Support NeoGAF

[Lunatic_Gamer]

When asked, Karol Severin (Senior Analyst and Product Manager at MIDiA Research) whether Sony's money had been well spent on Bungie, he pointed out that the synergies between the two companies could make it a very lucrative deal for both sides.

When assessing whether this was a good use of $3.6bn, the company fundamentals are of course important, but you also need to consider any strategic premium (benefits) in terms of where this acquisition can take PlayStation’s in the mid-term future, in way of synergies.

PlayStation is going after live services, which Bungie has a lot of expertise in. Sony has to go after live-service more aggressively than ever before, given the traction in the gaming space and the model being increasingly offered to and adopted by consumers. The multi-platform decision will be in a similar tune. Multiplatform is becoming table stakes, so it's right for Sony to pursue, in order to minimise competitive pressures from others and maximise revenue potential.

As I said many times in the past though - Xbox’s future is cross platform, PlayStation’s future is cross-entertainment. PS is following the market in terms of cross platform, but it can lead in terms of drawing synergies for gaming from across entertainment (in video, music, sports and social in particular).

Bungie's live services expertise will likely contribute to that journey. As per GamesIndustry.Biz interview, Jim Ryan (SIE CEO) says:

"Philosophically, this isn't about pulling things into the PlayStation world. This is about building huge and wonderful new worlds together."

Lastly, despite Destiny 2 being the key current title at the moment, Bungie is of course no one hit wonder. It stood behind the creation of Halo and even though it no longer owns it, it does count towards its track record of producing hits with longevity. If Bungie can continue this success in the future, help Sony grow live-services communities, and contribute to activating Sony’s cross-entertainment potential, the deal could prove to be very lucrative for both sides.

Sony + Bungie Deal Could Prove Very Lucrative for Both Sides, Says Analyst

Speaking to Wccftech, MIDiA Research analyst Karol Severin said that the Sony + Bungie deal could prove very lucrative for both sides.

wccftech.com

 

[Tomeru]

In before

Who is Bungie

 

[Anos Voldigoad]

Whatever comes next from Bungie under PlayStation would define this deal

 

[lh032]

SIE knows what they are doing, not surprise here.

 

[DenchDeckard]

I ain’t trusting a single word from a man named Carol.

/j

 

[Thirty7ven]

People really out there doubting Bungie, so weird. They made Xbox and then went out and created a massive IP on their own. Yeah let's doubt Bungie.

 

[Skifi28]

 

[phil_t98]

Bungie are awesome so I expect great things, the question will be is it coming to Xbox also? The multi platform deal.

Also why when every time Sony do something we have countless articles of it makes perfect sense?

Is this to justify something?

Do not get me wrong this will probibly be an awesome deal but at this point it’s all guess work i

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

People really out there doubting Bungie, so weird. They made Xbox and then went out and created a massive IP on their own. Yeah let's doubt Bungie.

They've always wanted to be independent...if Sony somehow managed to convince them this acquisition was a good idea, i'm sure great things are coming.

 

[Tarkus98]

Haven't had any difficulty understanding the more recent Sony purchases but Bungie has me a bit confused.
They don't have a plethora of valuable or interesting IP's in their chest. It seems they want to stay as independent as possible, continuing to release their games on multiple platforms. If any more major talent decides to walk it could be a major Dick punch.
Seems those billions could have been better spent on Capcom who has a war chest full of awesome IP's or SE or Sega.
Guess we will know soon enough if this results in a great new multiplayer IP or perhaps a new Warhawk / Socom / MAG?

 

[Badlucktroll]

I hope we get an awesome single player Marathon with a simple online death match mode.

 

[ChiefDada]

Bungie are awesome so I expect great things, the question will be is it coming to Xbox also? The multi platform deal.

Also why when every time Sony do something we have countless articles of it makes perfect sense?

Is this to justify something?

Do not get me wrong this will probibly be an awesome deal but at this point it’s all guess work i

I think there was general consensus that the Microsoft/Bethesda deal was very smart too.

 

[iHaunter]

In before

Who is Bungie

They created Halo 1 - 3 and Destiny 1/2. At least for the big ones.

 

[Sega Orphan]

The issue with Bungie is they appear to be difficult to work with. First MS, then Activision. They also took a chunk of money from Tencent before the sold out to Sony.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

All the problems that they had with Activision, they wouldn't have with Sony. It's a match made in heaven.

Whatever IP they create, is going to be synonymous with Sony whether it is multiplatform or not. The profits will also be Sony's.

It will also fast forward Sony's live service arena. If you look at games like Gran Turismo 7 and Dreams, those are two games that could particularly live on for quite some time. Any help Bungie can give Polyphony Digital and Media Molecule will go a long way, especially if GT7 and Dreams end up on PC.

When you consider GT7, Dreams, and probably Destiny 3, that's already 3 GaaS that could be lined up in the 10 that they mentioned.

That's pretty high quality and aside from what we've seen with many other GaaS.

So with Bungie you see Destiny 3 and a new original IP that Sony has almost certainly seen already and been impressed by and the ability for Bungie to now fast track their hiring and make bigger and riskier games with the backing of Sony, while maintaining their freedom.

It definitely is a win-win for both.

 

[ReBurn]

Sounds like it was already lucrative for Bungie.

 

[K2D]

They created Halo 1 - 3 and Destiny 1/2. At least for the big ones.

Most important of all, they created the action brawler Oni.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

The issue with Bungie is they appear to be difficult to work with. First MS, then Activision. They also took a chunk of money from Tencent before the sold out to Sony.

You've got to look at the specific reasons that made them "difficult" to work with.

With Microsoft they didn't want to be stuck making Halo games forever.

Ultimately, Bungie didn't like how Activision was handling the publishing duties of their game and Activision felt the game was underperforming.

They took Tencent money because they needed money to fund their studio.

The relationship with Sony is different, which isn't to say that it can't be fraught with issues either, but Bungie gets all the things it needs from a larger partner here. The only question is if Sony injects them with greater success do they at some point resent the fact that Sony will profit off of their work more than themselves? Maybe. We'll see.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

The issue with Bungie is they appear to be difficult to work with. First MS, then Activision. They also took a chunk of money from Tencent before the sold out to Sony.

If by difficult to work with you mean they like to remain independent then yes, they are. And nothing wrong with that.

 

[93xfan]

They created Halo 1 - 3 and Destiny 1/2. At least for the big ones.

Some of the key contributors to Halo are gone, sadly

 

[Lognor]

You've got to look at the specific reasons that made them "difficult" to work with.

With Microsoft they didn't want to be stuck making Halo games forever.

Ultimately, Bungie didn't like how Activision was handling the publishing duties of their game and Activision felt the game was underperforming.

They took Tencent money because they needed money to fund their studio.

The relationship with Sony is different, which isn't to say that it can't be fraught with issues either, but Bungie gets all the things it needs from a larger partner here. The only question is if Sony injects them with greater success do they at some point resent the fact that Sony will profit off of their work more than themselves? Maybe. We'll see.

Well it's interesting because in your earlier post you said they're probably working on Destiny 3, but then you go on to say that they weren't happy with Microsoft because they didn't want to be stuck making Halo games forever. But Destiny is there ONE IP. There is a reason Sony paid so much money for Bungie and a lot of that was due to Destiny. So what happens when Bungie decides they no longer want to be stuck making Destiny? Will Sony just allow them to make something different? And what happens to Destiny? Sony is going to want to see Destiny games supported for a very long time. Someone has to work on them and if Bungie doesn't want to be stuck doing that...

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Well it's interesting because in your earlier post you said they're probably working on Destiny 3, but then you go on to say that they weren't happy with Microsoft because they didn't want to be stuck making Halo games forever. But Destiny is there ONE IP. There is a reason Sony paid so much money for Bungie and a lot of that was due to Destiny. So what happens when Bungie decides they no longer want to be stuck making Destiny? Will Sony just allow them to make something different? And what happens to Destiny? Sony is going to want to see Destiny games supported for a very long time. Someone has to work on them and if Bungie doesn't want to be stuck doing that...

You must have missed where I said they're probably working on Destiny 3 and a new IP.

And yes, they can make whatever they want, Bungie is an independent subsidiary run by its own board.

 

[Captain Toad]

Haven't had any difficulty understanding the more recent Sony purchases but Bungie has me a bit confused.
They don't have a plethora of valuable or interesting IP's in their chest. It seems they want to stay as independent as possible, continuing to release their games on multiple platforms. If any more major talent decides to walk it could be a major Dick punch.
Seems those billions could have been better spent on Capcom who has a war chest full of awesome IP's or SE or Sega.
Guess we will know soon enough if this results in a great new multiplayer IP or perhaps a new Warhawk / Socom / MAG?

Four words. I'll let you guess them based off the first letter of each word - G, A, A, S.

 

[iHaunter]

Some of the key contributors to Halo are gone, sadly

Sadly not much can be done about that. A lot of the folks are still there though.

 

[Hawking Radiation]

Well it's interesting because in your earlier post you said they're probably working on Destiny 3, but then you go on to say that they weren't happy with Microsoft because they didn't want to be stuck making Halo games forever. But Destiny is there ONE IP. There is a reason Sony paid so much money for Bungie and a lot of that was due to Destiny. So what happens when Bungie decides they no longer want to be stuck making Destiny? Will Sony just allow them to make something different? And what happens to Destiny? Sony is going to want to see Destiny games supported for a very long time. Someone has to work on them and if Bungie doesn't want to be stuck doing that...

Sony paid that much money NOT for Destiny but for the expertise Bungie brings to live service games.

Read the article. Anyone with half a brain knew what this purchase was more about buying Bungie's talent than the Destiny IP.

 

[Sega Orphan]

If by difficult to work with you mean they like to remain independent then yes, they are. And nothing wrong with that.

Nope, nothing wrong with that. But make no doubt about it, Sony will demand a ROI for the amount of money they paid out. Let's just say that like Halo, Bungie decide they are sick of Destiny and want to drop it foe their new IP. However the new IP is a bit of a flop, Sony will tell them what they want them to do. There's always a limit on the independence.

 

[DaleinCalgary]

Bullshit, its a bad deal when you are in the billions

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Nope, nothing wrong with that. But make no doubt about it, Sony will demand a ROI for the amount of money they paid out. Let's just say that like Halo, Bungie decide they are sick of Destiny and want to drop it foe their new IP. However the new IP is a bit of a flop, Sony will tell them what they want them to do. There's always a limit on the independence.

You've just clearly not seen the history/culture of Sony.

Naughty Dog had Jak and Daxter and yet went on to do Uncharted. They had Uncharted and yet went on to do Last of Us.

Insomniac had Ratchet and Clank and yet went on to do Resistance. They had Resistance and yet went on to do Spider-Man.

Sucker Punch had Sly Cooper and yet went on to do Infamous. They had Infamous and yet went on to do Ghost of Tsushima.

Guerrilla Games had Killzone and yet went on to do Horizon.

Sony has always allowed its studios to pick their games. You have studios like Polyphony Digital who always do Gran Turismo games, by choice (also did Tourist Trophy), but that's what Kazunori Yamauchi wants to do and what he is passionate about.

Sony believes in Bungie's talent and will fund them. Do they have to produce ROI? Absolutely, but before Sony micromanages Bungie, they'd probably close them down instead, which is what they do when studios don't deliver i.e. Zipper Interactive, Evolution Studios, Studio Liverpool.

The bigger difference between Bungie and these other studios is that Bungie doesn't work for PlayStation Studios. They're an independent subsidiary under Sony Interactive Entertainment.

 

[Chris_Rivera]

Bullshit, its a bad deal when you are in the billions

Patcher, that you? The Activision deal must be 20 times worse. Sony clearly did this to save face.

 

[twerkitout]

It is interesting to see the different strategies between MS and Sony.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Patcher, that you? The Activision deal must be 20 times worse. Sony clearly did this to save face.

I think the deal was in the works before, but the final price tag was indeed to save face. I think they paid a premium because Bungie was really important to their strategy going forward.

Microsoft has cornered the market on FPS talent and experience. Sony needed to do something here. GaaS was a big plus.

I think it'll be funny if Sony can match Microsoft's big-spending with smaller and more strategic partnerships and decisions. If this game from Deviation Games ends up big and Sony buys Deviation for a fraction, it'll look much smarter than spending 70 billion on a sinking ship.

Imagine putting big money on the 99 bulls... If CoD ever loses significant market share what happens to the value of the Activision deal?

 

[Sega Orphan]

You've got to look at the specific reasons that made them "difficult" to work with.

With Microsoft they didn't want to be stuck making Halo games forever.

Ultimately, Bungie didn't like how Activision was handling the publishing duties of their game and Activision felt the game was underperforming.

They took Tencent money because they needed money to fund their studio.

The relationship with Sony is different, which isn't to say that it can't be fraught with issues either, but Bungie gets all the things it needs from a larger partner here. The only question is if Sony injects them with greater success do they at some point resent the fact that Sony will profit off of their work more than themselves? Maybe. We'll see.

You are correct. Bungie didn't want, so Bungie got out. There is going to come a time where they are a part of Sony where they don't want to do something. Maybe they don't want to keep doing Destiny, but Sony want them to do Destiny. Let's be honest, Destiny is getting a bit long in the tooth now. They left MS because they didn't want to keep working on the same game, namely Halo, yet they only stayed on Halo for 7 years, while they have spent 11 years on Destiny. But then again, maybe it was never about Halo for them. I don't see Sony letting them walk for nothing and then spending money to set up a new studio to continue Destiny.

 

[Sega Orphan]

You've just clearly not seen the history/culture of Sony.

Naughty Dog had Jak and Daxter and yet went on to do Uncharted. They had Uncharted and yet went on to do Last of Us.

Insomniac had Ratchet and Clank and yet went on to do Resistance. They had Resistance and yet went on to do Spider-Man.

Sucker Punch had Sly Cooper and yet went on to do Infamous. They had Infamous and yet went on to do Ghost of Tsushima.

Guerrilla Games had Killzone and yet went on to do Horizon.

Sony has always allowed its studios to pick their games. You have studios like Polyphony Digital who always do Gran Turismo games, by choice (also did Tourist Trophy), but that's what Kazunori Yamauchi wants to do and what he is passionate about.

Sony believes in Bungie's talent and will fund them. Do they have to produce ROI? Absolutely, but before Sony micromanages Bungie, they'd probably close them down instead, which is what they do when studios don't deliver i.e. Zipper Interactive, Evolution Studios, Studio Liverpool.

The bigger difference between Bungie and these other studios is that Bungie doesn't work for PlayStation Studios. They're an independent subsidiary under Sony Interactive Entertainment.

And of course The Bend were able to make Days Gone 2 that they were so wanting to do. There was all that press about how Sony demands high scoring, high selling games or they are gone. They are a company with KPIs and budgets to meet. They will do what they have to do to make them.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

You are correct. Bungie didn't want, so Bungie got out. There is going to come a time where they are a part of Sony where they don't want to do something. Maybe they don't want to keep doing Destiny, but Sony want them to do Destiny. Let's be honest, Destiny is getting a bit long in the tooth now. They left MS because they didn't want to keep working on the same game, namely Halo, yet they only stayed on Halo for 7 years, while they have spent 11 years on Destiny. But then again, maybe it was never about Halo for them. I don't see Sony letting them walk for nothing and then spending money to set up a new studio to continue Destiny.

Again, you keep assuming Sony will try to force them to do something they don't want to to make your scenario work, when they haven't even pushed that on studios that actually fall under PlayStation Studios.

Again, as long as they remain profitable, Sony is going to let them do their own thing. And that doesn't mean every game has to be a success.

 

[M16]

Sony basically bought consultants. imo bungie will really continue to operate independently with zero input from sony and do whatever the fuck they want to do, or else they will bail like they did with MS

 

[Mibu no ookami]

And of course The Bend were able to make Days Gone 2 that they were so wanting to do. There was all that press about how Sony demands high scoring, high selling games or they are gone. They are a company with KPIs and budgets to meet. They will do what they have to do to make them.

Management at Bend didn't want to do Days Gone 2, had nothing to do with Sony.

You're combining you not understanding what happened at Bend with an article from Jason Schrier.

You're drunk.

 

[DaleinCalgary]

Patcher, that you? The Activision deal must be 20 times worse. Sony clearly did this to save face.

Its 10x worse.

Companies buying companies to release Multiplatform make zero sense.

If MS bought Activision to make COD exclusive, I get that.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Its 10x worse.

Companies buying companies to release Multiplatform make zero sense.

If MS bought Activision to make COD exclusive, I get that.

What don't you get about increasing revenue and profit?

 

[El Pistolero]

Its 10x worse.

Companies buying companies to release Multiplatform make zero sense.

If MS bought Activision to make COD exclusive, I get that.

Mohjang says Hi!

 

[Sega Orphan]

Management at Bend didn't want to do Days Gone 2, had nothing to do with Sony.

You're combining you not understanding what happened at Bend with an article from Jason Schrier.

You're drunk.

I will take what people in the actual studio said about the situation rather than some random on a forum. No offence obviously.

"According to Days Gone Director, Jeff Ross, who is no longer with the studio, getting a sequel greenlit was always going to be an uphill battle, however, the real nail in the coffin was when PlayStation boss Shawn Layden left PlayStation in 2019 to be replaced by Jim Ryan. According to Ross, Layden championed the original game, so if a sequel was going to be made, Layden would likely be key to making it happen.

"It was very obvious that we shouldn't be talking about Days Gone while we were working on the pitch and generating it. It was clear that it was a non-starter," said Ross. "And there was nothing in the pitch that made the local manager and his boss feel good about it. That's probably a failure of the creative group, but it was just an uphill battle the whole time."

 

[Sega Orphan]

Certain games need as bigger user base as possible to thrive. Single player games will be fine, as their is a life beyond the initial release date. These games can be purchased for the next decade or longer. A game like Destiny, or Warzone, have different needs. They require a big uptake in users as quick as possible, otherwise they die and they don't have the extended life for the next decade. Who is going to buy Bleeding Edge in the next 10 years? No one as it's dead.
So you need to make these games multiplatform, make them free alot of the time, and get people in and playing.
If you took away Destiny from Xbox and PC players, the game would be dead in six months. It absolutely makes sense what Sony is doing with Bungie, and it would also make sense that MS would do it with Warzone, and have done with Elder Scrolls Online.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

And of course The Bend were able to make Days Gone 2 that they were so wanting to do. There was all that press about how Sony demands high scoring, high selling games or they are gone. They are a company with KPIs and budgets to meet. They will do what they have to do to make them.

No...you got that wrong. The guy from Sony Bend said that it wasn't Sony that wanted them to make something else other than Days Gone. It was a internal conflict inside Sony Bend. Some wanted Days Gone 2 while other wanted something new. Sony didn't participated in that apparently.

He also complimented Sony on how they let studios run independently. Sony might steer the boat a bit, but ultimately they want their studios motivated. Look at Uncharted 3 > Uncharted 4. One sold 5M copies on PS3. The other one surpassed 20M by now. You don't see Naughty Dog rushing in to make another Uncharted game do you?

 

[Majukun]

no shit

What don't you get about increasing revenue and profit?

when you pay the acquisition an amount that is ten times the annual revenue of what you just bought, thing starts making less sense.
sure they'll get a bit more subscribers to gp with those franchises being part of the offer, but that explains even less why thery did not just make those exclusive to gamepass...sure you get better pr but you also live a shitload of money on the table

 

[Tschumi]

Seems like Sony might have gone for Bungie to keep them cross platform before someone else did instead and possibly made them exclusive *shrug*

 

[STARSBarry]

Considering how much GAAS was talked about during the buy in I am sure it will be some new spin on the Destiny formula.

 

[Sega Orphan]

No...you got that wrong. The guy from Sony Bend said that it wasn't Sony that wanted them to make something else other than Days Gone. It was a internal conflict inside Sony Bend. Some wanted Days Gone 2 while other wanted something new. Sony didn't participated in that apparently.

He also complimented Sony on how they let studios run independently. Sony might steer the boat a bit, but ultimately they want their studios motivated. Look at Uncharted 3 > Uncharted 4. One sold 5M copies on PS3. The other one surpassed 20M by now. You don't see Naughty Dog rushing in to make another Uncharted game do you?

He never denied that Sony Said no to Days Gone 2. He said he was under an NDA and couldn't confirm it. He did confirm that JS was correct about The Bend getting pulled in to help out ND, so I would say JS was correct about Sony canning DG2 as well as it was the same sources telling him both.
If you think Sony has no input about what their studios do you are nuts. Do you think if ND said to Sony after the success of TLOU that they wanted to do a new kidd platfomer instead of TLOU 2 they would just say, hey fo for it? Nah.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I will take what people in the actual studio said about the situation rather than some random on a forum. No offence obviously.

"According to Days Gone Director, Jeff Ross, who is no longer with the studio, getting a sequel greenlit was always going to be an uphill battle, however, the real nail in the coffin was when PlayStation boss Shawn Layden left PlayStation in 2019 to be replaced by Jim Ryan. According to Ross, Layden championed the original game, so if a sequel was going to be made, Layden would likely be key to making it happen.

"It was very obvious that we shouldn't be talking about Days Gone while we were working on the pitch and generating it. It was clear that it was a non-starter," said Ross. "And there was nothing in the pitch that made the local manager and his boss feel good about it. That's probably a failure of the creative group, but it was just an uphill battle the whole time."

Jeff Ross specifically said on david jaffe's youtube channel that the pitch never went to sony and it was local management that wasn't interested in a sequel. Try again.

 

[Hendrick's]

There is only one side now.

 

[yurinka]

No...you got that wrong. The guy from Sony Bend said that it wasn't Sony that wanted them to make something else other than Days Gone. It was a internal conflict inside Sony Bend. Some wanted Days Gone 2 while other wanted something new. Sony didn't participated in that apparently.

He also complimented Sony on how they let studios run independently. Sony might steer the boat a bit, but ultimately they want their studios motivated. Look at Uncharted 3 > Uncharted 4. One sold 5M copies on PS3. The other one surpassed 20M by now. You don't see Naughty Dog rushing in to make another Uncharted game do you?

He never denied that Sony Said no to Days Gone 2. He said he was under an NDA and couldn't confirm it. He did confirm that JS was correct about The Bend getting pulled in to help out ND, so I would say JS was correct about Sony canning DG2 as well as it was the same sources telling him both.
If you think Sony has no input about what their studios do you are nuts. Do you think if ND said to Sony after the success of TLOU that they wanted to do a new kidd platfomer instead of TLOU 2 they would just say, hey fo for it? Nah.

Days Gone director said that the Days Gone 2 pitch never was sent outside Bend because the studio management (the boss of the studio) blocked it, so the pitch never was sent from Bend to Sony/PS Studios to be greenlighted. Some time later Bend sent the pitch of a new IP (not Days Gone 2) to Sony/PS Studios and it got greenlighted.

Several months passed from the DG1 release to the greenlight of their next main project, the new IP. During this period, he said that as usual in AAA teams, the people who is free helps in other projects, from the same studio or from other studios. According to him during decades Bend and ND helped each other when they have some people free waiting for their next project, so they put this people helping in a project of the other studio.

Sony/PS Studios didn't kill Days Gone 2 because oficially never heard about it. And btw, it was only a pitch and not a game under development, because without greenlighting the pitch they can't start to develop it, so there is no game development to can.

JS was -again- lying and spreading FUD over Sony, as usual in Bloomberg. I assume that once they can wrong/false insider info and not double checking it a journalist can have a mistake. But with Bloomberg and JS happened so many times that I believe that they directly lie and spread FUD on purpose for clickbait and to hurt Sony.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

Days Gone director said that the Days Gone 2 pitch never was sent outside Bend because the studio management (the boss of the studio) blocked it, so the pitch never was sent from Bend to Sony/PS Studios to be greenlighted. Some time later Bend sent the pitch of a new IP (not Days Gone 2) to Sony/PS Studios and it got greenlighted.

Exactly. That's the idea i got from the interview. Sony never got the pitch...the pitch was rejected internally. That's why some of those guys left.

About Jason's article...he knew what he was doing when he titled it "Sony’s Obsession With Blockbusters Is Stirring Unrest Within PlayStation Empire"...only to read it and realizing there were problems in a single studio. Besides the fact there's no obsession with blockbusters. Not when they keep financing and or supporting projects like Kena, Sifu, Straid, their internal studios Media Molecule, Pixelopus, etc