Sony Game Studios Acquisitions [2022]

[ChuckeRearmed]

Let's say you currently have 10 million COD players on PlayStation and COD costs 60 USD to buy. Further MS only gets 70% of this due to Sony taking 30% Currently those 10 million COD players are bringing in 420 million USD (60 * 10 * .7 * million)

You forget that people who play COD on Playstation also buy into Playstation ecosystem with PS+ and so on, which brings additional revenue to Playstation.

From a purely revenue generating standpoint and profit margin standpoint it makes far more sense to leave COD on PlayStation

That's true and that's why third party publishers exist. But however even then EA games do not appear in Ubisoft launcher and vice versa. I mean, even Battle Net titles do not appear in Steam, right? Why is that? Wouldn't they get more revenue just putting everything on Steam?

However, this should at least illustrate that it's not necessarily in Microsoft's best interest from a revenue generation and profit margin perspective to remove COD from PlayStation.

It only applies if Microsoft is instered in pure gaming revenue, rather than selling their own ecosystem (and we know that Microsoft want to sell their ecosystem and not just get money from the third part revenue). After all nobody believes that Microsoft acquired ATVI for 70b in hope that they will get those 70b from Playstation (though, some folks believe in that).

Here is the issue with placing something totally behind a piece of hardware or subscription. How do you expose people to your wares who have never previously played those titles. Hope they have a friend with a sub? Hope YouTube videos convince them to switch hardware or just invest in the sub.

Yeah, that's called marketing.

The motivation to bring GamePass to mobile is because Microsoft no longer have a mobile platform.

That I agree. If Microsoft had their own strong mobile presence they would have something akin Apple Arcade available only in Apple ecosystem.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

To prevent further debates as we are running in circles anyway, I will state my opinion again

Exclusive content is important (we see the proofs of it everywhere - from petty time exclusvies (even DLC exclusivity!) to complete exclusive shows on various streaming platforms), recurring revenue is more important than retail (the proofs are everywhere and EA for example reported that they generate 70% of revenue from MTX rather than retail (and that's FIFA)), revenue from the people in your ecosystem is more important than revenue from those who are not (I mean the laughable but proof is all those launchers on PC lol)

Last point is quite interesting though as it proves again how important is the exclusive content. Stuff like the games on Battle.Net live just fine without releases on Steam for example, while EA returned to Steam (in some form). But Ubisoft for example did not return to Steam (maybe it will happen eventually). We can claim that those third party publishers were stupid, but who knows?

 

[Nesh]

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...4EoD5JIY3ZOaskyJuzEwtit9Rh4r1-XS_q69Twdd6-_wI

I wonder why Sony didnt go for Square Enix. These guys have a lot of popular IPs, merchandises and a MMORPG which I suppose has nothing to be jealous of Bungie's GaaS as a business model.
These guys are seeing incredible numbers from FF14 while WoW users are falling

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...4EoD5JIY3ZOaskyJuzEwtit9Rh4r1-XS_q69Twdd6-_wI

I wonder why Sony didnt go for Square Enix. These guys have a lot of popular IPs, merchandises and a MMORPG which I suppose has nothing to be jealous of Bungie's GaaS as a business model.
These guys are seeing incredible numbers from FF14 while WoW users are falling

• Price. No matter how people believe in the might of Sony, Square Enix will cost at least around 10b (and even if bidding is not involved).
  
• Then you have to deal with all their properties because let's be honest there - Sony is not interested in anything aside Final Fantasy there (and even that is moneyhatted to the core). We can argue that Sony might deal with that like they did with Bungie but I believe Bungie was a huge huge exception.
  
• Then Sony will inherit all Square's assets and issues including the support for Final Fantasy 14 MMO infrastructure and so on
• Then we have some stuff half related to gaming too (though for Sony it is kinda easier with all that anime and manga properties I guess)

The fun thing is that Sony might buy Square Enix if Microsoft grabs Crystal Dynamics and Eidos, which will decrease Square's final price to 7-8 at best. But honestly speaking there is a handful of companies in the world that can throw money at a whole publisher.

 

[Nesh]

Why is infrastructure an issue? Its not like Square Enix will be dismantled and Sony will take over their assets. The infrastructure is operational and Square Enix will continue to operate and maintain them.
I mean...some of your points arent really an issue apart from price.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I wonder why Sony didnt go for Square Enix. These guys have a lot of popular IPs, merchandises and a MMORPG which I suppose has nothing to be jealous of Bungie's GaaS as a business model.

I generally buy things because it's something I need. Some people buy things to deny other people getting it (e.g. vantablack). Maybe Sony neither feel that need/want what Square-Enix have. Maybe they did and it was unsuccessful.

Square-Enix already have their games on Sony's platform so unless Sony want Square-Enix to do something specific for PlayStation - something that they could not persuade them to do with money - buying the whole company may not be a good use of money.

 

[PSman1700]

They went for Bungie because of the live-service/GaaS games that should be due within four years, according to Sony themselfs. Square Enix probably wasnt the best fit for that.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Why is infrastructure an issue? Its not like Square Enix will be dismantled and Sony will take over their assets. The infrastructure is operational and Square Enix will continue to operate and maintain them.
I mean...some of your points arent really an issue apart from price.

Currently Square Enix is relatively disfunctional company that literally kept afload by FF14. Also recently they have have a situation where either their games take forever to be released, or the released games are the cheap cash grabs.

It is like issue with FF14 servers - I remember somebody posted somewhere that they had the same issues since the immemorial and they have never been addressed. Square Enix has always been a cheapskate that only treated Final Fantasy with enough budget.

One big Final Fantasy game flop and they will become FF14 MMO Company.

In general, big publisher acquisition is a huge event that not many companies across the world can afford in general. Small publishers and studios (even if they studio is big) are fine, but big publisher acquisitions? They are relatively rare because you put on your balance sheet another big company.

They went for Bungie because of the live-service/GaaS games that should be due within four years, according to Sony themselfs. Square Enix probably wasnt the best fit for that.

Not to mention, that the only series they are interested in - Final Fantasy - is moneyhatted to the core.

 

[Nesh]

They went for Bungie because of the live-service/GaaS games that should be due within four years, according to Sony themselfs. Square Enix probably wasnt the best fit for that.

How are they not? Doesnt FF14 fall in that service?

Square-Enix already have their games on Sony's platform so unless Sony want Square-Enix to do something specific for PlayStation - something that they could not persuade them to do with money - buying the whole company may not be a good use of money.

Maybe

 

[PSman1700]

How are they not? Doesnt FF14 fall in that service?

They probably want to go where the market is going, shooters. Bungie seems a good contender for that, even though theres probably no-one from the Halo CE days left, theres Destiny now which has potentional i guess.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Square-Enix already have their games on Sony's platform so unless Sony want Square-Enix to do something specific for PlayStation - something that they could not persuade them to do with money - buying the whole company may not be a good use of money.

I am still curious about that 2 year moneyhats from Sony as it is a very unusual timeframe. Though maybe they decided to go longer with them considering that they extended FF7R time exclusivity and allegedly it is not coming at to Xbox (though considering the state in launched on PC...)

 

[Nisaaru]

You are still paying $180, not $60. So $110 more if you are hardcore and only play MLB The Show(which most won't).

I paid 3*55Euro for 3 years Live and changed it to 3 years Game Pass Ultimate for 1Euro. Sure, the deal might change in the future but that is what you can get it now. Even at full price with the games MS has and will add to gamepass it is a good deal for a lot players. Outside of UBI/Bungie/Take2 content there aren't that many multi platform AAA not on gamepass now/soon(activision).

 

[see colon]

You are still paying $180, not $60. So $110 more if you are hardcore and only play MLB The Show(which most won't).

The difference between $10 a month live and $15 a month Gamepass Ultimate is $5, or (12*$5) $60 a year.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

To prevent further debates as we are running in circles anyway, I will state my opinion again

Exclusive content is important (we see the proofs of it everywhere - from petty time exclusvies (even DLC exclusivity!) to complete exclusive shows on various streaming platforms), recurring revenue is more important than retail (the proofs are everywhere and EA for example reported that they generate 70% of revenue from MTX rather than retail (and that's FIFA)), revenue from the people in your ecosystem is more important than revenue from those who are not (I mean the laughable but proof is all those launchers on PC lol)

Last point is quite interesting though as it proves again how important is the exclusive content. Stuff like the games on Battle.Net live just fine without releases on Steam for example, while EA returned to Steam (in some form). But Ubisoft for example did not return to Steam (maybe it will happen eventually). We can claim that those third party publishers were stupid, but who knows?

The revenue is revenue. As the saying goes, money has no provenance. Microsoft is a software company that only reluctantly makes hardware. The only reason Xbox exists is to have a foothold in the living room, if they can accomplish that in another way they would prefer to do it that way rather than have to make hardware for it. The only reason Surface devices exist is that no OEM at the time Surface was created was creating premium devices that could compete with the quality of hardware that Apple was releasing.

Launchers on PC are not proof of revenue in your ecosystem being more important than actually generating a lot of revenue. The proof? All of those publishers with launchers selling their games on Steam and EGS ... which includes, BTW, Microsoft. Why do they do this? Well, it's easy, it generates far more revenue than locking it to your own small storefront in your launcher.

That's the same reason why Sony doesn't sell the PC version of PlayStation games in the Sony or PlayStation storefront even though that exists on PC. They know that they'll generate FAR more revenue by selling those games on Steam and EGS than they would if they sold it through their own storefront/launcher.

Regards,
SB

 

[Jupiter]

I feel like you’re placing way too much importance on the novelty of creating ground up studios and IPs.

If Disney did not buy Marvel and and lay out a huge timeline to lead up to the end of avengers then no one would have ever experienced the greatness that only comic book goers did. And comic books were dying. The movies were running stale because the same movies would be rehashed repeatedly.
They needed someone with much more vision and experience to make the IP what everyone wanted.


that is the power of IP buying and plenty of people are happy with what Disney accomplished.

The accumulation of IPs is more important today than ever before. Now they even go so far as to mix different IPs like in Fortnite. The current comic films are almost all rather very bad and similar. You can't even recognise a signature of directors. They are completely interchangable. With these superhero movies Sony, Disney etc. produce patent aesthetics where only the characters play a role and the rest around them doesn't matter. There's just some rubbish thrown together. It's all about making something with the brand. Quality doesn't matter. Unfortunately there are thousands more Marvel superheroes they can rattle off. In a few years no one will be talking about the the superhero films of today.

Disney may have upvalued the brand but the products are still horrible.

Nolan's Batman was good but that has nothing to do with Disney. The Dark Knight Rises is better and and artistically more valuable than all of Disney's comic book films combined.

 

[mrcorbo]

To prevent further debates as we are running in circles anyway, I will state my opinion again

Exclusive content is important (we see the proofs of it everywhere - from petty time exclusvies (even DLC exclusivity!) to complete exclusive shows on various streaming platforms), recurring revenue is more important than retail (the proofs are everywhere and EA for example reported that they generate 70% of revenue from MTX rather than retail (and that's FIFA)), revenue from the people in your ecosystem is more important than revenue from those who are not (I mean the laughable but proof is all those launchers on PC lol)

Last point is quite interesting though as it proves again how important is the exclusive content. Stuff like the games on Battle.Net live just fine without releases on Steam for example, while EA returned to Steam (in some form). But Ubisoft for example did not return to Steam (maybe it will happen eventually). We can claim that those third party publishers were stupid, but who knows?

And my opinion is that exclusives are important. I further state, though, that there may be specific pieces of content where making it exclusive is not as valuable as a making it widely available and maximizing the revenue and impact that content can have in the market. Making COD XBox/PC exclusive, for example, diminishes that property to a large degree. In cases like this I don't think it is a safe assumption that if platform holders continue to spend massive amounts of money to acquire more and more of this tier of content that all of that content is destined to become platform exclusive. Now, if that platform holder increases their market share enough the economic or strategic factors may change. With the market as it is now, though, you're leaving a lot of money (and mindshare for the IP) on the table by abandoning a significant portion of the market and you can still get people to support your platform over others simply by making your platform the preferred place to play instead of the only place to play these titles.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Making COD XBox/PC exclusive, for example, diminishes that property to a large degree

COD stopping being annual also diminishes the property. But so what? The most money comes from Warzone anyway, so mainline COD not coming to Playstation is not a big deal at all. And since when people started to care about diminishing the property? (certainly not when FF and SF became Playstation exclusives....Oh, right! They sell more on Playstation anyway lol)

Not to mention Sony was incredibly lucky (though it was smart) to get even Warzone 2, so Playstation community will not lose much.

Now, if that platform holder increases their market share enough the economic or strategic factors may change

And that's what exclusives do - increase market share. COD being exclusive will increase market share more than any commercial about there it costs 70$ and here 15$ argument.

Xbox platform right now should be treated as Disney+, except it is bigger and have more points of entry (not to mention more revenue streams). Does anybody ask if Pixar movie is coming to Netflix? Me neither.

In a few years no one will be talking about the the superhero films of today.

Who knows? This superhero characters existed for a long time and gained and lost popularity in various types of media.

The revenue is revenue. As the saying goes, money has no provenance.

Except it does. Otherwise other companies would not try to have their own launchers. The only problem was that they did not have enough content to attract more customers because just like with console marketshare - for most of the people on PC, the default platform is Steam.

ll of those publishers with launchers selling their games on Steam and EGS

A lot of them (not sure which launchers are retired though) returned to Steam because they failed to build the customer. But the fact they went to their own launchers is a proof that they value in their own launcher is bigger than 70% they get from third party launcher. EGS is trying to do that, they certainly could go to Steam and do not bother with their own launcher.

Steam is just incredibly big so you can't just ignore it on PC (unless you are Square Enix and make buggy ports anyway), though I don't remember seeing Blizzard games there.

That's the same reason why Sony doesn't sell the PC version of PlayStation games in the Sony or PlayStation storefront even though that exists on PC. They know that they'll generate FAR more revenue by selling those games on Steam and EGS than they would if they sold it through their own storefront/launcher.

Not yet to be honest. On a long enough timeline, I expect more launchers on PC that will eat away Steam revenue. Though first they need to make them good lol. But if Microsoft builds a new launcher using Battle Net as a basis, it could be really good as relying on Windows team it seems to be detrimental in that regard.

 

[Shortbread]

The revenue is revenue. As the saying goes, money has no provenance. Microsoft is a software company that only reluctantly makes hardware. The only reason Xbox exists is to have a foothold in the living room, if they can accomplish that in another way they would prefer to do it that way rather than have to make hardware for it. The only reason Surface devices exist is that no OEM at the time Surface was created was creating premium devices that could compete with the quality of hardware that Apple was releasing.

Launchers on PC are not proof of revenue in your ecosystem being more important than actually generating a lot of revenue. The proof? All of those publishers with launchers selling their games on Steam and EGS ... which includes, BTW, Microsoft. Why do they do this? Well, it's easy, it generates far more revenue than locking it to your own small storefront in your launcher.

That's the same reason why Sony doesn't sell the PC version of PlayStation games in the Sony or PlayStation storefront even though that exists on PC. They know that they'll generate FAR more revenue by selling those games on Steam and EGS than they would if they sold it through their own storefront/launcher.

Regards,
SB

Neither of these are exactly true. Microsoft knows it's a necessity to create hardware that fits it vision and ecosystem(s) of software and services. No different than Sony, Nintendo, Apple, or any other major company wanting access to consumers time and money.

As for Surface being the only quality product to compete against Apple is bologna. Samsung's Galaxy Tab line started making headlines back in 2010-2011 on how good android tablets 'could be' in the hands of a capable manufacture. The main reason wasn't Apple, it was that android OS based tablets (especially from Samsung) started rapidly taking over the mobile device space, something Microsoft would have found more of a threat than Apple's iOS.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Neither of these are exactly true. Microsoft knows it's a necessity to create hardware that fits it vision and ecosystem(s) of software and services. No different than Sony, Nintendo, Apple, or any other major company wanting access to consumers time and money.

As for Surface being the only quality product to compete against Apple is bologna. Samsung's Galaxy Tab line started making headlines back in 2010-2011 on how good android tablets 'could be' in the hands of a capable manufacture. The main reason wasn't Apple, it was that android OS based tablets (especially from Samsung) started rapidly taking over the mobile device space, something Microsoft would have found more of a threat than Apple's iOS.

Android is not Windows. And while the Samsung Galaxy Tab line had good hardware, I don't agree that the quality was up to Apple levels back in 2010-2011. Their hardware quality has gotten better since then, at least for their halo products. The quality for non-Halo Samsung tablets are a bit questionable, however.

Regards,
SB

 

[iroboto]

The accumulation of IPs is more important today than ever before. Now they even go so far as to mix different IPs like in Fortnite. The current comic films are almost all rather very bad and similar. You can't even recognise a signature of directors. They are completely interchangable. With these superhero movies Sony, Disney etc. produce patent aesthetics where only the characters play a role and the rest around them doesn't matter. There's just some rubbish thrown together. It's all about making something with the brand. Quality doesn't matter. Unfortunately there are thousands more Marvel superheroes they can rattle off. In a few years no one will be talking about the the superhero films of today.

Disney may have upvalued the brand but the products are still horrible.

Nolan's Batman was good but that has nothing to do with Disney. The Dark Knight Rises is better and and artistically more valuable than all of Disney's comic book films combined.

Great post. I do feel this way. I think People are burning out on it somewhat.