Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sony to buy video game maker Bungie in $3.6B deal

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 263 posts

Re: Sony to buy video game maker Bungie in $3.6B deal

#251

Post by ayngg »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #174
mdasen wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels the opposite way to me. Microsoft bought a company with an extensive suite of IP that publishes a lot of games. Sony panicked and bought a company that has one franchise (Destiny). When looking at Disney, I see a company that has bought a lot of deep IP catalogues. They've used that to really propel their future and get high-value talent that wants to work in those universes with a Disney-sized budget to tel…

Honestly, I'm not sure if Activision's IP catalog would attract and retain high-value talent in the same way that Disney's does. Yes, the catalogue is deep, but much of it consists of dead horses that have been beaten for years or once-great icons that were mismanaged into relative irrelevance. Budget constraints didn't seem to be what was holding them back before, and I can't see Microsoft suddenly managing the IP a…

Yeah I think people overstate the IP of Actiblizz. I get it though, their old games were absolutely amazing and I basically spent my childhood playing those games to death, but modern gaming is so much bigger that the people who look at those old ips fondly are a small minority now, so there isn't really any nostalgia to cash in on. I remember on the news when they did a story on the merger, they called Actiblizz the studio that made Candy Crush. Candy Crush is their most salient IP. Similarly Gen z growing up on games like Fortnite, Roblox or Minecraft, even Actiblizz's Call of Duty, this demographic isn't going to go crazy for the next Starcraft or Warcraft, probably not even Diablo.

It is sort of like if Valve actually made Half Life 3 now, most gamers don't even know what Half Life is, let alone why Half Life 3 would be such a big deal outside of being a meme.

Re: Sony to buy video game maker Bungie in $3.6B deal

#252

Post by fomine3 »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #174
mdasen wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels the opposite way to me. Microsoft bought a company with an extensive suite of IP that publishes a lot of games. Sony panicked and bought a company that has one franchise (Destiny). When looking at Disney, I see a company that has bought a lot of deep IP catalogues. They've used that to really propel their future and get high-value talent that wants to work in those universes with a Disney-sized budget to tel…

Honestly, I'm not sure if Activision's IP catalog would attract and retain high-value talent in the same way that Disney's does. Yes, the catalogue is deep, but much of it consists of dead horses that have been beaten for years or once-great icons that were mismanaged into relative irrelevance. Budget constraints didn't seem to be what was holding them back before, and I can't see Microsoft suddenly managing the IP a…

Disney is a really outlier. Their IP is extremely important so they can extend copyright length.

Re: Sony to buy video game maker Bungie in $3.6B deal

#253

Post by Corrado »

rodgerd wrote: post #145
er4hn wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Halo was an FPS and a spiritual successor to an earlier series of theirs called "Marathon". The main characters, weapons, and themes of the original game all skew very closely to Marathon.

I miss the Bungie that pumped out Marathon, Myth, and Oni. (I will look forward to people who were screaming that console makers mustn't be allowed to buy game authors and studios seamlessly turn a 180 if it favours their tribe.)

Me too! I had so much hope for Oni, but the control system drove me nuts. While it looked great I couldn't play it worth a damn. Maybe that was just me.

Re: Sony to buy video game maker Bungie in $3.6B deal

#254

Post by skocznymroczny »

mrgordon wrote: post #249
Godel_unicode wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly really excited about Microsoft using their proven history of remastering games (Halo, AoE) and applying it to that exact list of once-great icons. At this point all they need to do to gain a ton of goodwill is roll WoW into gamepass so it's not yet another subscription and fix the Warcraft remaster. Those along with not clogging up the candy crush money printer will get them plenty of runway to really di…

I’d be surprised if they touch the WoW cash cow and make it free with Game Pass. It would be a bold move

Perhaps they could roll something like WoW Classic into game pass, but leave retail unchecked.

Re: Sony to buy video game maker Bungie in $3.6B deal

#255

Post by verve_rat »

ayngg wrote: post #251
AussieWog93 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I'm not sure if Activision's IP catalog would attract and retain high-value talent in the same way that Disney's does. Yes, the catalogue is deep, but much of it consists of dead horses that have been beaten for years or once-great icons that were mismanaged into relative irrelevance. Budget constraints didn't seem to be what was holding them back before, and I can't see Microsoft suddenly managing the IP a…

Yeah I think people overstate the IP of Actiblizz. I get it though, their old games were absolutely amazing and I basically spent my childhood playing those games to death, but modern gaming is so much bigger that the people who look at those old ips fondly are a small minority now, so there isn't really any nostalgia to cash in on. I remember on the news when they did a story on the merger, they called Actiblizz the…

But it is not just about having the new hotness, the scale of these IP libraries is about having something for everyone.

Through that lense ActiBlizz is a great buy. Candy Crush and COD and Warcraft.

You don't need the top seller if your goal is to keep customers above the subscription cancellation threshold.

Re: Sony to buy video game maker Bungie in $3.6B deal

#256

Post by w4rh4wk5 »

015a wrote: post #142
w4rh4wk5 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> these companies have far more demonstrable ability to produce triple-A content I am not so sure. At least not for Bungie. I haven't enjoyed Destiny at all. Where on the other side, Arkane's Dishonored and Prey are quite good. So are id Software's Doom, Doom Eternal, and Wolfenstein. Fallout 4 was okay as well.

Sure; and the unfortunate reality is, Fallout 4 was released nearly 8 years ago. Dishonored: 10. Dishonored 2: 6. id definitely puts out super solid stuff, consistently. Arkane is also in that bucket (Deathloop is the better example to judge recent efficacy of the team, not Dishonored/Prey. And its great). But, that is counterbalanced by... Fallout 76? Warcraft 3 Reforged? The state of WoW, Overwatch, and Heroes? Xbo…

> Fallout 4 was released nearly 8 years ago. Dishonored: 10. Dishonored 2: 6

This sounds like a long time, but it's not in game development. Putting out a solid title requires multiple years of development.

> Deathloop is the better example to judge recent efficacy of the team

Deathloop isn't on par with Arkane's previous games. It didn't even sell that well. They put it on sale a few weeks after launch to issue damage control.

Re: Sony to buy video game maker Bungie in $3.6B deal

#257

Post by parkingrift »

abakker wrote: post #153
parkingrift wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the word "find" is pretty descriptive. It's hard to find people willing to turn down billions of dollars. This is more like an indictment on M&A in the modern economy. Why compete when you can simply acquire?

Acquiring is good! Not every company that wants to grow needs to do something original, sometimes funding people doing original things is good. Bad management is not a requirement for acquiring companies, though it is frustratingly common.

> Not every company that wants to grow needs to do something original

Maybe they should? The world would look quite different if companies were forced to innovate and compete rather than merge and acquire.

Re: Sony to buy video game maker Bungie in $3.6B deal

#258

Post by myko »

7thaccount wrote: post #240
myko wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Destiny is the spiritual successor to Halo. Maybe try giving it a shot!

Thanks for the advice, but I've read there is lots of farming and it is mainly about online play. Those are two things I avoid. I want to play a single player campaign and beat a game in a couple of days to a couple of weeks tops.

I totally hear you - personally, I don't have the time to organize online play and I just ignore that aspect of these games. I just play the single player campaign and don't worry about farming the best equipment.

Re: Sony to buy video game maker Bungie in $3.6B deal

#259

Post by dogma1138 »

sk0g wrote: post #210
theandrewbailey wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Halo 1-3, ODST and Reach what exactly went wrong for Bungie when they were under Microsoft? Bungie didn't like how Microsoft managed them. Bungie wanted to do something other than Halo, but Microsoft wanted more Halo. A Destiny reference can be seen in ODST: https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2014/01/09/h...

Ironically, Bungie broke off from Microsoft in hopes of more creative freedom, but as per the article, are running an even tighter ship now... Unfortunate.

I think something went wrong with Bungie around the time that Marty parted ways. He also acted out in a way that made it kinda hard to be sympathetic towards him but he seemed to be a big part of what made Bungie Bungie.

Re: Sony to buy video game maker Bungie in $3.6B deal

#260

Post by sk0g »

scarface74 wrote: post #227
sk0g wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what's wrong with games being "pay to win", isn't that the point of them? Unless you meant pay to win, or the newer and weirder version, play to earn.

Pay to win mobile games with in app purchases like Candy Crush with in app purchases

Ah I stuffed up, the parent comment said play to win, which sounds like how games should be?
Post reply on HN