Sony to buy video game maker Bungie in $3.6B deal(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Sony to buy video game maker Bungie in $3.6B deal
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/31/sony-to-buy-video-game-maker-bungie-in-3point6-billion-deal.html
263 comments
It feels the opposite way to me. Microsoft bought a company with an extensive suite of IP that publishes a lot of games. Sony panicked and bought a company that has one franchise (Destiny).
When looking at Disney, I see a company that has bought a lot of deep IP catalogues. They've used that to really propel their future and get high-value talent that wants to work in those universes with a Disney-sized budget to tell their stories.
Activision Blizzard may have cost 20x more, but Activision is really profitable with a P/E ratio of 26 (at the $69B deal price). Microsoft's P/E is 33, Google's is 26, Apple's is 29, Amazon's is 58, and Netflix is 38 (even with the tumble in price). So Microsoft bought Activision relatively cheap compared to its earnings. Bungie is private so we don't really know what their finances are like. Activision's cheap price means that there isn't a lot of risk for Microsoft. Maybe you believe that Activision is about to crater and no one will want their games in the future. It's possible. It's also possible that everyone is going to get tired of the extensive IP catalogues that Disney has assembled. However, when the price is that reasonable, you don't need the same explosive growth to justify the investment.
So Microsoft bought a business that even if it just keeps performing as-usual will be a fine addition to Microsoft. It also has the potential to be huge for Microsoft with a deep IP catalogue, the potential for Xbox exclusives to help launch the next-gen Xbox when the time comes, the potential for cost savings with Azure infrastructure, and probably more that I'm not thinking of.
If Sony buys Bungie and just lets them do their thing, they might get some good games. But it seems like Microsoft wants to buy and pour some money in which seems like a recipe for bigger successes. We've seen it with some of Microsoft's recent purchases. They've poured money into GitHub and made it an even bigger platform. They've poured money into .NET Core and Xamarin/Mono to recapture developer mindshare. It seems like Microsoft is likely to take similar steps with their Activision purchase - and similar steps that Disney has taken with their IP catalogue.
It's possible that the small places Sony has bought have better potential, but Activision Blizard is a profitable company at a relatively cheap price which means that the purchase carries relatively low risk while still offering a lot of upside for Microsoft.
When looking at Disney, I see a company that has bought a lot of deep IP catalogues. They've used that to really propel their future and get high-value talent that wants to work in those universes with a Disney-sized budget to tell their stories.
Activision Blizzard may have cost 20x more, but Activision is really profitable with a P/E ratio of 26 (at the $69B deal price). Microsoft's P/E is 33, Google's is 26, Apple's is 29, Amazon's is 58, and Netflix is 38 (even with the tumble in price). So Microsoft bought Activision relatively cheap compared to its earnings. Bungie is private so we don't really know what their finances are like. Activision's cheap price means that there isn't a lot of risk for Microsoft. Maybe you believe that Activision is about to crater and no one will want their games in the future. It's possible. It's also possible that everyone is going to get tired of the extensive IP catalogues that Disney has assembled. However, when the price is that reasonable, you don't need the same explosive growth to justify the investment.
So Microsoft bought a business that even if it just keeps performing as-usual will be a fine addition to Microsoft. It also has the potential to be huge for Microsoft with a deep IP catalogue, the potential for Xbox exclusives to help launch the next-gen Xbox when the time comes, the potential for cost savings with Azure infrastructure, and probably more that I'm not thinking of.
If Sony buys Bungie and just lets them do their thing, they might get some good games. But it seems like Microsoft wants to buy and pour some money in which seems like a recipe for bigger successes. We've seen it with some of Microsoft's recent purchases. They've poured money into GitHub and made it an even bigger platform. They've poured money into .NET Core and Xamarin/Mono to recapture developer mindshare. It seems like Microsoft is likely to take similar steps with their Activision purchase - and similar steps that Disney has taken with their IP catalogue.
It's possible that the small places Sony has bought have better potential, but Activision Blizard is a profitable company at a relatively cheap price which means that the purchase carries relatively low risk while still offering a lot of upside for Microsoft.
"Sony panicked and bought a company that has one franchise (Destiny)."
If you think Sony turned around and bought Bungie in the 2 weeks since the Acti-Blizz acquisition was announced, I dunno what to tell you.
If you think Sony turned around and bought Bungie in the 2 weeks since the Acti-Blizz acquisition was announced, I dunno what to tell you.
On the flip side, it's highly unlikely that Sony didn't know talks were ongoing for ActiBlizz, and may even have been offered a chance at the same.
Definitely. Especially considering they had (timed) exclusivity of all COD content for years.
I don't think Sony could afford Activision. Its own market cap is 133b$ USD, which is a lot, but it would still have ended up being a very high-risk buy/merger. I'd be surprised if they ever had any acquisition talks. Activision is so big that only titans like MSFT could afford to buy them outright.
Honestly, I'm not sure if Activision's IP catalog would attract and retain high-value talent in the same way that Disney's does.
Yes, the catalogue is deep, but much of it consists of dead horses that have been beaten for years or once-great icons that were mismanaged into relative irrelevance.
Budget constraints didn't seem to be what was holding them back before, and I can't see Microsoft suddenly managing the IP any better than Activision were (if anything, I can see it going downhill faster).
Yes, the catalogue is deep, but much of it consists of dead horses that have been beaten for years or once-great icons that were mismanaged into relative irrelevance.
Budget constraints didn't seem to be what was holding them back before, and I can't see Microsoft suddenly managing the IP any better than Activision were (if anything, I can see it going downhill faster).
Given how well they treated the Age of Empires community, I'm optimistic they'll do something for Warcraft/Starcraft in the coming years
Not to mention these are lore-rich well-known universes and could result in multimedia franchises
Not to mention these are lore-rich well-known universes and could result in multimedia franchises
I'm honestly really excited about Microsoft using their proven history of remastering games (Halo, AoE) and applying it to that exact list of once-great icons. At this point all they need to do to gain a ton of goodwill is roll WoW into gamepass so it's not yet another subscription and fix the Warcraft remaster.
Those along with not clogging up the candy crush money printer will get them plenty of runway to really dig in and fix the culture.
Those along with not clogging up the candy crush money printer will get them plenty of runway to really dig in and fix the culture.
I’d be surprised if they touch the WoW cash cow and make it free with Game Pass. It would be a bold move
Perhaps they could roll something like WoW Classic into game pass, but leave retail unchecked.
Yeah I think people overstate the IP of Actiblizz. I get it though, their old games were absolutely amazing and I basically spent my childhood playing those games to death, but modern gaming is so much bigger that the people who look at those old ips fondly are a small minority now, so there isn't really any nostalgia to cash in on. I remember on the news when they did a story on the merger, they called Actiblizz the studio that made Candy Crush. Candy Crush is their most salient IP. Similarly Gen z growing up on games like Fortnite, Roblox or Minecraft, even Actiblizz's Call of Duty, this demographic isn't going to go crazy for the next Starcraft or Warcraft, probably not even Diablo.
It is sort of like if Valve actually made Half Life 3 now, most gamers don't even know what Half Life is, let alone why Half Life 3 would be such a big deal outside of being a meme.
It is sort of like if Valve actually made Half Life 3 now, most gamers don't even know what Half Life is, let alone why Half Life 3 would be such a big deal outside of being a meme.
But it is not just about having the new hotness, the scale of these IP libraries is about having something for everyone.
Through that lense ActiBlizz is a great buy. Candy Crush and COD and Warcraft.
You don't need the top seller if your goal is to keep customers above the subscription cancellation threshold.
Through that lense ActiBlizz is a great buy. Candy Crush and COD and Warcraft.
You don't need the top seller if your goal is to keep customers above the subscription cancellation threshold.
The bigger issue is simply that video games aren't made like movies/television. They're very different.
Video games are very distributed. Its the work of a system of people, from high level concept artists building a shared mindspace for how the game should feel, to writers, to gameplay programmers, low level engine developers making the previously impossible possible, and at the bleeding edge sometimes even hardware engineers. All integral to the process.
Very, very rarely a "10x leader" will emerge from the industry. Someone like Chris Metzen of Blizzard, or Martin O'Donnell of Bungie, or John Carmack, Tim Sweeny, Peter Molyneux (for all his flaws lol) or Todd Howard, Miyamoto, or Kojima.
But its nowhere near the level of impact on the final product that a talented director or writer of a movie can bring to the table. Even as recently as the Bobba Fett series, and Tik Tok blowing up about the two episodes Bryce Dallas Howard directed being significantly better than the rest of the series. That just doesn't happen in games. Games don't "bring in" "guest directors" to... produce... one installment? One segment of the overall game? Its just nonsense. Moreover, every great leader I listed above, eventually, produces something kinda shit. Even the stuff they're known for, oftentimes they'd say that they received far more credit than they deserve; that the team deserves far more than they get.
The broader conclusion being: it takes some literal magic to produce great games. Ask anyone in the industry and they'll all agree: its a miracle games ever ship, let alone that some stand among the highest tier of art humanity has ever made. You can't just buy cool IP, like a sugar trap to attract talent like they're flies. On the contrary, the one model which does seem to work, is the literal antithesis of the Disney model: teams which work together for abnormally long periods of time (5+ years) trend toward producing fantastic stuff, eventually.
Though to be clear: there's something about that "Disney of Games" idea that I find fascinating as an explanation for Microsoft's behavior. And while I disagree with the assertion that it will work, I can't disagree with the guess that its a model Xbox has used, internally, to talk about their growing portfolio.
Video games are very distributed. Its the work of a system of people, from high level concept artists building a shared mindspace for how the game should feel, to writers, to gameplay programmers, low level engine developers making the previously impossible possible, and at the bleeding edge sometimes even hardware engineers. All integral to the process.
Very, very rarely a "10x leader" will emerge from the industry. Someone like Chris Metzen of Blizzard, or Martin O'Donnell of Bungie, or John Carmack, Tim Sweeny, Peter Molyneux (for all his flaws lol) or Todd Howard, Miyamoto, or Kojima.
But its nowhere near the level of impact on the final product that a talented director or writer of a movie can bring to the table. Even as recently as the Bobba Fett series, and Tik Tok blowing up about the two episodes Bryce Dallas Howard directed being significantly better than the rest of the series. That just doesn't happen in games. Games don't "bring in" "guest directors" to... produce... one installment? One segment of the overall game? Its just nonsense. Moreover, every great leader I listed above, eventually, produces something kinda shit. Even the stuff they're known for, oftentimes they'd say that they received far more credit than they deserve; that the team deserves far more than they get.
The broader conclusion being: it takes some literal magic to produce great games. Ask anyone in the industry and they'll all agree: its a miracle games ever ship, let alone that some stand among the highest tier of art humanity has ever made. You can't just buy cool IP, like a sugar trap to attract talent like they're flies. On the contrary, the one model which does seem to work, is the literal antithesis of the Disney model: teams which work together for abnormally long periods of time (5+ years) trend toward producing fantastic stuff, eventually.
Though to be clear: there's something about that "Disney of Games" idea that I find fascinating as an explanation for Microsoft's behavior. And while I disagree with the assertion that it will work, I can't disagree with the guess that its a model Xbox has used, internally, to talk about their growing portfolio.
Disney is a really outlier. Their IP is extremely important so they can extend copyright length.
I think there's a misunderstanding of my comment; I am not asserting that the AB purchase was bad for Microsoft. Just that this Sony/Bungie purchase will be better for Sony than AB will be for Microsoft. Both platforms will see success with their recent acquisitions.
One thing I'd add, in short: Its easier to 10x a small company than a large company. Applied here; Destiny is a fantastic launchpad, but many in the community would agree that its potential was always short of being fully realized. With additional funding, talent, and leadership; its reasonable to conclude that PlayStation could be a very positive force on the game (for everyone who isn't an Xbox gamer, of course, sadly). There's a lot of room to improve this product, which is already relatively good; many untapped players.
In comparison, AB is something of a... well, I don't want to say "disaster", because there are some great parts to that company, but they're having major issues. Even putting the sexual assault scandal aside: There's much less of a launchpad for Xbox to start from and add value. We're talking ten thousand employees, across dozens of product lines, and maybe three of them have a strong future outlook. They're looking at a years-long phase of cleaning shop, reorganizing, firing, hiring, planning new projects, cancelling bad ones, it's going to be dirty, and in none of that is "releasing awesome games to players". But, maybe there's a light at the end; I really, really hope so, and believe there will be.
And all of this is if the acquisition goes through. There's a real possibility it'll be shut down. Sony "sneaking in" this much smaller Bungie acquisition at the same time basically guarantees it'll go through; the USG/EU won't block both. And frankly, I don't believe they'll block either, but its still a possibility.
One thing I'd add, in short: Its easier to 10x a small company than a large company. Applied here; Destiny is a fantastic launchpad, but many in the community would agree that its potential was always short of being fully realized. With additional funding, talent, and leadership; its reasonable to conclude that PlayStation could be a very positive force on the game (for everyone who isn't an Xbox gamer, of course, sadly). There's a lot of room to improve this product, which is already relatively good; many untapped players.
In comparison, AB is something of a... well, I don't want to say "disaster", because there are some great parts to that company, but they're having major issues. Even putting the sexual assault scandal aside: There's much less of a launchpad for Xbox to start from and add value. We're talking ten thousand employees, across dozens of product lines, and maybe three of them have a strong future outlook. They're looking at a years-long phase of cleaning shop, reorganizing, firing, hiring, planning new projects, cancelling bad ones, it's going to be dirty, and in none of that is "releasing awesome games to players". But, maybe there's a light at the end; I really, really hope so, and believe there will be.
And all of this is if the acquisition goes through. There's a real possibility it'll be shut down. Sony "sneaking in" this much smaller Bungie acquisition at the same time basically guarantees it'll go through; the USG/EU won't block both. And frankly, I don't believe they'll block either, but its still a possibility.
> Sony panicked and bought a company that has one franchise (Destiny).
Beyond the fact that this has supposedly been in the works for months, so not exactly a panic, Bungie has a new IP in development, and has announced their plan to expand Destiny beyond video games, to movies, books, and other media. So while you're right in the sense that today, Bungie only has Destiny, they've already been working on making that not true, even if they're not there just yet.
Beyond the fact that this has supposedly been in the works for months, so not exactly a panic, Bungie has a new IP in development, and has announced their plan to expand Destiny beyond video games, to movies, books, and other media. So while you're right in the sense that today, Bungie only has Destiny, they've already been working on making that not true, even if they're not there just yet.
They also get neat tech with the purchase - the blizzard launcher is awesome. As far as smooth downloads/deployments/go-lives are concerned that launcher and the games its services are in leagues of their own, so far beyond Microsofts own store it's not even funny (ignoring the recent problem of Diablo 2 running twenty year old net code causing problems with its recent launch).
Additionally, most of the arguments about AB dying in the near future have little to do wiht the thing that MS actually bought, which is IP, and everything to do with how AB as a company has handled that IP. If you think Microsoft is better at not mis-handling IP than Activision-Blizzard is, then you should assume that the acquisition of that intellectual property at the market price of the company (which as you mention was not a highly speculative thing), is a very good deal for Microsoft.
That said, I've never played the Microsoft version of Minecraft because it seems strictly worse, and also unmoddable.
That said, I've never played the Microsoft version of Minecraft because it seems strictly worse, and also unmoddable.
> In comparison: Sony paid 20x less for Bungie. What they lack in variety of products, they make up for in, in my view, Potential. Destiny is a great franchise, with lots of fans. The team brings rock solid FPS dev & netcode experience (something Sony's first party studios are at a deficit for).
I disagree. Destiny may have once had potential, but Bungie is a studio that continually shoots itself in the foot. Just like with Halo, they threw out years of work for the first Destiny and essentially stitched together a frankenstein of the parts to ship on time. It's why the story has never made sense, even as they try to retcon various pieces to fit into a much longer narrative.
The game has also lost some of its early "looter shooter with friends" charm and become a grindfest that feels like a job at times, with content that is sunset only 2-3 years after it is sold to consumers. Destiny 2 is also extremely hostile to new players, bombarding them with dozens of vendors, currencies, and no clear sense of where to start and how to begin grokking the story. The original campaign has been sunset so if you never played before, you will be missing the equivalent of the first movie of a trilogy in terms of plot and characters.
My hope for this acquisition is that it lets them course correct the design of whatever they do next because I feel that Destiny 2 is in decline.
I disagree. Destiny may have once had potential, but Bungie is a studio that continually shoots itself in the foot. Just like with Halo, they threw out years of work for the first Destiny and essentially stitched together a frankenstein of the parts to ship on time. It's why the story has never made sense, even as they try to retcon various pieces to fit into a much longer narrative.
The game has also lost some of its early "looter shooter with friends" charm and become a grindfest that feels like a job at times, with content that is sunset only 2-3 years after it is sold to consumers. Destiny 2 is also extremely hostile to new players, bombarding them with dozens of vendors, currencies, and no clear sense of where to start and how to begin grokking the story. The original campaign has been sunset so if you never played before, you will be missing the equivalent of the first movie of a trilogy in terms of plot and characters.
My hope for this acquisition is that it lets them course correct the design of whatever they do next because I feel that Destiny 2 is in decline.
To actually finish all the content in each D2 expansion you have to invest full time job kind of time in it.
Destiny doesn't just feel like a job, in some sense it IS a job.
I thought they did a good job rehabilitating the first game from the sorry shape it shipped in (see: the economics of the loot cave). It is a mountain which can be climbed, and it is fun to do so. (There is also a literal mountain to climb)
Destiny doesn't just feel like a job, in some sense it IS a job.
I thought they did a good job rehabilitating the first game from the sorry shape it shipped in (see: the economics of the loot cave). It is a mountain which can be climbed, and it is fun to do so. (There is also a literal mountain to climb)
The child in me always kneejerk reacts "not my Bungie!". How much of the Destiny trainwreck was publisher fingering? Could the Bungie of 10 years ago have put out a game that is fun, like they had consistently for the previous decade? Of course, it was just those pesky publishers.
Well, now the Bungie of yore is thoroughly dead. All of the faces from the Halo Vid Docs have moved on. What's left is a husk. Sony bought a hope. They also prevented Microsoft and Bungie from teaming up again. Perhaps they fear that duo. I wish them the best.
Well, now the Bungie of yore is thoroughly dead. All of the faces from the Halo Vid Docs have moved on. What's left is a husk. Sony bought a hope. They also prevented Microsoft and Bungie from teaming up again. Perhaps they fear that duo. I wish them the best.
They've continued some of their worse monetisation and game design decisions while independent for quite a few years now, and stuff like the poor value of the 30th anniversary pack is entirely their own mistake to make, so I feel publisher meddling was a handy deflection for Bungie to hide behind in many cases.
> They've continued some of their worse monetisation and game design decisions while independent for quite a few years now, and stuff like the poor value of the 30th anniversary pack is entirely their own mistake to make...
This is an interesting thought. The 30th anniversary *paid* content was a bit lighter than anticipated, however the Free To Play content that came alongside it was fantastic. Perhaps I'm just used to seeing phrases like 'worse monetization' from the consumers perspective rather than the business's, but most of the community reactions from the 30th were positive, at least in regards to what was paid and what wasn't.
This is an interesting thought. The 30th anniversary *paid* content was a bit lighter than anticipated, however the Free To Play content that came alongside it was fantastic. Perhaps I'm just used to seeing phrases like 'worse monetization' from the consumers perspective rather than the business's, but most of the community reactions from the 30th were positive, at least in regards to what was paid and what wasn't.
A truism about Destiny: there's always people, both people who play the game and who don't, talking tons of trash about it.
Personally I've gotten far more value than I've paid for out of everything I've ever bought in Destiny, including the 30th pack. I've even bought a few expansions twice. That said we are lucky enough to be in tech. And there were a lot of people complaining about the 30th pack before it launched, though those seem to have quieted down by now.
Personally I've gotten far more value than I've paid for out of everything I've ever bought in Destiny, including the 30th pack. I've even bought a few expansions twice. That said we are lucky enough to be in tech. And there were a lot of people complaining about the 30th pack before it launched, though those seem to have quieted down by now.
Is the associated content free to play? I thought it was tied to the seaason pass. In which case the 30th anniversary content is stuff that would have been in the season pass anyway in prior expansions, and that double dipping is worse for consumers than previous. If it just requires owning the game or just beyond light, that is an improvement to be fair.
Free to play:
1. dares of eternity
2. Xûr bounties and rewards
3. 11 weapons
Pay $25:
1. forerunner (exotic sidearm)
2. grasp of avarice (dungeon)
3. ship / sparrow
4. four emotes
5. two full sets of universal ornaments
6. one extra helmet ornament
7. Gjallerhorn
All cosmetics except for Forerunner (which has already dropped to #71 in Trials and has no pve relevance) and the Dungeon, which is the one most people were up in arms about.
EDIT: oh, and edited above: I forgot about Gjallerhorn, haha. It requires the dungeon and so therefore is for pay too. It's very good but still not clearly meta, we'll see if rockets are great next season like many people suspect.
1. dares of eternity
2. Xûr bounties and rewards
3. 11 weapons
Pay $25:
1. forerunner (exotic sidearm)
2. grasp of avarice (dungeon)
3. ship / sparrow
4. four emotes
5. two full sets of universal ornaments
6. one extra helmet ornament
7. Gjallerhorn
All cosmetics except for Forerunner (which has already dropped to #71 in Trials and has no pve relevance) and the Dungeon, which is the one most people were up in arms about.
EDIT: oh, and edited above: I forgot about Gjallerhorn, haha. It requires the dungeon and so therefore is for pay too. It's very good but still not clearly meta, we'll see if rockets are great next season like many people suspect.
> "not my Bungie!"
Pathways into Darkness and Marathon forever.
I hear they started making non-Macintosh games recently?
Pathways into Darkness and Marathon forever.
I hear they started making non-Macintosh games recently?
I grabbed Destiny 2 and some expansions a while back on a humble bundle. I had a blast, it was fun and could play with friends. Then end game seemed to not have much going for it. And it was confusing on what you could and couldn’t access. Came back to it after a break and with more expansions out it just seemed even more confusing on what I could and couldn’t access. It’s sort of the WOW problem, the game is just overwhelming. There is so much content and no clear way on what you can or can’t access. The various currencies alone are confusing.
I've got 2500 hours in the last two years, and yes, this is one of the biggest issues with the game. You really need a group of friends to walk you through it all. I've been doing so with some folks, and it's a ton of fun, but if you're solo, the experience is far worse.
Generally agree, but on the other hand, the game feels a LOT better since since the Activision divestment.
In the last 12 months narrative team of Destiny 2 have REALLY knocked it out of the park, with the seasonal plot actually making sense and having some interesting activities (like Battlegrounds). Some significant improvements in QoL too.
While there definitely gaps as you say - the New Light experience in particular needs some serious work - so long as Sony lets the team continue on its current trajectory, there may be hope.
In the last 12 months narrative team of Destiny 2 have REALLY knocked it out of the park, with the seasonal plot actually making sense and having some interesting activities (like Battlegrounds). Some significant improvements in QoL too.
While there definitely gaps as you say - the New Light experience in particular needs some serious work - so long as Sony lets the team continue on its current trajectory, there may be hope.
I agree that the seasonal storytelling is better but they have a very real problem with the game becoming Bounty Collector. They also have basically abandoned Crucible, which makes me think the new IP is where all their top PvP talent is currently.
It has been rough out there for the crucible but improvements are coming: https://twitter.com/joegoroth/status/1422951524649500678
https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1488499142221512705
| 860,000 players played Destiny 2 yesterday, at a slow point in a season about to end later this month
| • 275,000 on Xbox | • 355,000 on PlayStation | • 224,000 on Steam | • 5,390 on Stadia
Destiny is not small.
There are maybe a dozen or so western service-games with 1M+ regular active players.
* Microsoft bought maybe four with the AB acquisition (CoD, Hearthstone, WoW, Overwatch, maybe D3 but probably not), and had one coming in (Minecraft. H:I qualifies for now, but its new and it remains to be seen if it has staying power).
* Valve owns two (CSGO, Dota2). They're extremely not for sale.
* Riot owns at least two (LoL/Valorant). Also not for sale; owned by Tencent.
* EA has a couple (Apex, maybe their sports titles as well). Likely out of reach for anyone to acquire.
* Epic, of course, has Fortnite.
* Rockstar has GTA5. T2 is probably on the acquisition block; expect that next, but who the buyer will be is anyone's guess. My pocket prediction is actually Epic.
To clarify: The reason why I narrowed that list to just western companies is because of the difficulty in both determining metrics for eastern games, and the difficulty in acquiring them. Chinese companies simply won't be acquired, and something many may not know: its very, very difficult for non-japanese companies to acquire japanese companies. There's a lot of government rules restricting it. PUBG is South Korean though, so it may qualify for the list; less familiar with SK's stance on western acquisitions.
Tangential: this is why you should laugh anyone out of the room who suggests Microsoft will buy FromSoftware. From is a fascinatingly weird company; owned by a Japanese multinational that mostly publishes manga & tabletop roleplaying games, to my knowledge From is Kadokawa's only video game subsidiary. On the one hand, they're a perfect acquisition for Sony given that Sony is Japanese and From is a weird company among Kadokawa's MO. On the other hand, its a massive profit center that I'm certain their overlords leave to their own devices.
That's essentially everything in the current gaming landscape. Once its all laid out, it should be obvious how valuable Destiny is to Sony: PlayStation isn't on that list. They do own something like 3-5% of Epic, but beyond that, they're seeing Microsoft make heavy investments in both discrete releases & ongoing service games. Sony has discrete releases MASTERED; they're the king, up there with Nintendo. But they don't have service games. To get a service game like Destiny, in a super popular genre (looter shooter RPG), for a couple billion, is a steal; even moreso that it gives them a card to play, maybe first, maybe second, if Microsoft ever moves to remove Call of Duty from PlayStation; its nuclear peace. Remember: Sony collects 30% of every CoD transaction on PlayStation. View the acquisition through this lens, and it adds further value to the transaction: if the threat of removing Destiny from Xbox, and thus Xbox's 30% cut of transactions there, keeps CoD on PlayStation a bit longer, it helps pay for itself.
| 860,000 players played Destiny 2 yesterday, at a slow point in a season about to end later this month
| • 275,000 on Xbox | • 355,000 on PlayStation | • 224,000 on Steam | • 5,390 on Stadia
Destiny is not small.
There are maybe a dozen or so western service-games with 1M+ regular active players.
* Microsoft bought maybe four with the AB acquisition (CoD, Hearthstone, WoW, Overwatch, maybe D3 but probably not), and had one coming in (Minecraft. H:I qualifies for now, but its new and it remains to be seen if it has staying power).
* Valve owns two (CSGO, Dota2). They're extremely not for sale.
* Riot owns at least two (LoL/Valorant). Also not for sale; owned by Tencent.
* EA has a couple (Apex, maybe their sports titles as well). Likely out of reach for anyone to acquire.
* Epic, of course, has Fortnite.
* Rockstar has GTA5. T2 is probably on the acquisition block; expect that next, but who the buyer will be is anyone's guess. My pocket prediction is actually Epic.
To clarify: The reason why I narrowed that list to just western companies is because of the difficulty in both determining metrics for eastern games, and the difficulty in acquiring them. Chinese companies simply won't be acquired, and something many may not know: its very, very difficult for non-japanese companies to acquire japanese companies. There's a lot of government rules restricting it. PUBG is South Korean though, so it may qualify for the list; less familiar with SK's stance on western acquisitions.
Tangential: this is why you should laugh anyone out of the room who suggests Microsoft will buy FromSoftware. From is a fascinatingly weird company; owned by a Japanese multinational that mostly publishes manga & tabletop roleplaying games, to my knowledge From is Kadokawa's only video game subsidiary. On the one hand, they're a perfect acquisition for Sony given that Sony is Japanese and From is a weird company among Kadokawa's MO. On the other hand, its a massive profit center that I'm certain their overlords leave to their own devices.
That's essentially everything in the current gaming landscape. Once its all laid out, it should be obvious how valuable Destiny is to Sony: PlayStation isn't on that list. They do own something like 3-5% of Epic, but beyond that, they're seeing Microsoft make heavy investments in both discrete releases & ongoing service games. Sony has discrete releases MASTERED; they're the king, up there with Nintendo. But they don't have service games. To get a service game like Destiny, in a super popular genre (looter shooter RPG), for a couple billion, is a steal; even moreso that it gives them a card to play, maybe first, maybe second, if Microsoft ever moves to remove Call of Duty from PlayStation; its nuclear peace. Remember: Sony collects 30% of every CoD transaction on PlayStation. View the acquisition through this lens, and it adds further value to the transaction: if the threat of removing Destiny from Xbox, and thus Xbox's 30% cut of transactions there, keeps CoD on PlayStation a bit longer, it helps pay for itself.
> Call of Duty is valuable, but Microsoft has already said they don't intend to remove it from PlayStation.
They haven't said that. They have said they will honor their existing contracts [1]. That's not permanent guarantee. I'm not saying they'll pull it as soon as they can but it gives them a lot of power.
I'm not sure you realize just how big the CoD franchise is. It pulls in billions of dollars every year by itself.
As for Blizzard, yes the company has seen better days but their IP is still valuable. Diablo 4 whenever it comes out will sell a ton of copies.
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/20/22892860/sony-microsoft-a...
They haven't said that. They have said they will honor their existing contracts [1]. That's not permanent guarantee. I'm not saying they'll pull it as soon as they can but it gives them a lot of power.
I'm not sure you realize just how big the CoD franchise is. It pulls in billions of dollars every year by itself.
As for Blizzard, yes the company has seen better days but their IP is still valuable. Diablo 4 whenever it comes out will sell a ton of copies.
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/20/22892860/sony-microsoft-a...
> Sony paid 20x less for Bungie. What they lack in variety of products, they make up for in, in my view, Potential.
Not really. Destiny has a smaller audience than CoD, and Activision Blizzard is a huge purchase with lots a of valuable IPs that go beyond CoD and can still grow (Bungie, OTOH, currently only has Destiny in it's catalog).
Bungie revenue was estimated around $300 million for 2019 vs. $6,5b for Activision Blizzard, so price seems to be in line for both purchases, around 8x annual rev.
Keep in mind Microsoft has bought ton of small studios as well! (Rare, Playground).
Returnal is a good title, but far from being a success by AAA standards (last time they reported sales of the game, in June 2021. it was 560.000 copies). I think part of the aura of success comes from being one of the very few exclusive titles created specifically for the PS5.
Not really. Destiny has a smaller audience than CoD, and Activision Blizzard is a huge purchase with lots a of valuable IPs that go beyond CoD and can still grow (Bungie, OTOH, currently only has Destiny in it's catalog).
Bungie revenue was estimated around $300 million for 2019 vs. $6,5b for Activision Blizzard, so price seems to be in line for both purchases, around 8x annual rev.
Keep in mind Microsoft has bought ton of small studios as well! (Rare, Playground).
Returnal is a good title, but far from being a success by AAA standards (last time they reported sales of the game, in June 2021. it was 560.000 copies). I think part of the aura of success comes from being one of the very few exclusive titles created specifically for the PS5.
Its important to put the Returnal numbers in context: it was never supposed to be a triple-A hit. Housemarque is a small (50-100 people) studio that traditionally made top-down or side-scrolling bullet hell shooters; they developed Returnal without being under the PSS banner (though certainly with financial support for the exclusive title); and it has sold 500k+ copies.
Compare that to Rift Apart, which last I heard is more in the 1-2M sales range. Insomniac is a true triple-A studio, with more like 400-500 employees plus the full development support of PSS's shared resources. Ratchet & Clank is a more broadly known franchise, in a genre and aesthetic that is more age and demographic accessible.
Additionally, while this would equally affect Returnal & Rift Apart; PS5 shortages do dampen all PS5 exclusive game sales compared to more broadly available titles.
Within that context, it's clear to me that Returnal was a tremendous success. Not a Triple-A success, but its not all about raw sales at the end of the day. Cost to produce also needs to be considered.
To be clear: I absolutely believe Xbox isn't just "all triple-A all the time". They have the triple-A teams. They have the smaller teams (Maybe not Rare/Playground as they're huge nowadays, but: Ninja Theory, Compulsion, Double Fine, World's Edge, maybe even Obsidian, plus their exclusivity deals with Moon and Asobo). Its more-so a discussion about their recent acquisitions strategy.
Compare that to Rift Apart, which last I heard is more in the 1-2M sales range. Insomniac is a true triple-A studio, with more like 400-500 employees plus the full development support of PSS's shared resources. Ratchet & Clank is a more broadly known franchise, in a genre and aesthetic that is more age and demographic accessible.
Additionally, while this would equally affect Returnal & Rift Apart; PS5 shortages do dampen all PS5 exclusive game sales compared to more broadly available titles.
Within that context, it's clear to me that Returnal was a tremendous success. Not a Triple-A success, but its not all about raw sales at the end of the day. Cost to produce also needs to be considered.
To be clear: I absolutely believe Xbox isn't just "all triple-A all the time". They have the triple-A teams. They have the smaller teams (Maybe not Rare/Playground as they're huge nowadays, but: Ninja Theory, Compulsion, Double Fine, World's Edge, maybe even Obsidian, plus their exclusivity deals with Moon and Asobo). Its more-so a discussion about their recent acquisitions strategy.
>In comparison: Sony paid 20x less for Bungie. What they lack in variety of products, they make up for in, in my view, Potential. Destiny is a great franchise
Strongly disagree. Bungie have one IP. while AB have many well know IPs. Blizzard proven, you can make a new game out of old IP. Warcraft is used to make Hearthstone the card game.
you are comparing one franchise IP to multiple franchise IPs and claiming Bungie is a better deal. that just stretching it.
Strongly disagree. Bungie have one IP. while AB have many well know IPs. Blizzard proven, you can make a new game out of old IP. Warcraft is used to make Hearthstone the card game.
you are comparing one franchise IP to multiple franchise IPs and claiming Bungie is a better deal. that just stretching it.
Microsoft didn't buy Halo. They bought Bungie, then used them to make Halo. They spin them off, keeping then Halo franchise.
Okay, technically Bungie was working on a RTS game called Halo when MS bought them, but it was after the purchase it shifted genres and found its groove.
In other words, this "echo" isn't really what you are saying.
Okay, technically Bungie was working on a RTS game called Halo when MS bought them, but it was after the purchase it shifted genres and found its groove.
In other words, this "echo" isn't really what you are saying.
First of all; the original acquisition is not what I was referring to, but rather: Microsoft's "maintenance" of the Halo IP after Bungie itself left Microsoft's domain, and the formation of a near-entirely new studio (343) to develop it. Ok, they didn't buy the IP at that juncture; they bought a studio to develop an IP they already owned. Use some creativity and you can see the parallels are similar enough.
Second: Do you recall the keynote where Bungie unveiled Halo for the first time... at MacWorld 1999? For reference, Microsoft acquired Bungie in 2000. I've literally never heard the assertion that Halo was intended to be an RTS; my understanding is that it was originally going to be a third person FPS, as the 1999 MacWorld trailer suggests, but was changed to a first person FPS when Microsoft purchased them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eZ2yvWl9nQ
Second: Do you recall the keynote where Bungie unveiled Halo for the first time... at MacWorld 1999? For reference, Microsoft acquired Bungie in 2000. I've literally never heard the assertion that Halo was intended to be an RTS; my understanding is that it was originally going to be a third person FPS, as the 1999 MacWorld trailer suggests, but was changed to a first person FPS when Microsoft purchased them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eZ2yvWl9nQ
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo:_Combat_Evolved#Prototype...
The earliest versions were basically built on top of Myth's engine, Bungie's RTS. It then eventually became a third person shooter, and it was such at the MacWorld announcement. It did turn into an FPS after the Microsoft acquisition.
The earliest versions were basically built on top of Myth's engine, Bungie's RTS. It then eventually became a third person shooter, and it was such at the MacWorld announcement. It did turn into an FPS after the Microsoft acquisition.
[deleted]
Halo was originally designed as a RTS, but playing around with it a bit they found it more fun to get the camera down closer, especially driving vehicles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weuRNxpDLUE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weuRNxpDLUE
Halo was an FPS and a spiritual successor to an earlier series of theirs called "Marathon". The main characters, weapons, and themes of the original game all skew very closely to Marathon.
I miss the Bungie that pumped out Marathon, Myth, and Oni.
(I will look forward to people who were screaming that console makers mustn't be allowed to buy game authors and studios seamlessly turn a 180 if it favours their tribe.)
(I will look forward to people who were screaming that console makers mustn't be allowed to buy game authors and studios seamlessly turn a 180 if it favours their tribe.)
Me too! I had so much hope for Oni, but the control system drove me nuts. While it looked great I couldn't play it worth a damn. Maybe that was just me.
Oni I can pass on ;)
Myth and Marathon were experiences in storytelling for me however. I even have a copy of the GURPS Myth roleplaying guide sitting on my bookshelf behind me that goes more into the lore of the Myth universe.
Myth and Marathon were experiences in storytelling for me however. I even have a copy of the GURPS Myth roleplaying guide sitting on my bookshelf behind me that goes more into the lore of the Myth universe.
There's also tangential evidence that Pathways Into Darkness, Marathon, Halo, and Destiny all exist in the same universe.
And with this recent 30th anniversary event, it also seems like they kind of think of all of their various older IPs to be in a multiverse of some sort.
(And Pathways into Darkness was also an FPS, just like those three Marathon games. Bungie has been doing FPSes for a long time, 100% agree with you.)
And with this recent 30th anniversary event, it also seems like they kind of think of all of their various older IPs to be in a multiverse of some sort.
(And Pathways into Darkness was also an FPS, just like those three Marathon games. Bungie has been doing FPSes for a long time, 100% agree with you.)
Halo was most certainly an FPS before MS bought Bungie.
https://youtu.be/ebI5lkLRTdg
https://youtu.be/ebI5lkLRTdg
True, but it was initially supposed to be an RTS, just a bit longer before Microsoft stepped in.
Did you watch the video? It was basically complete before Microsoft bought it. They then ported it to Xbox.
It may have been an RTS initially, but when Microsoft bought Bungie, it was already "Combat Evolved" and near release.
It may have been an RTS initially, but when Microsoft bought Bungie, it was already "Combat Evolved" and near release.
Believe me, I don't need to watch that video. I've been there ;)
A lot of development happened right before Combat Evolved got released due to Microsoft injecting a lot of money. It wasn't just an Xbox port of an already finished game. Look at the E3 2000 trailer which is pretty much what has been shown at Macworld the year before. Combat Evolved looked quite different when it came out a year later. Note that Microsoft acquired Bungie in 2000.
A lot of development happened right before Combat Evolved got released due to Microsoft injecting a lot of money. It wasn't just an Xbox port of an already finished game. Look at the E3 2000 trailer which is pretty much what has been shown at Macworld the year before. Combat Evolved looked quite different when it came out a year later. Note that Microsoft acquired Bungie in 2000.
HALO was originally based on Myth. That is when Halo was briefly (conceptually) an RTS. It evolved into a Third Person Shooter, and finally First Person Shooter. After Bungie was acquired by Microsoft, they had a year to make their game, so they made the decision to start over from the beginning and create Halo as a first person shooter.
Honestly, that would have been awesome!
I loved Myth and Myth II. A space-based one would have been great.
I don't understand the timeline, though, as the videos shown at MacWorld in 1999 (before Microsoft), show Halo as a first-person shooter. The video is linked above. I think it was a FPS long before Microsoft was interested. I think Microsoft bought it specifically because of the FPS game.
I loved Myth and Myth II. A space-based one would have been great.
I don't understand the timeline, though, as the videos shown at MacWorld in 1999 (before Microsoft), show Halo as a first-person shooter. The video is linked above. I think it was a FPS long before Microsoft was interested. I think Microsoft bought it specifically because of the FPS game.
I watched the video. The game in that trailer could just as easily have been a tactical RTS with a cinematic camera as a FPS (note the complete absence of first-person shots).
Right! For sure.
But according to https://www.vice.com/en/article/xwqjg3/the-complete-untold-h...
It was already an FPS by 1998, 2 years before Microsoft was involved, and a year before the video shown above.
They started as an RTS, then decided it was way too much fun to actually drive the vehicles, and the rest is history.
Microsoft definitely helped with the development, but Microsoft bought a FPS game, not an RTS one.
But according to https://www.vice.com/en/article/xwqjg3/the-complete-untold-h...
It was already an FPS by 1998, 2 years before Microsoft was involved, and a year before the video shown above.
They started as an RTS, then decided it was way too much fun to actually drive the vehicles, and the rest is history.
Microsoft definitely helped with the development, but Microsoft bought a FPS game, not an RTS one.
> these companies have far more demonstrable ability to produce triple-A content
I am not so sure. At least not for Bungie. I haven't enjoyed Destiny at all. Where on the other side, Arkane's Dishonored and Prey are quite good. So are id Software's Doom, Doom Eternal, and Wolfenstein. Fallout 4 was okay as well.
I am not so sure. At least not for Bungie. I haven't enjoyed Destiny at all. Where on the other side, Arkane's Dishonored and Prey are quite good. So are id Software's Doom, Doom Eternal, and Wolfenstein. Fallout 4 was okay as well.
Sure; and the unfortunate reality is, Fallout 4 was released nearly 8 years ago. Dishonored: 10. Dishonored 2: 6.
id definitely puts out super solid stuff, consistently. Arkane is also in that bucket (Deathloop is the better example to judge recent efficacy of the team, not Dishonored/Prey. And its great). But, that is counterbalanced by... Fallout 76? Warcraft 3 Reforged? The state of WoW, Overwatch, and Heroes?
Xbox's acquisitions are a semitruck full of companies. The good parts of that truck are good. The bad parts are... quite bad. But the bad parts are built on really strong IP, which carried its own high price tag. So the question becomes; they'll definitely get value out of Arkane, id, and CoD, zero question there; but will they get value out of the rest of the ~$76B combined they spent, when so much of it is in glory-day IPs and not in teams, employed today, that can execute on that IP to deliver awesome content (no disrespect intended to the teams who do work on that content today; but reality is in the metrics, revenue, etc)?
Comparatively: Microsoft bought a semi-truck, Sony bought a Miata. It's not the fastest car out there. It's not for everyone. But it has its users and there's no question as to Mazda's ability to put out another stellar model, nor question around whether customers will buy it. Plus: very affordable. Ok, that's a bad analogy.
id definitely puts out super solid stuff, consistently. Arkane is also in that bucket (Deathloop is the better example to judge recent efficacy of the team, not Dishonored/Prey. And its great). But, that is counterbalanced by... Fallout 76? Warcraft 3 Reforged? The state of WoW, Overwatch, and Heroes?
Xbox's acquisitions are a semitruck full of companies. The good parts of that truck are good. The bad parts are... quite bad. But the bad parts are built on really strong IP, which carried its own high price tag. So the question becomes; they'll definitely get value out of Arkane, id, and CoD, zero question there; but will they get value out of the rest of the ~$76B combined they spent, when so much of it is in glory-day IPs and not in teams, employed today, that can execute on that IP to deliver awesome content (no disrespect intended to the teams who do work on that content today; but reality is in the metrics, revenue, etc)?
Comparatively: Microsoft bought a semi-truck, Sony bought a Miata. It's not the fastest car out there. It's not for everyone. But it has its users and there's no question as to Mazda's ability to put out another stellar model, nor question around whether customers will buy it. Plus: very affordable. Ok, that's a bad analogy.
> Fallout 4 was released nearly 8 years ago. Dishonored: 10. Dishonored 2: 6
This sounds like a long time, but it's not in game development. Putting out a solid title requires multiple years of development.
> Deathloop is the better example to judge recent efficacy of the team
Deathloop isn't on par with Arkane's previous games. It didn't even sell that well. They put it on sale a few weeks after launch to issue damage control.
This sounds like a long time, but it's not in game development. Putting out a solid title requires multiple years of development.
> Deathloop is the better example to judge recent efficacy of the team
Deathloop isn't on par with Arkane's previous games. It didn't even sell that well. They put it on sale a few weeks after launch to issue damage control.
Warcraft and Diablo are still great IPs. Some of the best. If D4 will be good that can have staying power for a decade easily. Same with whatever RPG comes from the Warcraft universe next
Mobile gaming invalidates all your argumentation. Activision Blizzard King has a large and successful mobile business that makes more money than anything you've described here. Bungie has none of that, which explains its far lower price.
> Call of Duty is valuable, but Microsoft has already said they don't intend to remove it from PlayStation.
Maybe printing free revenue from the franchise is more valuable than printing revenue with high overhead console sales :)
Maybe printing free revenue from the franchise is more valuable than printing revenue with high overhead console sales :)
I think Microsoft's play was to further strengthen Game Pass to the point that Sony can't deny it on their platform anymore (or at least make it hurt more to continue doing so). It makes sense that MS won't remove games from Sony's access, but it does give them more levers to play with. "Hey this game is 'free' on Game Pass (PC + XBox). You can still buy it for PlayStation, though."
And Sony's move is simply a defense against that.
And Sony's move is simply a defense against that.
I have PC Game Pass ultimate. The only thing I've used it for is Halo. The games that I got for "free" on it I actually bought elsewhere and added up to less than I spent on ultimate, even new games like DeathLoop. I've spent about 80 on the games I could play from game pass, it's like $180/year (I paid less through friends at MS). Took me a 2 months to finish death loop, cost me $30 on steam sale, that's break even. They've crippled several indy games, for instance astroneer, to only play on supported premium servers, that cost my friend (with gamepass) $30 that he could have just purchased astroneer on (and just run server locally or a linode).
So far while game pass seems cool it's not really panning out monetarily for me.
Other than these big studios that MS built, the rest of the game pass catalog would be easy for sony to pick up on their own game pass.
I'll also note that no one seems to be talking about nintendo, who also has a great stable of titles, needs to take on game pass. Sony and Nintendo's exclusive catalogs are in the same ballpark (if very different).
Microsoft also loses out on the console money, since why would I buy a console when I have this gaming pc that's much better? So makes sense for me to just buy the PC games and a PS5, that and my switch has me covered.
So far while game pass seems cool it's not really panning out monetarily for me.
Other than these big studios that MS built, the rest of the game pass catalog would be easy for sony to pick up on their own game pass.
I'll also note that no one seems to be talking about nintendo, who also has a great stable of titles, needs to take on game pass. Sony and Nintendo's exclusive catalogs are in the same ballpark (if very different).
Microsoft also loses out on the console money, since why would I buy a console when I have this gaming pc that's much better? So makes sense for me to just buy the PC games and a PS5, that and my switch has me covered.
> So far while game pass seems cool it's not really panning out monetarily for me.
Which is why microsoft spent $100 billion on studios this year. Zenimax and AB consistently put out hugely popular games, and I expect microsoft will continue buying.
Which is why microsoft spent $100 billion on studios this year. Zenimax and AB consistently put out hugely popular games, and I expect microsoft will continue buying.
May work in general, for me specifically no.
I've played 1 game from Zenni in the last 10 years for more than a few minutes (deathloop), (tried their others no interest, hate stealth, hate super long games). One from blizzard (overwatch this one got me, like 900 hours), one from activision (warzone for like 3 days). So that stable of games wouldn't have me specifically retaining game pass, I'd just buy them. Also Halo wants to double dip you with the game and the battle pass even if you have ultimate.
I think Zenni was a much better acquisition than AB. Blizzard has some great IP, they don't have the talent to make it go anymore. Activision has what, COD and a ton of old IP they weren't doing anything with? Really Microsoft will need to take one of their solid studios that is bad at IP and good at execution give them something like Starcraft, but I don't even know how deep their stable of developers without projects is right now.
But also I realized a while ago, I have way less time than games to play. I have an unlimited 2k entitlement for instance and barely play those games (didn't like civ, not into sports games). And I do hate subscriptions that remind me constantly what I'm paying for them that I know I'm not using.
Anyway, my $0.02.
I've played 1 game from Zenni in the last 10 years for more than a few minutes (deathloop), (tried their others no interest, hate stealth, hate super long games). One from blizzard (overwatch this one got me, like 900 hours), one from activision (warzone for like 3 days). So that stable of games wouldn't have me specifically retaining game pass, I'd just buy them. Also Halo wants to double dip you with the game and the battle pass even if you have ultimate.
I think Zenni was a much better acquisition than AB. Blizzard has some great IP, they don't have the talent to make it go anymore. Activision has what, COD and a ton of old IP they weren't doing anything with? Really Microsoft will need to take one of their solid studios that is bad at IP and good at execution give them something like Starcraft, but I don't even know how deep their stable of developers without projects is right now.
But also I realized a while ago, I have way less time than games to play. I have an unlimited 2k entitlement for instance and barely play those games (didn't like civ, not into sports games). And I do hate subscriptions that remind me constantly what I'm paying for them that I know I'm not using.
Anyway, my $0.02.
Microsoft made a big mistake not just buying bungie after halo reach. The franchise and the studio were both at their very peak at this point. 343 is just not the developer bungie is and fans have been feeling for years that 343 has squandered their position. A lot of players to this day strictly play the bungie era games on master chief collection, and that release took a long time for it to be fixed from its broken state on release
You’re forgetting about how profitable (and disgusting) Activision’s mobile play to win games are.
Besides, MS needs content for its subscription gaming service. It’s not like consoles themselves are profitable. They are just a means to deliver games to users.
Besides, MS needs content for its subscription gaming service. It’s not like consoles themselves are profitable. They are just a means to deliver games to users.
Not sure what's wrong with games being "pay to win", isn't that the point of them?
Unless you meant pay to win, or the newer and weirder version, play to earn.
PtW games I've seen use
- social manipulation from fake players to employ peer pressure, membership, and others to extract revenues
- employees masquerading as players to stir up conflict that gets people to pay money to support the "guild war"
- employees masquerading as players that target free or low revenue players to get them to pay to survive/not be harassed.
- have outright gambling with attendant neurologically tuned payouts like slot machines
All told these are "games" in the sense that blackjack and poker and other gambling pursuits that prey on neurological reward systems are "games". Except they lump on social networking manipulation and group dynamics to further revenue extraction.
And they aren't nearly regulated to the degree that casino games are.
The games I've described are Machine Zone and other of their ilk that are the worst offenders, but their revenue has forced practically all vendors of video entertainment to consider using their tactics to "enhance shareholder value".
- social manipulation from fake players to employ peer pressure, membership, and others to extract revenues
- employees masquerading as players to stir up conflict that gets people to pay money to support the "guild war"
- employees masquerading as players that target free or low revenue players to get them to pay to survive/not be harassed.
- have outright gambling with attendant neurologically tuned payouts like slot machines
All told these are "games" in the sense that blackjack and poker and other gambling pursuits that prey on neurological reward systems are "games". Except they lump on social networking manipulation and group dynamics to further revenue extraction.
And they aren't nearly regulated to the degree that casino games are.
The games I've described are Machine Zone and other of their ilk that are the worst offenders, but their revenue has forced practically all vendors of video entertainment to consider using their tactics to "enhance shareholder value".
Oh that describes pay to win, but the comment I replied to was admonishing "play to win", which sounds like what you would want.
My bad typo.
I think they mean where you have a competitive multiplayer content but players who spend more on DLC have an advantage over players who spend less.
Pay to win mobile games with in app purchases like Candy Crush with in app purchases
Ah I stuffed up, the parent comment said play to win, which sounds like how games should be?
Let’s hope this goes better for Bungie than when Microsoft owned them. It’s kind of funny that they’d get out from under the thumb of one corporate overlord only to find a new corporate overlord 15 years later.
I guess that points to how unbelievably hard it is for independent game developers to survive, and it makes me kind of sad. If it can happen to Bungie or Blizzard, it can happen to any game developer.
Gamers are notoriously hard to part with their money, even though games can deliver an incredible amount of value for each dollar compared to other types of entertainment.
I’ve put hundreds of hours into certain games that I’ve paid $60 or less for, whereas renting or going to a movie provides only a couple hours of entertainment for something like $5-$20.
I guess that points to how unbelievably hard it is for independent game developers to survive, and it makes me kind of sad. If it can happen to Bungie or Blizzard, it can happen to any game developer.
Gamers are notoriously hard to part with their money, even though games can deliver an incredible amount of value for each dollar compared to other types of entertainment.
I’ve put hundreds of hours into certain games that I’ve paid $60 or less for, whereas renting or going to a movie provides only a couple hours of entertainment for something like $5-$20.
I worked for a studio that Sony acquired. The transition went well. Sony seems to be a Value Add for the studios it runs. They provide Money, HR, Basic systems, like any big company. They also provide market analysis, insight, and collaboration with the other studios. There's no chance 2 Sony studios are going to put out the same game at the same time, they have a "portfolio". So there won't be a Prototype/Infamous situation. The folks I interacted with from Sony were all great and very much on our team. One of our producers (who manage multiple games) showed up and ran the localization team when the specialist quit for 2 months.
I think sony will play the right level of support for Bungie.
I also got a shot of what it looked like to develop a game. There are long windows where you have a lot of folks on staff with not much revenue. And developing a new IP means you have a lot more staff that has no revenue. This is hard for single IP studios, and thus the layoffs on a cycle. For 2 IP studios this can be harder as you want to go as big on the 2nd IP as you do the first, so you may have even more.
Being a part of a massive publisher helps out a ton. There are other games coming out and creating income, this levels out the 3-5 year development cycle between IP. It also takes the stress off of the founders a bit. You're not forcasting out runway for 4 years of minimal revenue and hoping you don't have to take on cash at the end and give up ownership.
I think sony will play the right level of support for Bungie.
I also got a shot of what it looked like to develop a game. There are long windows where you have a lot of folks on staff with not much revenue. And developing a new IP means you have a lot more staff that has no revenue. This is hard for single IP studios, and thus the layoffs on a cycle. For 2 IP studios this can be harder as you want to go as big on the 2nd IP as you do the first, so you may have even more.
Being a part of a massive publisher helps out a ton. There are other games coming out and creating income, this levels out the 3-5 year development cycle between IP. It also takes the stress off of the founders a bit. You're not forcasting out runway for 4 years of minimal revenue and hoping you don't have to take on cash at the end and give up ownership.
This is a great post and generally echos my own experience. I think Destiny is a decent brand with a smaller, but still sizable following.
My personal opinion: Sony wanted to acquire both the Destiny brand and the team that built that brand—especially the innovative networking engineers. I hope that Bungie gets another shot at a new brand, maybe something that isn't a shooter.
My personal opinion: Sony wanted to acquire both the Destiny brand and the team that built that brand—especially the innovative networking engineers. I hope that Bungie gets another shot at a new brand, maybe something that isn't a shooter.
I hear that metric a lot - dollars per entertainment-hour. It's an interesting metric - but it's also important to remember the 1.5 hour Marvel film almost certainly took more human hours in the input side than virtually any video game. At least, my 10k hours in StarCraft took far far far fewer human hours to produce than my 1.5 hours watching the Avengers.
Sort of a "labor theory of value" for entertainment pricing, I guess.
Sort of a "labor theory of value" for entertainment pricing, I guess.
also important to remember the 1.5 hour Marvel film almost certainly took more human hours in the input side than virtually any video game
This is simply wrong.
Marvel movies (and indeed, most studio releases) are generally produced and released within a year or two. Only the biggest blockbusters have crews in the hundreds, and it is rare for a movie to have a crew in the thousands. For example, Endgame is one of the most expensive movies ever made...and production and post-production (i.e., VFX) took less than 2 years. Dune (2021) was filmed and post-produced in under 2 years. Tenet, Nolan's most technically complex film, was actually filmed and post-produced in just over 1 year. (But contrast to Avatar 2 and 3, which have been in production for over 4 years and counting.)
On the other hand, almost every AAA game of the last decade has spent years in development with a crew of hundreds for almost the entire time. For example, Red Dead 2 was in development for 7 years. Starcraft 2 was in development for over 5 years. Destiny was in development for 4 years.
Note that the above timeline does not include pre-production work (like writing the screenplay, casting, hiring crew, raising funds) because in the movie industry pre-production work proceeds very slowly (for example: Avatar 2 was in pre-production for 7 years; Gemini Man for over 20 years), but the actual production and post-production (i.e., the actual making of the movie, editing, FX) happens at a lightning pace. In the game industry, the creative parts happen in tandem with the development of the game itself.
Also note that while movies can have large crews, the different teams aren't all working at the same time; for example, film crews and other production crews rarely interact with the VFX or other post-production crew.
This is simply wrong.
Marvel movies (and indeed, most studio releases) are generally produced and released within a year or two. Only the biggest blockbusters have crews in the hundreds, and it is rare for a movie to have a crew in the thousands. For example, Endgame is one of the most expensive movies ever made...and production and post-production (i.e., VFX) took less than 2 years. Dune (2021) was filmed and post-produced in under 2 years. Tenet, Nolan's most technically complex film, was actually filmed and post-produced in just over 1 year. (But contrast to Avatar 2 and 3, which have been in production for over 4 years and counting.)
On the other hand, almost every AAA game of the last decade has spent years in development with a crew of hundreds for almost the entire time. For example, Red Dead 2 was in development for 7 years. Starcraft 2 was in development for over 5 years. Destiny was in development for 4 years.
Note that the above timeline does not include pre-production work (like writing the screenplay, casting, hiring crew, raising funds) because in the movie industry pre-production work proceeds very slowly (for example: Avatar 2 was in pre-production for 7 years; Gemini Man for over 20 years), but the actual production and post-production (i.e., the actual making of the movie, editing, FX) happens at a lightning pace. In the game industry, the creative parts happen in tandem with the development of the game itself.
Also note that while movies can have large crews, the different teams aren't all working at the same time; for example, film crews and other production crews rarely interact with the VFX or other post-production crew.
If you allocate all those hours to one gamer, there's no contest. Check out the dev costs of games here [1] to the "net negative" (no marketing) costs for movies here [2] -- 4 games break $100M while you need $200M as a movie to get on the list. So, twice as much for 2h of content!
But if you factor in audience size, things get more complicated. Red Dead 2 sold about 38M copies, a near record, but Avengers Endgame reached something like 250-300M people at the box office, even before streaming etc.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_g... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films
But if you factor in audience size, things get more complicated. Red Dead 2 sold about 38M copies, a near record, but Avengers Endgame reached something like 250-300M people at the box office, even before streaming etc.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_g... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films
I think the OP's argument is that you also have to factor in hours played, and that, per player-hour, respectively movie-watcher-hour, the game is a lot cheaper.
300M movie watchers is about half a billion hours. If those 38M games all had only one player (probably fairly close) they only have to play the game for 15 hours on average to get at half a billion player hours.
https://howlongtobeat.com/game?id=27100 claims it takes at least 49 hours to beat it, so it’s likely that the game was played for more hours than the movie was watched.
300M movie watchers is about half a billion hours. If those 38M games all had only one player (probably fairly close) they only have to play the game for 15 hours on average to get at half a billion player hours.
https://howlongtobeat.com/game?id=27100 claims it takes at least 49 hours to beat it, so it’s likely that the game was played for more hours than the movie was watched.
As an added layer I suspect that most people watch the entire movie but most people don't finish games.
There's a percentage of players of course that will play a game for many hundreds or thousands of hours but the calculation is shakier when you take the falloff of players into account/
https://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/17/gdc-most-players-don...
There's a percentage of players of course that will play a game for many hundreds or thousands of hours but the calculation is shakier when you take the falloff of players into account/
https://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/17/gdc-most-players-don...
Isn't a huge part of that money going to the actors, not into more typical actual labor?
Games take a lot longer to produce than films (in total, per hour of content that may not be true).
Games take a lot longer to produce than films (in total, per hour of content that may not be true).
Not that huge, really. A-list actors will get 10-20m tops, add all the others and you're probably looking at around 30m-40m over a budget of 300m-500m.
The largest expenses are related to FX costs and marketing. That's why the cost of low-effects movies falls very rapidly under 100m, you can film a run-of-the-mill romcom for less than 10m.
The largest expenses are related to FX costs and marketing. That's why the cost of low-effects movies falls very rapidly under 100m, you can film a run-of-the-mill romcom for less than 10m.
I would really like to see that comparison, i.e. the ‘human hours’ required, for a AAA game by a largish developer vs. the average Marvel film. I may try to do some rough numbers later because that just seems like an interesting thing to know.
Also, how far down the stack do you go for each. Both rely on tools to make the production happen. Do you count hours to make the digital editing software and fx programs for films? Do you count the human hours to make Unreal4?
Also, how far down the stack do you go for each. Both rely on tools to make the production happen. Do you count hours to make the digital editing software and fx programs for films? Do you count the human hours to make Unreal4?
Do you count the hours to design and produce the computer hardware used to render the CGI for a film? Do you count the years and cost of raising a child from birth to being a member of the crew?
I doubt they count hours towards tools etc developed as they probably paid money for those. So, different bucket I guess, and still important for the overall cost.
I doubt they count hours towards tools etc developed as they probably paid money for those. So, different bucket I guess, and still important for the overall cost.
It really depends on the production - some of them, particularly animated ones, had to develop their whole pipelines from scratch as part of their early productions. You can bet that time was accounted for as part of production costs. Same for pioneer productions like The Mandalorian (iirc costing $3m per episode, a large chunk of which went into developing experimental 3d soundstages).
For the more common endeavours, then no, of course - they just use what is there, or more likely outsource it to specialised providers in the same way as they would outsource e.g. building a website.
For the more common endeavours, then no, of course - they just use what is there, or more likely outsource it to specialised providers in the same way as they would outsource e.g. building a website.
Paying money for a tool means having a person develop that tool for you.
Obviously yes, but if you're attempting to add up person hours worked for some project, I don't think you would include the hours spent in say Mac OS.
Sure, but game devs use tools like unreal engine the development time of which shouldn't be factored into the human hours calculation
> the 1.5 hour Marvel film almost certainly took more human hours in the input side than virtually any video game
I'm not sure what you mean.
A big Marvel movie costs around $300m-$500m to produce, these days. AAA videogames can go over $300m-$400m I believe. It's basically the same ballpark, as far as input costs go. However, a film results in 2h of output enjoyment for a consumer, whereas games get several multiples of that.
I'm not sure what you mean.
A big Marvel movie costs around $300m-$500m to produce, these days. AAA videogames can go over $300m-$400m I believe. It's basically the same ballpark, as far as input costs go. However, a film results in 2h of output enjoyment for a consumer, whereas games get several multiples of that.
Do you not remember beating StarCraft and watching the ending credits scroll?
It's a giant wall of text for 30 minutes.
It's a giant wall of text for 30 minutes.
The fact is that independent game developers struggle to survive, so that is what I’m using as my yardstick for whether they are making enough money.
Dollars per entertainment hour is just a way to try to convince gamers that it is reasonable to spend more on games, but perhaps the better argument to make is that we need to pay these companies more or they will go out of business or move to scummy pay to win business models.
Dollars per entertainment hour is just a way to try to convince gamers that it is reasonable to spend more on games, but perhaps the better argument to make is that we need to pay these companies more or they will go out of business or move to scummy pay to win business models.
That only works out if 1 hour of video games has the same value as one hour of a movie.
It's apples to oranges anyway, even when comparing games to games.
It's apples to oranges anyway, even when comparing games to games.
Why are so many people trying to make triple A games? It just seems like there is too much supply and not enough demand. Don't even most hardcore gamers only play a select few triple A games? And aren't triple A games unpopular with almost all casual and sports gamers?
And most importantly - isn't there the LEAST growth in the hardcore gaming segment?
And most importantly - isn't there the LEAST growth in the hardcore gaming segment?
There is an extreme demand. Many franchises like Pokemon are still breaking sales records along with consoles.
https://gamerant.com/pokemon-legends-arceus-sales-records/
https://gamerant.com/pokemon-legends-arceus-sales-records/
Pokemon isn’t AAA
Not sure what definition you are using to exclude Pokemon, but Wikipedia's [0] definition certainly would classify it as AAA [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_(video_game_industry) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_publisher#Major_pub...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_(video_game_industry) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_publisher#Major_pub...
I think AAA is more about budget.
I thought the budget for AAA games was higher, and I thought the budget for Pokemon (handheld games) would be lower.
But turns out Pokemon Sword and Shield cost >$20M to make, and AAA is low 10s of millions. Definitely AAA by every measure.
I thought the budget for AAA games was higher, and I thought the budget for Pokemon (handheld games) would be lower.
But turns out Pokemon Sword and Shield cost >$20M to make, and AAA is low 10s of millions. Definitely AAA by every measure.
I don't think many would say that $20M would be AAA today, games are much bigger and more expensive today than 20 years ago. $20M budget means you would break even on less than a million sales, I doubt anyone would call that level of budget AAA.
Pokémon does however have an AAA level marketing budget even if it doesn't have AAA level development budget.
Pokémon does however have an AAA level marketing budget even if it doesn't have AAA level development budget.
AAA is more of an investment term, how much money and how reliably is this project expected to return? Pokémon very reliably produces a ton of sales and revenue, so is AAA even if their development budget/quality doesn't look AAA at all. Normally you need a high budget to ship games that will reliably sell, but Pokémon managed to get there via branding instead.
Halo 1-3, ODST and Reach what exactly went wrong for Bungie when they were under Microsoft?
Microsoft, Activision, Sony they were never truly independent no studio these days can afford too.
Game development is a mess and a very expensive mess at that, you need a sugar daddy if you would to survive.
Microsoft, Activision, Sony they were never truly independent no studio these days can afford too.
Game development is a mess and a very expensive mess at that, you need a sugar daddy if you would to survive.
> Halo 1-3, ODST and Reach what exactly went wrong for Bungie when they were under Microsoft?
Bungie didn't like how Microsoft managed them. Bungie wanted to do something other than Halo, but Microsoft wanted more Halo.
A Destiny reference can be seen in ODST: https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2014/01/09/h...
Bungie didn't like how Microsoft managed them. Bungie wanted to do something other than Halo, but Microsoft wanted more Halo.
A Destiny reference can be seen in ODST: https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2014/01/09/h...
Ironically, Bungie broke off from Microsoft in hopes of more creative freedom, but as per the article, are running an even tighter ship now... Unfortunate.
I think something went wrong with Bungie around the time that Marty parted ways. He also acted out in a way that made it kinda hard to be sympathetic towards him but he seemed to be a big part of what made Bungie Bungie.
Exactly. Just looking at the Master Chief collection shows that the games were quite alright.
Bungir became a household name while MS owned them and they launched an iconic franchise. How was that bad?
Prior to their Microsoft deal they produced a variety of games with different settings (the Marathon universe which linked to their earlier games and forward to Halo, Myth I/II which were RTS with rich lore, and Oni which was a close-combat game that functioned as a precursor to the likes of Yakuza and Sleeping Dogs in terms of the mechanics).
With Halo, the single-player and lore began to tail off to focus on the multi-player market, and their other settings and styles of games were all discarded in favour of an FPS treadmill.
With Halo, the single-player and lore began to tail off to focus on the multi-player market, and their other settings and styles of games were all discarded in favour of an FPS treadmill.
That’s life for game studios though. It’s hard to survive. Making #2 or #3 of a hit is a lot more likely to make the studio survive another 5 years
I think the word "find" is pretty descriptive. It's hard to find people willing to turn down billions of dollars. This is more like an indictment on M&A in the modern economy. Why compete when you can simply acquire?
Acquiring is good! Not every company that wants to grow needs to do something original, sometimes funding people doing original things is good. Bad management is not a requirement for acquiring companies, though it is frustratingly common.
> Not every company that wants to grow needs to do something original
Maybe they should? The world would look quite different if companies were forced to innovate and compete rather than merge and acquire.
Maybe they should? The world would look quite different if companies were forced to innovate and compete rather than merge and acquire.
They've done better the second time around:
The Wall Street Journal reports today that some analysts estimate Microsoft paid between $20 million and $40 million for Bungie in total.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2000/06/20/microsoft-acquires-b...
The Wall Street Journal reports today that some analysts estimate Microsoft paid between $20 million and $40 million for Bungie in total.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2000/06/20/microsoft-acquires-b...
Isn't this the third time? I thought they were owned by Activision for a bit, before leaving again.
They partnered with Activision to leverage them for distribution in a ten year deal that they broke part way through, iirc.
Maybe free to play games that make money through micro transactions, without pay to win mechanism (like buying skins or hats!) are the way to sustainably produce games? Kinda like a SAAS subscription instead of a purchase software outright deal.
This is the current business model of Destiny 2: there's free to play, with expansions you can buy for a one-time cost to give you more content, or microtransactions for cosmetics.
> I guess that points to how unbelievable hard it is for independent game developers to survive
I thought companies like Bungie, Bioware, etc. sold out.
i.e. it's easy to survive if you make blockbuster titles like Halo or Mass Effect, but then a big corp comes by and offers mega bucks to buy you and so you sell out. The solution if you don't want to be "under the thumb of [a] corporate overlord" is to not sell out in the first place.
I thought companies like Bungie, Bioware, etc. sold out.
i.e. it's easy to survive if you make blockbuster titles like Halo or Mass Effect, but then a big corp comes by and offers mega bucks to buy you and so you sell out. The solution if you don't want to be "under the thumb of [a] corporate overlord" is to not sell out in the first place.
MS bought Bungie, and then Bungie had the money to make the first Halo
I still remember when Bungie was one of the only companies that made games for Macs. The Marathon trilogy was a memorable part of my childhood.
Then Microsoft bought them for Halo, and spun them back out (sans Halo). Halo was first demoed by Steve Jobs - it was going to be a Mac game.
Then Microsoft bought them for Halo, and spun them back out (sans Halo). Halo was first demoed by Steve Jobs - it was going to be a Mac game.
Marathon felt like such a huge deal at the time, with its funky triangular prism box, its hyperliterate storyline, and its novel network multiplayer modes. And yet it seems to get little to no airtime in video game nostalgia mythology.
Maybe it was just too niche as a Mac game.
Maybe it was just too niche as a Mac game.
That's exactly it, imho: not enough people got to experience how amazing the trilogy was due to platform exclusivity.
Just to be clear, it was a mac game. It still came out and Halo: Combat Involved ran beautifully on PPC and Intel (Rosetta 1 translation?).
Good memories of that game. I still haven’t played marathon :0
Good memories of that game. I still haven’t played marathon :0
Years after the Xbox version. The Mac port came out in Dec. 2003. The Xbox version released in Nov. 2001. It was also published and ported by MacSoft whereas earlier Bungie games like Myth I and II and Marathon were Mac from the beginning.
I’m willing to bet if halo didn’t come to xbox we wouldn’t be discussing it today and still playing halo games 20 years later.
My first computer as a kid (the Family computer) was a Macintosh Quadra 610 complete with a US Robotics dial-up modem. I'm pretty sure we got it at Circuit City for like 4 or 5 grand, something totally obscene. I remember trying to visit the Lego website and could never get much more than a single image to load. Crazy to look back on the specs now and see that it had a clockspeed of 25 MHz.
I remember the first time I saw the Marathon Infinity box. I was so stoked to play! But, alas, it never booted completely. The boot splash would come up and then it would hang. My first dose of digital disappointment!
I remember the first time I saw the Marathon Infinity box. I was so stoked to play! But, alas, it never booted completely. The boot splash would come up and then it would hang. My first dose of digital disappointment!
It was going to be an RTS. Pretty different if you ask me.
Nah, here's a preview of Halo for Mac, in 1999. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebI5lkLRTdg Before Microsoft bought Bungie. It looks almost identical to the Xbox version from 2001.
It definitely started as an RTS, but it had morphed into Combat Evolved before Microsoft bought bungie.
It definitely started as an RTS, but it had morphed into Combat Evolved before Microsoft bought bungie.
I know bungie doesn't own the halo ip anymore, but wow. Bungie, halo, and microsoft will forever be linked in my mind. The fact that sony is going to buy them? I feel like hell has frozen over. What's next? MS buying naughty dog?
For my money the best IP that Bungie ever produced was "Myth", specifically The Fallen Lords & Soulblighter.
Sadly, they sold it off to Take Two Interactive who botched the 3rd game in the series and killed off the franchise.
I wish I could buy the IP off of Take Two and revive it, but until then I just have to settle for playing the modern ports that are still being maintained.
Sadly, they sold it off to Take Two Interactive who botched the 3rd game in the series and killed off the franchise.
I wish I could buy the IP off of Take Two and revive it, but until then I just have to settle for playing the modern ports that are still being maintained.
Myth was absolutely fantastic. They recently put a Claymore from it in Destiny, sadly it's not nearly as good as the shotgun from Marathon or the grenade launcher from Pathways into Darkness.
I have Pathways Into Darkness on my vintage Quadra 650 here. :-)
Also, we should play Destiny. Not to turn HN into LFG or anything.
Also, we should play Destiny. Not to turn HN into LFG or anything.
I'd join the HN Destiny clan in a heartbeat
If someone starts a Discord I'd be happy to join it!
Myth II still gets rounds at local LAN parties, in part because of its modding scene.
Indeed. :-)
I'm the one that makes everybody install it to play it for the first time so that everyone can experience the agonizing embarrassment of their best laid plans being thwarted by their own dwarves accidentally decimating themselves by throwing their molotov cocktails straight up into the air. "<BANG>... Casualties." followed by the inevitable, "Argh! What?!? Noooooooo!"
Never gets old.
I'm the one that makes everybody install it to play it for the first time so that everyone can experience the agonizing embarrassment of their best laid plans being thwarted by their own dwarves accidentally decimating themselves by throwing their molotov cocktails straight up into the air. "<BANG>... Casualties." followed by the inevitable, "Argh! What?!? Noooooooo!"
Never gets old.
To me, Bungie is associated with Apple and the amazing Marathon game series for Mac back in the 90s.
I'll never forget the video of Steve Jobs himself introducing Halo (right before Microsoft bought it).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxdgo1rFcxU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxdgo1rFcxU
> What's next? MS buying naughty dog?
I doubt Sony would ever sell them. :)
I doubt Sony would ever sell them. :)
Well, nothing surprises me anymore since Microsoft bought Rare two decades ago. Nintendo literally sold a part of its soul on this deal.
But yeah, it’s hard to dissociate Halo from Bungie and Microsoft.
But yeah, it’s hard to dissociate Halo from Bungie and Microsoft.
Sony were making exlusive deals with Bungie for quite some time now with Destiny so its not that surprising.
Another one! I'm interested to see how this plays out. Most of Microsoft's acquisitions in recent years have been failures. Studios that had been making iconic games were acquired by Microsoft and in short order were only making shovelware (see Rare post acquisition).
Sony doesn't seem to have the same problem. Sucker Punch and Insomniac are good examples of this, their output has been as good as ever since being acquired by Sony. From the outside looking in this seems to be because Sony understands how much creative freedom means to these teams, and they don't inject Sony management into the processes of previously successful game studios. I'd love to hear more of an insider opinion on why acquisitions over the last decade look so differently at these two companies though.
Sony doesn't seem to have the same problem. Sucker Punch and Insomniac are good examples of this, their output has been as good as ever since being acquired by Sony. From the outside looking in this seems to be because Sony understands how much creative freedom means to these teams, and they don't inject Sony management into the processes of previously successful game studios. I'd love to hear more of an insider opinion on why acquisitions over the last decade look so differently at these two companies though.
Rare did go down after acquisition, but what others are you talking about? Their biggest (Zenimax) one will start releasing new Xbox and PC exclusive games from this year onwards, so it's still early to call that one a failure.
Mojang, is doing Mojang thing i.e. Minecraft and while they haven't had a great success after that, they're still doing fine.
Playground games is doing Forza which is actually pretty popular among racing players (perhaps the most popular).
Obsidian haven't started to make Xbox and PC exclusives yet, but they'll also start with that presumably next year.
I don't know where you're getting "Most of Microsoft's acquisitions in recent years have been failures." this.
On the other hand, Sony's way of buying studios is way different. Most of the times, they have already worked with those studios in past to make a PS exclusive and then they buy them. I agree that Insomniac is doing great (better than any of Microsoft's purchases), but other than that, there isn't much just like MS.
I think we will get a better picture of whose acquisitions work best after 5-6 more years.
Mojang, is doing Mojang thing i.e. Minecraft and while they haven't had a great success after that, they're still doing fine.
Playground games is doing Forza which is actually pretty popular among racing players (perhaps the most popular).
Obsidian haven't started to make Xbox and PC exclusives yet, but they'll also start with that presumably next year.
I don't know where you're getting "Most of Microsoft's acquisitions in recent years have been failures." this.
On the other hand, Sony's way of buying studios is way different. Most of the times, they have already worked with those studios in past to make a PS exclusive and then they buy them. I agree that Insomniac is doing great (better than any of Microsoft's purchases), but other than that, there isn't much just like MS.
I think we will get a better picture of whose acquisitions work best after 5-6 more years.
And frankly, Rare was a shadow of it's former self at acquisition anyway. There were still some a couple of the people left who worked on the games that made Rare famous (e.g. Ken Lobb, Grant Kirkhope), but it had a huge amount of brain drain around the early 2000s that left it in a state to be one of the first game dev studios to be picked up on the cheap by Microsoft. Nintendo want interested in supporting it, and it probably just would have went under if not for Microsoft.
Other one would be Double Fine, while it is relatively early days since they were acquired in 2019, they seem to have been just working on their projects since then. Psychonauts 2 was very well received last year - from what I've read it seems like the Microsoft acquisition allowed them to add a bunch of content back into the game that they had previously cut for time/budget, like boss battles - looks like it helped with the overall game quality.
> Obsidian haven't started to make Xbox and PC exclusives yet, but they'll also start with that presumably next year.
Didn't they released Grounded, exclusive to PC and xbox in 2020? Though since it's a survival game, people might not remember it's been developed by them.
Didn't they released Grounded, exclusive to PC and xbox in 2020? Though since it's a survival game, people might not remember it's been developed by them.
Yes they did, but it's still an early access game, so I don't know if it counts a a fully developed release.
Ensemble, FASA, Lionhead Studios, Access, Digital Anvil
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
I don't know if I would classify 15-25 years ago as "recent years"...
Did rare go down after acquisition? I'm young so maybe I don't remember what the glory days of rare were but Rare with Microsoft produced Viva Pinata, banjo kazooie nuts and bolts, and sea of thieves. Sea of thieves did have some trouble at launch but it has grown into quite a great game. Viva piñata is highly revered and nuts and bolts is also loved, even if it wasn't a banjo kazooie platformer.
Rare was acquired in 2002 and their list of games since doesn't look like shovelware to me [1]. Yeah, there's some misses, but there's also some great games in there. The worst ones are the ones tied to Kinect and MS has abandoned that venture.
Also, MS acquisitions from the last 5 years have released standout games: Psychonauts 2 and Forza Horizon 5 are two that I played and loved and are certainly not "shovelware"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_developed_...
Also, MS acquisitions from the last 5 years have released standout games: Psychonauts 2 and Forza Horizon 5 are two that I played and loved and are certainly not "shovelware"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_developed_...
Maybe it's not shovelware, but there's a pretty stark difference in the caliber of games that Rare released after their acquisition.
This is the company that made Donkey Kong Country, Banjo & Kazooie, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Conker, etc, so anything short of iconic is a step down.
However, I'll add that Viva Piñata is an oft overlooked gem.
This is the company that made Donkey Kong Country, Banjo & Kazooie, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Conker, etc, so anything short of iconic is a step down.
However, I'll add that Viva Piñata is an oft overlooked gem.
That's a pretty reasonable assessment.
Honestly, I wonder how much of this has to do with how much things have changed in the last 25 years. Games have gotten so much more complex and shifted their focus to multiplayer. It feels like it's no longer possible for a single developer to have so much impact. Rare developed multiple iconic games _per year_! Nowadays, developers can barely release one game every few years.
Honestly, I wonder how much of this has to do with how much things have changed in the last 25 years. Games have gotten so much more complex and shifted their focus to multiplayer. It feels like it's no longer possible for a single developer to have so much impact. Rare developed multiple iconic games _per year_! Nowadays, developers can barely release one game every few years.
It’s Wizards and Warriors for me.. loved that game.
>>Rare was acquired in 2002 and their list of games since doesn't look like shovelware to me
I don't know.... Honestly Rare was just as good if not better than Nintendo themselves. And that's a nearly impossible feat.
The n64 did as well as it did because of Rare. GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Banjo, Diddy Kong, Donkey Kong, Jet Force Gemini etc.. post-acquisition, Rare didn't made the same sort of games. So maybe they found new fans, but the old fans hated it. Myself included.
I don't know.... Honestly Rare was just as good if not better than Nintendo themselves. And that's a nearly impossible feat.
The n64 did as well as it did because of Rare. GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Banjo, Diddy Kong, Donkey Kong, Jet Force Gemini etc.. post-acquisition, Rare didn't made the same sort of games. So maybe they found new fans, but the old fans hated it. Myself included.
Shit I'm old. To me Rare were definitely one of the best game studios for NES and SNES: R.C. Pro-Am, NARC, Battletoads, Killer Instinct, Donkey Kong Country. I got into University when the N64 came out, so I did not play it .
There was a run of excellence on the N64 (Goldeneye, Banjo Kazooie, Diddy Kong Racing, Jet Force Gemini, Perfect Dark) but Banjo Tooie and Donkey Kong 64, in retrospect, are very bloated games. As a kid, I loved them because there was more content for my money, but I can't imagine replaying them now.
[deleted]
It’s interesting that Sucker Punch and Bungie offices were really close to each other - maybe 2 blocks? Although I read that Sucker Punch recently moved, and I don’t know the new location.
I can imagine them sharing all sorts of things between studios now that they have the same ownership. It will at least allow shared lunch time conversations to be less guarded
I can imagine them sharing all sorts of things between studios now that they have the same ownership. It will at least allow shared lunch time conversations to be less guarded
Wait wasn't Bungie a MS division at one point?
Yes. Bungie was an independent studio back in the 90's, then MS acquired them for Halo. Bungie split from MS in 2007; the Halo IP remained behind under 343.
They were under Activision during the Destiny era until 2019. So if they stayed, they would've ended up back at MS. The M&A merry-go-round continues.
They were under Activision during the Destiny era until 2019. So if they stayed, they would've ended up back at MS. The M&A merry-go-round continues.
They weren't under Activision, they just had a publishing agreement with Activision in the 2010s, and retained all intellectual property.
Hm, surely it must have been later than 2007 that they split? Wasn't Reach made by Bungie?
They split in 2007. MS then had them make reach as an independent company.
When they announced the split in 2007, there was some deal that required Bungie to make two more Halo games after 3. Bungie released ODST in 2009 and Reach in 2010.
Feels like sony + ms are just going to shoot each other in the foot. Gamers will end up with both consoles (sold as loss leaders) to get access to the exclusives and then spread their investment in games between the two. Lose/lose
Microsoft has said that they don't see Sony and Nintendo as competition and the acquisitions are not about Sony. (but about Google, Amazon, Apple etc)
Phil Spencer also said he hopes Sony and Nintendo will preserve the gaming ecosystem unlike those others.
Phil Spencer also said he hopes Sony and Nintendo will preserve the gaming ecosystem unlike those others.
i believe for MS, its all about the Xbox game pass. they need as many games under game pass as possible in order to lure people in to justify paying monthly for game as service.
The way Phil Spencer has been talking, it seems to me like they're going to start putting all these acquisitions exclusively on the Xbox, so I'm not sure sure about that "don't see them as competition" or "hope to preserve the gaming ecosystem".
> Microsoft has said that they don't see Sony and Nintendo as competition
They all say this and … that’s just marketing/bs. How in the world aren’t they competing ? They are all battling for a limited ressource which is your video game budget.
They all say this and … that’s just marketing/bs. How in the world aren’t they competing ? They are all battling for a limited ressource which is your video game budget.
In the case of Nintendo, they've agreed to support cross-play, which Sony refuse to. And their consoles and brand are very different from XBox. Very few people are buying a Switch instead of an XBox or gaming PC; they're more likely to be buying it as another way of gaming.
Decent chance I won’t have to change my setup from PC/PS5/Switch for a good long while. When I last looked, whatever we’re calling the Xbox line now doesn’t have enough exclusives to personally justify any amount of investment in the console given my arrangement and that looks unlikely to change anytime in the near future.
It seems like all new Xbox games will be on PC[0], and eventually Playstation games will be after some exclusivity period[1].
Halo Infinite released same day on Xbox and PC. That's never happened for a mainline Halo game before.
[0] Phil Spencer confirms all first-party Xbox Series X games are 'coming to PC' https://www.pcgamer.com/phil-spencer-confirms-all-first-part...
[1] Sony wants to bring more first-party games to PC https://www.pcgamer.com/sonys-new-strategy-brings-more-of-it...
Halo Infinite released same day on Xbox and PC. That's never happened for a mainline Halo game before.
[0] Phil Spencer confirms all first-party Xbox Series X games are 'coming to PC' https://www.pcgamer.com/phil-spencer-confirms-all-first-part...
[1] Sony wants to bring more first-party games to PC https://www.pcgamer.com/sonys-new-strategy-brings-more-of-it...
They both win if players have and keep both subscriptions simultaneously
Yep, this feels to me like the direction this is going. Sony and Microsoft scooping up game developers to make their subscription worth it for the number of games relative to the cost/month. And I think they've probably both gotten there now. Plenty of people maintain Netflix+Hulu+...+..., so I don't think its a stretch for people to put up $20/month and get both of the subscriptions even after the initial cost of the console.
That's actually not what they care about the most. Yes it's great to have players that will buy both consoles and both subscriptions. The companies don't worry about them as much because they already know it's a guaranteed segment of the market.
What they care about more are players that can ONLY buy one OR the other. That's higher on their priority list. This is about buying the mind shares of tomorrow.
What they care about more are players that can ONLY buy one OR the other. That's higher on their priority list. This is about buying the mind shares of tomorrow.
Recurring online service payments are replacing game sales as the guaranteed loss recouping strategy for consoles. Exclusive titles will rely heavily on the online service, driving long-term subscriptions and anchoring cross-platform DLC purchases.
The loser is game devs, who must either (a) do extra dev AND pay higher fees to integrate deeply with each platform, or (b) integrate minimally with each platform and compete with titles that get a leg-up from users' sunk costs into the network service.
tl;dr - the online service is the new console
The loser is game devs, who must either (a) do extra dev AND pay higher fees to integrate deeply with each platform, or (b) integrate minimally with each platform and compete with titles that get a leg-up from users' sunk costs into the network service.
tl;dr - the online service is the new console
Who's left (as large distinct publishers/studios)?
- Sony
- Microsoft
- Electronic Arts
- Capcom
- Ubisoft
- Nintendo
- Konami
- Square Enix
- Tencent
- Take Two
- Warner Brother Games
- Embracer Group
IP license biz model (Disney, Sega, etc...)
I'd include Valve, but they just don't make games anymore
edit: Added Embracer
- Sony
- Microsoft
- Electronic Arts
- Capcom
- Ubisoft
- Nintendo
- Konami
- Square Enix
- Tencent
- Take Two
- Warner Brother Games
- Embracer Group
IP license biz model (Disney, Sega, etc...)
I'd include Valve, but they just don't make games anymore
edit: Added Embracer
I'm not sure I'd classify Konami as "large distinct publishers/studios" anymore. Apart from the obligatory yearly installments of PES and BeatMania, they seem to mostly make gambling machines these days.
Nexon, Netmarble, Bandai-Namco are all comparable to or bigger than Ubisoft in terms of revenue I believe.
I think Valve/Steam will get M&A'd when the current leadership retires
From software?
Interestingly, they're owned by Kadokawa Corporation, a large Japanese media conglomerate. Sony has a close relationship with From, so I could see them trying to buy the company, if Kadokawa was interested in selling.
Souls games sell really well, although not close to CoD or Destiny numbers. I feel like Elden Ring will be huge, though.
Souls games sell really well, although not close to CoD or Destiny numbers. I feel like Elden Ring will be huge, though.
Sony didn't want to do this. Microsoft forced their hand.
I'm sure Sony is terrified of a world where MS keeps buying up hugely popular cross platform games and shutting them off.
Sony said they want to keep Bungie cross platform. Maybe they're doing this to barter for Call of Duty with MS.
I'm sure Sony is terrified of a world where MS keeps buying up hugely popular cross platform games and shutting them off.
Sony said they want to keep Bungie cross platform. Maybe they're doing this to barter for Call of Duty with MS.
Well Sony was always the one aggressive with exclusives, not Microsoft. I only got PS5 to finally catch up on 5-10 exclusives I've wanted to play for the last few years. If it was only up to the specs everyone would go with Xbox Series X
>>Well Sony was always the one aggressive with exclusives, not Microsoft.
I don't know what you're talking about. All consoles have exclusives. It's just that Microsoft's exclusives were not that good. Sure they had couple, but it's nothing compared to the number of hits from Sony or Nintendo.
I don't know what you're talking about. All consoles have exclusives. It's just that Microsoft's exclusives were not that good. Sure they had couple, but it's nothing compared to the number of hits from Sony or Nintendo.
Of all the companies they could buy, this one certainly feels the most… Spiteful.
Supposedly it's been in talks for over five months, so unless someone at Sony also knew about the Microsoft deal (which is, of course, possible) it doesn't appear to be directly in response to it.
It could be in response to the Bethesda/Zenimax deal, not the Activision-Blizzard one
Google should buy Take Two, make Grand Theft Auto Online, Stadia exclusive, console unnecessary. $5/month. Checkmate.
To me the best explanation for this is as mutually-assured-destruction insurance if Microsoft takes the biggest title in the Activision portfolio, Call of Duty, away from Playstation.
As a Sony fan, I'm cautiously optimistic that the relationship could be more fruitful than that. I don't know what Sony's creative secrets are, but they seem good at ushering high quality, interesting games with broad appeal into existence, sort of akin to what you see at HBO or Pixar. I would love to see them exert that influence on a big multiplatform game.
As a Sony fan, I'm cautiously optimistic that the relationship could be more fruitful than that. I don't know what Sony's creative secrets are, but they seem good at ushering high quality, interesting games with broad appeal into existence, sort of akin to what you see at HBO or Pixar. I would love to see them exert that influence on a big multiplatform game.
So it's race to buy up all the publishers?
In the same way Disney, Amazon, NBC and HBO (now ATT time warner) are trying to buy all the back catalogs if content for their streaming services.
Being able to play any game from the past (x publishers only) on your Xbox/ps for a monthly fee is a giant fight brewing.
Being able to play any game from the past (x publishers only) on your Xbox/ps for a monthly fee is a giant fight brewing.
Bungie isn't really a publisher... I guess they maybe self-publish Destiny 2 now?
Microsoft's last 2 big acquisitions have been publishers with many underlying studios all included... I don't know that I can think of Sony really ever doing that; they've mostly bought up individual studios. Of course they're not nearly as big as Microsoft is.
Microsoft's last 2 big acquisitions have been publishers with many underlying studios all included... I don't know that I can think of Sony really ever doing that; they've mostly bought up individual studios. Of course they're not nearly as big as Microsoft is.
> they maybe self-publish Destiny 2 now
Yes since 2019
https://www.bungie.net/en/Explore/Detail/News/47569
Yes since 2019
https://www.bungie.net/en/Explore/Detail/News/47569
Sony is about to sunset Playstation Plus and Now and merge them into a service that will try to compete with Xbox Gamepass, and to do that you need games.
Its not just to compete with Gamepass, it’s moving to where the customer is. Over the next 10 years, where is the growth in gaming going to come from? Hint: not selling more 400 watt white and black boxes dedicated to gaming that plug into screens. Sony and Microsoft are less interested in competing with each other and more interested in protecting the total market from Google, Amazon and Apple. None of those companies have legacy console business, have enormous cash piles and understand there is a bright future in gaming ($$$)
Gaming will eventually be where if you want to play a game, you just plug into a remote computer system pre-built for it, and the only games that will still be installed on consumer devices will be those which need extremely low latency like shooters and fighting games.
Should I max out my PS Plus subscription because it's about to get converted to something else at a favorable value ratio?
Oligopolize all the markets!
yes, MS wants to create the "netflix of games"
Wasn't Bungie Microsoft's first real gaming acquisition?
https://www.ign.com/articles/2000/06/20/microsoft-acquires-b...
Almost 22 years ago.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2000/06/20/microsoft-acquires-b...
Almost 22 years ago.
It depends on what is "real gaming", I suppose. Microsoft bought the Bruce Artwick Organization (creators of the classic versions of Microsoft Flight Simulator) in 1995.
Capcom? Konami? Sega? Nah, let's buy this 1 old ass game.
Hope Bungie has something in the works that is 3.6B
Hope Bungie has something in the works that is 3.6B
Does Bungie even still own the rights to their older catalog (not counting Halo obviously)? Like Myth, Oni, and Marathon?
Given that they recently put a bunch of weapons from their older games in Destiny, but had to modify the names slightly, I suspect the answer is "no".
I don't think they do. I think Oni is with Take-Two. I searched about that one a while back actually as I always loved Oni and wanted to see it come back.
Their next game is called 'Matter' and is purportedly more akin to Overwatch than Destiny. 2025ish is the current estimate.
Makes EA's purchase of Respawn (Apex Legends) for $400M look like an incredible deal.
This seems more like something to calm investors rather than interest in taking the IP anywhere. And… I get it, if you’re Sony you gotta show you’re willing to play.
Regardless of what MS has said I suspect people don’t really trust them, especially since the Sony/MS duopoly (Nintendo not really competing in the high end console category) isn’t a smooth one.
MS wants to dominate the market. XBOX game pass is doing ridiculously well. If they can make XBOX the default console and reduce Sony to a niche player they will absolutely do it.
Regardless of what MS has said I suspect people don’t really trust them, especially since the Sony/MS duopoly (Nintendo not really competing in the high end console category) isn’t a smooth one.
MS wants to dominate the market. XBOX game pass is doing ridiculously well. If they can make XBOX the default console and reduce Sony to a niche player they will absolutely do it.
I think it's hilarious. Microsoft buys the studio behind iconic PS characters (Crash Bandicoot and Spyro), and then a few weeks later, Sony buys the studio that made Halo?!
It would be silly for the existing mainline franchises of several games to become exclusive to Sony, just like the same with Microsoft with their recent purchases of Activision and ZeniMax. Who doesn't want more money for multi-platform and cross-play games?
I would expect that the spin-offs or DLCs and the new IP from those studios to make them exclusive.
I would expect that the spin-offs or DLCs and the new IP from those studios to make them exclusive.
I sense Sony is in dire straits when it comes to both IP availability and their ability to compete with Microsoft.
> I sense Sony is in dire straits when it comes to both IP availability
Maybe you're referring to that they don't have many IPv4s available, because Sony is in no lack of strong Intellectual Properties when it comes to gaming. Guerrilla Games (Killzone, Horizon Zero Dawn), Insomniac Games (Ratchet & Clank), Naughty Dog (Crash Bandicoot, Jak and Dexter, Uncharted, The Last of Us), Santa Monica Studio (God of War), Polyphony Digital (Gran Turismo) and more are all part of PlayStation Studios which is a division of Sony IE. Most of the studios in PlayStation Studios are big time IP in the industry.
Maybe you're referring to that they don't have many IPv4s available, because Sony is in no lack of strong Intellectual Properties when it comes to gaming. Guerrilla Games (Killzone, Horizon Zero Dawn), Insomniac Games (Ratchet & Clank), Naughty Dog (Crash Bandicoot, Jak and Dexter, Uncharted, The Last of Us), Santa Monica Studio (God of War), Polyphony Digital (Gran Turismo) and more are all part of PlayStation Studios which is a division of Sony IE. Most of the studios in PlayStation Studios are big time IP in the industry.
Hm, last time I cared about this stuff was at the end of the 360/PS3 generation and back then MS was in a really bad spot with respect to first party production. To the point where I'm actually amazed they're still in the fight. By the end of that generation the Sony studios where really crushing it, whereas MS' were just pushing GoW, Halo and Kinect shovelware. Has the tables turned?
[deleted]
Interesting! I wonder how this bodes for Bungie's relatively recent cross-play and cross-save functionality in Destiny 2 (or future games). They executed on it extremely well and it has been great to play on PS4 and Steam without any huge issues.
They claim no changes and they intend to remain a cross-platform studio.
So I wonder if this ties into Sony's upcoming PS Now replacement gaming subscription service, you get Destiny content while your PS sub is active.
So I wonder if this ties into Sony's upcoming PS Now replacement gaming subscription service, you get Destiny content while your PS sub is active.
That’s halfway reassuring at least. Wonder if it’s gonna be out of their hands though (e.g., Microsoft or Steam inhibiting their ability to do it), as opposed to Sony preventing them.
It will be interesting to see if the transition the existing Season system to being included with a PS subscription. I’d imagine they’ll keep expansions as separate purchases, but seasons get pretty pricey on top.
It will be interesting to see if the transition the existing Season system to being included with a PS subscription. I’d imagine they’ll keep expansions as separate purchases, but seasons get pretty pricey on top.
I can only see this as some weird way to respond to Microsoft's purchase of Activision although they must have been in discussion in advance of that.
This is the meme:
"Mom can we get an Activision"
"You have an Activision at home!"
Activision at home is destiny
This is the meme:
"Mom can we get an Activision"
"You have an Activision at home!"
Activision at home is destiny
Can't wait to see the new IP Bungie will have for Sony to publish ;)
We don't know much about the new IP yet, other than:
1. 2025 is the target for launch
2. some job postings have indicated that it's probably cooperative multiplayer in some form
1. 2025 is the target for launch
2. some job postings have indicated that it's probably cooperative multiplayer in some form
I can't wait for PlayStation exclusives which will get shitty PC ports. Yes, I am looking at you FF7 Remake selling for 70 bucks.
The masochist in me wants to see these mergers continue so that a big enough power vacuum can appear for new indie studios as creativity and "risk-taking" decline.
I know Microsoft originally kept a minority stake in Bungie after letting it spin-off. I wonder if they kept the investment and how much.
As a PlayStation owner, do I finally get to play Halo, or is this everything except Halo?
Bungie hasn't owned Halo since they were spun off from Microsoft in 2007.
Current Bungie is Destiny 2.
Current Bungie is Destiny 2.
Yuck, zero interest in that :)
I wish Sony could make a decent FPS with a great story. Something like Mass Effect or Halo. Killzone was okay I suppose, but the story was lackluster and the combat involved far too much hiding behind boxes.
I wish Sony could make a decent FPS with a great story. Something like Mass Effect or Halo. Killzone was okay I suppose, but the story was lackluster and the combat involved far too much hiding behind boxes.
Destiny is the spiritual successor to Halo. Maybe try giving it a shot!
Thanks for the advice, but I've read there is lots of farming and it is mainly about online play. Those are two things I avoid. I want to play a single player campaign and beat a game in a couple of days to a couple of weeks tops.
I totally hear you - personally, I don't have the time to organize online play and I just ignore that aspect of these games. I just play the single player campaign and don't worry about farming the best equipment.
Halo on Playstation?? Cross Platform Halo??
It feels like I suddenly have butterflies in my stomach. <3
It feels like I suddenly have butterflies in my stomach. <3
Bungie does not have ownership of the Halo IP. When they became independent of Microsoft 15 years ago Microsoft retained the rights
Sadly they don't own the Halo IP.
No Halo.
Destiny 3 will probably be exclusive to Playstation though.
Destiny 3 will probably be exclusive to Playstation though.
> we will utilize the Sony Group’s diverse array of entertainment and technology assets to support further evolution of Bungie and its ability to create iconic worlds across multiple platforms and media
> We will continue pursuing our vision of one, unified Bungie community, building games that value our community and meet them wherever and however they choose to play
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220131005684/en/
Seems they'll aim for making it available for multiple platforms, not PlayStation exclusive.
> We will continue pursuing our vision of one, unified Bungie community, building games that value our community and meet them wherever and however they choose to play
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220131005684/en/
Seems they'll aim for making it available for multiple platforms, not PlayStation exclusive.
It's not looking like Destiny 3 is ever going to happen. There was even an interview from March of last year where a director said that they think Destiny 3 would be a mistake.
And on top of that, they've laid out Destiny 2's roadmap until roughly 2024, and say that that's not the end then either.
We'll see!
And on top of that, they've laid out Destiny 2's roadmap until roughly 2024, and say that that's not the end then either.
We'll see!
>There was even an interview from March of last year where a director said that they think Destiny 3 would be a mistake
Destiny, especially Destiny 2 was really mismanaged by the directors though.
They do have another IP, Matter in the works though.
Destiny, especially Destiny 2 was really mismanaged by the directors though.
They do have another IP, Matter in the works though.
I started playing in late 2019, but I'm up to almost 2500 hours. Can't speak to before that, but it's only been getting better and better as I've played, imho.
I've played both but D2 launch was atrocious and killed the game for me, the removal of random rolls, the dual primaries, the weak abilities and the slow recharge, the 4V4 PVP.
Forsaken pulled it back into being a game I enjoyed but I stopped playing during DLC1 it was so bad.
Forsaken pulled it back into being a game I enjoyed but I stopped playing during DLC1 it was so bad.
just bring back Oni and do more Marathon lore
Clearly Microsoft making divestitures to get under the antitrust hurdle.
Call of Duty is valuable, but Microsoft has already said they don't intend to remove it from PlayStation. That could change, but so could CoD's importance to the video gaming industry as a whole: its popularity has dropped with essentially every release since BLOPS2.
Outside of CoD: AB is a shadow of its former self; IMO the second most valuable IP suite in the history of gaming (first: Nintendo), but years of failed projects, brain drain, and poor employee culture make acting on that IP difficult. Halo 4, 5, and Infinite have suggested that Xbox can keep dying IP on life support, but reclaiming the glory of Blizzard's past likely isn't in the cards, at least on the medium term.
In comparison: Sony paid 20x less for Bungie. What they lack in variety of products, they make up for in, in my view, Potential. Destiny is a great franchise, with lots of fans. The team brings rock solid FPS dev & netcode experience (something Sony's first party studios are at a deficit for).
This spectacularly echos previous acquisitions from both companies. Microsoft buys Halo, Gears, Bethesda, AB; all "glory day IP" acquisitions with demonstrated historical mega-success, but weaker more recent market success. Sony goes smaller; Bluepoint, Housemarque, and Bungie; but despite being smaller names, these companies have far more demonstrable ability to produce triple-A content, tomorrow. In other words; Microsoft is looking for name recognition to sell Game Pass; Sony is looking for talent, which the PlayStation name recognition and marketing machine can wring success out of.
Most recent tactile example: Returnal was a massive success despite being in a very niche genre, which directly led to Housemarque's acquisition. Its hard to imagine it seeing the same success on Xbox, especially since Xbox did have an exclusive, in a different genre, but with rather similar vibes, release around the same time (The Medium). It was, to my eyes, a market failure (but, of course, I have no insider info).
I don't like centralization. But it is interesting to see these two different strategies play out.