Support NeoGAF

[James Sawyer Ford]

Spongebob. And there are a ton of different IP we're overlooking like Rugrats and Dora the Explorer.

Lol who the hell wants this

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

Its 2024

 

[Mibu no ookami]

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

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

Nor do I think gamers want Sony exclusives to just make movie IP

Insomniac made Spyro the Dragon which was massively popular. Ratchet and Clank hasn't been a terrible IP either.

Saying they haven't bene good at creating IP is super misleading. Have they been good at generated IP that sells 20 million copies? No, but how many companies are? 10 million? Again, name all of these companies.

Most of these IP can't simply be boiled down to Movie IP. And no one said that they can't still do original IP or existing IP.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Lol who the hell wants this

You don't need to be the target audience for there to be value.

Its 2024

And those IPs have proven their ability to generate revenue, which means that there is value in supporting them.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

You don't need to be the target audience for there to be value.



And those IPs have proven their ability to generate revenue, which means that there is value in supporting them.

Nobody said that there wasn’t value

The question is whether the value is worth the price and opportunity cost

I would say NO

 

[Badlucktroll]

Hmm, should i buy some Paramount stock?

 

[yurinka]

They haven't actually made a new IP on the level of GOW/TLOU/Uncharted etc. since 2020 with Ghosts of Tsushima. Maybe Returnal could join that stable, in terms of story potential, tho as a game it still has a long ways to go to hit GOW Ragnarok or TLOU 2 sales numbers.

New IPs they released since 2020:

• Dreams
• Ghost of Tsushima
• DestructionAllStars
• Returnal
• Rise of the Ronin
• Stellar Blade

More IPs scheduled for later this year:

• Convallaria
• Lost Soul Aside
• Concord

And well, remember in 2019 they also released new IPs like Days Gone, Death Stranding, Blood & Thruth, Erica, ReadySet Heroes.

And on top of that, Sony also funded / paid / marketed several 3rd party exclusive new IPs both AAA and indie.

A way bigger new IP output than any other big publisher. By far.

And Helldivers may probably fit that bill now, but it's not really a new IP, and Sony Pictures already own the rights to Starship Troopers, a film Helldivers 1 & 2 take tons of inspiration from as-is.

Yes, Helldivers 2 isn't a new IP but with it the IP became super popular. Sony has adapted way less popular stuff like Ratchet, Twisted Metal or Parappa, and there are upcoming adaptations of Gravity Rush or Patapon which are wy less popular.

So considering they have a lot of adaptations in the works and will want to adapt anything with a remotely fit, it's fair to assume Sony will adapt Helldivers too down the road.

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

Please remember that this remaster/remake was only mentioned by a random internet user, it isn't a confirmed thing so may not exist.

But even if the Gravity Rush games apparently had very poor sales, having an upcoming tv show and seeing them porting basically any remotely recent decent stuff they have to PC, I think a PS5 remaster/remake is possible to create possible crossmedia sales synnergies.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

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

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

Again, competition is fine, but games overshadow each other all the time. That is the result of overcrowding and the answer isn't more game releases.

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

You think Sony has only released 1-2 games this year?

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

Square enix just put out a statement largely suggesting that they are going to cancel these AA type games. The profits aren't there for these games.

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

If it wasn't Elden Ring or Zelda it would be something else. There are constantly big titles coming out and these games are already crowded by GaaS/F2P games.

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

You're proving my point.

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

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

But your lack of knowledge on them is in direct conflict with your statements that fly in the face of not knowing what you're talking about.

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

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



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

And what kind of game would it be exactly? And why has no one made it? You think anytime is the right time, but this is precisely how you could drop 100 million into a game and it be a total flop. I know so many people who watched Breaking Bad that aren't gamers. I don't think there is nearly as much of a value in gaming here as you do and Sony has tried to make a poor mans GTA before with limited success.

Synergy was near zero, it's something that Howard Stringer focused on. Again, you don't know Sony.

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

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

Yeah, they're not the same company dude. Sony Online Entertainment also did Star Wars Galaxy, but guess who owned them at the time? Sony Pictures. It was a completely different company and completely different leadership. Again, you don't know Sony and it's laughable.

Sony also did a bugs life, developed by Traveller's Tale, which they published in 1998. It was a Disney property. I'm not saying they never did licensed games, but that that was not in their wheelhouse.

Similarly you bring up Psygnosis, which was an external company purchased by Sony, which operated independently for some time. Again this wasn't Sony. You keep proving my point.

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

Sony bought Incognito in 2002 and they made Warhawk. Nearly ever game you listed were games made by companies Sony did not own the time, with a few exceptions. They were a publisher, not as much of a developer and most of these games did not sell that well, hence why they were almost all abandoned.

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

Simply was not true.

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



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

Correct.

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

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

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

Easier doesn't mean you can't run into problems in game development. Look up the word easier, it means less difficult not not difficult at all or perfect.

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



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

Helldivers was greenlit and in development before the GaaS strategy was outlined. So what is your point? The game was also in development a significantly longer time than you'd anticipate Sony would let a developer work on a title like that. How much of their GaaS strategy existed before it was outlined publicly, and how much impact did that have on the development of Helldivers?

Strategy and execution or two completely different things, that again I don't think you understand, because I doubt you work in the corporate world.

San Deigo Studios has a roadmap and a budget. Mobile development might be on the roadmap, but there are other priorities within their budget. Their multiplatform strategy also has a roadmap and an escalation of the roadmap.

Their first major title published title on Steam was Day's Gone in 2021. Meaning that looking at PC came in 2020 or earlier. They bought Nixxes in 2021 to accelerate their PC strategy. Why didn't they buy Nixxes in 2020 or 2019? Because that isn't how things work out necessarily. What datapoints did they have that PC could be successful for them? What data did they have to suggest that they needed to farm out PC Ports. That happens over time.

Similarly with MLB they need mobile staff, so do they hire internally for it or do they find a partner who can handle this and if so? Who? This is probably something Sony will need to do for San Diego studios, but then will the priority be MLB or Helldivers, what about Gran Turismo? This is the stuff that gets debated at the corporate level.

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

When you grow too fast you end up laying people off, just like Sony just did... You have to expand in a thoughtful manner. Have you ever gone through the hiring process? How many people have you interviewed? Do you think they just magically start working at your company?

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

Include a mobile strategy with what infrastructure? They didn't want to make MLB multiplatform. They were forced to do it. Even if they wanted to make MLB on mobile, they'd have to come to terms with MLB on how that would work out and then you still have to come to terms with Apple and Google taking their cut.

What external partner should they go with? Can you name a company? How would you evaluate them? How much would the mobile game cost to develop?

How long did CoD exist before it went mobile?

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

That's because you think in a vacuum with only the benefit of hindsight and none of the internal deliberations or opportunity costs or budgeting.

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

You started a rumor across multiple forums that PSVR2 was definitely going to be streaming despite no evidence of that and all evidence pointing against that and you NEVER conceded.

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

Your points were countered on PSVR2 and you were proven wrong...

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

It don't work like that.

You don't know how M&A budgets work. They change all the time, largely based on the economy, interest rates, revenue, and profitability. These are all variables. Sony was in a position to buy Insomniac and Bungie because of the success of the PS4 generation.

So where is the Destiny TV show from Sony Pictures?

Where is the Horizon TV show? It takes time to put a tv show together. Sony JUST closed on Bungie last year. Somehow you think these things just manifest themselves and no one actually has to work on them.

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



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

Most successful competitive practices are seen ultimately as anticompetitive.

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

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

And was there ever a Spider-Man game as successful as Sony's? No. To that same point Sony can probably make the most successful installments of all of the IP Paramount owns. Not sure what it matters whether sony was first approached or not. You seem to have trouble understanding what the argument here is, which Sony can put funding into these games that others couldn't. They have the studios and financials and userbase to do it.

You look at Hogwarts Legacy and its really the first time harry potter got that kind of funding. Most licensed games are trash because the studios that make them spend more on the licensing than they do on the development.

Okay, and?

Sony would own these IP and have the incentive to put even more money into them. Marvel increased royalty fees recently. I would not be surprised if Sony stops the marvel deals after the x-men deal expires. Having control of your own IP is a gamechanger.

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

Not owning IP means that you have to control the level of investment i.e. risk involved. It's exactly why EA said no more to FIFA. When the very success of the game drives up the cost to license the property, it becomes problematic.

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

Whatever you say.

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

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

All of this takes time.

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

Oh, yeah...right



""Nearing" profitability."

All I needed to hear.

You have no idea why streaming services lose money.

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

Why does any company want to sell? If this was the argument no company would ever sell. It's about ROI. The shareholders took a massive loss with streaming. They can get a nice return on the company through a sale to Sony and use that money elsewhere. Where Sony can use Paramount to make more money now and into the future. The sale of purely sony electronics to Paramount studios, the streamlining of employees across Paramount and Sony Pictures. It's immediate operating income.

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

I mean it is clear that you don't know what Sony Pictures owns. They own the rights to Seinfeld. It's still to this day one of the most popular shows. The Office going to Peacock is probably the only reason why millions of people have Peacock. It all comes down to what they own the distribution rights to. They could very well own the distribution rights to The Last of Us, Breaking Bad, The Boys, Outlander, Better Call Saul, The Crown, Blacklist, Cobra Kai, Stargate SG-1, obviously the Spider-Man movies, Jumanji, Men in Black, Davinci Code, Bad Boys, Uncharted, Gran Turismo e.t.c.

Having content draws people to a streaming service. Crazy idea... I know...

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

Andor got bad reception? Not everything has to be a success or a straight line of success. Sometimes you run into issues and have to recover. It's hilarious that you want to focus on bad shows, but ignore successful recent shows...

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

Not just movies. Sony remasters TV shows as well. It makes them more palatable to watch. Seinfeld for example was remastered. Old shows are still very popular and often find new audiences. It's significantly cheaper than creating a new show.

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

Again, it's clear you don't know how any of this works. Sony can take over the marketing and distribution of Paramount content. This means you layoff of a lot of people who are now redundant. This increases the operating margins. Same thing with legal, HR, IT, e.t.c. You cut out middlemen like Skydance and take over financing yourself and you keep more of the profit from your movies. You use Sony cameras and equipment and you get a slight discount on it, but Sony electronics gets guaranteed volume. It's good for the business as a whole.

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

Perfect example of you not knowing what you're talking about. What would a Seinfeld game look like. A game about nothing?

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

LOL your personal biases are hilarious.

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

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

What does this have to do with Sony buying Paramount?

This:





This:

This is another example of not knowing what you're talking about. Sony's games don't have to pay for the acquisition of Paramount. Paramount will always be an asset, it doesn't need to be paid off like a car. It doesn't inherently depreciate in value. This came up with the ABK deal when Microsoft was asked how they would pay off the 70 billion. They don't have to pay off 70 billion. They still have the asset and the asset still has value.

Their revenue, profit, assets, and market cap are all going to rise if this goes through.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

They haven't actually made a new IP on the level of GOW/TLOU/Uncharted etc. since 2020 with Ghosts of Tsushima. Maybe Returnal could join that stable, in terms of story potential, tho as a game it still has a long ways to go to hit GOW Ragnarok or TLOU 2 sales numbers.

LOL, it seems as though Sony is a victim of their own success.

How many studios have EVER made IP on the level of GoW/TLOU/Uncharted let alone since 2020...

I can tell you the list is small... but somehow Sony needs to be able to make 10+ million selling IP ever 3-4 years or else they're failing?

They just put out Helldivers 2 which is their 7th best selling (revenue) release in their history... So there you go.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Nobody said that there wasn’t value

The question is whether the value is worth the price and opportunity cost

I would say NO

Look up the value of Netflix and tell me it isn't worth the value or opportunity cost.

I think there are knock down effects that help SIE and PlayStation, but don't get me wrong, this makes Sony the leader in TV/Movies and gives them a real opportunity to grow Paramount+ out in a manner that rivals even Netflix long term.

Sony as a whole has a market cap of 100 billion and that is being one of the biggest tv/movie studios, the leader in console gaming, and the biggest in music.

Netflix on streaming alone has a market cap of 256 billion dollars...

So is it worth it? Yeah, it probably is. If successful Sony could easily double their market cap in the next 5 years post merger.

What company could they buy for less than 26 billion in gaming that would double their market cap?

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Look up the value of Netflix and tell me it isn't worth the value or opportunity cost.

What makes you think they can compete?

Netflix is a brand name in streaming with a first mover advantage

Everyone wants to be Netflix. Nobody has Netflix other than Netflix

 

[Mibu no ookami]

What makes you think they can compete?

Netflix is a brand name in streaming with a first mover advantage

Everyone wants to be Netflix. Nobody has Netflix other than Netflix

The beauty about media is that content is king. Sony+Paramount have way more content that they OWN than Netflix. And they create way more tv shows and movies than Netflix.

Netflix is absolutely a brand name, but competition is competition and people are going to continually re-evaluate their streaming services.

Sony also has advantages that Netflix doesn't currently have.

Again, I could very easily see Sony bundling their streaming services in order to better compete with others (many of whom are also bundling their services).

Sony can bundle Paramount+, Crunchyroll, PS+. I could also see them buying Tidal to get into music streaming and add that as part of a bundle. Leveraging all of these services TV/Anime/Movies with Games and Music is something that Sony can uniquely do at a premier level.

They probably made a mistake getting out of live TV, but they could always revive that and rebrand it as part of a larger Sony Streaming service.

Paramount+ already has 71 million subscribers and growing. Had Sony created its own streaming service based on its own content, they would have been able to get at least as Apple TV which has 25 million subscribers (probably would have done more) somewhere in the ballpark of Peacock, that has 34 million.


If you were standing here merging two services to get to 100 million and adding Crunchyroll, you'd have more subscribers than Max.

Of course it is going to take time for Sony to get their rights back to add to Paramount+, but the more they do the larger the service will grow over time and nothing is stopping them from adding Crunchyroll immediately.

You can add the free ad based Crunchyroll to Paramount+ Essential at no cost. You could combine Paramount+ paid and Crunchyroll paid for probably 15 dollars a month. You could probably add PS+ essentials and sell it for 20 dollars a month. People already paying for PlayStation+ would be well incentivized to get the the bundle, many of which might use Crunchyroll for free with ads.

You buy Tidal and you sell the combined service for 25 dollars a month and with only 120 million subscribers you're generating a monthly revenue of 3 billion dollars per month. That subscriber base rises to 150 million, the prices slowly rise to 30 dollars a month and now you're talking about revenue of 4.5 billion a month or 54 billion per year in revenue.

And you think Sony is squabbling over paying less than 26 billion to get Paramount?

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

The beauty about media is that content is king.

Not always. Sometimes it’s irrelevant, and streaming makes that point even more so.

Netflix is “cheap” and has “popcorn entertainment” filler that’s good enough to sub to but not exactly lighting the world on fire with amazing content

 

[nial]

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

Not sure what that has to do with what I was talking about with that poster, but knowing your opinions about SIE's 2024 output, I think you will dismiss them anyway.

 

[VAVA Mk2]

Hopefully it gets cancelled. For everyones sake.

I doubt it, but maybe someone else would reboot it and it would be more lore-accurate (I'm dreaming).

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Not always. Sometimes it’s irrelevant, and streaming makes that point even more so.

Netflix is “cheap” and has “popcorn entertainment” filler that’s good enough to sub to but not exactly lighting the world on fire with amazing content

Sony has just as much cheap popcorn entertainment as Netflix.

That's largely what you're misunderstanding.

Sony has enough content both new and legacy to compete with Netflix, the reason they didn't create a streaming service is because there was already too much competition in the market.

The reason why the legacy studios created their own streaming services is because they didn't want to be boxed out by Netflix who they were selling their content to. Netflix's original content alone is not enough for them to maintain their market share.

They're like Tesla who had a huge advantage in EVs, but now that legacy automakers are getting involved, their market share is going to decline rapidly.

Sony didn't want to take the risk involved with creating their own streaming service, but Paramount+ already exists and already has a rising subscriber base. They've already taken the losses so Sony doesn't have to. All Sony needs to do is let their contracts for content expire and then put everything on Paramount+. I think the Seinfeld deal expires in 2026 for example.

Every popular show Sony owns the rights to can bring in new subscribers to Paramount+ the new shows they and paramount make can bring in even more subscribers.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Sony has just as much cheap popcorn entertainment as Netflix.

Ok so Sony offers nothing Netflix doesn’t. Why will Sony compete with them?

Everyone is already subbed to the household name, Netflix. Why do they need Sony/Paramount?

 

[nial]

Annoying that I have to write all of this again because GAF fucked up my reply.

March 2000 in Japan

Glad we agree.

You can't go back and retroactively say Wild ARMS 2 wasn't a major release for the time, as if it needed to be the absolute upper echelon to be considered a major title.

You know? I'm going to let you have that one, but keep in mind that it was released in September 1999.

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

Acknowledging something as 'not-major' does not imply that it is of lesser quality. Especially when I'm one of the few here that actually digs a lot on SIE's history of lesser known games.

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

Neither Jak 2 nor Dark Chronicle had the same amount of budget and marketing money behind them like Shenmue. Same for a lot of games you mentioned, weird comparison.

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

I was limiting it by major franchises, but if we're going by simply major releases, then 2024 isn't lacking any of those, except by your own arbitrary standards.

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

Never said that.

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

Oh, they absolutely are, I mean, Rise of the Ronin was just released.

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

Sly Cooper was never a major release, sorry to tell you that.

I never said HD2, RotR or Stellar Blade weren't major releases.

hmmm...

Or zero major 1P releases like 2024 looks to be?

However, they are either GAAS with no console exclusivity

Arbitrary standards, again. It doesn't count because it's GAAS?

or 3P IP that SIE have no ownership over.

When has that ever mattered? Popolocrois Monogatari, the PS3 Aquanaut's Holiday sequel that was produced (not developed) by WWS Japan Studio, fucking Spider-Man 2018?

And to that degree, yes it's fair you could take off the SIE regionally published games I mentioned before that were just 3P games with no SIE ownership otherwise.

It was pretty dumb to begin with. The fact that fucking Tekken 4 counted for you, but not Rise of the Ronin, is insane.

When I say "major" releases I mean to the degree of ambitious, preferably traditional AA or AAA games in their respective genres that are 1: Published by SIE, 2: Owned by SIE IP-wise, 3: Exclusive to the console, and (preferably) 4: Developed by an internal 1P studio.

This is what I was talking about. 2 and 4 didn't apply to SM 2018, and we both know that 3 is only for completely excluding Helldivers 2. The funniest part is that 4 already excludes a lot of games you mentioned before.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Ok so Sony offers nothing Netflix doesn’t. Why will Sony compete with them?

Everyone is already subbed to the household name, Netflix. Why do they need Sony/Paramount?

I've listed out a multitude of ways Sony can compete.

Saying X is market leader, why can anyone compete with them is pretty lazy logic. Market leaders change all the time.

Sony has PlayStation, they have have more IP, they have a larger studio both tv and movies, they have more legacy content, they have better access to anime and they can probably leverage their strength in music if they buy Tidal or someone else.

Sony has a lot of leverage that Netflix does not have.

Eventually when gaming goes platform agnostic, a Sony who is a proper multimedia giant will be able to better compete and this is just the start. Sony buying Paramount is a precusor for Sony buying T2, the only gaming company that could really transform SIE into being ready to be platform agnostic.

For Sony, PlayStation is chiefly important. If you envision a scenario in which all 3rd party publishers put all of their own content on their own subscription models or B2P via streaming, Sony will have to exist wholly without 3rd parties. What company allows Sony to do that? Its Take2.

They have sports games, GTA, Red Dead all of which includes GaaS. They also have Zynga for mobile.

Sony wants to have a PC Storefront, GTA and Red Dead exclusively on their storefront helps that.

Sony will leverage their strength in TV/Movies with Paramount to eventually buy T2 and secure their place in gaming, movies, and music. Paramount is just the start of it.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

You know? I'm going to let you have that one, but keep in mind that it was released in September 1999.

Don't let him have it. Arc the Lad was way bigger than Wild Arms ever was.

Wild Arms 2 was never a major title.

 

[nial]

Don't let him have it. Arc the Lad was way bigger than Wild Arms ever was.

Wild Arms 2 was never a major title.

Arc the Lad 1 and 2 selling 1M each one in Japan was crazy.
I let him have it because 1999 (GOAT year for SCE in almost every aspect) was never part of the conversation, lol.

 

[Mr Moose]

Ok so Sony offers nothing Netflix doesn’t. Why will Sony compete with them?

Everyone is already subbed to the household name, Netflix. Why do they need Sony/Paramount?

They have a few Sony movies on Netflix. Some Spider-Man movies, Venom and erm... Morbius.

 

[Ronin_7]

Hmm, should i buy some Paramount stock?

Be careful.

Highly unlikely a 26B dollars bill that will make so many people rich will not be accepted but still you might lose $.

 

[AmuroChan]

My guess is Sony would shut down Paramount+, take all the new shows and movies they now own from the catalog, and license them out to the higher bidders. That way you get to net zero when it comes to maintaining a streaming platform that was previously losing billions of dollars. You accelerate the ROI on the content because licensing fees are 100% profit. Sony doesn't have to do anything but cash the checks. Once things have settled down and all the fat has been trimmed, then you can do a more appropriate assessment on what to do next.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

My guess is Sony would shut down Paramount+, take all the new shows and movies they now own from the catalog, and license them out to the higher bidders. That way you get to net zero when it comes to maintaining a streaming platform that was previously losing billions of dollars. You accelerate the ROI on the content because licensing fees are 100% profit. Sony doesn't have to do anything but cash the checks. Once things have settled down and all the fat has been trimmed, then you can do a more appropriate assessment on what to do next.

I think that is a short term strategy and ignores the long term gains.

20 years from now you'd regret doing that. Especially as streamers stop paying you for content and get more used to running their own content.

 

[AmuroChan]

I think that is a short term strategy and ignores the long term gains.

20 years from now you'd regret doing that. Especially as streamers stop paying you for content and get more used to running their own content.

I don't think Sony has the luxury to look 20 years ahead when it comes to this. They can not absorb the losses that Paramount+ was losing every year. Also, I don't think there will come a day where streaming platforms will all only have their own content. There will always be a place for 3rd party content, especially with international partners who want American content, and 2nd and 3rd tier streaming platforms that do not create their own content currently.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I don't think Sony has the luxury to look 20 years ahead when it comes to this. They can not absorb the losses that Paramount+ was losing every year. Also, I don't think there will come a day where streaming platforms will all only have their own content. There will always be a place for 3rd party content, especially with international partners who want American content, and 2nd and 3rd tier streaming platforms that do not create their own content currently.

Just because I said 20 years doesn't mean that it would take 20 years for that regret to set in.

"They can not absorb the losses that paramount+ was losing every year"

You realize that Paramount+ is nearing profitability right? A lot of people don't seem to understand one of the biggest problems for streaming services is reaching scale, which most of the major services are doing now. Guidance form Paramount has P+ reaching domestic profitability in 2025. Max reached profitability last year. Disney+ is set to reach profitability by the last quarter of Disney's '24 fiscal year.

Pretending like Sony would continue to take lumps now that Paramount+ is nearing profitability is extremely disingenuous.

Streaming platforms are already pushing for using their own content. With few exceptions most of them are all original content now, those exceptions largely being Sony, but also the occasional deals here and there. The biggest outlier to that is Netflix because they have little to no movie catalog of their own and will never be able to catch up to the legacy film studios on movies.

These American streamers are gobbling up international streamers too. It helps to get their overall subscription numbers up and it's easy to simply incorporate the content into their services.

There will come a time when Netflix will struggle to get new movies on their service or at least exclusively and the price will continue to go up.

Sony keeping Paramount+ makes way more sense than shuttering it. Even if they keep it exclusively Paramount content and keep selling Sony content across the board.

 

[AmuroChan]

Just because I said 20 years doesn't mean that it would take 20 years for that regret to set in.

"They can not absorb the losses that paramount+ was losing every year"

You realize that Paramount+ is nearing profitability right? A lot of people don't seem to understand one of the biggest problems for streaming services is reaching scale, which most of the major services are doing now. Guidance form Paramount has P+ reaching domestic profitability in 2025. Max reached profitability last year. Disney+ is set to reach profitability by the last quarter of Disney's '24 fiscal year.

Pretending like Sony would continue to take lumps now that Paramount+ is nearing profitability is extremely disingenuous.

Streaming platforms are already pushing for using their own content. With few exceptions most of them are all original content now, those exceptions largely being Sony, but also the occasional deals here and there. The biggest outlier to that is Netflix because they have little to no movie catalog of their own and will never be able to catch up to the legacy film studios on movies.

These American streamers are gobbling up international streamers too. It helps to get their overall subscription numbers up and it's easy to simply incorporate the content into their services.

There will come a time when Netflix will struggle to get new movies on their service or at least exclusively and the price will continue to go up.

Sony keeping Paramount+ makes way more sense than shuttering it. Even if they keep it exclusively Paramount content and keep selling Sony content across the board.

We'll see. I do not think that Sony always makes decisions that "makes the most sense", and I certainly don't believe that every single non-American streaming platform will be gobbled up by American streaming platforms. It's not realistic that the USA will have 100% monopoly on every streaming platform in the world. And when I reference 2nd and 3rd tier streaming platforms, those will still exist as they do not make original content, like Tubi. 3rd party content will still exist and be licensed out for the foreseeable future.

 

[bitbydeath]

My guess is Sony would shut down Paramount+

I don’t think they will, a lot of the costs that put them in debt was for setting it up, and 71M is a really healthy install base. It’ll only continue to go up from there once they start adding Sony’s content.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

We'll see. I do not think that Sony always makes decisions that "makes the most sense", and I certainly don't believe that every single non-American streaming platform will be gobbled up by American streaming platforms. It's not realistic that the USA will have 100% monopoly on every streaming platform in the world. And when I reference 2nd and 3rd tier streaming platforms, those will still exist as they do not make original content, like Tubi. 3rd party content will still exist and be licensed out for the foreseeable future.

I love a good straw man... I never said every international streaming service would be bought by American ones. I simply said many were.

The point was in contrast to you suggesting that there would still be a viable market for selling content as opposed to having a streaming service of your own and it simply isn't a viable long term view.

Look at Sega today. They're a shell of their former self and just missed out on the profits that would have come in from having digital storefronts and have barely grown as a company since they went 3rd party.

Whenever you have an opportunity to be in the driverseat in business you take it.

You say Sony's decisions don't always make the most sense, which tells me you're probably ignoring a lot of context...

 

[AmuroChan]

You say Sony's decisions don't always make the most sense, which tells me you're probably ignoring a lot of context...

Businesses are not infallible and make bad decisions all the time. I've worked at a few of these fortune 500 companies before. Even if you have solid leadership in place, you're not going to bat 1.000 every time. I think even Sony themselves would look back at their long history and admit that they've made some poor decisions that they wished they could take back. And these are people that would have the full context.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Businesses are not infallible and make bad decisions all the time. I've worked at a few of these fortune 500 companies before. Even if you have solid leadership in place, you're not going to bat 1.000 every time. I think even Sony themselves would look back at their long history and admit that they've made some poor decisions that they wished they could take back. And these are people that would have the full context.

That's just a generality.

Sony could keep P+ or it could shutter it. That being said shuttering a service that has 71 million subscribers and growing seems pretty foolish at this point. It would have been one thing to have shut it down 2-3 years ago, but to shut it down now is clearly a missed opportunity.

I've yet to hear any arguments really for why Sony would shutter it other than people's misguided beliefs that it is still and will continue to be a major loss leader, when all evidence would suggests otherwise.

It's like saying this game has gone overbudget and has been delayed for years, it's finally finished, but we're going to cancel it instead of releasing it.

 

[AmuroChan]

That's just a generality.

Sony could keep P+ or it could shutter it. That being said shuttering a service that has 71 million subscribers and growing seems pretty foolish at this point. It would have been one thing to have shut it down 2-3 years ago, but to shut it down now is clearly a missed opportunity.

I've yet to hear any arguments really for why Sony would shutter it other than people's misguided beliefs that it is still and will continue to be a major loss leader, when all evidence would suggests otherwise.

It's like saying this game has gone overbudget and has been delayed for years, it's finally finished, but we're going to cancel it instead of releasing it.

To your last point, Factions would the closest thing I can think of since that was a game that was in the oven for many years and probably would've come out, if not for Bungie's interference. However, I think a more apt comparison is when a company makes an acquisition and then shuts down some of the subsidiaries or divisions that it just acquired. That is something that does happen and would be this exact scenario if Sony were to shut down P+ post-acquisition.

Anyway, I digress. Let's just see how this plays out. Right not, it's not even certain that Sony will win the bidding. So we'll just wait and see.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

To your last point, Factions would the closest thing I can think of since that was a game that was in the oven for many years and probably would've come out, if not for Bungie's interference. However, I think a more apt comparison is when a company makes an acquisition and then shuts down some of the subsidiaries or divisions that it just acquired. That is something that does happen and would be this exact scenario if Sony were to shut down P+ post-acquisition.

Anyway, I digress. Let's just see how this plays out. Right not, it's not even certain that Sony will win the bidding. So we'll just wait and see.

You have no idea how close Sony was or wasn't to releasing factions. You have no idea what involvement Bungie played.

Again, you've made another generality. Companies shutdown divisions and subsidiaries that are largely redundant or not part of the long term vision.

You've yet to put together a cogent reason why Sony would specifically shutdown P+.

I think there is a pretty good chance Sony will win the bid. They've offered far more than anyone else and if Paramount walks away there is no guarantee the next bidder will bid anywhere close to this amount. The regulatory concerns are overblown as well.

There's no guarantee, but Paramount would be foolish to deny the bid. Stock will crash, shareholders will sue for breach of fiduciary responsibility. Paramount will be locked into litigation for years that will dissuade suitors and lenders...

Of the major studios only Universal, Warner, or Sony could buy them. Warner already has its own debt problem. I doubt Comcast/Universal would make the plunge, and they have other regulatory hurdles since they own NBC. Outside of Warner, you'd have to look at Amazon who just bought MGM so they're probably out, Apple who has an anti-trust lawsuit against them, so they're probably out, Google, or Microsoft.

 

[AmuroChan]

You have no idea how close Sony was or wasn't to releasing factions. You have no idea what involvement Bungie played.

Again, you've made another generality. Companies shutdown divisions and subsidiaries that are largely redundant or not part of the long term vision.

You've yet to put together a cogent reason why Sony would specifically shutdown P+.

Does it matter? Nothing I say is going to be deemed cogent to you. So let's not waste each other's time and move on. This is my opinion and mine alone. If you're not interested in having a actual cordial discussion, that's fine.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Does it matter? Nothing I say is going to be deemed cogent to you. So let's not waste each other's time and move on. This is my opinion and mine alone. If you're not interested in having a actual cordial discussion, that's fine.

I mean that's another straw man. You haven't even tried to put together a cogent argument.

If I was uninterested in having an actual discussion, I wouldn't be responding to you.

Your argument has been entirely faulty based on no facts, similar to people who say sony should sell Bungie. It ultimately comes down to bias or lack of understanding of the facts involved.

 

[zedinen]

Sony Group Corp.'s shares slid the most in almost three months after its proposal to buy Paramount Global raised financing concerns.

Macquarie Capital's Damian Thong said in a note to investors. "We do not think buying Paramount makes sense."

While it's a joint offer, investors are worried about Sony's finances," given the deal size is larger than Sony's cash holdings, said Yugo Tsuboi, chief strategist at Daiwa Securities.

"Besides the impact of the acquisition on its cash position and debt, questions have risen regarding the CBS channel that comes with Paramount, which foreigners can't own, and given the political climate it seems that the deal will face major scrutiny," said Amir Anvarzadeh, a Singapore-based strategist at Asymmetric Advisors. "Unless they find a buyer for CBS the deal is unlikely to go through."

 

[Oddvintagechap]

Sony is going to sell CBS(which has NFL rights), Cable channels like MTV and BET… they should easily get billions for the assets back. The actual cost would probably be around 16 billion.

 

[AmuroChan]

Sony is going to sell CBS(which has NFL rights), Cable channels like MTV and BET… they should easily get billions for the assets back. The actual cost would probably be around 16 billion.

Latest report from the NYT indicates Sony is planning to basically sell everything, including Paramount+, and just keep the movie business (which will merge into Sony Pictures) and all the IPs. Essentially they don't want any of the other Paramount businesses.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/business/media/sony-apollo-paramount-plan.html?searchResultPosition=1

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Latest report from the NYT indicates Sony is planning to basically sell everything, including Paramount+, and just keep the movie business (which will merge into Sony Pictures) and all the IPs. Essentially they don't want any of the other Paramount businesses.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/business/media/sony-apollo-paramount-plan.html?searchResultPosition=1

Ultimately, we'll see if this is true. I've even seen reports that they plan on selling the lot... sounds like FUD. Not sure how they would upgrade to 25 movies a year on just the one lot. I suppose it would be really efficient, but I'm not totally buying it.

 

[Oddvintagechap]

Sony Plans Bid Versus Blackstone, KKR for $1.3 Billion Manga App

Sony Music Entertainment is preparing a bid against private equity funds Blackstone Inc. and KKR & Co. to acquire Japanese e-comics provider Infocom Corp. in a deal estimated to be worth around ¥200 billion ($1.3 billion).

www.bloomberg.com

seems Sony going on a shopping spree.

Ultimately, we'll see if this is true. I've even seen reports that they plan on selling the lot... sounds like FUD. Not sure how they would upgrade to 25 movies a year on just the one lot. I suppose it would be really efficient, but I'm not totally buying it.

I would assumed they would sell their smaller lot, but it’s heavily upgraded.

Latest report from the NYT indicates Sony is planning to basically sell everything, including Paramount+, and just keep the movie business (which will merge into Sony Pictures) and all the IPs. Essentially they don't want any of the other Paramount businesses.

Idk if everything is the right word.
They are keeping all the intellectual property. They are selling channel rights of like BET MTV VH1, but none of the content. The channel Nickelodeon sits on but not the brand Nickelodeon or it’s characters. They will keep the rights to every show that airs on those channels. Sell the CBS broadcast channel. But keep the rights to all their shows.

 

[AmuroChan]

Idk if everything is the right word.
They are keeping all the intellectual property. They are selling channel rights of like BET MTV VH1, but none of the content. The channel Nickelodeon sits on but not the brand Nickelodeon or it’s characters. They will keep the rights to every show that airs on those channels. Sell the CBS broadcast channel. But keep the rights to all their shows.

Right, I said everything but the IPs and movie businesses. The IPs would be the most valuable assets of the purchase. So no, they're going to want to hold on to those.

 

[mckmas8808]

Idk if everything is the right word.
They are keeping all the intellectual property. They are selling channel rights of like BET MTV VH1, but none of the content. The channel Nickelodeon sits on but not the brand Nickelodeon or it’s characters. They will keep the rights to every show that airs on those channels. Sell the CBS broadcast channel. But keep the rights to all their shows.

How would this work logistically? I'm so confused by what you said here....

 

[Mibu no ookami]

How would this work logistically? I'm so confused by what you said here....

Amazon airs Fallout. They don't own the Fallout IP.

Netflix airs One Piece. They don't own the One Piece IP.

The channels could still air the content and even utilize the name, without owning the underlying IP.