Or that Spider-man and Harry Potter would be two of the hottest gaming IPs on the planet, lol. Licenced games seemed so quaint for the most part back then.
Brad Smith: Sony outsold Microsoft by 69/31 towards the end of last year (More in OP)
- Thread starter Welfare
- Replies 124
- Views 8,637
- Start date
- Industry News
Or that Spider-man and Harry Potter would be two of the hottest gaming IPs on the planet, lol. Licenced games seemed so quaint for the most part back then.
Actually the first harry potter game on ps1 apparently was one of the top 10 selling ps1 games of all time with 8 million sold.
The Spider-Man games on PS2 sold a lot as well, though obviously nowhere near as much as the 2018/2020 titles.
That should come as no surprise since both of those properties are really popular & any well done games made of them would do well.
For sure HP was once a big franchise in gaming. Licenced games used to be some of the most consistent and lucrative parts of gaming, they were the bread and butter for EA, Activision and others. By about the period I was talking about (~2012-2013) this had been declining and companies were investing more in things they owned entirely. Movie tie-in games were dying out, partially because they started not doing that well, and partially because games started taking too long to produce (or quality suffered too much if you condensed the schedules sufficiently, to put it another way).
My understanding is that Harry Potter games stagnated or declined while the industry grew around it, and the Spider Man games that were coming out both for movie tie ins and on their own did not perform strongly. Neither the latter Harry Potter or Spider Man games were breaking into the annual top 10 lists, for example. The most consistent licenced products of any form were sports games, while CoD, Pokemon and things like Skylanders and Just Dance were lighting up the charts.
My impression as I recall feeling at that time was that stuff like Spider Man and HP as well as many other licenced franchises such as 007 were all kind of "old hat" and their glory days were long behind them. So if you'd told me then that they would one day be approaching Call of Duty tier releases I would have found that to be a very surprising reversal of the trends at the time. In a sense I guess I'd say at the time I would have underestimated the brand resurgance of both product lines even outside of gaming (this was around the time of "The Amazing Spider Man" films for example, and the HP movies had ended and it wasn't clear if there would be meaningful continuations beyond this + no proven track record of any kind of "expanded universe").
The notable exception I had at the time was that Batman was doing well (Cracked top 10 in 2011 with Arkham City and barely in 2013 with a lego game). But Spider-Man and HP going a tier above that? I wouldn't have expected it.
Last edited:
Companies were investing in other things because they couldn’t cash in on badly made licensed games anymore. With a change in how long games were starting to take + mobile absorbing lots of licensed games, or products, it’s no wonder that the number declined.
I’m not sure what your trying to say by “brand resurgence” since neither brand was in any sort of state that would need resuscitation. They are both too big to fail as one would say:
- Harry Potter is the cultural touchstone of the generation so unless someone can obliviate the entire population then & now the brand will remain strong
- Spider-Man is a very beloved & cherished ip that often polls well ahead of others in its category. It’s very hard to put it into a state like what Superman is currently facing. Also a very strong meme culture surrounds the ip which, I’d argue, helps it remain relevant
1st_horseman
Banned
Rookie
User banned (permanent): Blatant console warring with long and recent history. Ignored moderator instructions to cool off.
- Pronouns
- Him
Deathloop and Ghostwire were almost done games when Bethesda was aquired. So, Sony made a deal sometime during 2019 when these games were announced . Phil Spencer had a 2 choice, honored a deal or pay a Sony a penalty for that deal.
Doom Eternal was just an update of existing IP. So,. Support of already existing game.
Not at all. We all know what Phil Spencer said before acquisition and AFTER acquisition. And regulators CLEARLY pointed that out in their documents. Phil Spencer should keep his mouth shut, not yelling about exclusivity before and after acquisition
Phil Spencer mentioned Candi Crush, few days ago Brad literally implied it is all about and ONLY about COD and nothing else. But regulators knew that Phil Spencer is bullshiting about Candy. So, if Phil Spencer went for Candy Crush, why not buy King only.
Last edited:
I don't see how disproves the statement that Microsoft is trustworthy. It's not like those games came out within weeks of the deal going through, it was over a year. They also let Bethesda have freedom to publish games on other platforms too between Doom Eternal (DLC and the Switch version), Doom Classics and Quake Remastered when it is very easy to cancel additional releases. They have also offered a number of Bethesda games on various services including PS+. If this cannot prove they are reasonably trustworthy, Sony cannot be proved trustworthy either with MLB or Destiny.
The COD focus is because that is how regulators are focusing it. Similarly why Microsoft excluded Nintendo in their recent documents when in the past, they included them. Microsoft would be okay with just getting King if Activision were willing to offer it separately but, Activision isn't going to give up their cushion without massively overpricing it or bundling themselves. Activision knows that King is even more reliable income than COD since the COD machine needs 1000s of staff per game to make sure that it launches each Fall along with constant content. They'd charge in the neighborhood of $30 billion for King when King probably should only be $15 billion at best.
1st_horseman
Banned
Rookie
User banned (permanent): Blatant console warring with long and recent history. Ignored moderator instructions to cool off.
- Pronouns
- Him
Doom Eternal was released on NSW 4 months before acquisition. All others DLCs are just support for an
existing game. But Doom Eternal eas already released way before on other platforms. Quake Remastered was maybe in development longer before acquisition
I do not see a new Bethesda games on PS+ after acquisition. Older titles, yes
Looks like after 3 years MLB is still doing well on Xbox. Don't see Sony will ditch Xbox version if MLB require to be a multiplatform title. And Bungie's term was a to stay multiplatform.
Yeah but those are just terms like Microsoft did. There was no contract to continue to release unannounced Bethesda games on Playstation. Also, what new Bethesda game? The only new Bethesda game that has been Xbox exclusive is Hi-Fi Rush and technically Redfall and Starfield. Every other release has had a Playstation version. All the TESO expansions, all the Fallout 76 updates, the Skyrim updated release, Doom Eternal expansions, Quake, Deathloop and its update and Ghostwire Tokyo have Playstation releases. If "older" Bethesda games on PS+ do not count, then why can't I get Like a Dragon Ishin and what not on PS+? Like just stop arguing this point unless you can establish what Microsoft did that was actually untrustworthy. It sounds like the only way Microsoft can appease you is if they literally gave away Bethesda to Sony. You can argue that federal regulatory bodies should be stricter in merger reconciliation terms but, there was nothing that Microsoft did that is against what they agreed to do with the EU
1st_horseman
Banned
Rookie
User banned (permanent): Blatant console warring with long and recent history. Ignored moderator instructions to cool off.
- Pronouns
- Him
That's just the start. And new Fallout and new Elder 6.
We are talking about Bethesda games. Btw, Ishin is a remake.
Yes, bunch of already existing titles and support for those.
Looks like CMA established what MS did with Bethesda buyout. So, MS is untrustworthy.
Huh? Bethesda should have been to stay multiplatform publisher. But it is not anymore. Oh well
Last edited:
Zenimax games were never promised to stay multi, upfront MS told regulators that would be decided "case by case" and regulators told MS it didn't matter anyway, they weren't big enough to be of any concern. And the European Commission reconfirmed that late last year, checking FTC who'd implied otherwise in their amateur hour filing.
For COD, Zenimax games like Starfield, Redfall or Hi-Fi Rush aren't the model you should be looking at to predict future moves. Minecraft is, that's the only acquisition MS has that is even remotely comparable in market scale.
For COD, Zenimax games like Starfield, Redfall or Hi-Fi Rush aren't the model you should be looking at to predict future moves. Minecraft is, that's the only acquisition MS has that is even remotely comparable in market scale.
The entire idea Xbox is untrustworthy because of Bethesda makes no sense when they could have just canceled the contracted game releases on PS, because after all “contracts can be broken”.
Not to mention Ghostwire just got added to the PS catalog.
1st_horseman
Banned
Rookie
User banned (permanent): Blatant console warring with long and recent history. Ignored moderator instructions to cool off.
- Pronouns
- Him
Nope. It is false. Case by case was before acquisition. After acquisition was Bethesda games exclusive "where Gamepass exists" . You won't see Gamepass on PS or Nintendo
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19526624/xboxseriesx.jpg)
Microsoft says three future Bethesda games will be Xbox-exclusive
Could Indiana Jones or Fallout be number three?
www.theverge.com
1st_horseman
Banned
Rookie
User banned (permanent): Blatant console warring with long and recent history. Ignored moderator instructions to cool off.
- Pronouns
- Him
Yeah, but Phil Spencer would need to pay a penalty to Sony because these contracts were made way before Bethesda acquisition. But Phil probably decidedbto honor these contracts
Bad should tell un the reason why.
Why is the Series X stock situation so horrible.
At this point you can't just blame the supply chain anymore.
Sure if there would be no demand, there is no demand (that's a management issue, too), but supply is even more obvious and less dependent on strong competition.
Why is the Series X stock situation so horrible.
At this point you can't just blame the supply chain anymore.
Sure if there would be no demand, there is no demand (that's a management issue, too), but supply is even more obvious and less dependent on strong competition.
If that's the case they've taken (which is still in the air given Quake and statements about IJ), it's beside the point; no future Zenimax games were guaranteed for rival consoles is the point. And even if the consideration is now GP then it's Sony and Nintendo keeping them off their platforms.
This "untrustworthy" bullshit is fundamentally untrue, misleading, and frankly irrelevant with binding contracts anyway.
This is because the regulators act like it's all about CoD.
"King only" wasn't for sale.
1st_horseman
Banned
Rookie
User banned (permanent): Blatant console warring with long and recent history. Ignored moderator instructions to cool off.
- Pronouns
- Him
But it is about COD. Regulators know about that despite what Phil Spencer said few months ago
You have it backwards. Regulators (and SIE) made it about COD.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
According to the CMA, that doesn’t matter, because contracts are not a means to enforce anything in relation to regulation, because businesses can apparently just choose not to honour them in their estimation, with only “reputational damage” being considered an incentive not to.
- Pronouns
- She/Her
If the contract they had is similar to RE Village's leaked one and (seemingly) Deathloop's, they have to negotiate with Sony for a PS+ release if they want to put it on Game Pass. That said, Fallout 76 was on PS Plus last month, Skyrim a few months before, etc., doesn't really do much for the argument of new games but they don't seem against it for old ones at the very least.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
This is quite obvious and everyone knows it, including the people who don’t want the acquisition to go through, the truth is some just don’t want it to go through because they love PlayStation and don’t want a stronger competitor to PlayStation but probably fail to see that PlayStation has a very strong base of loyal consumers just like they are and the vast majority of them aren’t going anywhere even if COD becomes exclusive, this is especially true in Europe, Xbox isn’t ever going to take PlayStation’s dominance in Europe no matter what they do.
As for regulators, they don’t have realistic reasons either, it’s all a political game for them and they only want to send a message, when they manage to block this then they will be able to get away with almost anything, it’s actually laughable to see some here agree with the CMA and their nonsense, only because they also don’t want this to go through.