawa, have other business where Sony isn't interested and could be an issue to get rid of them, or would prevent Sony to get these companies because they don't want to enter these other business areas.

 

[Crow]

I don't really care if PC or Trumpbox lose access to their titles at this point, so would love Sony to acquire Take 2, Larian, CDPR, Capcom, From software, and Square Enix. Sony needs to start leveraging their multimedia capability, and these companies' storied IPs and talents would be a perfect fit.

CDPR is a hard no. They said their not selling a month ago, when the rumor that Sony was buying them started. Besides CDPR and Larian are mainly pc studios, publishers. Xbox makes more sense for them. Sony will likely get a Japanese publisher or studio.

 

[Crow]

EU accepted Microsoft's remedies as they were giving 10 year deals for cloud gaming.

FTC knew the console concerns, but couldn't get passed the government officials.

CMA dropped their console concerns but blocked them based on the cloud. Now we have to wait and see what this restructured deal looks like.

CMA was originally concerned because they had a large market share over the cloud market and they wanted it to grow, now that seems to have been dropped.

What helped this get deal passed for Sony is that Bungie remained independent. As the market leader, Sony may be more willing to make structural remedies compared to Microsoft since they're trying to gain ground on Sony.

So there are many avenues that make things different when Sony goes out and try to acquire one publisher. Bandai is huge, but that's primarily because they're big outside of the gaming division.

While acquiring up and coming studios such as Haven, they're still unproven studios.

If they somehow acquired Capcom, they would have established franchises such as Street Fighter, Devil May Cry, Resident Evil, and More. This will also allow Sony's other studios to use their IPs to make games (such as Bluepoint).

Konami is another example. They have strong IPs, but they also make products outside of the gaming division. Sony already hs a good relationship with Square and Capcom and it wouldn't hurt to acquire them if they opportunity was there.

SE is probably the one they will buy since their already in bed with them. Thats only if SE wants to sell. Their probably content with the partnership, Same with Sega and Xbox.

 

[Cool hand luke]

CDPR is a hard no. They said their not selling a month ago, when the rumor that Sony was buying them started. Besides CDPR and Larian are mainly pc studios, publishers. Xbox makes more sense for them. Sony will likely get a Japanese publisher or studio.

It doesn't matter if Xbox makes more sense for them. I want them taken off the board, they have valuable IPs and/or talented RPG teams.

Square Enix made more sense for Sony, and so did ABK, but one was on Microsoft's hit list and the other looks to be successfully acquired (which is insane, but that's what corruption and perversion of organs of state gets you).

 

[DForce]

Bungie isn't independent, it's a 100% owned SIE subsidiary that won't be under PS Studios and will continue using their label as full multiplatform publisher.

But will be under SIE, reporting to Jimbo and collaborating and coordinated with SIE publishing and PS Studios, specially for GaaS.

Regulators didn't care about Bungie because will continue full multiplatform and it's tiny compared to the market size, it's many, many times smaller than ABK.

They're independent under Sony. That was already established. They will publish their own games. They will continue to release games on multiple consoles and that's easier to acquire when you're going to make all games exclusive.

They are not unproved, there's a ton of key people there who worked in many top tier AAA games, including multiple record breaking new IPs and top performing GaaS.

The brand new studios haven't made a game. They have to prove they can make a successful game.

After remaking Demon's Souls, Bluepoint worked as support team in GoW Ragnarok and after it seems to be working in another game as support studio while starting to build a proper game design team, which they never had and it's needed to develop their own game as lead studio.

That doesn't mean they cannot remake another game. They're eventually going to grow in size, and if they have established IPs (example Dino Crisis) it would be easier to get off the floor if Capcom is owned by Sony. A lot of Capcom's games are not done in house, they're outsourced.

Bungie, Firewalk and Haven staff worked in gaming history sales record breaking new IPs as Assassin's Creed, Watchdogs, The Division or Destiny. Konami, Capcom and Square not. They also worked on top performing GaaS such as Destiny, Rainbow Six Siege or more Ubi GaaS stuff, while Konami, Capcom or Square Enix only have Final Fantasy XIV as top performing console/PC GaaS.

Just because they're veterans in the industry, that doesn't mean the game is going to be successful. They will have experience, but they still need to prove themselves.

Also, Konami doesn't have enough inhouse devs to work in AAA games outside their football game and maybe some remaster or remake. Konami, Square and Capcom are in a great finantial position, their best in over a decade. I love some of their IPs, Capcom is my favorite company ever but they won't want to sell.

I didn't say they would acquire Konami, I used both Konami and Bandai as an example. They both are worth a lot money, but that's mostly due to the fact that they make products outside of the gaming division. So if they were to acquire them, it would be totally different situation than acquiring Capcom.

On top of that, these and many other Japanese publishers, like Sega or Kadokawa, have other business where Sony isn't interested and could be an issue to get rid of them, or would prevent Sony to get these companies because they don't want to enter these other business areas.

The point is to acquire these studios before Microsoft buys more, and they're likely going to do it. There are benefits to owning Bandai and Capcom. If they were to acquire them, then there's no negative impact.

 

[Yurinka]

They're independent under Sony. That was already established. They will publish their own games. They will continue to release games on multiple consoles and that's easier to acquire when you're going to make all games exclusive.

They will publish their games multiplatform under the Bungie label, but they are a SIE subsidiary that reports to Jim Ryan, follows the SIE strategy and guidelines, they have been integrated inside the SIE structure, their costs, revenue and profits are reported as part as the SIE ones, they joined the SIE publishing and PS Studios to take part on the team that reviews all the SIE GaaS projects (including the Bungie ones) and support the other Sony GaaS.

They are a 100% owned SIE subsidiary, they are not independent at all.

The brand new studios haven't made a game. They have to prove they can make a successful game.

Just because they're veterans in the industry, that doesn't mean the game is going to be successful. They will have experience, but they still need to prove themselves.

In this case MS is stupid for paying 70B for ABK because being veterans in the industry doesn't mean their next games are going to be successful. They will have experience, but they still need to prove themselves.

That doesn't mean they cannot remake another game. They're eventually going to grow in size, and if they have established IPs (example Dino Crisis) it would be easier to get off the floor if Capcom is owned by Sony. A lot of Capcom's games are not done in house, they're outsourced.

The Bluepoint boss said when they were acquired that they moved away from remakes to go back to evolve the studio and work in original games, which is where all the team members did work before joining Bluepoint.

Capcom games, like Sony, Ubisoft, MS games and most AAA games are developed having a lead studio in Capcom/Sony/Ubisoft/etc. plus several support studios. Some of these support teams are internal, other ones are outsourced.

I didn't say they would acquire Konami, I used both Konami and Bandai as an example. They both are worth a lot money, but that's mostly due to the fact that they make products outside of the gaming division. So if they were to acquire them, it would be totally different situation than acquiring Capcom.

As game publisher, Bandai Namco is one of the top grossing game publishers in the world. They are the top grossing Japanese 3rd party publisher, only Sony and Nintendo are above them regarding Japanese companies.

Konami has a lower profile in console and PC, but in mobile they are huge.

The point is to acquire these studios before Microsoft buys more, and they're likely going to do it. There are benefits to owning Bandai and Capcom. If they were to acquire them, then there's no negative impact.

MS and Sony said they will continue acquiring (but in the case of Sony, not in the short term). But in the case of Sony isn't likely that they'd acquire big publishers, pretty likely because most of them won't want to sell or at least not to a platform holder.

Bandai or Capcom would be great acquisitions but for them would be better to continue independent and multiplatform.

 

[DForce]

They will publish their games multiplatform under the Bungie label, but they are a SIE subsidiary that reports to Jim Ryan, follows the SIE strategy and guidelines, they have been integrated inside the SIE structure, their costs, revenue and profits are reported as part as the SIE ones, they joined the SIE publishing and PS Studios to take part on the team that reviews all the SIE GaaS projects (including the Bungie ones) and support the other Sony GaaS.

They are a 100% owned SIE subsidiary, they are not independent at all.

I'm aware they're under Sony. I have stated this before.

"This acquisition will give SIE access to Bungie's world-class approach to live game services and technology expertise, furthering SIE's vision to reach billions of players. Bungie will continue to operate independently, maintaining the ability to self-publish and reach players wherever they choose to play," reads a new 6-K SEC filing from Sony.

This is not like their other studios. You're going to work independently under Sony. This means Sony has far less control and this was likely the agreement that was put in place when Sony acquired them after being tied down with Microsoft and Activision.

In this case MS is stupid for paying 70B for ABK because being veterans in the industry doesn't mean their next games are going to be successful. They will have experience, but they still need to prove themselves.

No, you're comparing two different things. If/when this deal is completed, Microsoft will have the rights to Call of Duty. It's an established franchise that's popular around the world.

If a few developers from that franchise decided to start their own studio, then they would have to create a new IP from the ground up. Just because they're veterans, that doesn't mean they're going to create a successful new IP. Everything about the game could be awful, but it could fail to reach players.

The Bluepoint boss said when they were acquired that they moved away from remakes to go back to evolve the studio and work in original games, which is where all the team members did work before joining Bluepoint.

You have to realize that I'm giving hypothetical scenarios of remaking a game or making a completely new one based off of existing IPs. Acquiring the likes of Capcom would give Sony a lot of well-known IPs and that's the point.

Capcom games, like Sony, Ubisoft, MS games and most AAA games are developed having a lead studio in Capcom/Sony/Ubisoft/etc. plus several support studios. Some of these support teams are internal, other ones are outsourced.

Dimps developed Street Fighter 4 and 5, which were also assisted by Capcom. But they are not a first-party studio. You also have Asura's Wrath, Resident Evil 3 Remake (Mainly developed by a separate studio). But the point still remains. Capcom doesn't have to develop these games, they can be outsourced.

As game publisher, Bandai Namco is one of the top grossing game publishers in the world. They are the top grossing Japanese 3rd party publisher, only Sony and Nintendo are above them regarding Japanese companies.

Konami has a lower profile in console and PC, but in mobile they are huge.

Bandai publishes a lot of games that are not made by their internal studios. Elden Ring

MS and Sony said they will continue acquiring (but in the case of Sony, not in the short term). But in the case of Sony isn't likely that they'd acquire big publishers, pretty likely because most of them won't want to sell or at least not to a platform holder.

Bandai or Capcom would be great acquisitions but for them would be better to continue independent and multiplatform.

You're missing the point of this conversation. We're saying what Sony SHOULD do, but that doesn't mean they're going to do it. The they continue to be relaxed while other studios are bought up, then they could be making a mistake.

 

[Muddasar]

I'm aware they're under Sony. I have stated this before.

This is not like their other studios. You're going to work independently under Sony. This means Sony has far less control and this was likely the agreement that was put in place when Sony acquired them after being tied down with Microsoft and Activision.

They operate independently at Sony’s discretion.

Not Bungies demand.

When you sell your company 100% you are no longer in a position to call the shots or make demands.

Sony has total control because they totally own Bungie.

If Bungie were so fed up of being tied down by Microsoft and Activision the last thing you do is sell yourself to the highest bidder.

It’s no different to how Marvel and Lucasfilms operate under Disney.