• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Rumour: Sony in talks to acquire Paramount

nial

Member
2000: Transition year from PS1 to PS2, so acceptable. Also kinda wrong because Wild ARMS 2 released that year (I'd consider that a major game for the time)
PS2 was released in March, barely a transition compared to the consoles that launched in November (like PS3 or PS5). Wild ARMs 2 was neither major nor released in 2000.
2002: Co-published Kingdom Hearts in Europe with Square-Enix. Also Rachet & Clank and Sly Cooper were 2002 (at least as major as Jak & Daxter). Also published Tekken 4 & VF4 in Europe.
Come on, man, you know I can add Sony publishing Final Fantasy VII Rebirth in non-Japanese Asian regions, right? But I won't because it's stupid. Neither R&C nor Sly were major then or now, Sly Cooper as a whole is a mega flop of a series.
2003: Dark Chronicle, EverQuest, Jak 2, R&C: Going Commando
You don't want to know the sale numbers of Dark Chronicle and Jak 2. EverQuest was the past equivalent of a Bungie game now.
2005-2008: God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, Wild ARMS 4, Gran Turismo 4, God of War II, Rogue Galaxy, Tourist Trophy
Gran Turismo 4 is 2004, Wild ARMs 4 (not a major franchise) and Rogue Galaxy flopped, Shadow of the Colossus and Tourist Trophy are both one-offs that dien't sell that great. God of War was not major in 2005 (I already put that example with The Last of Us and Horizon Zero Dawn), and the series didn't really take off until God of War 3.
2014-2015: InFamous Second Son, Bloodborne, Driveclub, Destiny (Japan only)
Infamous Second Son? Ehhh, barely. Bloodborne and Driveclub, again, two one-offs (aside from the bikes and VR games). LOL with the Japanese version of Destiny.
2019: Days Gone
New IP and one-off again, not even a major franchise these days.
2021: Rift Apart, Returnal
The fact that these, Rogue Galaxy, Sly Cooper, etc. count for you, but not Helldivers 2 is crazy. Rise of the Ronin will outsell Rogue Galaxy, BTW.
Maybe your definition of "major games" differs from mine but I don't only include the cinematic 1P titles or the most popular IP (TLOU, Uncharted, Spiderman etc.) as major SIE titles. Never have.
As much as you want to deny it, that is the case. But hey, you also have Gran Turismo, which was SIE's biggest IP for a long time.
I don't understand why mega flops like Sly Cooper count for you as 'major games', but stuff like Helldivers 2, Rise of the Ronin and Stellar Blade don't. What are you even criticizing at this point?
 
Last edited:

Pelta88

Member
OK sure, I'm willing to accept this. But again, I just have to keep asking: how does Paramount benefit gaming for PlayStation the way Mibu no ookami Mibu no ookami was trying to insinuate?

Because I have little confidence it does, going by how underutilized Sony Pictures IP by SIE for games has been over the past years.

I wasn’t paying attention to the argument about PARA being good for PS gaming. There are ways that’s possible… But PS is a distant afterthought. Owning a burgeoning subscription platform for their TV / Movie ip has to have the folk at SIE HQ salivating.

Prime starts advertising The Boys 6 months before the premiere. And that’s before the expanded universe. And that’s just one ip. Netflix did the same for Kobra Kai. HBO is teasing TLOU 18 months before season 2.

Prime wants GOW, HZD, and Gravity Rush. Only to then give SIE a commission and royalty check on content they created?

If it were apple or some other corporate entity were purchasing PARA for the infrastructure it’d make less sense. SIE on the other hand is churning out ip that cable/streaming platforms scream about in the quarterly reports. That seems like a missed opportunity.
 
Last edited:

GogolPoe

Banned
Seems like Sony is done with gaming, would rather spend 20+ billion on movies than on Square or the studios they closed like Japan Studio (which they already destroyed!) pretty pathetic. dont worry ponies will blame xbox and MS somehow, but it wont save sony anyway. :messenger_beaming: I love it.
 

nial

Member
Seems like Sony is done with gaming, would rather spend 20+ billion on movies than on Square or the studios they closed like Japan Studio (which they already destroyed!) pretty pathetic. dont worry ponies will blame xbox and MS somehow, but it wont save sony anyway. :messenger_beaming: I love it.
JmzfGEF.jpeg
 

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
...why have this faith that there's suddenly be strong synergy between Paramount IP and SIE for gaming content? There's zero precedent to suggest that would happen.


Agreed. It seems like Sony wants to do this simply because the opportunity may never arrive again, but that doesn’t make it a good idea (see Microsoft and Activision)

This will not benefit SIE much at all. They are studio limited. It’s not like Imsomniac will suddenly make a Star Trek or Mission Impossible game

I’m also very skeptical of the value this provides as a streaming service for Sony. There’s already way too many streaming services as it is, and it’s almost possible to meaningfully gain ground against incumbents. This deal doesn’t significantly change that fact
 

nial

Member
This will not benefit SIE much at all. They are studio limited. It’s not like Imsomniac will suddenly make a Star Trek or Mission Impossible game
Not really an issue, that's where externally-developed games come to help.
But I agree with the notion that SIE will barely make use of those IPs, not to mention that they will still have to go through licensing AND payment. It's just that it would be a bit easier than before, I believe.
At most, they could make a SpongeBob game which is, you know, Paramount's biggest IP that wouldn't require a AAA budget whatsoever (like Top Gun).
 
Last edited:

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
Not really an issue, that's where externally-developed games come to help.
But I agree with the notion that SIE will barely make use of those IPs, not to mention that they will still have to go through licensing AND payment. It's just that it would be a bit easier than before, I believe.
At most, they could make a SpongeBob game which is, you know, Paramount's biggest IP that wouldn't require a AAA budget whatsoever (like Top Gun).

External partnerships have quality issues but it’s possible. They don’t tend to outsource major IP like that

Their external partners are new IP in the not quite AAA universe
 
Last edited:

nial

Member
Probably the only example but insomniac was already an AAA studio and they worked with them before

There’s no other studios out there where this could realistically happen
As I kinda implied before, not every Paramount IP would require that kind of expertise.
 

Mibu no ookami

Demoted Member® Pro™
PlayStations Productions is a Sony Pictures and SIE joint venture. Plus there's the game adaptations of stuff like Ghostbusters, which also got guest content in games like PS Home, Little Big Planet, Destiny 2 and so on.

PlayStation Productions is not a joint venture with SPE, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of SIE. They have a partnership with Sony Pictures, but Sony Pictures does not own any part of PlayStation Productions. Maybe that changes in the future as PlayStation Productions grows, but it's important to be more accurate on the details here.
 

Mibu no ookami

Demoted Member® Pro™
There being more games releasing in the market doesn't mean much if a lot of them are getting ignored. Plus, this is specifically about SIE; 3P games that aren't on their platform do nothing for increasing their profits or giving them market leverage in the gaming space. Why would they care about there being lots of games released and use that as an excuse to not have more 1P output?

And if they could increase that 1P output with AA games, why would they not do so, if that leads to more revenue, more profits, and more market leverage through IP they own? Also SIE have been in this business for decades; they know how to "cut through the noise" and get their games noticed in a crowed market. They've been doing it since the PS1.

There is a pie for software sales. This pie includes 1st and 3rd party game sales and it also includes games that aren't even on the platform. If there are too many games on the market, that impacts both 1st and 3rd party sales. If someone buys Elden Ring or Zelda instead Horizon, that's money out of Sony's pocket.

There's an extent to the number of games Sony can realistically produce and market before they're competing against each other. Releasing more games into a crowded market doesn't make a ton of sense.

You say Sony can cut through the noise but just look at Horizon Zero Dawn and Forbidden West, both games performed really well, but were definitely blunted by bigger games around them. Rise of the Ronin was definitely blunted by Dragon's Dogma.

Well, if that's my mistake, your mistake is assuming that Sony purchasing Paramount benefits SIE 1P games content. There's no proof that would actually be the case. Yes we can assume in some ways it would be, like with SpongeBob for example. But with a lot of the other IP, I don't see that working. Because, if it were to work, I think we'd of already seen some of it with SIE/Sony Pictures crossover.

Like, where is the Breaking Bad game (yes I know AMC might co-own the rights but I'm sure they'd have no problem giving SIE the license for a AAA BB game)? Bad Boys game? Underworld game? And Underworld in particular would've made a GREAT spiritual follow-up to Bloodborne, hell they could've used the Bloodborne engine and game mechanics, changed a bit around, get Kate Beckinsale & other people involved and had an Underworld action/adventure AAA game. Not to mention, Kate & several others from the films have expressed interest in continuing the series; maybe as a game that would've made sense.

So you see, Sony Pictures already has a lot of IP that could've made for some cool SIE games, but it's never happened. And now you want me to think it's suddenly going to happen if Sony buys Paramount? That's ridiculous.

A lot of people, yourself included aren't very well versed in Sony's history.

Let's look at your example of Breaking Bad. The show first aired in 2008 and ended in 2013. No one would have known that Breaking Bad would be a major television series and by the time you did realize and started development, the show would have already been over. You'd have to find the right studio AND the right time for them to develop unless you had them stop whatever they were working on, which would make no sense.

But let's focus on the time period, this also came at a time where synergy was pretty low at Sony. This was something Howard Stringer generally wanted to improve at Sony and slowly began to do. At the time Sony generally worked to make as much money as they could on individual deals without as much focus on the bigger picture.

It's interesting that you recognize that Sony Interactive Entertainment didn't make Sony Pictures IP into games, but you don't also recognize that at the time Sony really didn't license many game licenses at all, that they really didn't have the development teams historically to do it, and that Sony Pictures really didn't take SIE IP and use them for tv and movies either. Gran Turismo came out in 1997 and was an instant success, but it didn't become a movie until 2023, nearly 30 years later. Uncharted and The Last of Us also took 10+ years each. The transmedia strategy has changed.

Sony didn't actively become a major software developer until the mid to late 2000s, when they were actively buying studios to bolster their first party development. They didn't become a premier publisher until the 2010s. They didn't begin any major licensing deals until Spider-Man which released in 2018. It made more sense historically for Sony Pictures to license their IP out to multiplatform game publishers like EA and Activision.

It's already been detrimental to their console focus.

-1P AAA games are taking longer not just because of budget increases but also incorporating part of the PC development into the pipeline. Naughty Dog have confirmed this in a way themselves. We've seen proof of this now with Wolverine from Insomniac. The main reason for TLOU2 Remastered was to justify a PC port of TLOU2, same for making TLOU Remake. A lot of the GAAS push was to justify more PC releases in a "less contentious" matter. Instead a good number of those games have been cancelled, also affecting 1P content for PS consoles.​
-Console version of games have seen bugs introduced around the time of PC versions being released, with cross-play features turned on. Ghosts of Tsushima saw this problem recently.​
-Scaling development for a range of PC spec configurations in addition to growing console targets (PS5, PS5 Pro) means less time and resources for per-spec optimizations, even with the staggered release window.​

So no, it's not "fanboy FUD" (considering I've been critical of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo a lot I fail to see how I'm a fanboy of any of them at this point). It's reality.

This is entirely nonsense and a creation in your own mind.

Then I guess issues like Baldur's Gate 3 dropping local co-op for Series S, Starfield dropping 60 FPS at launch on console because of Series S, Star Wars: Jedi Survivor's rampant problems on PC at launch etc. shouldn't be happening.

Yet, they are :/

That doesn't mean these things can't land on multiple platforms, which they absolutely are. That doesn't mean a game will be 60 fps on handheld or even console. What a ridiculous response.


And at the same time, they may've damn likely botched their one big GAAS hit/potential future "COD killer" on PC/Steam, they cancelled their Twisted Metal game when it should've released to coincide with the TV show premier (or shortly after the season was finishing up), they STILL haven't done something as common-sense as a F2P port of MLB to mobile with fantasy league features...

..there is NO telling if TLOU Season 2 will be a hit especially if they stick to the game's story & kill Joel off early on, there's still been no mention of when or even if Uncharted will be returning in game form...so on and so forth.

Even if Helldivers 2 stops today, it's already been a massive success for Sony and would have proven their GaaS strategy successful. Even if all PC players stopped playing the game today, it would still be a massive success.

Sony hasn't done a lot of things with MLB and again, context is important here. It seems like you feel everything happens in a vacuum.

Sony didn't initially plan on MLB being multiplatform. This is something forced on Sony in 2020. They released in on Xbox in 2021 and the Switch in 2022. The studio has to handle the ports of all versions of the game, but somehow you think they had time to make a mobile version already? They'll eventually probably come to Mobile and to PC, but that takes time, especially mobile. It's a massive endeavor and you have to think from the time Sony thought about doing it, which probably wouldn't have been until 2021 or 2022 at the earliest, and then recognize the time it takes to develop for it. That studio is probably maxed out on what they're capable of doing, so you would probably have to farm out the mobile game, which has its own risks and complications involved.


I said that because it would make sense for SIE to do that for console owners of PSVR2. It adds value to the product for them, especially if they feel there won't be as many ports to the device as there were in the past, or should be going forward (due to slow sales).

You made wild assumptions just like you're making now and what's worse is your arguments for the assumptions never added up and then when you were proven wrong, you never even concede that you were wrong.

You argue in bad faith.

Sony Pictures has had more misses than hits over the past few years, and that's a fact. SIE buying Bungie ($3.6 billion, not $4 billion, and $1.2 billion of that $3.6 billion was for bonuses to be paid out over time so upfront cost was just $2.4 billion) shouldn't bar them from making similar investments for other areas of gaming when the Bungie deal was specifically for GAAS content.

No one said that SIE was done with acquisitions post Bungie. Not sure which Sony Picture acquisition misses you're referring to.

Sony Corp wanting to sell the finance/banking sector is indicative of bad judgement; you don't need to throw out EVERYTHING that might otherwise be stable and bring in a great flow of income just because it doesn't have immediate synergies with other parts of your company. Arguably speaking, Microsoft used that position themselves with the direction they felt to take Xbox in over the past decade and it could be said that is actually what helped contribute to Xbox's demise as a console brand. Instead of letting the gaming people like J. Allard or Seamus Blackley or Peter Moore do what they did best, in their own space with no larger corporate interference for "synergies", Microsoft wanted to bring Xbox right in line with the rest of the corporate structure.

It's not just about synergies, it's about return on investment. Sony growing as an entertainment company allows them to leverage things across divisions and that is where the synergies kick in.

You're confusing strategy with execution. Microsoft failed, but so many other companies have been successful with similar strategy. It comes down to execution. In fact Microsoft themselves have had success in this area, so much so that it got them involved in antitrust in the 90s and early 2000s.


That has clearly had mostly negative effects for Xbox as a console, and we're here cheering for Sony Corp to do the same to SIE/PlayStation just because they want to push a company-wide transmedia "synergies" strategy? Can you not see the same potential road bumps and pitfalls at play here, or are we blinded by this false idea that "Sony don't miss"?

And had they executed better, Xbox would have been worth hundreds of billions of dollars.... Why ignore Apple, Netflix, Amazon, and Google all of which have been extremely successful in leveraging their position for growth?


No; Paramount mainly helps Sony Pictures, and does little for SIE. And we can say this with confidence because Sony Pictures hasn't done much for SIE vs. what it COULD have been doing for SIE with more cooperate and creatively-driven minds of leadership at Sony Pictures and SIE.

A games publisher would benefit SIE much more, and this idea that all M&As have to serve all or as many parts of the company at once as possible, is a "jack of all trades, master of none" approach in effect. Sometimes (nay, likely often), targeted M&As for specific purposes produce better results. Then you can synergize those M&As into a larger operation.

Would you say Spider-Man has helped SIE? Sony owning the rights to the Spider-Man movies, almost certainly played a part in SIE even getting the opportunity to publish a Spider-Man game. PR aside, there is no coincidence that their first licensed game with Marvel was Spider-Man. Regardless, would you say it helped them or not?

The thing is Sony doesn't own the licenses for Spider-Man (game) or Wolverine, or X-Men.

Owning Star Trek, Avatar (ATLA), Spongebob, Mission Impossible, TMNT, Top Gun... would absolutely help SIE. Your primary argument is that you don't think they would make the games because historically Sony didn't make the games for Sony Pictures, while ignoring the history of those IP and their lack of size, scope, and lineage.


No. Because if SIE are willing to let a dispute between themselves and a 3P dev spill out publicly this way, that may make other 3P devs wonder if they could be put in a similar situation where they have to face public backlash or scrutiny over a decision potentially out of their control. These devs have reputations they want to uphold, and the less negativity the better.

Whether it's Arrowhead or SIE who are ultimately at fault with this HB2 fiasco (or Microsoft; people seem to have forgotten that Arrowhead are using Azure servers here), the fact is as the platform holder & publisher, SIE could've handled the situation better. That's expected of a company in their position.

This is just silly. Arrowhead admits that this was their mistake, that they knew it was a requirement and that they should have better communicated the requirement. Looks like Sony jumped in and saved the day for them and removed the requirement, but this was on Arrowhead not Sony.


It does if it leads to no significant investments for SIE & PlayStation to a similar degree. And again, going "But Bungie!" doesn't work when that was for a very specific type of game and doesn't account for other areas of game investment SIE would benefit significantly from.

Totoki wants to grow all elements of Sony, including SIE, but that growth has to make sense financially. The SIE of today couldn't make best use of all of Paramounts IP, they'll have to expand in order to do so, both organically and organically.

Which is absolutely stupid, because the streaming market is already contracting due to too many competing subscription services! So you're saying that Sony should pitch their own streaming service to the market, possibly losing billions and billions every year as they struggle to grow the install base to an acceptable level...and you somehow think that wouldn't negatively impact SIE along the way?

Another topic that you're not well versed on. Paramount is already one of the major streaming services with 71 million subscribers. They're only behind Netflix, Amazon, Disney, and Max. Amazon's numbers are totally inflated by prime membership in general, Disney's numbers are aided by buying Hulu, and HBO was always ahead of Showtime.

Adding Sony's content to Paramount+ would be a major boon for the service that is already nearing profitability and would allow them to combine Paramount+ and Crunchyroll in a similar way that Disney and Hulu have been combined.


The current strategy of licensing out content to other services is precisely why Sony Pictures don't have the problems of Paramount, or WB Discovery, or HBO Max etc. Let those companies burn through billions and billions while Sony Pictures collects money off licensing the content. It'd also be very stupid (but funny) of them to try leveraging Paramount for their own subscription service when they already own two anime streaming services, and already seem to have issues with the investments required for PlayStation as a hardware platform. But somehow the R&D, marketing costs etc. for a streaming subscription service would be worth it and no fuss?

Nah, I don't buy it.

EDIT: I guess you are suggesting that Sony would just leverage Paramount+...well that would save them some money and time on building their own streaming service, but it still would be an uphill battle IMO.

For starters there's no telling if Paramount+ is particularly profitable right now. Logic would suggest if it were, or if the prognosis seemed very well, they wouldn't be in a position of needing to sell. Maybe they did have favorable projections for subscriber & revenue growth of the service, but them as-is couldn't sustain a way to hit those projections, therein selling to a company like Sony works out better for them?



And how much money did Disney lose over the years with that stunt before finally starting to break even on their sub service? Better question: how exactly are Disney's financials looking these days?

Last I saw, not great. Lord knows what debts they're working through between that and buying Fox.


Seems like you are coming around a bit to realize the vision here. Paramount+ isn't currently profitable, but it's nearing profitability. I believe analysts and the company believe that they'll be profitable by 2025, which would align to when Sony would actually takeover ownership of the service through owning the company.

Again, adding Sony's content to the service would make it more successful.

Disney+Hulu has been a major success and they will also be hitting profitability soon. At least try to research this stuff before commenting on it.

Sony+Paramount would almost certainly be the market leader when it comes to generation of movies and tv. And there are all sorts of downstream advantages that you don't realize like Sony's ability to remaster so much of the classic paramount properties. Sony's ability to shift all of Paramounts technology to Sony tech which is a boon for both Paramount and Sony Electronics.

Again synergies resulting in massive cost savings, that turn the billions in revenue into much higher operating income.

Do you know what else will be a boon for Paramount+? Seinfeld which is owned by...checks notes... Sony... And that's just an example of what Sony brings to Paramount+. Sony has definitely been successful farming out their movies and shows to various streaming services, but putting their entire weight behind Paramount+ will make it a juggernaut in streaming.

Sony+Paramount create WAY more content than Netflix, Disney, Amazon, and Apple make individually. That's a big reason why Disney bought Fox and why Amazon bought MGM. My guess is that Apple would have bought Warner if it hadn't been for this antitrust suit the government has brought against them.

Okay, sure. But that's a big "IF" being asked, and any costs needed on Sony's end to make it so would be on top of whatever's being paid to acquire Paramount.

Not sure what you're referring to here.

Again, you're assuming benefits for SIE in this which are a complete unknown and, going by the lack of relative synergy between Sony Pictures and SIE the past couple of decades (in terms of Sony Pictures IP getting games made by SIE where it would've made perfect sense, i.e the Underworld game built off the back & tech of Bloodborne I suggested way earlier)...

...why have this faith that there's suddenly be strong synergy between Paramount IP and SIE for gaming content? There's zero precedent to suggest that would happen.

see above.
 

Mibu no ookami

Demoted Member® Pro™
Why doesnt someone buy warner bros
Maybe they ask for a too high, unrealistic prize. Or maybe they don't want to sell to certain people.


They were just purchased by Discovery. Maybe someone bigger will buy the new company, but they also have a massive amount of debt.




Looks a step closer to happening. Apparently, there is talk of Apollo running CBS so as to help overcome a regulatory hurdle. A Japanese company owning a big American network might be frowned on, according to this.

There is also a sentiment, it seems, that neither of the bids by Skydance or Sony will succeed.

I think some people tried to throw cold water on the deal initially, but they're moving forward to negotiations. It'll be hard to tank the deal based on regulatory concerns alone. The CBS element is a non-factor entirely. Anyone in a position to buy Paramount and an interest in Paramount is going to have some regulatory concerns.

Saying no to 26 billion dollars is going to get you sued. They can stay the course another year or two but if their stock value dips dramatically nad it probably will, offers in a year or two are probably going to be substantially smaller, so there is a lot of risk involved there. It's a good time to sell now and that's exactly why they're looking to sell.

It's also a huge time for Sony as well. Any longer and they would probably be iced out of the market for streaming or they would be stuck going after Universal or Warner. Universal being entirely too small and Warner being entirely too large.
 

Mibu no ookami

Demoted Member® Pro™
Agreed. It seems like Sony wants to do this simply because the opportunity may never arrive again, but that doesn’t make it a good idea (see Microsoft and Activision)

This will not benefit SIE much at all. They are studio limited. It’s not like Imsomniac will suddenly make a Star Trek or Mission Impossible game

I’m also very skeptical of the value this provides as a streaming service for Sony. There’s already way too many streaming services as it is, and it’s almost possible to meaningfully gain ground against incumbents. This deal doesn’t significantly change that fact

It is a once in a lifetime opportunity to maintain their position in TV/Movies and not get left behind on streaming which is going to completely take over cable in the future.

It's a massive benefit to SIE. Not sure why Insomniac is the only studio that could make Star Trek or Mission Impossible. I'd probably pick Naughty Dog over Insomniac at least for Mission Impossible. Star Trek, I think they would be well suited for.

Working on a Star Trek game would probably allow Insomnaic to expand in ways they haven't been able to before, but one of the beautiful things about Star Trek is the number of different games you can make with it. It screams for a live service game.

Skeptical of the value it provides Sony as a streaming service? You realize that Paramount IS one of the incumbents right?

If the merger with Sony and Zee is properly revived in India, I'm sure Sony would roll Paramount+ to India as part of Zee5/SonyLIV which would be bigger than disney/hotstar.
 

Mibu no ookami

Demoted Member® Pro™
Is that just a thought, or is there talk of that potentially happening?

Word was that Zee was trying to save it and there was never official confirmation either way after the end of February.

It seems like it is dead, but I don't know if there was ever confirmation that Sony did in fact file for the end of the merger. Not great reporting around it to be honest.

Edit: seems like the latest is that zee is still trying to fight in court to force the merger.
 
Last edited:

Perrott

Member
God of War was not major in 2005 (I already put that example with The Last of Us and Horizon Zero Dawn), and the series didn't really take off until God of War 3.
According to official numbers released by Sony, God of War and God of War II had lifetime sales of over 4.5M and 4M respectively by 2012, not counting the collection. By that point, God of War 3 had sold over 5M on PS3. So I'd say the series was a major hit from the start.

Although to be fair, it took until the release of The Last Of Us for Sony to have a real massive, non-GT seller in its first-party portfolio that rivaled the sales of some of Xbox's most successful first-party titles, such as Halo 3. From there on, it was when they really began to crack into +10M and +20M lifetime units sold territory with Uncharted 4, Horizon, God of War, Spider-Man, and so on.
 

Varteras

Member
Word was that Zee was trying to save it and there was never official confirmation either way after the end of February.

It seems like it is dead, but I don't know if there was ever confirmation that Sony did in fact file for the end of the merger. Not great reporting around it to be honest.

Edit: seems like the latest is that zee is still trying to fight in court to force the merger.

As I understood it, Sony walked when Zee failed to meet certain financial targets.

I would imagine that, right now, Sony being in a $26 billion talk with Paramount, even if it is with a partner, probably puts them off from making any moves towards Zee. Wasn't that a $10 billion deal?
 

Mibu no ookami

Demoted Member® Pro™
As I understood it, Sony walked when Zee failed to meet certain financial targets.

I would imagine that, right now, Sony being in a $26 billion talk with Paramount, even if it is with a partner, probably puts them off from making any moves towards Zee. Wasn't that a $10 billion deal?


It was more than not meeting financial targets, but this wasn't an acquisition it was a merger of two companies, so it wasn't a cash deal. So I don't think it would have had any bearing on Sony's ability to "afford" Paramount.
 

yurinka

Member
Yoshida & Totoki are the biggest threat to PlayStation and Sony Group:
What a nonsensical quote. Paramount would be their most important acquisition ever, they have steady yearly $30B of revenue and $10B in gross profit plus a giant catalog. Would put them market leaders in the movies segment.

They only need to pay part of that debt and address the redundancy costs they already must have inside Paramount and the ones created by acquiring them. Because Paramount is now killing their gross profits with operating costs that don't make sense. Cutting the fat when integrating them into Sony Pictures and Sony Music will make Paramount much more profitable.

Sony Free Cash Flow (Billions of Yen)
FY20 +608.1
FY21 +102.1
FY22 -616.6


Sony Cash and Cash Equivalents $6.35B

or
(¥976,465 M)

As part of the (not listed there) 3 years budget ended in March, Sony Pictures had $10B budgeted to acquire the Indian giant Zee, but recently the acquisition failed. Pretty likely they'll use that money to acquire their part of Paramount Global. Apollo will get the CBS part of tv rights that can't be sold to foreigners.

This month Sony will announce their acquisitions+investments+stock repurchases budget for the 3 years period that started this April. Where they'd include more than enough for the remaining payment of the acquisition + acquisition costs + payment of their part of Paramoun'ts debt.

Sony plans to sell 80% of their banks division very likely in the second half of next year, and they said they'll use most of that cash to make acquisitions for their entertainment divisions (gaming, pictures, music).

Instead of posting these made up numbers I'd suggest you to check the revenue and operating income of their divisions instead, which at the end of the day are the most important KPIs.

As I understood it, Sony walked when Zee failed to meet certain financial targets.

I would imagine that, right now, Sony being in a $26 billion talk with Paramount, even if it is with a partner, probably puts them off from making any moves towards Zee. Wasn't that a $10 billion deal?
Sony broke ties with Zee, that acquisition won't happen. Which Sony Pictures has -at least- $10B ready for acquisitions from the mid-term (3 years) budget for the period that ended this March. Plus whatever part Sony will put for Sony Pictures in the budget they will have created for the new mid-term budget of the 3 years period that started last month.

Sony alone would be able to buy them, but teamed up with Apollo because there's a part regarding USA tv rights (CBS) that can't be sold to a foreigner company like Sony, so Apollo will get it.

They were just purchased by Discovery. Maybe someone bigger will buy the new company, but they also have a massive amount of debt.
Warner Bros Discovery generates more revenue and gross profit than Paramount, but has pretty worse net income and debt. This means WB would be way, way more expensive to acquire (specially when also counting the cost of their debt) but they'd had a more difficult job to fix their finances.

Paramount Global
Annual 2023 revenue: $29.65B
Annual 2023 gross profit: $9.64B
Annual 2023 net income: $-0.61B
Debt: $15B

WB Discovery
Annual 2023 revenue: $41.32B
Annual 2023 gross profit: $16.80B
Annual 2023 net income: $-3.13B
Debt: $44.2B

Sony has the very rare opportunity of acquiring Paramount: have enough billions to acquire them, plus more billions coming soon from selling their finantials division, and Paramount is in a moment where they want and need to sell. Plus also the partnership from Apollo who would pay part of the acquisition and would get a part of Paramount that Sony can't acquire. For them is a great and unique opportunity that pretty likely won't repeat again.

WB Discovery acquisition when counting their debt it would be too big for Sony.

Sony+Paramount would almost certainly be the market leader when it comes to generation of movies and tv
Yes, they would. Sony and Paramount are now top 4 and 5 with a combined 20.4% market share, which pretty much would make them market leaders.

But the acquisition would generate many synergies between Sony and Paramount in both sides, so the combined market share for future years would very likely be higher, becoming clear market leaders.

This is the market share for film studios in USA and Canada (not the worldwide market, I didn't find it in a quick search), I got it from Statista and added the addition of Sony+Paramount to the graph to see their combined past performance, outside the 2015-2019 (maybe when the MCU was strong?) period they'd would have been market leaders combined.

image.png



Is that just a thought, or is there talk of that potentially happening?
The official news is that the Zee acquisition is dead and buried.
 
Last edited:

Zathalus

Member
The problem with Paramount isn't that they aren't profitable (they are), but that all the profits come from cable and regular television. Movies make very little and streaming is still a loss for them.

So almost all of the profits are coming from a dying industry. Maybe they can convert streaming into being profitable, combining the Paramount catalog with what Sony already has can be enticing, but it still seems rather risky.
 
Last edited:

Ronin_7

Member
Talks are officially underway.

Highly unlikely Paramount will reject a 26 BILLION offer that will make everyone richer.

Sony & Apollo now need to start prepping for FTC/CMA/EC because it'll take time but Disney could buy Fox so this should pass but will take >12 months.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
The problem with Paramount isn't that they aren't profitable (they are), but that all the profits come from cable and regular television. Movies make very little and streaming is still a loss for them.

So almost all of the profits are coming from a dying industry. Maybe they can convert streaming into being profitable, combining the Paramount catalog with what Sony already has can be enticing, but it still seems rather risky.
Paramount has every year $30B of revenue and $10B in gross profit, but they have operating costs that kill these profits.

Sony could kill a huge amount of these costs restructuring the company killing all already existing redundancies they already have inside Paramount plus the ones they'd have by moving to become Sony Pictures and Sony Music subsidiaries. There's many people at Paramount doing stuff that Sony people already is doing it for Sony and would also do it for them like negotiating movie rights with cinema theatre chains, tvs or streaming services from all the world. Or stuff like dubbing, vfx, HR, marketing, whatever. A ton of things.

And well, it is not a dying industry at all.

This data is from the most recent Motion Picture Association report (made in 2022, so doesn't post covid recovery in theatrical). Theatrical revenue got temporally impacted during covid for obvious reasons, and physical sales continue declining but they got replaced by digital. Movies continue being a $80-100B/year industry, and if adding Pay tv a $300-330B/year industry:

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png
 
Last edited:
PS2 was released in March, barely a transition compared to the consoles that launched in November (like PS3 or PS5). Wild ARMs 2 was neither major nor released in 2000.

March 2000 in Japan; October 2000 in NA. You can't go back and retroactively say Wild ARMS 2 wasn't a major release for the time, as if it needed to be the absolute upper echelon to be considered a major title. For JRPG fans it was an anticipated game, and bigger in scale than a lot of 5th gen and even quite a few Dreamcast or even early PS2 titles of the time.

Come on, man, you know I can add Sony publishing Final Fantasy VII Rebirth in non-Japanese Asian regions, right? But I won't because it's stupid. Neither R&C nor Sly were major then or now, Sly Cooper as a whole is a mega flop of a series.

Oh okay so you're one of those types going simply by sales numbers. This is part of the problem, right here.

You don't want to know the sale numbers of Dark Chronicle and Jak 2. EverQuest was the past equivalent of a Bungie game now.

Again, only going by sales numbers. That is the wrong way to go about it and very limited. Shenmue didn't set the sales charts on fire but I sure as heck wouldn't say it wasn't a major release at the time it came out.

Gran Turismo 4 is 2004, Wild ARMs 4 (not a major franchise) and Rogue Galaxy flopped, Shadow of the Colossus and Tourist Trophy are both one-offs that dien't sell that great. God of War was not major in 2005 (I already put that example with The Last of Us and Horizon Zero Dawn), and the series didn't really take off until God of War 3.

Once again, you're severely limiting your point by only focusing on sales numbers.

Infamous Second Son? Ehhh, barely. Bloodborne and Driveclub, again, two one-offs (aside from the bikes and VR games). LOL with the Japanese version of Destiny.

Yes Bloodborne the one-off coming from the Souls series that was gaining lots of traction between the years of 2009 and 2015. It was just some small indie project I see. 🤣

New IP and one-off again, not even a major franchise these days.

How is a new IP not in the running for being a major release? We just went through this last year with Starfield. Whether the game lives up to the hype or not is another matter.

The fact that these, Rogue Galaxy, Sly Cooper, etc. count for you, but not Helldivers 2 is crazy. Rise of the Ronin will outsell Rogue Galaxy, BTW.

Dude, you' have REALLY got to stop only looking at sales numbers in retrospect to consider a game was a major release for its time or not.

As much as you want to deny it, that is the case. But hey, you also have Gran Turismo, which was SIE's biggest IP for a long time.
I don't understand why mega flops like Sly Cooper count for you as 'major games', but stuff like Helldivers 2, Rise of the Ronin and Stellar Blade don't. What are you even criticizing at this point?

I never said HD2, RotR or Stellar Blade weren't major releases. However, they are either GAAS with no console exclusivity, or 3P IP that SIE have no ownership over. And to that degree, yes it's fair you could take off the SIE regionally published games I mentioned before that were just 3P games with no SIE ownership otherwise.

When I say "major" releases I mean to the degree of ambitious, preferably traditional AA or AAA games in their respective genres that are 1: Published by SIE, 2: Owned by SIE IP-wise, 3: Exclusive to the console, and (preferably) 4: Developed by an internal 1P studio.
 
I wasn’t paying attention to the argument about PARA being good for PS gaming. There are ways that’s possible… But PS is a distant afterthought. Owning a burgeoning subscription platform for their TV / Movie ip has to have the folk at SIE HQ salivating.

Prime starts advertising The Boys 6 months before the premiere. And that’s before the expanded universe. And that’s just one ip. Netflix did the same for Kobra Kai. HBO is teasing TLOU 18 months before season 2.

Prime wants GOW, HZD, and Gravity Rush. Only to then give SIE a commission and royalty check on content they created?

If it were apple or some other corporate entity were purchasing PARA for the infrastructure it’d make less sense. SIE on the other hand is churning out ip that cable/streaming platforms scream about in the quarterly reports. That seems like a missed opportunity.

But that's the thing: Apple make their own film/TV content as well so how does it make less sense for Apple but more sense for Sony & SIE? And FWIW, SIE were churning out IP that cable/streaming platforms want in their quarterlies. They haven't actually made a new IP on the level of GOW/TLOU/Uncharted etc. since 2020 with Ghosts of Tsushima. Maybe Returnal could join that stable, in terms of story potential, tho as a game it still has a long ways to go to hit GOW Ragnarok or TLOU 2 sales numbers.

And Helldivers may probably fit that bill now, but it's not really a new IP, and Sony Pictures already own the rights to Starship Troopers, a film Helldivers 1 & 2 take tons of inspiration from as-is. There's also already nostalgia for the Verhoeven Starship Troopers film; meanwhile there is no Helldivers film to produce the same (yet).

It's also kinda funny that Amazon want a Gravity Rush show that's both live-action/CG (instead of anime or CG anime), and SIE want to tie that in with a remaster (not even a remake) of the game where the console is the last priority. Because those GR games are already playable on PS4 & PS5. So the remake would just be for the show and to justify yet another PC port.

Agreed. It seems like Sony wants to do this simply because the opportunity may never arrive again, but that doesn’t make it a good idea (see Microsoft and Activision)

This will not benefit SIE much at all. They are studio limited. It’s not like Imsomniac will suddenly make a Star Trek or Mission Impossible game

I’m also very skeptical of the value this provides as a streaming service for Sony. There’s already way too many streaming services as it is, and it’s almost possible to meaningfully gain ground against incumbents. This deal doesn’t significantly change that fact

Truth to all points. It amazes me people want to say SIE will see "obvious benefits" to this deal when they've yet to see "obvious benefits" with a lot of Sony Picture's best IP for gaming.

Again, it's like the thought Microsoft would comb ABK's back catalog of IP like Leisure Suit Larry or Gabriel Knight to make modern high-production AA or AAA reboots/sequels/remakes of them, when they've been sitting on some treasured RARE IP for decades and have done jack shit with them. Why suddenly think it changes with a new M&A when historical precedent shows otherwise?

And the thing is, I was one of those people who thought the ABK deal would lead to that type of stuff from Microsoft! So I've already been in that frame of mind. But then, reality settled in, and I'm not going to suddenly play pretend fantasy again just because it's Sony looking to do the acquisition now. I'm done with that.

Not really an issue, that's where externally-developed games come to help.

And how many of those are in the pipeline, exactly? How many do we know actually exist? Have been officially confirmed & revealed? Cancelled? Are traditional games or GAAS? What genres are they?

I'm also not too confident going forward there will be too many notable 3P co-developed exclusives or timed exclusives from SIE, either. There was a rumor way back about them working with SEGA and Bandai-Namco on AA revivals to Wipeout and other legacy IP. I now strongly doubt that rumor was ever true.

Which is another reason I'm shutting out so many rumors these days but, well, that's another topic.
 
Last edited:

Mibu no ookami

Demoted Member® Pro™
And who cares? Its 10B+ to buy a dying company that won’t materially change their fortunes and just introduces more things to manage and maintain

Not a dying company, just hit a rough patch with bad timing and decisions. The company was worth 66B as little as of 2021.

They obviously took a major hit by getting involved in streaming, but that was their hit to take. The streaming service is nearing profitability, so it wouldn't be Sony's hit.

Sony is getting a major deal buying a company worth 66B just 3 years ago for less than 26B today. The real cost fo buy Paramount at the time would have been at least 82 billion dollars... if not 100 billion.

That's how big Paramount actually is. This moves them into being in a position to be proper competitor to Netflix.
 

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
Not a dying company, just hit a rough patch with bad timing and decisions. The company was worth 66B as little as of 2021.

They obviously took a major hit by getting involved in streaming, but that was their hit to take. The streaming service is nearing profitability, so it wouldn't be Sony's hit.

Sony is getting a major deal buying a company worth 66B just 3 years ago for less than 26B today. The real cost fo buy Paramount at the time would have been at least 82 billion dollars... if not 100 billion.

That's how big Paramount actually is. This moves them into being in a position to be proper competitor to Netflix.

Just because they were “worth” 66B 3 years ago doesn’t mean they are getting a deal, they could be catching a falling knife
 

Mibu no ookami

Demoted Member® Pro™
But that's the thing: Apple make their own film/TV content as well so how does it make less sense for Apple but more sense for Sony & SIE? And FWIW, SIE were churning out IP that cable/streaming platforms want in their quarterlies. They haven't actually made a new IP on the level of GOW/TLOU/Uncharted etc. since 2020 with Ghosts of Tsushima. Maybe Returnal could join that stable, in terms of story potential, tho as a game it still has a long ways to go to hit GOW Ragnarok or TLOU 2 sales numbers.

And Helldivers may probably fit that bill now, but it's not really a new IP, and Sony Pictures already own the rights to Starship Troopers, a film Helldivers 1 & 2 take tons of inspiration from as-is. There's also already nostalgia for the Verhoeven Starship Troopers film; meanwhile there is no Helldivers film to produce the same (yet).

It's also kinda funny that Amazon want a Gravity Rush show that's both live-action/CG (instead of anime or CG anime), and SIE want to tie that in with a remaster (not even a remake) of the game where the console is the last priority. Because those GR games are already playable on PS4 & PS5. So the remake would just be for the show and to justify yet another PC port.



Truth to all points. It amazes me people want to say SIE will see "obvious benefits" to this deal when they've yet to see "obvious benefits" with a lot of Sony Picture's best IP for gaming.

Again, it's like the thought Microsoft would comb ABK's back catalog of IP like Leisure Suit Larry or Gabriel Knight to make modern high-production AA or AAA reboots/sequels/remakes of them, when they've been sitting on some treasured RARE IP for decades and have done jack shit with them. Why suddenly think it changes with a new M&A when historical precedent shows otherwise?

And the thing is, I was one of those people who thought the ABK deal would lead to that type of stuff from Microsoft! So I've already been in that frame of mind. But then, reality settled in, and I'm not going to suddenly play pretend fantasy again just because it's Sony looking to do the acquisition now. I'm done with that.



And how many of those are in the pipeline, exactly? How many do we know actually exist? Have been officially confirmed & revealed? Cancelled? Are traditional games or GAAS? What genres are they?

I'm also not too confident going forward there will be too many notable 3P co-developed exclusives or timed exclusives from SIE, either. There was a rumor way back about them working with SEGA and Bandai-Namco on AA revivals to Wipeout and other legacy IP. I now strongly doubt that rumor was ever true.

Which is another reason I'm shutting out so many rumors these days but, well, that's another topic.

You're again blaming your own poor analysis of the situation, but you're still doing it.

Why would there be money in Leisure Suit Larry?

Can you say the same about Star Trek, Mission Impossible, ATLA, TMNT, Spongebob Squarepants?

ABK is actually in gaming and those IP weren't really explored for a reason and that's a different reason than Paramount's IP.

The weight of ABK was obviously dangerous to Microsoft as well. Which is what drove them multiplatform, since their platform was already dying.

Whether those rumors about 3P were true or not, the basis that they haven't been announced yet, does not suggest that they aren't real. You continue to have a massive misunderstanding about Sony and their announcement schedule. And you still don't understand that games take forever to develop.

Rise of the Ronin was almost certainly a PS4 game. Development started in 2015 and the game didn't release until 2024. PC played no part in the delay.

You fail to understand that Sony+Paramount is a multimedia giant. Not only will they absolutely use their IP in gaming, but the revenues that they pull in will allow them to take on larger acquisitions, namely in gaming. When you bring in 30B a year, do you think dropping 3-4 billion on a studio/publisher really changes the balancing sheet that much?

It will make Sony a much more stable company who can take greater risks without being outsized by those risks.
 

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
Can you say the same about Star Trek, Mission Impossible, ATLA, TMNT, Spongebob Squarepants?

Who would a going to make games with these IP?

Many of their studios would rather work on their own IP, because they already have strong IP or are good at creating new IP

The only possibility is someone like Bend studios
 

Mibu no ookami

Demoted Member® Pro™
Just because they were “worth” 66B 3 years ago doesn’t mean they are getting a deal, they could be catching a falling knife

Paramounts assets alone are worth tens of billions of dollars. Even if Paramount+ didn't exist and the company was bankrupt, this would still be a good deal.

Disney bought Marvel (no spider-man, x-men, fantastic 4) for 4 billion dollars. Was it worth it?
Disney bought LucasFilm for 4 billion dollars. Was it worth it?

This is a no brainer deal that when you look back at it, you ask yourself how it was allowed to happen. To the point that if they're unsuccessful, you better believe they'll be looking at what their next option is in that space, whether it be Warner Discovery or Universal.

There is going to be a time when these streaming services are probably 40-50 dollars a month and the money they'll bring in then will be absurd, but you need to be on top of the consolidation war in order to do that.
 

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
Disney bought Marvel (no spider-man, x-men, fantastic 4) for 4 billion dollars. Was it worth it?
Disney bought LucasFilm for 4 billion dollars. Was it worth it?

That IP was massively more popular than anything Paramount has

Those were good deals (though Disney has run them into the ground), that says nothing about this deal which is 6x as large

… for Star Trek? Mission impossible? These IP just aren’t that strong
 

Mibu no ookami

Demoted Member® Pro™
Who would a going to make games with these IP?

Many of their studios would rather work on their own IP, because they already have strong IP or are good at creating new IP

The only possibility is someone like Bend studios

Bend is definitely a possibility, but these IP can also afford you the opportunity for organic growth and expansion.

Insomniac has grown massively because of Spider-Man, but the problem is Sony doesn't own Spider-Man. The profits are less than people realize as a result.

Saying the only possibility is Bend is obtuse. Any and all studios could take this on. Who said Insomnaic wanted to work on an established IP before they worked on Spider-Man.

If Naughty Dog was assigned Mission Impossible or asked if they wanted to do, I think it would turn out well. Same with Insomniac and Star Trek. Though Guerrilla Games could also do it Star Trek.

It's also an opportunity to have 2nd party developers work on the games and test them out to see if they're a good fit to buy.

We've never really seen a AAA blockbuster TMNT game same with ATLA or Spongebob. And there are a ton of different IP we're overlooking like Rugrats and Dora the Explorer.
 
Actually 10 billion would not be a waste like some say.Two good Ninja turtles movies would make 1 billion around the world 500 each then comes merchandise on top star track can get very huge and especially new movie new series merchandise.Sony would have there money back pretty quickly.Lits of stuff to make great games
 

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
Bend is definitely a possibility, but these IP can also afford you the opportunity for organic growth and expansion.

Insomniac has grown massively because of Spider-Man, but the problem is Sony doesn't own Spider-Man. The profits are less than people realize as a result.

Saying the only possibility is Bend is obtuse. Any and all studios could take this on. Who said Insomnaic wanted to work on an established IP before they worked on Spider-Man.

If Naughty Dog was assigned Mission Impossible or asked if they wanted to do, I think it would turn out well. Same with Insomniac and Star Trek. Though Guerrilla Games could also do it Star Trek.

It's also an opportunity to have 2nd party developers work on the games and test them out to see if they're a good fit to buy.

We've never really seen a AAA blockbuster TMNT game same with ATLA or Spongebob. And there are a ton of different IP we're overlooking like Rugrats and Dora the Explorer.

Insomniac wasn’t good at creating IP, which is why Spider-Man was exciting for them

I don’t see ND or GG wanting to work on any of these properties

Nor do I think gamers want Sony exclusives to just make movie IP
 
Last edited:
There is a pie for software sales. This pie includes 1st and 3rd party game sales and it also includes games that aren't even on the platform. If there are too many games on the market, that impacts both 1st and 3rd party sales. If someone buys Elden Ring or Zelda instead Horizon, that's money out of Sony's pocket.

And it's Sony's job to market Horizon, to position its release schedule better, to sell people on their game over competing offerings. Again, you're acting like because more games are releasing, it means less games should exist instead. That thinking makes no sense.

To me it just means publishers have to compete harder to sell their game to buyers. Isn't that the kind of competition people wanted to see?

There's an extent to the number of games Sony can realistically produce and market before they're competing against each other. Releasing more games into a crowded market doesn't make a ton of sense.

Trust me, right now they are NOWHERE NEAR hitting that number. You can't when your annual output is as low as one or two games 🤣.

Square-Enix's situation with AA releases in 2022 and 2023 is a better example of what you're speaking of. But that's Square-Enix, not Sony/SIE.

You say Sony can cut through the noise but just look at Horizon Zero Dawn and Forbidden West, both games performed really well, but were definitely blunted by bigger games around them. Rise of the Ronin was definitely blunted by Dragon's Dogma.

And again, that is purely down to SIE's imprecise marketing. No one told them to release HFW within a week of Elden Ring. They chose to do it themselves, knowing (or maybe not; at this point they seem very aloof) Elden Ring would've probably been weaponized against their game (which it was). They chose to release HZD close to Zelda: Breath of the Wild. They chose to release Rise of the Ronin close to Dragon's Dogma 2.

Hell, they chose to release Helldivers 2 a couple weeks apart from VII Rebirth which might've suppressed buying power and demand for Rebirth, to to SIE's defense on that one, they were caught off-guard by Helldivers 2's massive viral success just like everyone else.

A lot of people, yourself included aren't very well versed in Sony's history.

I don't need someone trying to snidely pose a passive-aggressive judgement on my knowledge. For starters I've never claimed to be a textbook expert on Sony's corporate history nor do I care to. What I've always mainly been interested in is SIE's gaming history.

That said, don't assume I don't do research simply because we differ on our points of view.

Let's look at your example of Breaking Bad. The show first aired in 2008 and ended in 2013. No one would have known that Breaking Bad would be a major television series and by the time you did realize and started development, the show would have already been over. You'd have to find the right studio AND the right time for them to develop unless you had them stop whatever they were working on, which would make no sense.

Breaking Bad is an evergreen IP. It's arguably just as popular now as it was a decade ago. The fan interest will ALWAYS be there.

So, it doesn't really matter when SIE could've negotiated rights to get a studio going to make a game based on the IP. Why? Because any time is always the right time for an IP like Breaking Bad.

But let's focus on the time period, this also came at a time where synergy was pretty low at Sony. This was something Howard Stringer generally wanted to improve at Sony and slowly began to do. At the time Sony generally worked to make as much money as they could on individual deals without as much focus on the bigger picture.

Just because synergy was low, doesn't mean there was zero synergy.

It's interesting that you recognize that Sony Interactive Entertainment didn't make Sony Pictures IP into games, but you don't also recognize that at the time Sony really didn't license many game licenses at all, that they really didn't have the development teams historically to do it, and that Sony Pictures really didn't take SIE IP and use them for tv and movies either. Gran Turismo came out in 1997 and was an instant success, but it didn't become a movie until 2023, nearly 30 years later. Uncharted and The Last of Us also took 10+ years each. The transmedia strategy has changed.

This is where you're wrong. Before SIE, Sony had Sony Imagesoft, who DID specialize in licensed games. In fact that was practically all they developed and published between the NES, SNES, Genesis, and SEGA CD. And not just licensed games of Sony Pictures IP; Disney IP were also licensed regularly by them for both game development and publishing.

So even before the PS1, Sony had some idea of leveraging licenses to develop and publish video games. And then even going to PS1, Psygnosis made various licensed games themselves. They made & published The City of Lost Children (fun game if a bit obtuse), for example So this notion that Sony didn't have a history of licensed games until very recently or the teams to make successful licensed games is false.

Sony didn't actively become a major software developer until the mid to late 2000s, when they were actively buying studios to bolster their first party development. They didn't become a premier publisher until the 2010s. They didn't begin any major licensing deals until Spider-Man which released in 2018. It made more sense historically for Sony Pictures to license their IP out to multiplatform game publishers like EA and Activision.

These terms you're using like "major" and "premier" are all relative and from a modern context. By late '90s standards, SIE were already a major software developer. They had Gran Turismo, Warhawk, Parappa the Rapper/UmJammer Lammy, G Police, Arc the Lad, Beyond the Beyond, Crime Crackers, Motor Toon Grand Prix, PoPoLoCrois, the entirety of Psygnosis (Wipeout, City of Lost Children, F1, and plenty others), Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, NFL Gameday, Crash Team Racing, and Legend of Dragoon just to name some.

That level of output was comparable to other devs/pubs of the time like Konami, Capcom, SNK, Tecmo, EA, Acclaim, SEGA, Squaresoft, Enix, and Nintendo. By the industry standards and expectations of both the late '90s and early/mid '00s, SIE were already a major software developer and premier publisher.

You're basically trying to invalidate that, intentionally or not, by using very selective modern contexts and examples to describe their past inaccurately.

This is entirely nonsense and a creation in your own mind.

So like you saying Sony weren't a major software dev in the '90s or premier publisher until the 2010s? 😉

That doesn't mean these things can't land on multiple platforms, which they absolutely are. That doesn't mean a game will be 60 fps on handheld or even console. What a ridiculous response.

You're skirting around the topic. You said that it would be easier for games to scale, that was made as a general remake. Which also means, it could be taken as a universal statement i.e applicable to all device types.

Meaning the problems I mentioned with those games i.e BG3, Jedi Survivor etc. on those named platforms, shouldn't be happening if what you said was true.

Which, it isn't, which is why I brought them up.

Even if Helldivers 2 stops today, it's already been a massive success for Sony and would have proven their GaaS strategy successful. Even if all PC players stopped playing the game today, it would still be a massive success.

Helldivers 2 was greenlit and began its development before the modern GAAS strategy SIE outlined at the start of this generation.

Sony hasn't done a lot of things with MLB and again, context is important here. It seems like you feel everything happens in a vacuum.

The context is that they are slow on things that should've been happened by now. If their GAAS strategy were better organized, heck if their multiplat strategy were better organized, a F2P MLB entry would've been one of the first things they pursued.

Sony didn't initially plan on MLB being multiplatform. This is something forced on Sony in 2020. They released in on Xbox in 2021 and the Switch in 2022. The studio has to handle the ports of all versions of the game, but somehow you think they had time to make a mobile version already? They'll eventually probably come to Mobile and to PC, but that takes time, especially mobile. It's a massive endeavor and you have to think from the time Sony thought about doing it, which probably wouldn't have been until 2021 or 2022 at the earliest, and then recognize the time it takes to develop for it. That studio is probably maxed out on what they're capable of doing, so you would probably have to farm out the mobile game, which has its own risks and complications involved.

What happened to 'organic growth'? SIE knew they were going to make multiplat versions of MLB The Show, but didn't bother to expand SSD to handle the increase in capacity? I thought this was something they always did and separated them from, say, Microsoft?

You mean to tell me, they knew from early on they were going to make multiplat version of MLB The Show due to a new deal, and didn't bother to include mobile in that strategy? No one at SIE saw the obvious fantasy league tie-in feature benefits? The revenue & profit potential for a mobile version easily eclipsing a PC release? Didn't see the value in growing SSD or hiring an external partner to develop it? Didn't think the MLB League would be 100% gung-ho for a mobile version of the game?

Yeah, smells like shit leadership and decision-making to me.

You made wild assumptions just like you're making now and what's worse is your arguments for the assumptions never added up and then when you were proven wrong, you never even concede that you were wrong.

You argue in bad faith.

Go ask other people I've had differences in topics with, and I bet some of them will tell you I have indeed conceded on prior points and changed my mind about them. In fact, I do it rather regularly.

But if I'm not doing that with the things you are mentioning, then maybe that's because what you're countering my points with aren't good enough to convince me I should reconsider my stance?

No one said that SIE was done with acquisitions post Bungie. Not sure which Sony Picture acquisition misses you're referring to.

I haven't said they're done, either. But the likelihood it'd be anything significant has heavily decreased. These companies have finite budgets for M&As, investments and the sort. If Sony Corp are putting 80% of their M&A budget for the next couple years (just as example) towards a film/TV acquisition, they aren't going to suddenly have even 30% towards a gaming-related one, let alone more.

It don't work like that.

It's not just about synergies, it's about return on investment. Sony growing as an entertainment company allows them to leverage things across divisions and that is where the synergies kick in.

So where is the Destiny TV show from Sony Pictures?

You're confusing strategy with execution. Microsoft failed, but so many other companies have been successful with similar strategy. It comes down to execution. In fact Microsoft themselves have had success in this area, so much so that it got them involved in antitrust in the 90s and early 2000s.

Microsoft's "success" was gained through anticompetitive market practices. Obviously, I don't want Sony to try doing similar in modern-day. Also the synergies I'm speaking of are within the realm of entertainment, where the ways to synergize are easier to understand for the average person, and clearer to communicate. They also work more naturally together.

And had they executed better, Xbox would have been worth hundreds of billions of dollars.... Why ignore Apple, Netflix, Amazon, and Google all of which have been extremely successful in leveraging their position for growth?

And all of whom are also guilty to some degree of anticompetitive market practices. Did we forget this part? We gonna pretend that isn't an issue anymore?

Would you say Spider-Man has helped SIE? Sony owning the rights to the Spider-Man movies, almost certainly played a part in SIE even getting the opportunity to publish a Spider-Man game. PR aside, there is no coincidence that their first licensed game with Marvel was Spider-Man. Regardless, would you say it helped them or not?

Yes, obviously Spiderman benefited SIE tremendously. But Sony weren't the first ones approached to make a game with the IP; Microsoft were. And that's just if we're talking about an exclusive game. ABK have made plenty of Spiderman games and that's without owning the film rights.

ABK lost that right because their quality sucked. Microsoft passed on that right because they were ran by idiots and lacked studios to do it justice. SIE became the benefactor.

The thing is Sony doesn't own the licenses for Spider-Man (game) or Wolverine, or X-Men.

Okay, and?

Owning Star Trek, Avatar (ATLA), Spongebob, Mission Impossible, TMNT, Top Gun... would absolutely help SIE. Your primary argument is that you don't think they would make the games because historically Sony didn't make the games for Sony Pictures, while ignoring the history of those IP and their lack of size, scope, and lineage.

It doesn't matter if a lot of Sony Picture's IP lacked the market share or mind share of a SpongeBob; very few IP in the world do, regardless of who owns them. Should other companies have just not bothered making new IP or licensing IP simply because they or their parent company lacked license/IP ownership?

This is just silly. Arrowhead admits that this was their mistake, that they knew it was a requirement and that they should have better communicated the requirement. Looks like Sony jumped in and saved the day for them and removed the requirement, but this was on Arrowhead not Sony.

And all it took was for SIE to go about it in a way to look like cucks. Also they could've avoided this PR nightmare by just announcing PSN account linking as opt-in when they were ready to implement it again.

Totoki wants to grow all elements of Sony, including SIE, but that growth has to make sense financially. The SIE of today couldn't make best use of all of Paramounts IP, they'll have to expand in order to do so, both organically and organically.

The SIE of today doesn't have to make best use of all of Paramount's IP, just the ones they are interested in and suited towards. And while, yes, SIE definitely needs to expand both organically & inorganically, the question towards the latter is, will there be devs/pubs on the market willing to be acquired by the time SIE are ready? And if so, who?

That's where if you take too long, you miss your window of opportunity.

Another topic that you're not well versed on. Paramount is already one of the major streaming services with 71 million subscribers. They're only behind Netflix, Amazon, Disney, and Max. Amazon's numbers are totally inflated by prime membership in general, Disney's numbers are aided by buying Hulu, and HBO was always ahead of Showtime.

And what's Paramount's profits off that subscription service look like?

Oh, yeah...right 😂

Adding Sony's content to Paramount+ would be a major boon for the service that is already nearing profitability and would allow them to combine Paramount+ and Crunchyroll in a similar way that Disney and Hulu have been combined.

""Nearing" profitability."

All I needed to hear.

Seems like you are coming around a bit to realize the vision here. Paramount+ isn't currently profitable, but it's nearing profitability. I believe analysts and the company believe that they'll be profitable by 2025, which would align to when Sony would actually takeover ownership of the service through owning the company.

So if they're going to be profitable by 2025, why do they want to sell to Sony? Are the profit margins just going to be too slim to justify sovereign operations and they need to be acquired to continue regardless? What ways are Sony going to massively grow the profit margins to both recoup M&A costs, and justify the acquisition in the first place?

Again, adding Sony's content to the service would make it more successful.

Which content specifically? How would it make it more successful?

Disney+Hulu has been a major success and they will also be hitting profitability soon. At least try to research this stuff before commenting on it.

Their Star Wars shows have been getting bad critical reception and worst viewership. The Marvel shows have been in decline for over two years now. Outside of recent things like X-Men '97 or rare solid films like Guardians 3, the only steadfast successful Disney/Hulu content in both viewership & critic/fan reception have been licensed shows like Bluey.

Sony+Paramount would almost certainly be the market leader when it comes to generation of movies and tv. And there are all sorts of downstream advantages that you don't realize like Sony's ability to remaster so much of the classic paramount properties. Sony's ability to shift all of Paramounts technology to Sony tech which is a boon for both Paramount and Sony Electronics.

Oh great, MORE remasters! At least these would be movies, I guess.

Again synergies resulting in massive cost savings, that turn the billions in revenue into much higher operating income.

Cost savings how? They're spending at least $13 billion (likely) to buy Paramount. I'm pretty sure some smart licensing here and there would work out better at least in the mid-term if you want to talk cost savings.

Do you know what else will be a boon for Paramount+? Seinfeld which is owned by...checks notes... Sony... And that's just an example of what Sony brings to Paramount+. Sony has definitely been successful farming out their movies and shows to various streaming services, but putting their entire weight behind Paramount+ will make it a juggernaut in streaming.

So Sony owns Seinfeld? And they've never tried making a Seinfeld game?

Hmm, maybe if they didn't completely give up on internal AA games they could've taken a managed creative approach to a Seinfeld game. You know, the type of thing that for all all we know could've opened up some new creative avenues in the gaming space for others to follow, or become a viral hit (or both).

Sony+Paramount create WAY more content than Netflix, Disney, Amazon, and Apple make individually. That's a big reason why Disney bought Fox and why Amazon bought MGM. My guess is that Apple would have bought Warner if it hadn't been for this antitrust suit the government has brought against them.

Yes, which the government has conveniently not also bought against Microsoft or other Big Tech companies, when companies like Microsoft have regularly violated regulatory agreements multiple times and just paid the fines because they're pocket change to them.

Also the same Microsoft which has an employee whose mother is a judge in a high place of the US district court system. Same Microsoft that pays big money for lobbyists...and they're at least not being looked into in a similar level to Apple? Yeah, totally not sus /s.

Not sure what you're referring to here.

This:

If these shows can help grow Paramount+ AND be a consistent home for their shows, they can be more profitable rather than splitting the pot with the names above.

see above.

This:

Not sure of any internal development studios that Paramount owns, but their IP will do much better with Sony first party and Sony chosen 3rd party development studios working on their IP.
 

Mibu no ookami

Demoted Member® Pro™
That IP was massively more popular than anything Paramount has

Those were good deals (though Disney has run them into the ground), that says nothing about this deal which is 6x as large

… for Star Trek? Mission impossible? These IP just aren’t that strong

Mission Impossible Fallout grossed 800 million dollars at the Box Office in 2018.
Star Trek Into Darkness grossed 467 million dollars at the Box Office in 2013.

Individually they aren't worth as much as Star Wars or Marvel, but they really aren't all that far off AND it's not the only IP at stake here.

You're still looking at several others.

Top Gun Maverick just did 1.5 billion at the box office.
Spongebob and Dora have generated billions in dollars in revenue as have TMNT.

Throw in ATLA and many others... it's silly that you're ignoring the IP and its worth. Even if Sony never made a single one of these into a video game (which they'll obviously do) this would still be a massively wise deal for Sony Group.
 
Top Bottom