SEScoops: Sony is considering to acquire Warner Bros Discovery Streaming and Studios

So what's the good reason here?
Good reason for Discovery is to get out of their mountain of debt.

Good reason for Sony, they've been wanting to expand in the TV/Movie industry for quite some time. The gaming side is only a small part of this acquisition but there is room to grow it with the IP's WB has.

Personally I would love to see Looney Tunes games again. That's an easy way to snag some of Nintendo's audience.

Taz-Mania_game_cover.jpg
 
Good reason for Discovery is to get out of their mountain of debt.

Good reason for Sony, they've been wanting to expand in the TV/Movie industry for quite some time. The gaming side is only a small part of this acquisition but there is room to grow it with the IP's WB has.

Personally I would love to see Looney Tunes games again. That's an easy way to snag some of Nintendo's audience.

Taz-Mania_game_cover.jpg
But at what cost?
 
I hate IP acquisition / media conglomerates and everyone should. Disney buying everyone is why we have such trash, uniform mediocrity across countless film franchises / IPs now.

A Sony that goes that direction would equally be a company to avoid supporting at all costs.
 
would they be able to do DCU/Spiderverse cross over films? I also hope we get obscure batman villian movies
 
Last edited:
This might have an effect to gaming too. Wow, imagine Sony will have exclusivity for Harry Potter games like Hogwarts legacy, which is very popular in Europe. That would be huge.
 
This will %100 involve an antitrust probe, Sony Music merging with WB music (both are in the top 5 music labels around the world) alone guarantees this, let alone the concentration risk of having WB Games join SIE and WB film studios joining Columbia.
Warner Music Group separated from Time Warner a long, long time ago, as the result of a debt related by its merger with (and spin-off from) AOL.
 
Last edited:
I don't know, man. Sony owning Mortal Kombat just feels... wrong? Like, a violation of the natural order. I may lose sleep over this.
Is it though? For the largest part of it's 30+ year history, Mortal Kombat had been primarily associated with PlayStation in the home console space, particularly through the partnerships for the 2011 Mortal Kombat (which had a playable Kratos exclusively on PS3 and Vita), Mortal Kombat X and Mortal Kombat 11, the three most successful entries in the franchise. Not to mention how PlayStation consoles had become the home to the FGC since the PS4 onwards, and even moreso after Sony's co-ownership of EVO.

In fact, you could even argue that all current studios and properties from Warner Bros. Games have a close association with PlayStation: from how the Batman: Arkham series from Rocksteady and WB Montreal had historically been promoted in partnership with PlayStation (even to the extent of featuring exclusive content and a console-exclusive VR game); to Hogwarts Legacy being given the PS Studios royal treatment by Sony from a marketing standpoint; and, as I've pointed out earlier, the close relationship between PlayStation and NetherRealm Studios.
 
I'm really conflicted about this.

On the one hand, WB's got some good game studios, especially if you're talking the Arkham games and (less so) Mortal Kombat. On the other hand, I think SIE already have superhero stuff covered between Spiderman, Wolverine, Marvel Tokon and whatever inevitable X-Men game they make in the future. Yes, those are all Marvel properties, but they're still superhero games and Insomniac are already kinda saddled with Marvel games for the next while. I don't want to see that repeated with other SIE studios, and the risk exists even if SIE get WB's game studios along with licenses to the IP.

My bigger issue is, this doesn't really seem like an acquisition that'd result in more games that wouldn't exist otherwise. PlayStation'd still get the next Batman game, the next Mortal Kombat etc. In that sense an acquisition'd only mean Sony getting all the money instead of 30% from sales on PlayStation. Great for them, means little to me.

I'd also be concerned about such an acquisition necessitating even more multiplatform support from SIE, in addition to it meaning less new games (which otherwise wouldn't have existed without the acquisition), from both the WB studios (new IP) and SIE's 1P studios. I imagine buying WB's game studios and licenses to DC properties won't be cheap, and SIE have focused heavily on profit margins more recently. If they buy the WB studios and buy licensing rights to DC properties, that might convince them to "might as well" put the other games multiplat as well. It's a very big magnet into a wild slippery slope, and it'd likely share some things in common with what ABK ended up doing to Xbox this gen.

At the very least, I think it'd make Marvel insist heavily on games like Spiderman 3 and Wolverine being Day 1 PC releases, which still creates the same perception and market problems as if a Ghosts of Yotei or Horizon 3 went Day 1 PC. Perhaps arguably even worst, IMO. And I think that would have detrimental impacts on sales of PlayStation console hardware. So, in essence, I'm 50/50 on this being a thing (if this rumor has any weight to it). But gaming-wise, I'd have to see it lead to some new games that otherwise simply wouldn't have happened if the WB studios stayed where they currently are, and if PlayStation consoles got some real benefits from such an acquisition, such as new exclusive AA & AAA games with DC & Warner Bros. IP (as an example).

Without that, this acquisition would mean little for the gaming side outside of fattening revenue and profits and, as a hobbyist, I don't care much for that whatsoever. People said the PC ports this gen would lead to more non-GAAS titles. Instead it let to less, and it led to Bluepoint & Bend being misdirected & wasting time on cancelled GAAS when they could've been working on new non-GAAS titles instead.
 
I don't know what to think.

On the one hand, it's sad that a company that made good movies and TV series, whose films I watched and whose quality I saw, has declined significantly.

But on the other hand, they deserve it for being hypocritical and mocking Disney and Japanese animation and customs.
 
Is it though? For the largest part of it's 30+ year history, Mortal Kombat had been primarily associated with PlayStation in the home console space, particularly through the partnerships for the 2011 Mortal Kombat (which had a playable Kratos exclusively on PS3 and Vita), Mortal Kombat X and Mortal Kombat 11, the three most successful entries in the franchise. Not to mention how PlayStation consoles had become the home to the FGC since the PS4 onwards, and even moreso after Sony's co-ownership of EVO.

In fact, you could even argue that all current studios and properties from Warner Bros. Games have a close association with PlayStation: from how the Batman: Arkham series from Rocksteady and WB Montreal had historically been promoted in partnership with PlayStation (even to the extent of featuring exclusive content and a console-exclusive VR game); to Hogwarts Legacy being given the PS Studios royal treatment by Sony from a marketing standpoint; and, as I've pointed out earlier, the close relationship between PlayStation and NetherRealm Studios.

Nothing I said was based in any logic, reasoning, or history. It was a bit of hyperbole mixed with my feelings. To me, it just doesn't fit in my mind. My reaction to the idea is, "...eh, weird".
 
Sony kinda need some big IP to add to their portfolio, and some new studios.

Between losing Bethesda, activision, and squares western branch (including tomb raider) most of which to their primary competitor, they are now pretty anaemic, really not helped by mismanaging pretty much all their existing studios this generation to the point that they have very little to show for the last 6 years.

They NEED more big names, popular with the public, and need more heads/studios to produce content and catch up. Microsoft is now churning out big name games with legacy recognition at quite a consistent rate now (after a glacial start).

Having hogwartz legacy, Batman and mortal combat alone would be big draws.
 
Anyone's guess if there's any validity to any of this, but if it were true it seems like the gaming aspect would just be a tiny portion of the overall proposed acquisition. I'm curious just how much IP would be included in there as there's a LOT of stuff under the WB umbrella

They would need the ips for the non gaming part as well. It wouldnt make any sense not to do it.
 
Sony struggling to release games as it is, who is going to develop these new titles? Half the money to be made probably comes form licensing out these properties. It's not the same situation as Spider-man exclusivity. They would need to sell bucket loads of titles on PS consoles to make the gaming side work. And licensing out the properties doesn't seem logical here for Sony.
 
Sony kinda need some big IP to add to their portfolio, and some new studios.

Between losing Bethesda, activision, and squares western branch (including tomb raider) most of which to their primary competitor, they are now pretty anaemic, really not helped by mismanaging pretty much all their existing studios this generation to the point that they have very little to show for the last 6 years.

They NEED more big names, popular with the public, and need more heads/studios to produce content and catch up. Microsoft is now churning out big name games with legacy recognition at quite a consistent rate now (after a glacial start).

Having hogwartz legacy, Batman and mortal combat alone would be big draws.
No offense. But you sound stupid as fuck. This is not 2021-2023 anymore. MS's strategy changed. Sony is not losing those franchises. They'll be getting a 30% cut of each game they sell, and those games always sell better on PS than Xbox. You say they had little to show the last 6 years yet they've had a 90+ Metacritic game for 3 straight years now, and they had the GOTY last year. People always say stupid shit on the Internet. Lol
 
Lol had no idea that Warner Music Group was not affiliated with WB, kinda explains a lot of their struggles huh?

Do you think Sony will make anything exclusive here? Things like MK or Batman Arkham or Hogwarts have strong reach and sales even on Xbox and it would probably be harmful for Sony to completely cut them off in any way.
Likely woould follow the formula they already have. Launch exclusively on PS5, launch on PC later. Porting to Xbox may not be worth it with the system's sales flatlining. It's quite likely PS5 and PC is the magic formula. But if research shows they'll get good ROI from a late Xbox porr, no reason they wouldn't do it
 
Sony kinda need some big IP to add to their portfolio, and some new studios.

Between losing Bethesda, activision, and squares western branch (including tomb raider) most of which to their primary competitor, they are now pretty anaemic, really not helped by mismanaging pretty much all their existing studios this generation to the point that they have very little to show for the last 6 years.

They NEED more big names, popular with the public, and need more heads/studios to produce content and catch up. Microsoft is now churning out big name games with legacy recognition at quite a consistent rate now (after a glacial start).

Having hogwartz legacy, Batman and mortal combat alone would be big draws.
They didn't lose them at all. All of their games are on Playstation.
 
Sony struggling to release games as it is, who is going to develop these new titles? Half the money to be made probably comes form licensing out these properties. It's not the same situation as Spider-man exclusivity. They would need to sell bucket loads of titles on PS consoles to make the gaming side work. And licensing out the properties doesn't seem logical here for Sony.
The acquisition would include the following studios:
  • Avalanche Software
  • NetherRealm Studios
  • Portkey Games
  • Rocksteady Studios
  • TT Games
  • WB Games Boston
  • WB Games Montréal
  • WB Games New York
  • WB Games San Francisco
 
The acquisition would include the following studios:
  • Avalanche Software
  • NetherRealm Studios
  • Portkey Games
  • Rocksteady Studios
  • TT Games
  • WB Games Boston
  • WB Games Montréal
  • WB Games New York
  • WB Games San Francisco
Fair point if they keep them all. To be honest that's more impressive than the Bethesda purchase. A lot to work with there and fix.
 
Sony kinda need some big IP to add to their portfolio, and some new studios.

Between losing Bethesda, activision, and squares western branch (including tomb raider) most of which to their primary competitor, they are now pretty anaemic, really not helped by mismanaging pretty much all their existing studios this generation to the point that they have very little to show for the last 6 years.

They NEED more big names, popular with the public, and need more heads/studios to produce content and catch up. Microsoft is now churning out big name games with legacy recognition at quite a consistent rate now (after a glacial start).

Having hogwartz legacy, Batman and mortal combat alone would be big draws.
Hum...haven't you heard?
MS is a 3rd party publisher now. And since when did Sony "lose" Square's western branch to MS? That never happened.

Literally all games from those studios are now releasing on Playsiation on day one.
 
I'm really conflicted about this.

Dude you're always so long winded for the sake of being long winded and you ALWAYS seem to shoot from the hip while positioning things around your own personal views rather than what is likely or probable.

On the one hand, WB's got some good game studios, especially if you're talking the Arkham games and (less so) Mortal Kombat. On the other hand, I think SIE already have superhero stuff covered between Spiderman, Wolverine, Marvel Tokon and whatever inevitable X-Men game they make in the future. Yes, those are all Marvel properties, but they're still superhero games and Insomniac are already kinda saddled with Marvel games for the next while. I don't want to see that repeated with other SIE studios, and the risk exists even if SIE get WB's game studios along with licenses to the IP.

First, the WBD split isn't happening for another year, so mid 2026. Any deal probably doesn't wrap up until at the early 2027 and with regulatory oversight and closing, you don't expect a deal like this to close until at the earliest 2028. With games taking at a minimum of 5 years to develop at this size and scope, the earliest an insomniac batman game for example could come out would be 2033. We know that Spider-Man 3 is on the roadmap for 2028 and that Insomniac has no real plans for Spider-Man beyond that.

My bigger issue is, this doesn't really seem like an acquisition that'd result in more games that wouldn't exist otherwise. PlayStation'd still get the next Batman game, the next Mortal Kombat etc. In that sense an acquisition'd only mean Sony getting all the money instead of 30% from sales on PlayStation. Great for them, means little to me.

It's not always about the quantity of games, though I disagree fundamentally there as well, but the key is really the quality of games.

Insomniac has since 2018 released 3 of the best spider-man games of all time. If Sony could apply that quality to The Wizarding World, it would be a big deal.

I'd also be concerned about such an acquisition necessitating even more multiplatform support from SIE, in addition to it meaning less new games (which otherwise wouldn't have existed without the acquisition), from both the WB studios (new IP) and SIE's 1P studios. I imagine buying WB's game studios and licenses to DC properties won't be cheap, and SIE have focused heavily on profit margins more recently. If they buy the WB studios and buy licensing rights to DC properties, that might convince them to "might as well" put the other games multiplat as well. It's a very big magnet into a wild slippery slope, and it'd likely share some things in common with what ABK ended up doing to Xbox this gen.

[At the very least, I think it'd make Marvel insist heavily on games like Spiderman 3 and Wolverine being Day 1 PC releases, which still creates the same perception and market problems as if a Ghosts of Yotei or Horizon 3 went Day 1 PC.]

This is where your mentality is kind of on full display. Your hang up makes you think about this multiplatform concern of yours from all angles and you try to fit things into all angles.

The contracts on these games are already finished.

You would have been wiser to focus on the the operating costs driving things like Day 1 releases across multiple platforms rather than suggest oddly that somehow Marvel would swoop in and change contracts after the fact to create your boogeyman of a fear.

At the very least, I think it'd make Marvel insist heavily on games like Spiderman 3 and Wolverine being Day 1 PC releases, which still creates the same perception and market problems as if a Ghosts of Yotei or Horizon 3 went Day 1 PC. Perhaps arguably even worst, IMO. And I think that would have detrimental impacts on sales of PlayStation console hardware. So, in essence, I'm 50/50 on this being a thing (if this rumor has any weight to it). But gaming-wise, I'd have to see it lead to some new games that otherwise simply wouldn't have happened if the WB studios stayed where they currently are, and if PlayStation consoles got some real benefits from such an acquisition, such as new exclusive AA & AAA games with DC & Warner Bros. IP (as an example).

see above.

Without that, this acquisition would mean little for the gaming side outside of fattening revenue and profits and, as a hobbyist, I don't care much for that whatsoever. People said the PC ports this gen would lead to more non-GAAS titles. Instead it let to less, and it led to Bluepoint & Bend being misdirected & wasting time on cancelled GAAS when they could've been working on new non-GAAS titles instead.

I don't love a WB acquisition for the gaming side, simply because I think there are better things for the gaming industry for Sony to be involved in, such as some investments in bringing Japanese AAA development to a new level, but it's kind of ridiculous to argue that we wouldn't see some of the best Harry Potter games ever through this.

Who said PC ports would lead to more non-GaaS titles? I think you misunderstood what people were saying. PC Ports are a way for Sony to mitigate the costs of rising development costs. That doesn't suggest necessary an increase in titles, but rather being better able to sustain the titles and projects. Same thing with successful transmedia.

The 2 million copies sold of The Last of Us Part 2 since the second season aired would have generated 100 million dollars. That erases much of the pressure on that games development costs. Especially when you consider that the game cost 220 million dollars to develop. The transmedia success of the game itself will ultimately likely pay for the development costs of the game. And yes PC is a big part of that.

Edit: Bluepoint and Bend have never featured prominently in SIE's game portfolio.
 
Last edited:
We can expect, with this acquisition, that the Batman and Mortal Kombat licenses will be used for GaaS versions completely butchered by Bungie!
Mortal Kombat would be fine. Fighting games is one of the few franchises that benefited from the GaaS boom. Paid Skins that don't impact gameplay, easy patches, people not having to buy a whole game three times in its lifetime to stay relevant, and new fighters when ever.
 
Mortal Kombat would be fine. Fighting games is one of the few franchises that benefited from the GaaS boom. Paid Skins that don't impact gameplay, easy patches, people not having to buy a whole game three times in its lifetime to stay relevant, and new fighters when ever.
Fighting games have always been GAAS.

Consider how Arcades are monetized, how new characters are unlocked over time to keep you coming back and how difficult bosses were made to get you to buy/spend more tokens to keep retrying.
 
Dude you're always so long winded for the sake of being long winded and you ALWAYS seem to shoot from the hip while positioning things around your own personal views rather than what is likely or probable.

Well I'm a human being, not a robot. And a gamer, not an investor. So yeah I'm gonna look at things from a personal "is this what I'd like" POV but that doesn't come at the expense of looking at things objectively as well.

IMO the best analysis' do both.

First, the WBD split isn't happening for another year, so mid 2026. Any deal probably doesn't wrap up until at the early 2027 and with regulatory oversight and closing, you don't expect a deal like this to close until at the earliest 2028. With games taking at a minimum of 5 years to develop at this size and scope, the earliest an insomniac batman game for example could come out would be 2033. We know that Spider-Man 3 is on the roadmap for 2028 and that Insomniac has no real plans for Spider-Man beyond that.

So in other words you're saying Insomniac would be open to doing a AAA Batman game...

...which just compounds on a concern I already expressed: bogging studios like Insomniac down with licensed superhero games. I know they're really good at it, they've shown that with Spiderman. But again, and yes this next part is from a personal preference, I would not like to see them get "stuck" doing only superhero games for the next 5-10 years (or more).

I know a AAA Batman game from Insomniac would sell gangbusters, but that doesn't mean it's something I have to personally want if my interests in superhero content on the whole has waned. It's also not something I'd like to see if it basically forces the game to be Day 1 across PS & PC, and basically pushes Insomniac into that path of "technically multiplat studio" as a result.

Are there ways those concerns could be mitigated? Yes. Insomniac could form multiple teams, for starters, working on different games. So even if the main team is working on Spiderman or Marvel or Batman, another team could be working on Ratchet & Clank, and maybe yet another on a new single-player IP. Now yes, a new R&C would sell nowhere near as much as that AAA Batman game....but I don't care. I still think it'd be a good thing if they could make both, they would have appeal to certain niches. Believe it or not some people may want that R&C game more than that Batman game.

Also last I remember, in the Insomniac slides they had a new R&C penciled for 2030; there was a rumor that had been cancelled, but hopefully that rumor was just BS (likely was). And it'd be nice to see SIE expand some of these studios to support multiple teams the way they have with Naughty Dog.

It's not always about the quantity of games, though I disagree fundamentally there as well, but the key is really the quality of games.

Insomniac has since 2018 released 3 of the best spider-man games of all time. If Sony could apply that quality to The Wizarding World, it would be a big deal.

Yes, for people into Harry Potter. And I KNOW that type of game would probably do at least 20 million easily...but would it be a PlayStation exclusive? Or would it be a Steam & EGS release too? Would it be Day 1 on those platforms? What about a Switch 2 version, would that be in the cards?

This inherently is part of the problem for me. Buying something like WB's game studio lot and licensing rights to their big IP for game adaptations, would just likely necessitate those games being multiplat anyway, just as previous versions were. That's more money for SIE obviously, but it wouldn't change much for PlayStation gamers because we'd of just gotten those games anyway. As for SIE's involvement in them, well they could still do that while those studios stayed with WB, and save on acquisition costs & licensing costs, especially if the games would be multiplat as usual even if SIE bought the studios and got the licenses.

And that feeds right into the other concern: the more SIE pursued such a multiplat strategy for 3P games they publish or games from major 3P studios now acquired by them...it's only inevitable that they decide to pursue the same strategy with internal 1P studios as well, beyond the GAAS titles. And that's when they'd find themselves in a very similar identity crisis as what Microsoft's been going through since 2024 (actually, a bit earlier than that).

I don't want that happening with PlayStation, so it's important to look at the full picture of what an acquisition like this could bring, and the licenses involved, especially considering SIE's multiplat strategy over the past few years. And to look at it beyond simply "well look at all the extra money Sony makes!!"

This is where your mentality is kind of on full display. Your hang up makes you think about this multiplatform concern of yours from all angles and you try to fit things into all angles.

The contracts on these games are already finished.

You would have been wiser to focus on the the operating costs driving things like Day 1 releases across multiple platforms rather than suggest oddly that somehow Marvel would swoop in and change contracts after the fact to create your boogeyman of a fear.

Companies can alter the terms of contracts anytime they want, or at least pursue the terms of those contracts in renewed deliberations with partners also involved in those deals. For the former we see it all the time when sites like Youtube update their Terms of Service; with the latter, we saw it recently with Microsoft and Disney/Lucasfilm agreeing to change the terms of their Indiana Jones deal to add PS5 as a platform after removing it prior.

Also worth mentioning, that Sony/SIE and Marvel regularly renew licensing rights to Spiderman every few years, and the same I'd assume for game licensing rights as well. As for operating costs, I'm aware of the impact that has, and the costs of spreading Q&A optimization testing to multiple platforms for a Day 1 release. However, we already have examples of SIE having tested this anyway with LEGO Horizon (not in-house, but 50% their IP and done with their help & publishing), and to some degree we're seeing it again with Lost Soul Aside. Again, not their game from an internal 1P, but with SIE's involvement and a Day 1 PS5/PC release. I'm sure they could've tried for an approach more like Stellar Blade, but they decided against that this time?

So it's worth taking into consideration the others things I brought up, in addition to things like operating expenditure or the logistics thereof that you are zeroed-in on (but mistakenly believe I have not taken into consideration).

I don't love a WB acquisition for the gaming side, simply because I think there are better things for the gaming industry for Sony to be involved in, such as some investments in bringing Japanese AAA development to a new level, but it's kind of ridiculous to argue that we wouldn't see some of the best Harry Potter games ever through this.

Again, I never said anything as to the quality of these potential games under SIE. My concern's been it'd be yet more licensed IP, essentially, either major superhero or major fantasy novel/film IP, and that's not something I'm particularly super hyped for unless it's very unexpected and a novel approach from SIE's POV.

That's why Marvel Tokon was such a big surprise (in a good way); yeah a 2D/2.5D fighter with Marvel characters isn't new at all, nor is ArcSys making a fighting game, but SIE haven't put their weight behind an anime-style Japanese fighting game as a publisher since the PS1 days (SCEJ/SCEA) with Toshinden. And their involvement with Marvel Tokon is a lot deeper than it was for even those Toshinden games.

THAT'S something novel for them in this space of superhero games, and unexpected considering some of the things they've been prioritizing the past few years. An even prettier follow-up on Hogwarts Legacy with Horizon-style combat & RPG-lite mechanics and a Spiderman 2-style story? Outside of the visual specter that would be magnitudes less exciting and more predictable than a Marvel Tokon, IMO.

Who said PC ports would lead to more non-GaaS titles? I think you misunderstood what people were saying. PC Ports are a way for Sony to mitigate the costs of rising development costs. That doesn't suggest necessary an increase in titles, but rather being better able to sustain the titles and projects. Same thing with successful transmedia.

A lot of people were saying that when the strategy was first unveiled. PC ports would bring in revenue to help fund new games for the console. Well, among internal teams that hasn't exactly worked out for the best this gen.

As for the strategy of using them to mitigate costs...then that was a poor reasoning. Studios like Naughty Dog had to spend lots of money to retool pipelines for better accommodation of PC deployment. Costs for PC development are baked into the total initial development costs to some extent, because it's not like Nixxes are developing PC versions from the ground-up. If SIE really wanted to mitigate costs of rising development, they should've focused on cutting out redundancies and not hiring bloatware equivalents of consultancy firms adding nothing of value to the finished product.

One other thing I've seen some people say, is that the PC push was really for markets like China and Korea. Well, fine...why not just make region-locked versions of your ports to Steam for Chinese and Korean players, then? Why make global PC versions with multi-language support and officially sold around the world?

The 2 million copies sold of The Last of Us Part 2 since the second season aired would have generated 100 million dollars. That erases much of the pressure on that games development costs. Especially when you consider that the game cost 220 million dollars to develop. The transmedia success of the game itself will ultimately likely pay for the development costs of the game. And yes PC is a big part of that.

Edit: Bluepoint and Bend have never featured prominently in SIE's game portfolio.

You are assuming those 2 million copies of TLOU2 sold at $50, when the truth is you don't know what the average sales price was. Even more than that, we don't know the platform split distribution of those 2 million, or at what point during the second season (which was something of a disaster, but that's a different topic) most of those copies sold. We don't even know what amount was actual net profit from the revenue generated.

Therefore it's entirely possible that PC's role in those 2 million sold/$100 million generated revenue worth of sales was a footnote, just exacerbating the issue and again forcing us to ask the question: why bother with such ports to begin with? The paltry profits those PC sales bring in are nothing compared to the bad faith optics and negative online discourse peddled about the game or IP mainly from gamers & influencers in PC-centric circles of influence to begin with. All that does is drag down the marquee perception of the IP as a whole.
 
Nemesis system for open world batman and other dc games. Remake F.E.A.R and alsl would be good for a movie adaptation aswell. Fighting games for evo arena you have lego games that could be made for switch and Xbox would love an fps lego starwars . Open world harry potter just like GTA.
 
Well I'm a human being, not a robot. And a gamer, not an investor. So yeah I'm gonna look at things from a personal "is this what I'd like" POV but that doesn't come at the expense of looking at things objectively as well.

IMO the best analysis' do both.


You're far more biased than you realize. Advice to you, try playing devil's advocate against your own talking points especially when you have a preconceived bias and see where you end up.

So in other words you're saying Insomniac would be open to doing a AAA Batman game...

...which just compounds on a concern I already expressed: bogging studios like Insomniac down with licensed superhero games. I know they're really good at it, they've shown that with Spiderman. But again, and yes this next part is from a personal preference, I would not like to see them get "stuck" doing only superhero games for the next 5-10 years (or more).

I know a AAA Batman game from Insomniac would sell gangbusters, but that doesn't mean it's something I have to personally want if my interests in superhero content on the whole has waned. It's also not something I'd like to see if it basically forces the game to be Day 1 across PS & PC, and basically pushes Insomniac into that path of "technically multiplat studio" as a result.

Are there ways those concerns could be mitigated? Yes. Insomniac could form multiple teams, for starters, working on different games. So even if the main team is working on Spiderman or Marvel or Batman, another team could be working on Ratchet & Clank, and maybe yet another on a new single-player IP. Now yes, a new R&C would sell nowhere near as much as that AAA Batman game....but I don't care. I still think it'd be a good thing if they could make both, they would have appeal to certain niches. Believe it or not some people may want that R&C game more than that Batman game.

Also last I remember, in the Insomniac slides they had a new R&C penciled for 2030; there was a rumor that had been cancelled, but hopefully that rumor was just BS (likely was). And it'd be nice to see SIE expand some of these studios to support multiple teams the way they have with Naughty Dog.



Again, this isn't about you personally, this is about your thesis about there not being an increase in quantity, which I've pointed out is the wrong argument, because this is about quality over quantity.

There is really no financial incentive for Insomniac to ever make Ratchet and Clank games moving forward. They simply don't sell well enough. If you read the insomniac leaked slides, you'd see that they DO have multiple teams working on multiple games, while the bulk of the studio focuses on one or two games.

Of the 2 million people who buy Ratchet and Clank, how many of those actually want Ratchet and Clank more than Batman. The number regardless is minuscule.

Yes, for people into Harry Potter. And I KNOW that type of game would probably do at least 20 million easily...but would it be a PlayStation exclusive? Or would it be a Steam & EGS release too? Would it be Day 1 on those platforms? What about a Switch 2 version, would that be in the cards?

This inherently is part of the problem for me. Buying something like WB's game studio lot and licensing rights to their big IP for game adaptations, would just likely necessitate those games being multiplat anyway, just as previous versions were. That's more money for SIE obviously, but it wouldn't change much for PlayStation gamers because we'd of just gotten those games anyway. As for SIE's involvement in them, well they could still do that while those studios stayed with WB, and save on acquisition costs & licensing costs, especially if the games would be multiplat as usual even if SIE bought the studios and got the licenses.

And that feeds right into the other concern: the more SIE pursued such a multiplat strategy for 3P games they publish or games from major 3P studios now acquired by them...it's only inevitable that they decide to pursue the same strategy with internal 1P studios as well, beyond the GAAS titles. And that's when they'd find themselves in a very similar identity crisis as what Microsoft's been going through since 2024 (actually, a bit earlier than that).

I don't want that happening with PlayStation, so it's important to look at the full picture of what an acquisition like this could bring, and the licenses involved, especially considering SIE's multiplat strategy over the past few years. And to look at it beyond simply "well look at all the extra money Sony makes!!"

I'm not here to argue that Sony acquiring WB would be bad for PS Fanboys who want to console war... Sony buying WB is a decision they have to make for whats in the best interest of their company.

Sony PAYS for the license to use Spider-Man and it isn't PC Day 1. Think about what that means. Sony's best selling home made IPs are Gran Turismo and God of War. God of War isn't PC Day 1 and Gran Turismo isn't even on PC... Think about what that means for your argument and your "concerns."


Companies can alter the terms of contracts anytime they want, or at least pursue the terms of those contracts in renewed deliberations with partners also involved in those deals. For the former we see it all the time when sites like Youtube update their Terms of Service; with the latter, we saw it recently with Microsoft and Disney/Lucasfilm agreeing to change the terms of their Indiana Jones deal to add PS5 as a platform after removing it prior.

You missed the point that Microsoft and Disney/LucasFilms agreed to the change, it wasn't a mandate against the contract.

Also worth mentioning, that Sony/SIE and Marvel regularly renew licensing rights to Spiderman every few years, and the same I'd assume for game licensing rights as well. As for operating costs, I'm aware of the impact that has, and the costs of spreading Q&A optimization testing to multiple platforms for a Day 1 release. However, we already have examples of SIE having tested this anyway with LEGO Horizon (not in-house, but 50% their IP and done with their help & publishing), and to some degree we're seeing it again with Lost Soul Aside. Again, not their game from an internal 1P, but with SIE's involvement and a Day 1 PS5/PC release. I'm sure they could've tried for an approach more like Stellar Blade, but they decided against that this time?

So it's worth taking into consideration the others things I brought up, in addition to things like operating expenditure or the logistics thereof that you are zeroed-in on (but mistakenly believe I have not taken into consideration).



Again, I never said anything as to the quality of these potential games under SIE. My concern's been it'd be yet more licensed IP, essentially, either major superhero or major fantasy novel/film IP, and that's not something I'm particularly super hyped for unless it's very unexpected and a novel approach from SIE's POV.


Again, I'm not really interested in this argument.

That's why Marvel Tokon was such a big surprise (in a good way); yeah a 2D/2.5D fighter with Marvel characters isn't new at all, nor is ArcSys making a fighting game, but SIE haven't put their weight behind an anime-style Japanese fighting game as a publisher since the PS1 days (SCEJ/SCEA) with Toshinden. And their involvement with Marvel Tokon is a lot deeper than it was for even those Toshinden games.

THAT'S something novel for them in this space of superhero games, and unexpected considering some of the things they've been prioritizing the past few years. An even prettier follow-up on Hogwarts Legacy with Horizon-style combat & RPG-lite mechanics and a Spiderman 2-style story? Outside of the visual specter that would be magnitudes less exciting and more predictable than a Marvel Tokon, IMO.


Maybe for you, but that's exactly what they did with the Spider-Man IP that took it to new levels. And guess what Sony doing a licensed game that wasn't related to sports was very out of left field for them, but it's exactly that opportunity that lead to Tokon in the first place. We call that growth and maturity.

A lot of people were saying that when the strategy was first unveiled. PC ports would bring in revenue to help fund new games for the console. Well, among internal teams that hasn't exactly worked out for the best this gen.

As for the strategy of using them to mitigate costs...then that was a poor reasoning. Studios like Naughty Dog had to spend lots of money to retool pipelines for better accommodation of PC deployment. Costs for PC development are baked into the total initial development costs to some extent, because it's not like Nixxes are developing PC versions from the ground-up. If SIE really wanted to mitigate costs of rising development, they should've focused on cutting out redundancies and not hiring bloatware equivalents of consultancy firms adding nothing of value to the finished product.


I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this, but I will say that the cost of doing a PC port is negligible.


One other thing I've seen some people say, is that the PC push was really for markets like China and Korea. Well, fine...why not just make region-locked versions of your ports to Steam for Chinese and Korean players, then? Why make global PC versions with multi-language support and officially sold around the world?



You are assuming those 2 million copies of TLOU2 sold at $50, when the truth is you don't know what the average sales price was. Even more than that, we don't know the platform split distribution of those 2 million, or at what point during the second season (which was something of a disaster, but that's a different topic) most of those copies sold. We don't even know what amount was actual net profit from the revenue generated.

Therefore it's entirely possible that PC's role in those 2 million sold/$100 million generated revenue worth of sales was a footnote, just exacerbating the issue and again forcing us to ask the question: why bother with such ports to begin with? The paltry profits those PC sales bring in are nothing compared to the bad faith optics and negative online discourse peddled about the game or IP mainly from gamers & influencers in PC-centric circles of influence to begin with. All that does is drag down the marquee perception of the IP as a whole.

You've got to pay more attention. TLOUP2 just launched on PC for 50 dollars and wasn't discounted during this run. The PS5 game was also not discounted during this run (it got a discount afterwards). So we do know the average sale price. It was one of the best sellers on PC, so yeah, definitely bad faith argument to reduce the impact of PC sales in that 100 million.

One of your biggest problems is you're convinced the internet is real when it isn't. One of your biggest arguments against Sony porting games to PC is that you're a PS fanboy who is upset about lack of exclusives for console warring... Sony doesn't care... which is why they're not going to region lock hundreds of millions of dollars away in order to satisfy fanboys on forums.

Also please stop with the filibustering. You don't need to be as long winded as you are.
 
Well now I really wouldnt mind Sony getting DC.

If DeadPool and Batman comic is leading to more crossovers I could totally see them actually doing a crossover fighting game or something.




So excited for the Captain America and Wonder Woman crossover.....sqweeeee!!!!!
Pray for a good artist and writers!!!!

dpbatman2025001_daredevil_greenlantern_checchetto.jpg
 
What is even going on in here? I love to read just as much as the next person but can I get the picture version of this back & forth ? 😂
 
Sony buying the gaming studios isn't the big deal in 2025 as it would've been years back. Mainline titles cost millions to make, and they rarely anymore are only ever released on one console. You can see the once "MS exclusives" coming to PS platforms as an example of this. If Sony were to buy the game studios, all the major title releases would be on all platforms i'm sure, with the only exception being PS platform exclusive timed features.
 
This'll be round three for Sony as far as movie studio acquisitions go.

Fox - Lost to Disney
Paramount - Lost to Skydance Media
And both have been shit since.... Disney ruins everything it touches, I guarantee xmen will be woke pandering and lame. Paramount now does the same with their torching of star trek written for "modern auidences"...
Microsoft's acquisitions hasn't helped anyone... in fact I think they are now worse.

Modern Sony acquiring Modern WB means doubling down on the shit writing and characters they both due post 2020, catering to "modern audiences™"
 
Last edited:
would they be able to do DCU/Spiderverse cross over films? I also hope we get obscure batman villian movies
If both sides Marvel and whoever is in control of DC at that moment agrees, yes.

I think it would be a great idea, but I think one of them could say no because of wanting to prioritize their own IPs and not favoring direct competitors.

Sony has a great relationship with Marvel they'll want to continue having, while at the same time wanting to leverage DC if they make this acquisition. So I assume Sony would be open to make crossovers.

Not sure about Marvel. Knowing they're very with Sony's work handling their IPs probably would allow them use Marvel IPs in DC comics, games or who knows if movies too.
 
Last edited:
And both have been shit since.... Disney ruins everything it touches, I guarantee xmen will be woke pandering and lame. Paramount now does the same with their torching of star trek written for "modern auidences"...
Microsoft's acquisitions hasn't helped anyone... in fact I think they are now worse.

Modern Sony acquiring Modern WB means doubling down on the shit writing and characters they both due post 2020, catering to "modern audiences™"
I dunno about that.
Sony's latest movie "28 Years Later" seems to be getting crazy good reviews and isn't woke/modern audience oriented.

And it's getting a little old now but did you watch the comedy "No Hard Feelings"?

Got to be one of the best comedies in the past 20 or more years.

It's important you look past the Marvel slop.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why anyone cares

A big publisher acquisition would essentially just become its own thing in Sony like how Sony owning all those Anime doesn't mean they get the anime licensed games

As Xbox proved, you can't just take something that costs that much to operate and start slicing out revenue sources with exclusives

The MultiVersus 2 roster would go crazy though
 
Last edited:
And ofc this is good for gaming because Sony has a historical track of having games accessible by as much people as possible across so many devices.
 
I'm not sure why anyone cares

A big publisher acquisition would essentially just become its own thing in Sony like how Sony owning all those Anime doesn't mean they get the anime licensed games

As Xbox proved, you can't just take something that costs that much to operate and start slicing out revenue sources with exclusives
Do you actually believe if Sony owned the right to Batman games the next Rocksteady game will be on Xbox???
 
Yes 100%

Even if we are talking for regulatory approval they would need to commit to non exclusivity
Hell will freeze over 10 times before Sony agrees to something like that, their whole business depends on keeping games off other platforms.
 
Do you actually believe if Sony owned the right to Batman games the next Rocksteady game will be on Xbox???

Ten years ago I'd say no. Today.....it is really hard to say.

Hell will freeze over 10 times before Sony agrees to something like that, their whole business depends on keeping games off other platforms.

Marathon is coming to Xbox. I just don't know
 
I dunno about that.
Sony's latest movie "28 Years Later" seems to be getting crazy good reviews and isn't woke/modern audience oriented.

And it's getting a little old now but did you watch the comedy "No Hard Feelings"?

Got to be one of the best comedies in the past 20 or more years.

It's important you look past the Marvel slop.
Ok, i'll have to check out 28 years later. My wife mentioned it but she hates zombie movies, I love them. I mention marvel as I loved the xmen and marvel movies when they were done by Fox. I think star wars and star trek becoming what they did really struck a nerve.
 
Last edited:
Hell will freeze over 10 times before Sony agrees to something like that, their whole business depends on keeping games off other platforms.
The only large acquisition they've ever made in gaming was Bungie which they kept multiplatform from day dot
 
Hell will freeze over 10 times before Sony agrees to something like that, their whole business depends on keeping games off other platforms.


The whole Nintendo business depends on exclusives. Sony is releasing games on PC.

Dude, do you read the stuff you write before posting?
 
The next Xbox will be a PC running off Windows with access to Steam and other PC stores. The game will eventually go to them.
So technically the next Xbox is not a console
Marathon is coming to Xbox. I just don't know
Marathon depends on player base, you can't say the same about Batman or Harry Potter
The only large acquisition they've ever made in gaming was Bungie which they kept multiplatform from day dot
Marathon is an odd situation, why didn't they release Concord or Helldivers on Xbox?
The whole Nintendo business depends on exclusives. Sony is releasing games on PC.

Dude, do you read the stuff you write before posting?
Yes you are right, it is Nintendo who pays Square Enix to keep Final Fantasy off Xbox, Deathloop and Tokyo Wire, they even went after StarfieldI if Microsoft didn't intervene. Nintendo's business depends on THIER own first party games.
 
So technically the next Xbox is not a console

Marathon depends on player base, you can't say the same about Batman or Harry Potter

Marathon is an odd situation, why didn't they release Concord or Helldivers on Xbox?

Yes you are right, it is Nintendo who pays Square Enix to keep Final Fantasy off Xbox, Deathloop and Tokyo Wire, they even went after StarfieldI if Microsoft didn't intervene. Nintendo's business depends on THIER own first party games.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I just don't think it is as cut and dried as it used to be. Very well could be they nope Potter and Batman off Xbox and then, ironically, the games jump right back on next gen Xbox with PlayStation games on Steam

lol....it's a strange world in gaming these days.
 
Top Bottom