Support NeoGAF

[Ar¢tos]

.

sony said the acquisition was for Bungie's expertise in GaaS which is spotty at best, and yet ND had to hire Fornite's "Monetization Designer".

latest Destiny's expansion was not very well received.

and the contract terms are insane in Bungie's favor.






.

But I imagine that being owned by Sony, Bungie can't go to Netease or Tencent for funding and being dependent on Sony for funding it also means being dependent on Sony approval of the project(s) they want to pursue, and if the project looks really attractive, Sony might have to power to make it exclusive to Playstation (+ PC later) (it's un-imaginative Bungie... I suspect this will never happen)

 

[Loxus]

Hey if you want to live in a fantasy land where Sony made some massive singular investment or acquisition 2 years ago and it never got reported, go for it. Also believing that somehow the only explanation for total assets going up by $24 billion was because of a singular $24 billion investment or purchase and that it had nothing to do with the Financial Division that they moved that money to for use in loans, insurance, nursing care, and various other businesses that they operate under it that has nothing to do with gaming. I mean it got reported pretty quickly that they invested $122 million in FromSoft just to own 14% of the company. But yeah, you're right. They secretly bought Take Two years ago for $24 billion and both companies just stayed quiet about it the whole time and kept it from the regulators. You figured it out.

It ain't know fantasy.
Why would Sony Finance Division need $25B? Maybe you should bring sources for your claim.

Look at Marketable Securities, then look at look at the long term Investments and Advances.

It increased by $28,876,300B.
Long-Term Investments Explained
A common form of long-term investing occurs when company A invests largely in company B and gains significant influence over company B without having a majority of the voting shares. In this case, the purchase price would be shown as a long-term investment.

It may not be Take-Two, but like I said. They did some kind of investment.

In 2022, Sony had $10B left for acquisitions. Now they only have $5B, they didn't announce where the other $5B went. So not every thing is known or announced right away.

 

[Varteras]

It ain't know fantasy.
Why would Sony Finance Division need $25B? Maybe you should bring sources for your claim.

Look at Marketable Securities, then look at look at the long term Investments and Advances.

It increased by $28,876,300B.
Long-Term Investments Explained
A common form of long-term investing occurs when company A invests largely in company B and gains significant influence over company B without having a majority of the voting shares. In this case, the purchase price would be shown as a long-term investment.

It may not be Take-Two, but like I said. They did some kind of investment.

In 2022, Sony had $10B left for acquisitions. Now they only have $5B, they didn't announce where the other $5B went. So not every thing is known or announced right away.

 

[Baki]

Lucky for them if M$ acquisition goes through they’ll be sidelined as they prove they can play nice. So they’ll only have to compete with Apple ($60 billion cash on hand, $140 billion investments), Netflix, Amazon, NVidia, Tencent, and a million other Private Equity firms and Saudi backed IP sharks.

TLDR; Sony’s problem isn’t cash. Sony’s problem is that other companies have more cash.

Not at all. Tencent and all the other companies are not going to bid up a company for the sake of it. They will have a valuation in mind based on T2/other publisher continuing as a independent publisher. That valuation will not be wildly higher than the current public valuation. Sony willingness to pay a higher premium will be higher because the publishers have strategic value to Sony and as a combined entity, they can potentially reap much more financial rewards, and will therefore be willing to pay a higher premium.

Sony’s Problem in Two Sentences:
Sony didn’t buy Activision because they couldn’t afford them. Microsoft didn’t buy Bungie because they thought they were overpriced.

Large publishers who hold valuable IP are going to garner interest and competition from other perspective buyers. Rest assured that the moment a consultant or a bank is hired to explore shopping or purchasing a company all other companies and PE firms quickly find out about it. I’m in a gaming adjacent industry (we use game mechanics and package our offerings as games in the category we compete in) and we get those calls all of the time.

Sony might seem like the ideal partner for Publisher X. And Publisher Xs executive team might think that Sony better aligns to their mission, goals, culture etc but things can get messy with “doing what’s right for stockholders” and when the board gets involved. Saying no to a 12x offer in order to take Sony’s 10x and better vision and alignment might be OK. But saying no to 20x and Sony’s 10x offer is not going to fly. Vision and alignment be damned. Just look at what steps Ubisoft took to avoid a hostile takeover.

This is where founder led/founder owned companies will behave differently from public companies with hired-in management teams. Companies like T2 are the latter and they will only consider 3 things: (1) is this the best bid for the stock, and is it a much higher valuation than we can achieve on our own in the near future? (2) Is this deal likely to be approved and is the structure of the financing (e.g. stock vs debt vs cash) likely to hold it's value while it takes 12-18 months to close this deal? and (3) Will this be good for my career.

 

[Varteras]

Companies like T2 are the latter and they will only consider 3 things: (1) is this the best bid for the stock, and is it a much higher valuation than we can achieve on our own in the near future?

I think this point really needs to be discussed more in situations where people theorize these things. It may very well be the biggest reason many large public companies turn down acquisitions. Especially if they are not, at the time, experiencing big issues.

 

[Baki]

I think this point really needs to be discussed more in situations where people theorize these things. It may very well be the biggest reason many large public companies turn down acquisitions. Especially if they are not, at the time, experiencing big issues.

1+3 play a big part. The board is supposed to recommend the deal based on finances but people's personal career ambitions can get in the way. The other challenge is the form of financing. If you're financing the deal through a stock swap, that is far less reliable than a cash deal. MS paid ABK in cash. So they know that even a year later, the effective deal is the same. You can't say the same for a stock deal.

 

[In Cold Blood]

5.1 billion and people were saying T2 was an option?

Good though, focus on "small" gaming stuff like devs purchases or fund/create new groups that can develop games that expand their genres, I only care about that tbh

They will get far more bang for the buck by buying smaller devs than T2.

 

[Varteras]

It ain't know fantasy.
Why would Sony Finance Division need $25B? Maybe you should bring sources for your claim.

Look at Marketable Securities, then look at look at the long term Investments and Advances.

It increased by $28,876,300B.
Long-Term Investments Explained
A common form of long-term investing occurs when company A invests largely in company B and gains significant influence over company B without having a majority of the voting shares. In this case, the purchase price would be shown as a long-term investment.

It may not be Take-Two, but like I said. They did some kind of investment.

In 2022, Sony had $10B left for acquisitions. Now they only have $5B, they didn't announce where the other $5B went. So not every thing is known or announced right away.

Marketable Securities are quickly turned into cash. So they moved $24 billion in those to their Long-Term Assets. Which was their Financial division then. That is why you saw their Long-Term Assets increase by that much and their Short-Term Assets decrease by that much. That's not a "gotcha" moment. That's a common sense thing when you move an asset from one type into another. It's called math.

Why would their Financial division need billions? Oh I don't know. Let me go down the list for you again. Their Financial division deals in insurance, including life insurance, venture capital loans to new businesses, nursing care, every day online banking, and credit card settlements. They operate a multitude of businesses that exist in these areas. You kinda need a lot of money to do all that so they probably had good reasons for having that money there when they did.

In 2020, their Financial division represented exactly half of Sony's total assets. That means you would need to combine their Electronics division, Imaging division, Gaming division, and Pictures & Music division just to equal their Financial division in total assets. Yeah, it's sort of a big deal for them.

I am not goin to waste my time today or any day, like I wasted my time back then, to find the sources I did a year ago just to kill your delusion. That was a fuck ton of wading through sites, including Japanese ones with Google Translator, just to find out Sony didn't do anything exciting with that money. You can have at it yourself. If it means that much to you.

But you're not some sleuth who figured something out about PlayStation that no one else in the world did. Because if so you should throw on your Sunday best and get ready to receive your reward in journalism because not even Jason Schreier dug up that career defining nugget. A TWENTY FOUR BILLION DOLLAR acquisition would not slip by anyone. Especially not regulators who even scrutinized the $3 billion Bungie deal. And certainly not for TWO YEARS now.

It. Is. Your. Fantasy. Not only could Sony never hope to keep a $24 billion dollar acquisition in this industry a secret, and again certainly not from regulators, there would have been ZERO reason to. And no, it would have nothing to do with ABK. Because at the time this little (massive) phantom acquisition of yours happened, the ABK deal itself was almost still a year away from being announced. And before you try to chalk it up as an investment like FromSoft, no. Just. No. Sony wouldn't pay that gigantic sum of $24 billion just to partially own something in gaming.

I'm done with this little dream of yours. You won't get anything more from me at this point than just GIFs and memes. Have fun. I'll be eagerly awaiting Sony to announce this huge acquisition of yours around November 20Never.

 

[In Cold Blood]

The problem with studio acquisitions is the fact that they don't produce consistent income.
Depending where they are on their release schedule the company who buys them may be paying all the expenses with no income for a number of years prior to them releasing a game that may have some payback.

 

[Varteras]

The problem with studio acquisitions is the fact that they don't produce consistent income.
Depending where they are on their release schedule the company who buys them may be paying all the expenses with no income for a number of years prior to them releasing a game that may have some payback.

The significant upside to buying studios, outside of owning any of their IP, is that they already exist. Building studios from scratch takes years and you might not end up with the talent you're looking for. Sony's own Manchester Studio is one example. Closed down 5 years after it was founded with no finished project released.

Would you rather take the many years it would require to build a 400-person studio like Insomniac and hope it works out or just buy Insomniac knowing their performance? You could opt to only grow existing studios but there is a culture there that should be nurtured and sometimes your existing studios just don't make the kinds of games you're looking for. Just throwing bodies at them isn't going to cut it. If it did, building from scratch would be a lot more certain.

So while it can be a bit of a pain point depending on when and who you're buying, it's a solution with typically faster results and more known quantities.

 

[VAVA Mk2]

A publisher acquisition probably wouldn't be restricted by a remaining budget plan. Hypothetically, Sony would have to get permission from the board to initiate such a large purchase and explain to them how they plan to do it. It would likely involve a combination of liquidation of some Current Assets (anything that can be converted to cash within a year), loans, and stock swaps. Technically speaking, Sony has the financial ability to buy companies like EA and T2. Assuming, as always, they wanted to sell.

But it becomes a question of how much they're willing to stomach. If they think the investment is worth it. That's before you even get into the confrontation with regulators. EA and T2 would just be too much in a lot of different ways for Sony to want to deal with. Buying companies that big comes with a ton of baggage. You end up buying a whole hell of a lot that you didn't really want just to get the few things you really did.

Acquisitions like that would wreak havoc on Sony's short term finances for sure and they'd have to hope it pays off long term. It would very likely push them to sell Non-Current Assets (anything they can sell but would take more than a year to do) just to make sure they stabilize. Sony may have well over $200 billion in total assets, but that doesn't mean they're eager, or willing at all, to sell large chunks just to get a couple popular IP for PlayStation and maybe one or two studios really worth a damn.

I don't see Sony going much higher than $10 billion for a publisher. In which case their ceiling is Square Enix or Capcom. SE, coincidentally, checks off a lot of boxes for Sony's stated strategies. Live services, mobile, and transmedia opportunities. That being said, Sony's better bet overall is to go after a lot of smaller, more easily purchased and absorbed companies that fit their plans and culture.

Honestly I think Square Enix and Sony are a good pair. Like PB & J or chocolate and peanut butter.

 

[Varteras]

Honestly I think Square Enix and Sony are a good pair. Like PB & J or chocolate and peanut butter.

To me, it really is the one publisher acquisition Sony could make that makes more sense than any others by far. They have a long history together with frequent exclusivity, marketing deals, and various types of assistance. They fit in perfectly with Sony's stated strategies of expanding into live service, mobile, and transmedia. SE is a much more streamlined purchase after they shed or absorbed many of their subsidiaries. They're also a much cheaper purchase than companies like EA, T2, Bandai Namco, and even Capcom. And it would just FEEL right. The same way I felt when Microsoft bought Zenimax. There just seems to be this intangible connection between them.

 

[64bitmodels]

yep. a total waste. sony got scammed hard.

look man i know you're a sausage but i have 0 idea what your hate boner for Bungie is

Every way you look at it it was a great acquisition on the part of Sony and to act like it was a 'total waste' when Destiny 2 is more popular and beloved than ever is fucking idiotic

My dreams...

Guilty Gear is too good to be locked to Playstation, noooo thanks

 

[Varteras]

I put a spoiler to spare your eyes. You've been warned.

Spoiler: Bungie Price

This is the breakdown of Sony's acquisition of Bungie, for anyone interested.

Total: $3.7 billion
Fair Value As Of The Date Of Acquisition: $2.4 billion

Upfront Cash: $1.5 billion
Deferred: $612 million
Contingent: $304 million

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

look man i know you're a sausage but i have 0 idea what your hate boner for Bungie is

is not hate or anything. I am just saying Sony overpaid for them.

and as I have stated in several replies. I think Bungie had the upper hand in this negotiation.

 

[Varteras]

Guilty Gear is too good to be locked to Playstation, noooo thanks

Come on, man! This is for my Bingo!

 

[splattered]

It ain't know fantasy.
Why would Sony Finance Division need $25B? Maybe you should bring sources for your claim.

Look at Marketable Securities, then look at look at the long term Investments and Advances.

It increased by $28,876,300B.
Long-Term Investments Explained
A common form of long-term investing occurs when company A invests largely in company B and gains significant influence over company B without having a majority of the voting shares. In this case, the purchase price would be shown as a long-term investment.

It may not be Take-Two, but like I said. They did some kind of investment.

In 2022, Sony had $10B left for acquisitions. Now they only have $5B, they didn't announce where the other $5B went. So not every thing is known or announced right away.

Well obviously they spent around $5 billion dollars greasing the palms of all the politicians trying to quash the Microsoft acquisition haha $5 billion down the drain suckas

 

[lh032]

$3.7 billion on “From the studio that brought you Halo” and you don’t get Halo is hilarious. What a ripoff.

They bought them for the expertise on GaaS, Sony already said that. Its a long term strategy.
Not every studio/publisher needs to be acquired for the IP itself, Just take a look at the current Halo now.

 

[vivftp]

It ain't know fantasy.
Why would Sony Finance Division need $25B? Maybe you should bring sources for your claim.

Look at Marketable Securities, then look at look at the long term Investments and Advances.

It increased by $28,876,300B.
Long-Term Investments Explained
A common form of long-term investing occurs when company A invests largely in company B and gains significant influence over company B without having a majority of the voting shares. In this case, the purchase price would be shown as a long-term investment.

It may not be Take-Two, but like I said. They did some kind of investment.

In 2022, Sony had $10B left for acquisitions. Now they only have $5B, they didn't announce where the other $5B went. So not every thing is known or announced right away.

Marketable Securities are quickly turned into cash. So they moved $24 billion in those to their Long-Term Assets. Which was their Financial division then. That is why you saw their Long-Term Assets increase by that much and their Short-Term Assets decrease by that much. That's not a "gotcha" moment. That's a common sense thing when you move an asset from one type into another. It's called math.

Why would their Financial division need billions? Oh I don't know. Let me go down the list for you again. Their Financial division deals in insurance, including life insurance, venture capital loans to new businesses, nursing care, every day online banking, and credit card settlements. They operate a multitude of businesses that exist in these areas. You kinda need a lot of money to do all that so they probably had good reasons for having that money there when they did.

In 2020, their Financial division represented exactly half of Sony's total assets. That means you would need to combine their Electronics division, Imaging division, Gaming division, and Pictures & Music division just to equal their Financial division in total assets. Yeah, it's sort of a big deal for them.

I am not goin to waste my time today or any day, like I wasted my time back then, to find the sources I did a year ago just to kill your delusion. That was a fuck ton of wading through sites, including Japanese ones with Google Translator, just to find out Sony didn't do anything exciting with that money. You can have at it yourself. If it means that much to you.

But you're not some sleuth who figured something out about PlayStation that no one else in the world did. Because if so you should throw on your Sunday best and get ready to receive your reward in journalism because not even Jason Schreier dug up that career defining nugget. A TWENTY FOUR BILLION DOLLAR acquisition would not slip by anyone. Especially not regulators who even scrutinized the $3 billion Bungie deal. And certainly not for TWO YEARS now.

It. Is. Your. Fantasy. Not only could Sony never hope to keep a $24 billion dollar acquisition in this industry a secret, and again certainly not from regulators, there would have been ZERO reason to. And no, it would have nothing to do with ABK. Because at the time this little (massive) phantom acquisition of yours happened, the ABK deal itself was almost still a year away from being announced. And before you try to chalk it up as an investment like FromSoft, no. Just. No. Sony wouldn't pay that gigantic sum of $24 billion just to partially own something in gaming.

I'm done with this little dream of yours. You won't get anything more from me at this point than just GIFs and memes. Have fun. I'll be eagerly awaiting Sony to announce this huge acquisition of yours around November 20Never.

There was no hidden large acquisitions and no moving of funds into the financial division. A couple years ago Sony simply changed their accounting records for their financial statements and switched from GAAP to IFRS, which meant the financial division assets needed to be reclassified. The Financial Division has to hold money in reserve legally as part of their operation, and that's the money in question. Prior to the change in accounting Sony was lumping that money into their cash on hand figures, and afterwards that money was not being included. It didn't go anywhere, it didn't do anything, it's just being reported differently to give a more accurate representation of Sony's actual cash on hand.

 

[VN1X]

All that money and they never ONCE took me out to dinner. Sad.

 

[Varteras]

There was no hidden large acquisitions and no moving of funds into the financial division. A couple years ago Sony simply changed their accounting records for their financial statements and switched from GAAP to IFRS, which meant the financial division assets needed to be reclassified. The Financial Division has to hold money in reserve legally as part of their operation, and that's the money in question. Prior to the change in accounting Sony was lumping that money into their cash on hand figures, and afterwards that money was not being included. It didn't go anywhere, it didn't do anything, it's just being reported differently to give a more accurate representation of Sony's actual cash on hand.

That's not what I found when I went digging but then I may have misunderstood them or had an odd translation a year ago. What I know is that the money that "moved" from Cash-on-hand to Long-Term Assets had to do with their Financial division.

 

[vivftp]

That's not what I found when I went digging but then I may have misunderstood them or had an odd translation a year ago. What I know is that the money that "moved" from Cash-on-hand to Long-Term Assets had to do with their Financial division.

It's all in how they reported everything. They didn't actually move money about, they just changed how the money was allocated in their reporting. That's all that occurred. The financial division always had that money, only under the old accounting system those funds were being lumped in with the rest of SIE's cash on hand. Since those funds have to legally be held for Sony's financial division to operate, it makes sense that it wouldn't be lumped in with Sony's actual cash on hand and short term investments that they can spend as they please.

 

[Varteras]

It's all in how they reported everything. They didn't actually move money about, they just changed how the money was allocated in their reporting. That's all that occurred. The financial division always had that money, only under the old accounting system those funds were being lumped in with the rest of SIE's cash on hand. Since those funds have to legally be held for Sony's financial division to operate, it makes sense that it wouldn't be lumped in with Sony's actual cash on hand and short term investments that they can spend as they please.

Okay yeah. Now that I think about it, someone did suggest that may have been the case. It's just been so far back since I looked into that. I remember thinking it was for acquisitions and finding out the money was in their Financial division. That makes a lot more sense that the money was always there and it just got reclassified. Thanks for clearing that up!

 

[yurinka]

is not hate or anything. I am just saying Sony overpaid for them.

and as I have stated in several replies. I think Bungie had the upper hand in this negotiation.

Bungie made Halo and later Destiny, which broke the record of a fastest selling new IP in gaming history. They grew and are working on multiple new IPs plus movie/tv adaptations.

No, Sony didn't overpay for fully acquiring them. Pretty likely it's going to be a bargain deal case ilke they did with Insomniac. And this is not considering the side benefits for GaaS titles made by other Sony studios that will get benefited from the acquisition.

 

[feynoob]

Bungie made Halo and later Destiny, which broke the record of a fastest selling new IP in gaming history. They grew and are working on multiple new IPs plus movie/tv adaptations.

No, Sony didn't overpay for fully acquiring them. Pretty likely it's going to be a bargain deal case ilke they did with Insomniac. And this is not considering the side benefits for GaaS titles made by other Sony studios that will get benefited from the acquisition.

Didnt the people who made halo leave bungie?

 

[begotten]

is not hate or anything. I am just saying Sony overpaid for them.

and as I have stated in several replies. I think Bungie had the upper hand in this negotiation.

They didn't overpay. With basically 1/3 of the money going toward talent retention it was a tactic by Sony to get what they need. The core of this deal was never for Destiny or even Bungie to make them a new IP.

 

[vivftp]

lol @ this narrative that Sony overpaid for Bungie. I guess for those folks it'll make a helluva lot more sense in the next couple of years as they see why Bungie was acquired. We'll see Sony's 10+ live service games launch where the teams will tap into Bungies experience with live service games to help chart their course. We'll see Bungies transmedia efforts coming to life. We'll see Bungies additional IPs releasing. We'll see Destiny continue to grow.

 

[yurinka]

Didnt the people who made halo leave bungie?

I assume that as happens in all companies over time some people leave, retire or get fired, while the majority continues.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

is not hate or anything. I am just saying Sony overpaid for them.

and as I have stated in several replies. I think Bungie had the upper hand in this negotiation.

By definition, any acquisition will need to "overpay" for something, there is always a premium placed on acquiring other companies.

Now, you can argue that Sony GREATLY overpaid, but Bungie is a big studio with nearly 1000 employees that has over a decade of experience churning out GaaS content that is highly engaged with their community, and not many companies can claim that.

Sony sees GaaS as a part of their overall business strategy, so acquiring Bungie was critical to their goals and it gives them expertise that has a high expected long term payoff.

 

[Baki]

.
But I imagine that being owned by Sony, Bungie can't go to Netease or Tencent for funding and being dependent on Sony for funding it also means being dependent on Sony approval of the project(s) they want to pursue, and if the project looks really attractive, Sony might have to power to make it exclusive to Playstation (+ PC later) (it's un-imaginative Bungie... I suspect this will never happen)

The multi platform promise was just PR fluff as Sony knew they were going to fight hard against the ABK deal.

 

[Varteras]

Bungie made Halo and later Destiny, which broke the record of a fastest selling new IP in gaming history. They grew and are working on multiple new IPs plus movie/tv adaptations.

No, Sony didn't overpay for fully acquiring them. Pretty likely it's going to be a bargain deal case ilke they did with Insomniac. And this is not considering the side benefits for GaaS titles made by other Sony studios that will get benefited from the acquisition.

lol @ this narrative that Sony overpaid for Bungie. I guess for those folks it'll make a helluva lot more sense in the next couple of years as they see why Bungie was acquired. We'll see Sony's 10+ live service games launch where the teams will tap into Bungies experience with live service games to help chart their course. We'll see Bungies transmedia efforts coming to life. We'll see Bungies additional IPs releasing. We'll see Destiny continue to grow.

By definition, any acquisition will need to "overpay" for something, there is always a premium placed on acquiring other companies.

Now, you can argue that Sony GREATLY overpaid, but Bungie is a big studio with nearly 1000 employees that has over a decade of experience churning out GaaS content that is highly engaged with their community, and not many companies can claim that.

Sony sees GaaS as a part of their overall business strategy, so acquiring Bungie was critical to their goals and it gives them expertise that has a high expected long term payoff.

Something I think a lot of people overlook is that Bungie is one of the best in the industry for making FPS games with good gunplay. Guerrilla and Insomniac both made their own attempts. While their games were really good, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that Bungie is in a different league when it comes to the genre. Having a studio like them in the company is another benefit for any ambitions Sony has for tapping into that genre again. Something I know many feel has been missing from their own offerings.

 

[vivftp]

The multi platform promise was just PR fluff as Sony knew they were going to fight hard against the ABK deal.

Sony and Bungie have been very clear that Bungies games will continue to remain multi-platform for existing and future titles. They've also said that their games will continue to release where their community currently is. The Bungie deal also had to pass regulatory approval and that promise that they'd remain independent and multi-platform was presented front and center.

And yet you think it's PR fluff because what? What evidence do you have that they were being deceptive with their statements? Do you honestly think that Sony and Bungie believe they can lie to regulators and then when their back is turned just do the complete opposite?

lol

 

[Baki]

Sony and Bungie have been very clear that Bungies games will continue to remain multi-platform for existing and future titles. They've also said that their games will continue to release where their community currently is. The Bungie deal also had to pass regulatory approval and that promise that they'd remain independent and multi-platform was presented front and center.

And yet you think it's PR fluff because what? What evidence do you have that they were being deceptive with their statements? Do you honestly think that Sony and Bungie believe they can lie to regulators and then when their back is turned just do the complete opposite?

lol

No contractual agreement or behavioural remedies tie them to multi platform development. I’ll take the “promise” seriously if their next game is on Xbox.

 

[vivftp]

No contractual agreement or behavioural remedies tie them to multi platform development. I’ll take the “promise” seriously if their next game is on Xbox.

So just your own personal doubt rather than any evidence. Hardly a reason to call it "PR fluff"

 

[Baki]

So just your own personal doubt rather than any evidence. Hardly a reason to call it "PR fluff"

Yes, just personal doubt. Hard to take Sony at face value when they were preparing for the regulatory fight of their life. Every move post ABK was likely part of a carefully constructed strategy to break up the ABK deal.

 

[vivftp]

Yes, just personal doubt. Hard to take Sony at face value when they were preparing for the regulatory fight of their life. Every move post ABK was likely part of a carefully constructed strategy to break up the ABK deal.

Sony was negotiating with Bungie for years prior to the Activision deal being announced. I dunno how confirmed it is, but I do recall chatter that Microsoft was also negotiating to acquire them and one of Bungies requirements was independence, and MS wouldn't agree to it. Again, I'm noting that I don't know if that's the truth or not, so please feel free to disregard if it's in fact false.

Again, I find this idea laughable that you think Sony and Bungie are so deceptive that they'll lie to the public and to regulators about their intentions so blatantly. The statement about Bungie remaining independent and multi-platform was the very first thing they addressed in the announcement:

https://blog.playstation.com/2022/01/31/bungie-is-joining-playstation/

Yet they were lying because they're playing some 4D chess long con to pull the wool over the worlds eyes. And of course they don't think that all of the lies will come back to bite them in the ass later at all, right?

Yeah, you keep waiting for your proof.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Yes, just personal doubt. Hard to take Sony at face value when they were preparing for the regulatory fight of their life. Every move post ABK was likely part of a carefully constructed strategy to break up the ABK deal.

Acquiring Bungie doesn’t help their case against Activision

There’s far less reason to be skeptical of the Bungie deal given that Bungie would not have sold themselves off if they lost control over their properties and they came out and immediately said their games will remain on all platforms

 

[Three]

Whoever convinced Sony to spend 3.7 BILLION dollars on Bungie is an amazing salesperson.

A lot of that money is for employee retention over years. They bought the Bungie shares at $2.4B. Bungie certainly got a good deal though.

 

[Varteras]

A lot of that money is for employee retention over years. They bought the Bungie shares at $2.4B. Bungie certainly got a good deal though.

And even that $2.4 billion wasn't all paid upfront. $900 million of that was to be paid at a later date or dependent on certain future conditions.

 

[phil_t98]

sony said the acquisition was for Bungie's expertise in GaaS which is spotty at best, and yet ND had to hire Fornite's "Monetization Designer".

latest Destiny's expansion was not very well received.

and the contract terms are insane in Bungie's favor.






.

and do we know how the deal is working for them?

also just because they bought bungie doesn't mean they shouldn't stop hiring the right people, I would say Fortnite's guy would probably be able to give bungie a tip or two about that stuff

have you seen the contract?

 

[Banjo64]

Re: Bungie. It only looks bad when compared to Zenimax IMO. The price paid was probably fair considering MS owned id Software and were going after ABK, EA own Respawn and Epic games were out of reach financially. Sony had to decide if they wanted a popular live service game/very good studio before the door closed completely and they were all acquired by the mega-corps.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Honestly I think Square Enix and Sony are a good pair. Like PB & J or chocolate and peanut butter.

To me, it really is the one publisher acquisition Sony could make that makes more sense than any others by far. They have a long history together with frequent exclusivity, marketing deals, and various types of assistance. They fit in perfectly with Sony's stated strategies of expanding into live service, mobile, and transmedia. SE is a much more streamlined purchase after they shed or absorbed many of their subsidiaries. They're also a much cheaper purchase than companies like EA, T2, Bandai Namco, and even Capcom. And it would just FEEL right. The same way I felt when Microsoft bought Zenimax. There just seems to be this intangible connection between them.

I think it's a really bad pairing. First, there is the fact that their market cap is 5.63 billion dollars. Then you realize that they haven't had many financially successful non-FF games in years, have struggled to generate new IP, and have struggled to retain talent.

So many people are blinded by nostalgia here.

The best way to maintain this history is with marketing deals.

They are cheaper than T2 and Capcom, but give you way less. When you say that Microsoft and Bethesda made sense, it really didn't. These games mostly sold on Xbox in the first place just like Square Enix mostly sells on PS in the first place. You buy companies for strategy and mainly to aim at what you aren't good at.

If I'm looking to improve at JRPG (a genre that really is selling less these days due to a diminishing Japanese console market, for which makes little sense to invest in now versus say 10-20 years ago), I'd try and build out Level-5 or something.

 

[Brucey]

Sony’s Problem in Two Sentences:
Sony didn’t buy Activision because they couldn’t afford them. Microsoft didn’t buy Bungie because they thought they were overpriced.

I'm not sure if Bungie would ever consider selling to Microsoft. Given they paid to get away from them. Plus Bungie wants to release on multiple platforms. With the Sony deal they retain their creative independence as a subsidiary. They wouldn't have had the same freedom if acquired by MS, and a "case by case" decree (i.e. zenimax) to skip releasing on Playstation would seem inevitable.

 

[SoloKingRobert]

Unbelievable, 3.7 billion $ on Bungie

Compare that deal to Zenimax. Microsoft is laughing all the way to the bank..

 

[Heisenberg007]

It's worth mentioning that these $5.1 billion are until March 31, 2024. The M&A allocated budget will be refreshed then.

And $5.1 billion is actually quite a lot of money for how Sony operates. They can acquire studios like:

• Ember Lab
• Deviation Games
• Sloclap
• Blue 12
• Remedy Entertainment or FromSoftware (increase share, at least)

And still have money left.

I just don't think Sony wants to acquire a lot of studios and developers are this point. They don't have an IP problem. Their main concern would be (1) management issues caused by over-burdening Hermen Hulst, and (2) increased operating costs that could create problems for all PlayStation Studios and put them under pressure.

 

[Rubik8]

They could sell the spiderman IP back to disney for an exorbitant amount, and use the money to buy take-two

Or better yet they could trade Spider-Man movie rights for exclusive game rights to Disney-owned IP.

 

[yurinka]

Something I think a lot of people overlook is that Bungie is one of the best in the industry for making FPS games with good gunplay. Guerrilla and Insomniac both made their own attempts. While their games were really good, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that Bungie is in a different league when it comes to the genre. Having a studio like them in the company is another benefit for any ambitions Sony has for tapping into that genre again. Something I know many feel has been missing from their own offerings.

Yes, I think that beyond teaching other PS Studios teams about GaaS and MP at a big scale, pretty likely they'll teach them about shooter related game design. Sony is apparently working on several 1st (also including 2nd party) shooters that I think will be benefited from that knowledge. Not only FPS, even TPS can be benefited of many of these things.

It's worth mentioning that these $5.1 billion are until March 31, 2024. The M&A allocated budget will be refreshed then.

And $5.1 billion is actually quite a lot of money for how Sony operates. They can acquire studios like:

• Ember Lab
• Deviation Games
• Sloclap
• Blue 12
• Remedy Entertainment or FromSoftware (increase share, at least)

And still have money left.

I just don't think Sony wants to acquire a lot of studios and developers are this point. They don't have an IP problem. Their main concern would be (1) management issues caused by over-burdening Hermen Hulst, and (2) increased operating costs that could create problems for all PlayStation Studios and put them under pressure.

The 5.1B isn't only for SIE, it's for the whole Sony. And isn't only for acquisitions, it's also for investments and stock repurchases. Probably out of these $5.1B they may spend only around $2B on acquisitions for gaming. I think that before considering to acquire Ember Lab, Sloclap and BlueTwelve it would be smarter to test them with a 2nd party game and if it turns out to be as good and successful as their recent title then I'd acquire them.

Regarding Deviation, their staff have nothing to prove, and if their current game is very successful or if they see a lot of potential they could acquire them. Regarding Remedy, I think Sony already has several games on the game type they make and in fact are better. I don't think that Sony would invest here, I see them investing on types of games where their 1st party doesn't have any presence or has a very limited presence. Regarding From it would be smart to increase their stake but we'll have to see if Kadokawa or Tencent wants to sell part of their stake now, which I think isn't likely because they could have done it months ago when Sony bought part of From.

 

[Evil Calvin]

but....but....if they did acquire some gaming studios.....that's bad for gamers.....right Sony?

 

[EN250]

Or better yet they could trade Spider-Man movie rights for exclusive game rights to Disney-owned IP.

Why would they? Having Spider-Man, literally the most iconic and loved character from Marvel, is more than enough, NWH made bank on cinema, the video games make bank on PS4-PS5 and PC

There is nothing showing that pumping resources to more comic based IPs will be a massive success, or moderate tbh, Avengers crashed hard, GoTG was mid at best sales wise, same goes with DC properties as well, if it's not Batman, no one cares, and if it's not well done either, it doesn't have power to push average into success by brand name alone, Suicide Squad from Rocksteady (damn you WB game, wth did you force them to do) will be the next test, if it fails, well, seems like the comic book hero thing is fading and better concentrate in the big ones only

but....but....if they did acquire some gaming studios.....that's bad for gamers.....right Sony?

Studios? No, now entire publishers with years of serving as multiplatform developers with massive IPs? I say yes
Like the fake rumor about Sony buying T2, no one would like GTA and RDR to be Sony exclusives, but asking for COD to stay multiplatform and without a expiration date somehow is asking too much

 

[Pharaoh 117]

You guys are underestimating Jimbo's power of persuasion. He's going to buy Take Two for a round 5bi and still keep some change in his pocket.