Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13

Furthermore, if these publishers can't operate profitably on their own, what enables them to operate effectively under the umbrella of a platform holder? It used to be that publishers didn't run trillions of studios but published other developers' titles. The problem perhaps is one of all these companies becoming too big. Break them down into smaller 'investment' firms that back developers, with a handful of elite, trustworthy internal studios that can be relied upon to produce profitable titles, and maybe they won't all be keeling over and dying from being unsustainably large?

That would imply that relentless growth as the end-game to all business is not a good idea though...
The platform generates a 30% revenue from all products sold on it's platform, that distributes the wins and losses fairly well. From a selection point of view, platforms are not necessarily looking to belt out hits every single year, as much as they are looking to round out gaps in their libraries, in particular differentiators in their content library is the biggest draw to attracting those to their console. See Sony and Nintendo.

With ABK it needs to release COD every single year, to meet profit goals, it's ability to take on risk is significantly less. The issue with ABK is that all their eggs are largely into a single basket, and if that egg is done, a large risk as annual releases are susceptible to buyer burnout, then they have no where to pivot before drastic measures are required. We have a recent trend of remaking older popular IPs, we're actually seeing it across the board. The market with money 30-50s, are basically still being catered in all forms of media, from movies, TV, to games.

Now that COD has just remade their peak IPs, where do they realistically go from here? (Thus I still scoff at this idea that COD, or any game for that matter, can be considered a critical input to the success of any platform, the idea of a must have system seller left with the x360/ps3 days as far as I can see)

The challenge for publishers today is that they take 3-4 years to develop these titles and spend hundreds of millions to do it. And if it flops, they don't recover much revenue, and then they have to rinse and repeat again another 3-4 years before they have another chance to turn a profit while spending hundreds of millions to do it, that is 8 years of burning through cash with no incoming revenue. On a side note, I suspect this is a large reason why game studios are more than happy to put their games on Game Pass, or PS+ or Live, or streaming services, they still require revenue after the bulk of the front loaded sales are done. Back on topic, if the second title doesn't make up the loss for the first title, you're in a weird situation where you've technically not recovered, and if you're in a spiral of decreasing profits, then the situation is looking tough. You can risk to make a new IP, but new IPs can quick FLOP in this environment, especially as a third party. Platform holder exclusives are usually provided significant coverage and a population to play them because exclusives are the reason you choose 1 platform over the other.

So I don't think I covered it all, nor do I think I covered it well. But these are some reasons I think we're seeing a recent change in the business models in the 3rd party space, falling back into content creation games. Falling back to AA sized games. Smaller shorter titles. Smaller more linear titles. Live games, or GAAS. Battlepasses and MTX riddled titles. We're seeing a fall off of custom engines. The rise of the indie scene. The rise of free 2 play. There is an all new generation of gamers that grew up with Minecraft and they have a very different opinion of what gaming is compared to what we grew up with - how games change with them is an interesting thing to discuss. What happens when you get older but grew up playing Minecraft. What type of game fits that itch but looks graphically superior and is adult themed. I dunno, but I'm curious to find out. No Mans Sky maybe, stuff like that, shrug.

The Boom/Bust environment was never sustainable to begin with. We probably lost a lot of studios to an archaic model before these new models were introduced. In the golden age of PC gaming, we had a lot of one hit wonders, if you know what I mean. Just absolute classic and amazing titles that never found a sequel because the studio died shortly after.

As much as I see our graphics take a step forward, in a very saturated game market, for the whole industry imo to be lifted and be profitable, the player base needs to expand significantly larger than it is today. The need to move AAA games to mobile is the next obvious step. Instead of studios and publishers and platforms fighting over the size of the slice of the pie, it's time to increase the size of the pie.
 
Last edited:
trustworthy internal studios that can be relied upon to produce profitable titles
That would imply that relentless growth as the end-game to all business is not a good idea though...

I doubt you can guarantee a profitable title unless there is zero expense in making the game.
Also profit is not just profit, it needs to be big enough profit vs risk compared to other investment opportunities.

If I get 5% interest for just stuffing my cash in the bank at zero risk, why would I gamble it all for 5% ROI? The ROI needs to be in correlation to the risk and that points back at the guaranteed profit bit again.
 
I doubt you can guarantee a profitable title unless there is zero expense in making the game.
In princicple, yes, but there are studios of pedigree that turn out successes regularly, with few failures. eg. Naughty Dog, or EA Sports whatever. It makes sense (to me!) for publishers to want a core that's fairly dependable income and then 'gamble' on the outside investments. Swallowing up many studios all with high risk of failure means potentially taking on a few years of high costs with little returns, enough to send you under.
 
In princicple, yes, but there are studios of pedigree that turn out successes regularly, with few failures. eg. Naughty Dog, or EA Sports whatever. It makes sense (to me!) for publishers to want a core that's fairly dependable income and then 'gamble' on the outside investments. Swallowing up many studios all with high risk of failure means potentially taking on a few years of high costs with little returns, enough to send you under.
You would expect at some point a trimming of the studios essentially, owning the IPs, releasing fewer titles, decreasing costs and focusing more resources on titles that will be more likely succeed.
I wonder how MS is planning to sustain so many studios, assuming they have troubles
 
Last edited:
The platform generates a 30% revenue from all products sold on it's platform, that distributes the wins and losses fairly well. From a selection point of view, platforms are not necessarily looking to belt out hits every single year, as much as they are looking to round out gaps in their libraries, in particular differentiators in their content library is the biggest draw to attracting those to their console. See Sony and Nintendo.

With ABK it needs to release COD every single year, to meet profit goals, it's ability to take on risk is significantly less. The issue with ABK is that all their eggs are largely into a single basket, and if that egg is done, a large risk as annual releases are susceptible to buyer burnout, then they have no where to pivot before drastic measures are required. We have a recent trend of remaking older popular IPs, we're actually seeing it across the board. The market with money 30-50s, are basically still being catered in all forms of media, from movies, TV, to games.

Now that COD has just remade their peak IPs, where do they realistically go from here? (Thus I still scoff at this idea that COD, or any game for that matter, can be considered a critical input to the success of any platform, the idea of a must have system seller left with the x360/ps3 days as far as I can see)

The challenge for publishers today is that they take 3-4 years to develop these titles and spend hundreds of millions to do it. And if it flops, they don't recover much revenue, and then they have to rinse and repeat again another 3-4 years before they have another chance to turn a profit while spending hundreds of millions to do it, that is 8 years of burning through cash with no incoming revenue. On a side note, I suspect this is a large reason why game studios are more than happy to put their games on Game Pass, or PS+ or Live, or streaming services, they still require revenue after the bulk of the front loaded sales are done. Back on topic, if the second title doesn't make up the loss for the first title, you're in a weird situation where you've technically not recovered, and if you're in a spiral of decreasing profits, then the situation is looking tough. You can risk to make a new IP, but new IPs can quick FLOP in this environment, especially as a third party. Platform holder exclusives are usually provided significant coverage and a population to play them because exclusives are the reason you choose 1 platform over the other.

So I don't think I covered it all, nor do I think I covered it well. But these are some reasons I think we're seeing a recent change in the business models in the 3rd party space, falling back into content creation games. Falling back to AA sized games. Smaller shorter titles. Smaller more linear titles. Live games, or GAAS. Battlepasses and MTX riddled titles. We're seeing a fall off of custom engines. The rise of the indie scene. The rise of free 2 play. There is an all new generation of gamers that grew up with Minecraft and they have a very different opinion of what gaming is compared to what we grew up with - how games change with them is an interesting thing to discuss. What happens when you get older but grew up playing Minecraft. What type of game fits that itch but looks graphically superior and is adult themed. I dunno, but I'm curious to find out. No Mans Sky maybe, stuff like that, shrug.

The Boom/Bust environment was never sustainable to begin with. We probably lost a lot of studios to an archaic model before these new models were introduced. In the golden age of PC gaming, we had a lot of one hit wonders, if you know what I mean. Just absolute classic and amazing titles that never found a sequel because the studio died shortly after.

As much as I see our graphics take a step forward, in a very saturated game market, for the whole industry imo to be lifted and be profitable, the player base needs to expand significantly larger than it is today. The need to move AAA games to mobile is the next obvious step. Instead of studios and publishers and platforms fighting over the size of the slice of the pie, it's time to increase the size of the pie.

Big studios should all start pulling a Double Fine and give themselves a couple months to develop multiple small projects between big ones to strech their legs and test out new ideas. It would give them a fresh perspective.
 
Imo the narrative is clear why Sony wants to block at all costs.
1. Sony is the current market leader as long as the pie does not expand, they are given all the marketing deals and advantages to continue to hold that lead

2. If MS is successful in capturing important IPs and moving them to cloud successful the pie expands significantly. Up to 2B total addressable market, if you manage 10% of cloud you’ve already blown by Sony and now that provider is the overall industry leader and the advantages that come with that (lead platform, better marketing deals etc)

3. Sony is behind on cloud infrastructure, they know it’s coming, but they are not where they want to be in cloud, so delay at all costs, better if the transition never happens.

4. Cloud does not have the hardware barriers that consoles do, nor does Sony hold a significant advantage in their procurement and logistics that other game companies struggle at. It would likely be the opposite, procurement and logistics are heavily in the favour of cloud providers who have access to data centres everywhere.

5. MS is comfortable with signing all these deals, because their aim ultimately is yo accelerate the move to cloud. Sonys ultimate aim is to keep cloud from ever succeeding.
 
I mean, I sort of get it. They aren't done dealing and they don't want those deals to go public. They don't want people to see what Sony is being offered as opposed to Nvidia and so forth. They also don't want their competitors to gain clues on how MS is attempting to monetize ABK.
I suspect they just need to focus on getting pass EU and CMA.
I don't think they care about going to court with FTC.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top