waltdisneypixar

Sony to buy Bungie

149 posts in this topic

This was in response for Microsoft buying Blizzard/Activision. The console wars are over guys. These dimwits who can't look to the long term to save their own lives are gobbling up companies to try to gain some edge in this corporate filled, dystopian society we live in now.

 

We can't see the wider effect this will have on the industry over the next five to ten years, because why would we? We're just guys looking for the dopamine hits, whether it's gaming, social media, politics or whatever.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/02/2022 at 5:20 AM, yowzagabowza said:

I find it funny when people suggest just getting a game on PC, like we all have gaming PCs to do that with. 

I only have (and only want) a playstation. I've actually never even owned a computer of any kind that isn't my phone. Unless you wanna count, like, the web browser on Sony consoles.

 

Gaming on PC is meh for me too but that Steam Deck be looking mighty enticing.

4 hours ago, AJ_Radio said:

This was in response for Microsoft buying Blizzard/Activision.

 

The deal was settling 5-6 months ago.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bungie being worth 3.6B boggles my mind.

I'm not happy either way, losing independent devs and potentially multiplatform games is bad.

Edited by Bratinov
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bratinov said:

Bungie being worth 3.6B boggles my mind.

I'm not happy either way, losing independent devs and potentially multiplatform games is bad.

If Bungie was purchased even just 2 years ago, the valuation on their company would've been much lower.  The prices of all gaming companies have gone way up recently because they are seen as an attractive purchase in this industry.  I've seen a few people compare the Insomniac deal ($229 million) vs. the Bungie deal ($3.6 billion) and say we overpaid.  Absolutely correct, but so would anyone buying Bungie or any other gaming company right now.  Bungie would've gone for $3.6 billion if Tencent or Microsoft bought them, too. 

 

If Insomniac was available now, it would likely be worth billions of dollars too.  When Sony purchased Insomniac, they had just completed their first Marvel game in Spiderman.  They hadn't yet made Miles Morales, Rift Apart, or known to be making Spiderman 2, Wolverine, or another multiplayer game.  Valuation goes up when companies create commercially and critically successful games, with strong anticipation that their next games will be smash hits too.  Perception, and especially known content, goes a long ways in determining price.  Plus, Insomniac is a much bigger studio now, since it's been organically growing since it was purchased by Sony.

 

I'm not a fan of losing multiplatform games either.  It is the way of the industry right now.  "If you're not making a move, you're standing still."  (Gary Whitta, KindaFunny)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Paperclip1776 said:

we overpaid

 

Can't help but wonder if this is implying something else or flat out declaring you work for Sony Playstation and orchestrated the Bungie purchase.

 

People fixated on the price that haven't looked into other purchases at this scale, are missing all the potential revenue sources like merchandising (beyond the obvious game/DLC/subscription purchases), licensing, and future plans and projects. Sony isn't buying what Bungie already did, they're buying what they're going to do. They're buying future revenue.

 

 

Edited by DaivRules
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

 

Can't help but wonder if this is implying something else or flat out declaring you work for Sony Playstation and orchestrated the Bungie purchase.

 

People fixated on the price that haven't looked into other purchases at this scale, are missing all the potential revenue sources like merchandising (beyond the obvious game/DLC/subscription purchases), licensing, and future plans and projects. Sony isn't buying what Bungie already did, they're buying what they're going to do. They're buying future revenue.

 

 

Totally agree that Sony isn't buying what Bungie did but what they're going to do.  Merchandising, Destiny series/movies, future DLC purchases (The Witch Queen already sold over a million pre-orders, highest DLC pre-order to date), expertise in live service games, new IP in Matter (expected to launch by 2025), first person shooter experience that Sony is lacking and more. 

 

I suspect Sony is targeting something even bigger this year, I mean, real big. Based on Sony's current strategy, they are very eager to get into the PC market for potentially hundreds of millions of new customers.  This is a big stretch and I'm not confident it will occur, but I think they are targeting Epic Games for a buyout.  Epic is worth total about $30 billion.  This would be a much more riskier purchase for Sony.  However, you don't need cash in hand to make purchases, that's what stock options and other deferred payment options exist for.  Tencent owns approximately 40% of Epic Games so Sony could buyout Tencent or just purchase 60% of the company and have a controlling majority.  They would add a massive PC store to their portfolio, likely push all PS games over to the store for purchase, as well as own Fortnite (microtransactions on Fortnite is very high, especially on the Playstation side), Unreal engine, and a few other studios as well.  Sony has already invested $200 and $250 million dollars in separate investment deals with Epic Games in the past couple of years.

 

I'm likely way off on my prediction but I think that would be a smart (yet risky) purchase.  I see that the risk is lower than the cost implies because Epic pulled in $840 million last year with 194 million customers.  That $840 will continue to go up as more content is added, say, Playstation games?  We'll see what Sony's next move is.

 

 

Edited by Paperclip1776
grammar update
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Paperclip1776 said:

I suspect Sony is targeting something even bigger this year, I mean, real big. Based on Sony's current strategy, they are very eager to get into the PC market for potentially hundreds of millions of new customers.

 

I think Sony, not just Sony PlayStation, is definitely targeting bigger this year and Jim Ryan vaguely hinted at it. 

 

Sony has seen what merchandising Disney has done with Sony's ownership of Spider-Man licensing and is ready to take advantage of PlayStation properties in the same way. More partnership between Sony PlayStation and Sony Pictures Entertainment for TV shows and Movies, more merchandise, more everything, beyond just selling games and DLC. This is all cash being left on the table right now.

 

I think Sony could build out a PlayStation Cinematic Universe and be quite successful based on what they've learned from Disney and what Disney has done with Spider-Man.

 

Bungie's purchase is strategic in that it can help fill a big hole in PlayStations genre coverage and can be leveraged to improve other PlayStation assets, but I think it also makes a lot of sense beyond just gaming.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

 

I think Sony, not just Sony PlayStation, is definitely targeting bigger this year and Jim Ryan vaguely hinted at it. 

 

Sony has seen what merchandising Disney has done with Sony's ownership of Spider-Man licensing and is ready to take advantage of PlayStation properties in the same way. More partnership between Sony PlayStation and Sony Pictures Entertainment for TV shows and Movies, more merchandise, more everything, beyond just selling games and DLC. This is all cash being left on the table right now.

 

I think Sony could build out a PlayStation Cinematic Universe and be quite successful based on what they've learned from Disney and what Disney has done with Spider-Man.

 

Bungie's purchase is strategic in that it can help fill a big hole in PlayStations genre coverage and can be leveraged to improve other PlayStation assets, but I think it also makes a lot of sense beyond just gaming.

 

Well said.  Spot on with Disney regarding Spider-man.  These big purchases are beyond the gaming industry and will benefit the greater Sony strategy rather than just a short-term Playstation goal.  They are expanding their Playstation brand in areas Sony doesn't participate in yet.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted that the original price for Bungie was $2.4B. Sony added a $1.2B bonus incentive as well making the deal $3.6B. Now THATS taking care of the team!! 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kidson2004 said:

It should be noted that the original price for Bungie was $2.4B. Sony added a $1.2B bonus incentive as well making the deal $3.6B. Now THATS taking care of the team!! 

I want to believe the world holds hands just like the next good person but the bonus incentive was very much a self-serving situation for Sony.  Bungie is owned by the employees so if they bought them out and the employees left, their advantage of purchase would diminish, or even negate, the value of the purchase.  Sony smartly setup a retention plan that pays out this money to employees over a period of time, with multiple payments.  So, I expect that the incentive would last 2-3 years after the acquisition is finalized, with multiple payments as incentive to stay.  You stay, you get paid, you leave, no money for you!

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Eraezr said:

 

Gaming on PC is meh for me too but that Steam Deck be looking mighty enticing.

 

 

That Steam Deck does look pretty cool. If I ever played games away from home I'd be pretty excited, haha

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Paperclip1776 said:

I want to believe the world holds hands just like the next good person but the bonus incentive was very much a self-serving situation for Sony.  Bungie is owned by the employees so if they bought them out and the employees left, their advantage of purchase would diminish, or even negate, the value of the purchase.  Sony smartly setup a retention plan that pays out this money to employees over a period of time, with multiple payments.  So, I expect that the incentive would last 2-3 years after the acquisition is finalized, with multiple payments as incentive to stay.  You stay, you get paid, you leave, no money for you!

 

 

Maybe a little of both. It's been said Sony is more interested in acquiring the talent whereas Microsoft is more interested in adding IPs to their game pass catalog.

 

Giving the employees a multi year bonus is a win for both sides.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AJ_-_808 said:

 

Maybe a little of both. It's been said Sony is more interested in acquiring the talent whereas Microsoft is more interested in adding IPs to their game pass catalog.

 

Giving the employees a multi year bonus is a win for both sides.

Agreed it's a win-win for both parties.  But let's not fool ourselves that Sony did this from the goodness of their corporate hearts.  No one spends over a billion dollars additional without getting something out of it.  I'm not saying anything negative about the deal, in fact, I like the deal a lot.  But, there's a need to keep the current staff in place and creating a retention bonus is a good way to incentivize the staff to not only stay, but stay motivated for some additional payments for the next couple of years.  

 

My over winded response is, I agree with you :)

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Paperclip1776 said:

But, there's a need to keep the current staff in place and creating a retention bonus


What are the terms of the bonus? I had read it’s a performance bonus, not a retention bonus? Meaning the entire staff could be replaced and they could still accomplish the terms of the bonus.

 

And I assumed it was common knowledge that pay bonuses are offered under the condition that the party offering the pay bonus is greatly benefitted by accomplishing the terms of the bonus. Is that news to some people?

 

 

Found this article -

Assuming Forbes reporting is correct: 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/02/03/sony-is-spending-12-billion-to-make-sure-bungie-employees-dont-leave/amp/

 

It looks like it’s a mix of retention and performance. Anyone there now is in by default, incentivizing staying, and if they meet performance targets, they get some pretty massive bonuses, seemingly outweighing Sony’s short-term profits for the long term gains Sony will obtain.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to see Sony be sucked into a IP acquisition race. But guess they had too do something. At least they realise only having the live service games on one platform, will kill off half the community, lose market share and only drive other publishers to create a new IP to fill the gap. 

 

I for one look forward to bungie being involved in a new FPS for Sony to compete with COD. Destiny has some of the best gun play, live service tools and infrastructure. Sony will be able to pick their brains and use there tech rather than reinventing the wheel badly.

 

Also Happy for all the COD aimbot cheaters to move to XBOX :)

 

Only thing that bothers me, is that next installments of Doom, ES6, Diablo and Arkane games may only be on XBOX, which sucks, I won't buy one for that. 

 

 

On 1/31/2022 at 2:48 PM, Stan Lee said:

 

Somehow I doubt new entries in those Bethesda franchises will reach the popularity of previous ones, given how a huge portion of their fanbases have also been locked out of getting in on them and I doubt all 30 million folks who bought Skyrim will migrate to Xbox just to play the next Elder Scrolls entry in 2026 (at the earliest). Also, everyone is pretty sick of Skyrim with all the re-releases and contemporary analysis of the vanilla version i.e. without mods isn't all that positive, and Fallout 4 and Fallout 76 were not exactly universally acclaimed. I'm more annoyed that I may not be able to play future Doom and Arkane Studios games on PlayStation. Bethesda were being widely criticised before the acquisition which somehow made a lot of people forget about the downward spiral it was on, funnily enough. A lot is riding on Starfield which is ostensibly coming out this November yet we've seen nothing outside of a CG trailer and some concept art.

 

It matters little to me in the long run since I play on all platforms though

 

Completely agree, Bethesda have been lapped ten times over now with other open world publishers, from software, etc. The creation engine is absolute trash for modern gaming and live service, fallout 76 etc..

 

Apparently starfield is being built on creation engine V2 and so will be ES6. But none of that gives me any confidence, I won't touch it if that is the case. 

 

I'm the same only thing I'm annoyed at is Doom, Wolfenstein (ID soft) and Arkane games now being only on XBOX, won't buy one for them either.

 

 

Edited by SlipingJimmy
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WeirdChamp, but maybe Sony knows something we don't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DaivRules said:


What are the terms of the bonus? I had read it’s a performance bonus, not a retention bonus? Meaning the entire staff could be replaced and they could still accomplish the terms of the bonus.

 

And I assumed it was common knowledge that pay bonuses are offered under the condition that the party offering the pay bonus is greatly benefitted by accomplishing the terms of the bonus. Is that news to some people?

 

 

Found this article -

Assuming Forbes reporting is correct: 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/02/03/sony-is-spending-12-billion-to-make-sure-bungie-employees-dont-leave/amp/

 

It looks like it’s a mix of retention and performance. Anyone there now is in by default, incentivizing staying, and if they meet performance targets, they get some pretty massive bonuses, seemingly outweighing Sony’s short-term profits for the long term gains Sony will obtain.

 

 

The specific terms of the incentive plan to Bungie employees was not super detailed, other than saying they have a retention plan to retain Bungie employees as the deferred payments are spread out over several years, with most of the payments coming in the first 2 years.  There's an article embedded in the link above that is titled "Sony offers Bungie employees $1.2 billion retention incentive plan".  Companies call it incentive plans, retention plans, or even performance plans that all mean the same thing.  Although typically performance plans are based on, you know, employee performance, but the articles didn't read like that to me.  Sounds like a retention/incentive/stay with us/don't leave plan to me.

 

The way the numbers shake out, it could give each employee $1.3 million; however, that won't be the reality of the plan as mentioned in the article.  Higher level execs will get a larger share of that money, with new hires or less tenure employees much less.  The article states that some Bungie employees are celebrating their future bonuses as significant, sharing that they can use the money to put a down payment on a house or pay off student loans. 

 

The most interesting read here is that Sony appears to be less interested in the IP (i.e. Destiny) and more interested in the employees that make up Bungie.  Bungie will retain complete creative freedom and all current and future content, including new IPs, will stay multiplatform.  This tells me that Sony's strategy with this buyout is to take Bungie's expertise and use it to improve Playstation Studios live service games in development (read an article that they have 10 in development now), plus first person shooter experience.  I believe this will prove to be a very lucrative purchase by Sony.

 

Regarding the incentive plan to employees, win-win for Sony and Bungie.  This looks to be a good story with a happy ending, rare in the business world.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well with COD on the next upcoming years will be most likely a Microsoft exclusive and Sony lacking in the FPS genre when it comes to exclusives (I miss you Resistance and Killzone) this seems to be a natural approach, perhaps Destiny 3 will come to light or some new IP

 

Not sure how I feel toward this purchase, as I'm not the biggest FPS fan, only time will tell I guess.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2022 at 10:24 PM, Paperclip1776 said:

I saw a quote from someone (maybe Christopher Dring, journalist) that states the deal with Sony started 5-6 months ago.  Based on that, this predates the Microsoft/Activision-Blizzard deal.  It could, however, been the response to the Microsoft/Bethesda deal.  I think the timeframe is likely correct because making a $3.6 billion dollar deal in about a weeks time is not realistic, even if they wanted it to happen.  Too many details to work out.

 

You have a passionate viewpoint on this topic (in gaming and beyond) and there's likely no way to convince you otherwise.  I will just say, when an industry is in consolidation mode as we are right now, sitting on the sidelines, or even doing 'business as usual' while other companies are making large acquisitions will not secure their future.  To avoid being over dramatic, I don't believe Playstation would die if they continued business as usual.  But, they would lose significant market share to their competitors and that's not something a company, especially a public company with shareholders, will sit back and watch happen.  Small and large companies, and even as individuals, everyone and every entity must adapt to the current environment to survive.

 

If you can't see the other side of this argument, that's fine.  I would answer with a question, what would you do if you were Sony?  If you were CEO, what would you do? 

 

I mean I get it now. Gaming is basically the #1 entertainment medium. But as I generally tend to say, anything that goes mainstream eventually turns to shit. It may take years, or even decades (look at television and music), but it will eventually happen.

 

I definitely think we wouldn't be hearing about this if Microsoft didn't go forward with the Bethesda deal and now the Activision-Blizzard deal. It doesn't sound like it judging by the posts I make, but I still care about the IPs that are under these companies. Wolfenstein, DOOM, Diablo, Fallout, etc. These IPs were more or less franchises I cherished as a teenager. But times change, and we now live in the era of big business gobbling up smaller companies to limit competition. Look at what Walmart has done over the past 10 - 20 years.

 

The top level executives can only think of the industry from an economist point of view. You acquire acquisitions, you develop an oligarchy, you make it next to impossible for any sort of competition to move in. That's why I hate companies like EA who have a stranglehold on the NFL license in terms of games, because they don't have to make their games good. This isn't about the gamers, and it hasn't been for a long time. These are generally purely business decisions.

 

Things like good AI, making the games fast and responsive, good game design, good memorable set pieces, none of that matters to them. Most of these people don't play games at all. But they're pulling the strings to where us, the gamers, the ones that stuck to this hobby for decades, are basically the ones that suffer.

 

It's basically corporatism at the end of the day. Corporations that just do things by the numbers, so to speak. Because there is no need for them to be better.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, AJ_Radio said:

 

I mean I get it now. Gaming is basically the #1 entertainment medium. But as I generally tend to say, anything that goes mainstream eventually turns to shit. It may take years, or even decades (look at television and music), but it will eventually happen.

 

I definitely think we wouldn't be hearing about this if Microsoft didn't go forward with the Bethesda deal and now the Activision-Blizzard deal. It doesn't sound like it judging by the posts I make, but I still care about the IPs that are under these companies. Wolfenstein, DOOM, Diablo, Fallout, etc. These IPs were more or less franchises I cherished as a teenager. But times change, and we now live in the era of big business gobbling up smaller companies to limit competition. Look at what Walmart has done over the past 10 - 20 years.

 

The top level executives can only think of the industry from an economist point of view. You acquire acquisitions, you develop an oligarchy, you make it next to impossible for any sort of competition to move in. That's why I hate companies like EA who have a stranglehold on the NFL license in terms of games, because they don't have to make their games good. This isn't about the gamers, and it hasn't been for a long time. These are generally purely business decisions.

 

Things like good AI, making the games fast and responsive, good game design, good memorable set pieces, none of that matters to them. Most of these people don't play games at all. But they're pulling the strings to where us, the gamers, the ones that stuck to this hobby for decades, are basically the ones that suffer.

 

It's basically corporatism at the end of the day. Corporations that just do things by the numbers, so to speak. Because there is no need for them to be better.

Well said.  Although I don't personally agree with all of your concerns listed, you make valid and debatable points that, in the right context, could pull me over to the other side, at least a little bit.

 

Vote with your wallet! 

 

You are correct that decisions by these large corporations are all about data and numbers, and that's how they make decisions.  These decisions are made based on consumer patterns.  You and I may not like the latest Madden (which I also have significant reservations about) but with customers 'voting with their wallets', the data and numbers are telling EA that this is what the consumer wants.  If only 10 percent (or even less) of the sales were to drop from one yearly version to the next, that's millions of dollars that EA is not getting and it would spark immediate change.  10 percent!  I work for a large company, when you are looking at billions of dollars, a 10 percent drop, even during a fiscal quarter, is significant.  

 

In the end, the consumer truly holds all the power.  Companies like EA would improve their single player experience immediately and continue to do so if we let them know we are unhappy.  Too many consumers are purchasing Madden year after year, spending more money than the previous year.  Negative press in the past would sway these companies, but nowadays there's too many individuals out there with a microphone, webcam, and strong opinion to worry about.  Even large, social media sites with millions of followers/subs that provide feedback, real-time video responses, and hold active conversations  (i.e. YT, Twitter, podcasts, Twitch, Forums like this) that vehemently repel the latest Madden won't discourage a company like EA to change their position because they follow the money.  As long as people keep paying them, especially more money every year, that's the direction they will go.

 

Personally, I feel like I'm just in the minority now.  More people must like the latest Madden compared to the voices of opposition (even with millions of voices).  The funny thing is, I'll hear people complain year after year about a Madden title, yet continue to purchase it and even spend money on microtransactions.  They are telling the world on social media that they're unhappy with EA's current offering, but telling EA with their wallet the exact opposite.  Companies will change immediately if we tell them we don't like something.  We just need to tell them with our wallet more than our typing or video performance skills. Companies care about data, numbers, and consumer patterns, not popular Twitch or YT channels sharing strong, negative responses on their products. 

Edited by Paperclip1776
grammar update
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Paperclip1776 said:

Well said.  Although I don't personally agree with all of your concerns listed, you make valid and debatable points that, in the right context, could pull me over to the other side, at least a little bit.

 

Vote with your wallet! 

 

You are correct that decisions by these large corporations are all about data and numbers, and that's how they make decisions.  These decisions are made based on consumer patterns.  You and I may not like the latest Madden (which I also have significant reservations about) but with customers 'voting with their wallets', the data and numbers are telling EA that this is what the consumer wants.  If only 10 percent (or even less) of the sales were to drop from one yearly version to the next, that's millions of dollars that EA is not getting and it would spark immediate change.  10 percent!  I work for a large company, when you are looking at billions of dollars, a 10 percent drop, even during a fiscal quarter, is significant.  

 

In the end, the consumer truly holds all the power.  Companies like EA would improve their single player experience immediately and continue to do so if we let them know we are unhappy.  Too many consumers are purchasing Madden year after year, spending more money than the previous year.  Negative press in the past would sway these companies, but nowadays there's too many individuals out there with a microphone, webcam, and strong opinion to worry about.  Even large, social media sites with millions of followers/subs that provide feedback, real-time video responses, and hold active conversations  (i.e. YT, Twitter, podcasts, Twitch, Forums like this) that vehemently repel the latest Madden won't discourage a company like EA to change their position because they follow the money.  As long as people keep paying them, especially more money every year, that's the direction they will go.

 

Personally, I feel like I'm just in the minority now.  More people must like the latest Madden compared to the voices of opposition (even with millions of voices).  The funny thing is, I'll hear people complain year after year about a Madden title, yet continue to purchase it and even spend money on microtransactions.  They are telling the world on social media that they're unhappy with EA's current offering, but telling EA with their wallet the exact opposite.  Companies will change immediately if we tell them we don't like something.  We just need to tell them with our wallet more than our typing or video performance skills. Companies care about data, numbers, and consumer patterns, not popular Twitch or YT channels sharing strong, negative responses on their products. 

 

I share your sentiment, however I already think it's too late.

 

Around a decade ago I would of said vote with your wallet. That held true for a long time. But now with NFTs on the horizon, and all these schemes to sucker more money out of us, this isn't as straight forward as voting with your wallet. There's too much in play now, too much influence on the table.

 

The most tragic thing about this is I'm not even that old, but I'm already calling doomsday on this entire gaming industry unless dire action is taken. The console wars are dead. Modern games in general just flat out suck. And I do my utmost best to maintain a positive attitude towards modern games, because I want to get the most out of them. Yet somehow, an old game from the past, Metal Gear Solid 2, that came out decades ago, is giving me far more enjoyment than the vast majority of modern AAA games. Modern gaming lacks that certain charm and personality, that games of the past like Devil May Cry 1 and Metal Gear Solid 2 contained in full. That's not to say every old game was good, because there were a lot of bad ones, but I certainly feel those old games that were good and are still good contained a level of quality modern games simply don't have. Classic games of my teen years, late childhood and early college days in the early - mid 2000s are better than a good number of modern games.... objectively. Despite the technology back then being primitive and today's technology in contrast being a thousand times more powerful, these older games definitely carried an art design that left kids like me in awe.

 

I'm only touching the barebones here and could certainly go much deeper in depth. But I feel there is no real reason for me to do that. Because most of us have been gaming for decades, since the 1990s/2000s and the 1980s for some of the older folk here on this website.

 

I just don't know. All of this you're saying makes perfect sense from an economist point of view, because those guys don't care about video games. I'm not an economist and I never will be, and I doubt you will be one either. But it's certainly both interesting and sad to see it from their perspective, because it really is big business reigning supreme.

 

The Bethesda deal and Activision/Blizzard deal that Microsoft gobbled up is really all about money. You basically hammered it with EA and Madden.

Edited by AJ_Radio
Adding commentary
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AJ_Radio said:

 

I share your sentiment, however I already think it's too late.

 

Around a decade ago I would of said vote with your wallet. That held true for a long time. But now with NFTs on the horizon, and all these schemes to sucker more money out of us, this isn't as straight forward as voting with your wallet. There's too much in play now, too much influence on the table.

 

The most tragic thing about this is I'm not even that old, but I'm already calling doomsday on this entire gaming industry unless dire action is taken. The console wars are dead. Modern games in general just flat out suck. And I do my utmost best to maintain a positive attitude towards modern games, because I want to get the most out of them. Yet somehow, an old game from the past, Metal Gear Solid 2, that came out decades ago, is giving me far more enjoyment than the vast majority of modern AAA games. Modern gaming lacks that certain charm and personality, that games of the past like Devil May Cry 1 and Metal Gear Solid 2 contained in full. That's not to say every old game was good, because there were a lot of bad ones, but I certainly feel those old games that were good and are still good contained a level of quality modern games simply don't have. Classic games of my teen years, late childhood and early college days in the early - mid 2000s are better than a good number of modern games.... objectively. Despite the technology back then being primitive and today's technology in contrast being a thousand times more powerful, these older games definitely carried an art design that left kids like me in awe.

 

I'm only touching the barebones here and could certainly go much deeper in depth. But I feel there is no real reason for me to do that. Because most of us have been gaming for decades, since the 1990s/2000s and the 1980s for some of the older folk here on this website.

 

I just don't know. All of this you're saying makes perfect sense from an economist point of view, because those guys don't care about video games. I'm not an economist and I never will be, and I doubt you will be one either. But it's certainly both interesting and sad to see it from their perspective, because it really is big business reigning supreme.

 

The Bethesda deal and Activision/Blizzard deal that Microsoft gobbled up is really all about money. You basically hammered it with EA and Madden.

I do understand your position on this and the point you're making.

 

For me, there's nostalgia games I really enjoyed; Metal Gear 2 and 3, even the older CoD games during the PS3 era like MW2 and BO1.  I feel it comes down to personal preference and the evolution of the industry as a whole.  Technology is absolutely reshaping the industry but I think what's happening, from my perspective, I think you and I are getting older and these games are no longer appealing to us as much as the younger crowd.  I say this because the industry is financially in the best position it's ever been in.

 

I used to play MW2 and BO1 multiplayer nearly everyday.  I haven't touched a CoD game in many years, minus a few hours in BO4 with a buddy over the past year.  That's because this game series doesn't appeal to me anymore.  But, CoD still reigns # 1 every year in sales.  I've heard every angle of why CoD is bad and it continues to be the worse CoD and it's the lowest selling CoD in the series....bottom line, # 1 game every year.  Every year.  They are not going to change that formula for me, or anyone else it left behind.  Because they replaced me with someone else, maybe someone that spends more money too.

 

You are right, you can't stop what's happening.  Companies will continue to focus on their bottom line.  Every company always focused on their bottom line, even during the early years of the industry but now you have these mega-corporations with a much larger audience and they found more revenue streams that millions of people are ok with (and millions not ok with).  

 

One things for certain, with consolidation in full swing, this industry is going to look much difference this time next year.

 

  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.