Michael Pachter: Sony 'Vastly Overpaid' for Bungie - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 03 April 2022 / 4,855 Views
Sony Interactive Entertainment last week announced it is acquiring Destiny developer, Bungie, for $3.6 billion.
Bungie will remain "an independent subsidiary," as well as a multiplatform studio and will have an option "to self-publish and reach players wherever they choose to play."
Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter in an interview with Yahoo! Finance discussed the acquisition and compared it to Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard and Take-Two's acquisition of Zynga. He said that Sony "vastly overpaid" for Bungie.
"The Activision deal and the Zynga deal were both done below those stock's recent highs," said Pachter. "So Activision had traded over 100, and the deal was at 95. Back in October, it was over 100. Zynga had traded over 11, I believe, and the deal was done at 986.
"So you know, they didn't really overpay, either of the acquirers. Bungie went for $4 million per developer. And most deals are between $250,000 and a million. I've seen deals as close, you know, as high as $2 million per developer. This is crazy talk.
"And just to compare and contrast, EA bought Respawn about three or four years ago for $700 million with 400 developers. And those guys generate $700 million a year in revenue. Bungie does about $200 million in revenue. So I think Sony vastly overpaid.
"I think this was a statement that we're not going to let Microsoft get ahead of us, so we'll just buy something out of desperation. It's not really a deal that makes a whole lot of sense to me. The others do."
There was a rumor that came out following Sony's acquisition of Bungie that Microsoft and Bungie had on and off talks for a possible acquisition for a couple of years. However, discussions stalled in 2020 due to Bungie wanting around $2 billion and to retain its independence. That asking price was too high for Microsoft at the time. $2 billion is a decent amount lower than the $3.6 billion Sony ended up paying
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel dedicated to gaming Let's Plays and tutorials. You can contact the author at wdangelo@vgchartz.com or on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
Michael Patcher is not the analyst we asked for, but the one we need. Controversy happens that divide us, then he opens his month and we are all unified against him and his silliness. Without Patcher, we would remain divided. With Patcher, we can put aside the hate.
About half of the posts on this article come from Scrapeking. Really trying to stretch that 2 cents you spent huh.
Heh... it's a topic of interest to me. That's no crime. :P
It’s already been stated this deal was in the works for months. Yet once again patcher is echoing the standard done in response to Activision rumor. I don’t understand how this guy is taken seriously in the industry.
This does not diminish his point. It almost certainly was in response to the Zenimax deal, and once Sony got wind that Microsoft was negotiating with ABK, negotiations with Bungie were likely expedited
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Pachter is absolutely correct on this one. Half as much as the Zenimax deal, but only two IPs (Marathon and Destiny) and only one or two development teams? And Bungie gets to keep nearly full independence? No way this is anything other than Sony overpaying, IMO.
I think Pachter is vaslty overpaid
Probably true. But I think he's absolutely correct in this case.
But he won't do this analysis and let everyone know. And we also overly cover his shenanigans.
They didn't pay to acquire them, that extra money is getting pumped directly into bungie so they keep their staff and expand beyond. Sony wanted Bungie's staff in this case and not their ip.
Also for Bungie’s experience in live-service games since Sony is working on 10 of them.
I still don't get why Sony is betting so much in live-services, when most of them end up abandoned way before their time, and Sony's single player effords earned them so much praise and sales last gen.
I imagine it’s the same reason Sony is releasing their games on PC. The cost of their games are getting absolutely insane. So it’s another way to bring in recurring revenue to offset the cost of their single player games we love them for.
Because they can have 9 of them fail, if one of them turns into the next fortnite then sony will have secured a decade + long money printing machine
Even that's a big "if". For every Fortnite or Apex Legends, there are dozens of failed attempts from other companies. It's more than possible that all 10 will fail. The fact that Sony wants more live-service games, but Bungie's focus is on expanding into non-gaming media, is not encouraging eiher.
Maybe they can give us the anthem we were supposed to get. I expect something different out of bungie. It doesn't have to follow apex or fortnite, they could mix up genres and gameplay, as long as they have a formula that works and is fun, fresh.
diversification of revenue.
Bungie is one of the best to have on board to branch into live service , and do something for mobile gaming and so. I expect several big things out of bungie in the next 10 years.
That's not contrary to Sony's goals at all. Bungie agreed because sony has the movie and tv resources and sony will be the ones making it and getting the revenue. THe multimedia is not to the detriment of bungie's games the same way an uncharted movie or last of us tv show are not coming at the expense of the games. In fact the rumor is that the new twisted metal is being made to coincide precisely with the TV show.
Yes/no. Bungie's non-exclusive to Sony. It sounds like Sony will need to negotiate to get Bungie's expertise in live-service games shared with other teams, and negotiate for game distribution deals, and negotiate for movie and TV show distribution deals. The level of independence Bungie has retained makes no sense if Sony is ponying up $3.6 billion dollars.
How is that not supported? A "plain reading" of the press release suggests that Bungie has negotiated an unprecedented level of independence. If Bungie can decide what they're working on, and what platforms it comes out on, and who publishes it, then it stands to reason that Sony is not gaining the ability to tell their staff what to do. In that environment, how could Sony pull staff off of a Bungie project and tell them to go mentor another team? Perhaps the truth is different than a plain reading of Sony's and Bungie's claims, but I am taking Sony's and Bungie's claims at face value.
Keeping the Bungie staff is critical as Bungie owns very little in the way of IP. But that's a reason to overpay IF you buy Bungie, it's not itself a reason TO buy Bungie.
I don't think you can put the overpaid label on it. It wouldn't have made sense for most companies to pay 3.6 billion for Bungie. But, it made sense for Sony, because they badly needed the expertise that Bungie has. Sony has essentially zero experience with live service games. Bungie has a monster hit live service game on their hands, and 7 years of experience maintaining it. They have something like a thousand employees over there that know how to do a thing that Sony doesn't know how to do. So, it made sense for Sony to put a bunch of money into bringing those thousand people in to help them do it.
The same can't be said for Microsoft. They didn't need Bungie's expertise as much as Sony did. So it wouldn't have made sense for Microsoft to pay 3.6 billion for them. For Microsoft, obviously the expertise is worth something, but the IP is probably a bigger driver for them. For Sony, the IP is worth just as much as it is to Microsoft, but the expertise is worth substantially more to Sony than Microsoft. Consequently, Bungie is more valuable to Sony than they are to Microsoft.
In other words, it would probably be right to say that Microsoft overpaid, if they paid 3.6 billion dollars to purchase Bungie. But, that's not how it went down. Sony paid 3.6 billion dollars for Bungie, and they got more out of the deal than Microsoft would have. So, even if it would have been overpaying if done by Microsoft, it may not be overpaying when done by Sony.
Investments are far more about the future than the now.
Some people 'overpaid' for Tesla or AMD shares years and years ago. Now they're filthy rich.
sure seems like a lot of money for the deal made, but im pretty sure Sony knows what there are doing more than this dude!
Sony view - needed and good value
MSFT view - good deal for Sony, value not important
Pachter view - tosses coin
Now I can rest easy knowing Sony made a bargain.
Why is it so important to you that Sony got a bargain that you will "rest easy" now?
And even a broken clock is right twice a day. Pachter is absolutely correct on this one. Microsoft had been negotiating to buy Bungie, but backed off when the price tag started to exceed $2 billion. And I don't blame them, $3.6 for a developer with a single product, and a single legacy IP (Marathon) and only $200 million in revenue (far less than that in profit) is way too much, IMO. I don't care what they're cooking up in the background. Lots of the developers Microsoft purchased are cooking things up in the background too, but we don't know if those are the next Apex Legends or the next Hyper Scape so that's an intangible.
You're letting your dislike of Pachter blind you, if you think him saying one thing means the other is obviously true. That's illogical. No one is right all the time, and no one is wrong all the time.
It is quite difficult to be always right, but Patcher have the skill to be always wrong. But sure you and Patcher are way more qualified than the entire Sony board and pry to way more information than then to make this analysis right? And sure enough even with Bungie denying they ever having negotiated with MS, and no leak of any of the closed deals having happened a leak of a year old negotiation with MS leaks after Sony announce the deals....
From you responding to everyone that thinks Patcher is wrong, it seems that it is even more important for you that Sony made a lousy deal, why is that?
Your sarcasm is unwarranted. Big companies make emotional and/or poorly calculated decisions all the time. Microsoft spending billions to buy the one part of Nokia that almost immediately lost all value, for example. I think Sony is proposing to buy Bungie for a lot of the wrong reasons that Microsoft bought Nokia's handset business, actually, so that's a particularly good example. Issues of pride, and showing the market they mean business, and not wanting to be seen as falling behind, and more.
You're incorrect that it's important to me that Sony made a lousy deal. As a business owner myself, I'm more interested in business than I am video games. That's one of the reasons I frequent VGChartz rather than IGN or Kotaku, because a lot of the content on VGChartz is on the business of video games. The only reason I made a lot of comments is because this deal is more interesting than most.
I just watched a Destin interview with a lawyer who follows the game industry closely (he effortlessly name-dropped developers big and small, what projects they work on, etc.), and his take was that he would have strongly recommended against Sony allowing Bungie the level of independence the press release claims Bungie received. So I'm far from the only voice suggesting that.
Had Sony got control of Bungie, I would have been more charitable towards the deal. It's the fact that, taken at face value, Sony will have to negotiate WITH THEIR OWN WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY for publishing rights, access to technology, access to staff to train other teams, etc., paired with Bungie's stated intent of massively expanding into non-gaming media (that Sony will presumably again have to negotiate for publishing rights to, should their movie/music/TV studios wish to distribute it) that has me questioning the level of synergies Sony can extract from this deal.
MS didn't bought Nokia out of pride or emotion, they wanted to have Windows OS on phones because that was their core business, spreading their OS and in phones they started late and saw google and apple dominating it. Nokia was how they intended to enter the market. It didn't work out, still doesn't mean they done a poor decision because of pride.
I'm incorrect that you think it is important that it is seem as bad deal but you have replied all the comments that dismissed it being bad, even ones that are obviously using patcher 100% being wrong as proof of this deal being good. Did you bother to also defend Patcher in other situations?
You act like you are pry to the details (and the lawyer) to see like Sony not just overpaid but also will have to beg Bungie for everything as if Bungie owned them. Sure.
I can show you comments along those lines I didn't reply to, so that's false.
I didn't defend Patcher at any point, I'm no Patcher fan. I did argue that it's a fallacy to say that any person is always wrong. Me saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day is a defence of Pachter? I hope never to be defended by such faint praise.
I didn't say I was privy to every detail, nor did I seek to act that way. I did choose to take Sony and Bungie at their word. I can point to you making comments based on a similar premise, and that I took no issue with it.
So you take they at their world that it will be independent, but then twist it to Sony needing to beg for their cooperation, to launch on their system, to use the IP for movies, etc?
Also you take both at their word but do you think that by their word either made a bad deal? Or you just take their word where convenient to you?
Sure you didn`t defend Patcher, but you are very much defending that he must absolutely be right in this one. As I said, you are much more invested or caring that this is a bad deal than the people you accuse of wanting this to be a good deal. And you do know that good deals for both sides is what make a deal sustainable in long term and reputation of parties on future deals right since you are a businessman and all.
If they're independent, how am I twisting things? They either have an unusually high level of independence as they claim, or they don't.
You false say I'm arguing Sony needs to "beg" for cooperation. I didn't use the word "beg" even once, I said the level of independence they claim means Sony needs to NEGOTIATE for cooperation. That's supported by their public statements, such as the claim that Bungie has the right to choose their own projects, and publish games through publishers other than Sony. Surely if Bungie can choose their own projects, they can choose whether to take on the project of training Sony's other teams? So surely Sony would need to negotiate that cooperation? I believe all my statements survive a plain reading of both Sony's and Bungie's public statements.
You enquire why I'm being emotional and/or a fanboy, but you're the one using charged language like "beg" and, worse yet, falsely attributing this language to me.
You're suggesting things I didn't say, whereas I explicitly pointed out something you said that was false, but you ignored that in your reply. And then you accuse me of conveniently ignoring things? I feel like I'm being gaslit here.
Polyphony Digital is also independent and Sony doesn't have to beg for content and authorization.
The terms of the purchase was for collaboration. Would be ludicrous to have to "negotiate" each cooperation,
All Sony teams have the level of independence to chose their own projects, this have been reported several times, and is one of Sony strengths. Devs work better if it is on a project they want to.
Only in a very twisted definition Sony would pay 2.4B to buy, additional 1.2B for retention with the very clear commitment of both parties to collaborate and then next to purchase Bungie decides nope won't help you at all, you paid because out of dumbness.
You do know that even if they are independent company the ownership is still from Sony right?
Where did I said you are fanboy? Seems like you are doing a self-recognition. Keep playing the victim.
Polyphony Digital negotiated contractual independence equal to what Sony and Bungie claim to have done? I've never seen that alleged.
A Sony team wanted to do Days Gone 2 and was rebuffed by management.
The type of independence you're talking about with Sony's teams is informal. The difference with Bungie is that it's reportedly formal and even legally enforceable.
It's possible for an entity to have majority ownership, but not majority control. Voting vs. non-voting shares in a company, for example. We're not privy to the intended corporate structure, so I can only take Sony and Bungie's public statements at their word.
You asked me "it seems that it is even more important for you that Sony made a lousy deal, why is that?" That sure sounds like you're accusing me of fanboyism. Then you say I'm self-asserting? That comes across as more gaslighting, friend. I think most people would interpret your question exactly as I did.
Nope, PD was created inside of Sony but already as an independent subsidiary with its own board.
Again with the Days Gone 2.... the STUDIO MANAGEMENT didnt approve of the sequel, it never even reached Sony. Sony doesnt only have majority ownership, they have full ownership from what we know. That is a wholly owned subsidiary even if independent. I asked this to you because you first asked why it was so important to me that Sony didnt do a lousy deal. Seems like you like to call others but feel hurt and victimizing if something similar is done to you. And considering all my replies to you have one negative vote while yours have one positive you are voting yourself up and myself down, do you?
Feel hurt and victimized? It's so important to me I didn't even get around to reading this for almost a week. And no, I'm not voting down all your replied and voting all mine up. I've long since given up trying to figure out what posts get up and down-voted on VGChartz. I have seen so many perfectly reasonable posts get downvoted (something as simple as someone saying they're excited for some new game get down-voted, seriously?!), and ridiculous posts get up-voted. :)
You said you could "rest easy". That suggests an emotional investment and/or it being important to you. I didn't suggest anything emotional, just dispassionate analysis that you mischaracterized as being important to me. I don't think they're the same thing at all.
Throughout this thread you've used a lot of charged language (whereas I think I've been dispassionate in comparison), and you've failed to acknowledge many things said to you (even things that I pointed out were demonstrably and objectively incorrect), so with respect I think your criticism is a bit the pot calling the kettle black.
Pachter is pretty bad at what he does but this deal is a bit strange. Sony paid, including staff bonuses, about half the sum compared to what Microsoft paid for the entirety of Zenimax.
This just looks like an investment to me. I mean if they don't make exclusives for Playstation and Bungie has a record of generating billions, maybe just making money in the long run is the goal.
MS is arguably in the same business. It's hard to imagine some of their IPs staying exclusive to Xbox.
For years I actually argued MLB The Show would get sold because it just doesn't do well enough on PlayStation alone. I was only partially correct. It's now on various platforms and Sony kept it.
Yeah, I think you've mostly nailed it. If Sony owns them, but doesn't control them, it is truly just an investment. Though Bungie doesn't make billions. They're currently bringing in about $200 million a year in revenue (far less in profit).
Business news sites reporting on the deal are citing the $200 million revenue figure, and neither Sony nor Bungie are challenging it.
Do they need to? If credible business news sites are reporting a number that's materially wrong, yes, it would be something they would want to correct (unless they felt that the incorrect reporting was advantageous in some way).
I'm not sure why you then cite Pachter, I don't believe the $200 million figure came from him.
Well, fair enough then. Though in fairness, I didn't say Sony or Bungie had to publish a number, they only had to say the number that's making the rounds is materially wrong (without saying what the correct number is).
https://adnews.com.br/como-o-nao-salvo-enganou-parte-da-midia-mundial/#:~:text=Aproveitando%20que%20a%20na%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20do,v%C3%ADdeos%20de%20not%C3%ADcias%20norte%20coreanas.
Cid, a brazilian comedian, in multiple occasions were able to trick midia and newspapers that reported what he planted as truth and because midia nowadays don't do their investigation and independent confirmation, they just go copy and pasting one another with you getting 20 articles almost identical posted in a spawn of mere hours you get self-confirmation from themselves.
If neither Sony nor Bungie releases the numbers, who would be the little bird that would tell all the different outlets about it? As the-pi-guy answered you there was but a single source, Patcher.
Oh for sure, I understand that those sorts of things go on. But that's where a contrasting comment from Sony or Bungie would be what I would expect, if it was wrong.
Not really. They dont need to comment on it. You know that this is another tactic that journalists use, they go and make a false claim in hope that the target gives the right information and them they can use it. Why should Sony and PD reveal information that isnt necessary? Even more when their press releases doesnt say they bought Bungie for their current revenue stream, but for their future objectives. Many claim MS sales numbers and they are most likely wrong possibly for much less or much more, and do you see they ever correcting them giving right numbers? If going by your logic if several articles talk about their numbers and they dont correct them it these articles are right?
Not sure if you remember, but standard Sony (and most company) comments, and only when directly asked, on rumors is that they don`t comment on rumors.
When there was a claim that Game Pass had 30 million subscribers, Microsoft did correct that they had not announced that number, and repeated the last number that they had announced, actually. So what you say isn't universally true. Sometimes they do take the time to say a number isn't true (or isn't officially announced), without saying what the actual number is.
Where I agree with you is that they announce numbers, don't announce numbers, correct numbers, and don't correct numbers, depending on corporate priorities and what makes them sound the best.
I meant the history of Bungie. Primarily the revenue they generated creating Halo and Destiny.
Halo ended long enough ago, and enough of that team has moved on, that I think that's not relevant to this purchase. Destiny is highly relevant to this purchase, and has reportedly never been a billion$+/year franchise, though.
I mean Bungie's record of success in general.
Also, they apparently have a new IP in the works. Sony must really like what they saw.
I don't think it's a "must". Sony had lost dozens of billions of dollars of market cap. That kind of thing makes you want to do something dramatic to turn the psychology of the market around. So it's possible that they were willing to pay more and/or be hastier with this purchase, in part because of that.
It's also possible that they're seriously impressed with the new IP in the works, as you say. Whether that game ends up being the new Apex Legends, or the new Anthem, we'll only be able to wait and see.
I don’t think the quality of devs at zynga or activision equals the quality of devs at bungie.
Sony made the right move, confirmed!
People forget that sony owns Bungie who made halo, which made xbox what it is. This is crazy. Bungie can make another halo for playstation and make a massive ip all over again. Sony will make their money regardless.
I hope Bungie does, because it will also come to PC and Xbox.
Maybe, maybe not, bungie has revenue of up to 500 million per year. It could take 10 years to get the money back, but who knows how popular their next games could be.
The same could be said for activision, 69 bilion will take a long time to recover, especially if their games go free on gamepass, so profits wont be as good as they are now.
Bungie's revenue is currently only $200 million a year, apparently, and has been in that range for a while apparently. And that's revenue, not profit, so even at $500 million a year it would take more than 10 years to get the money back probably.
The difference is that Zenimax, and Activision Blizzard, had decades upon decades of IP under their belts, and new IPs in the works (at least with Zenimax). Bungie has one current IP (Destiny), one legacy IP (Marathon), and one project in the work (which may or may not be a new IP).
But Zenimax cost only about twice what Bungie's cost is.
Zenimax was an excellent deal.
I was talking activision. Even with call of duty. 69 billion is a lot to recover.
Also there is more at play here. If in 3 years time call of duty will be Microsoft exclusive then destiny or an alternative, made by bungie will be the main next popular Sony shooter. Imagine a halo level of quality game as a Sony exclusive to replace call of duty.
My belief is that’s Sony plan. And they will probably start said game as soon as possible. They have 3 to 4 years to complete it.
Not exactly. I don't think they want an exclusive to replace call of duty. They want to have a game so big on both systems, that mixcrosoft will have to think hard before committing to cutting off the ps5 from an established multiplat they own.
Microsoft doesn't need to make Call of Duty exclusive to their platforms. Having it on Game Pass (but you need to purchase it to get it on PS), perhaps offering Xbox/Call of Duty hardware bundles (down the road, when systems aren't supply constrained anymore), having early access to Call of Duty DLC on Microsoft's platforms, etc., can give Microsoft all the edge it needs without actually turning away the lucrative Call of Duty revenue from PS.
Also, Call of Duty likely going to something other than annual iterations will further reduce the incentive to make it exclusive to Microsoft's platforms.
So never say never, but I suspect Microsoft won't take Call of Duty fully exclusive.
Well, by your logic, then Starfield, fallout 5 and elder scrolls 6 will also be on PS, as they don't want to lose the revenue? By that logic they would have launched halo infinite also on PS to gain extra revenue.
Microsoft will have call of duty in 3 years time as a wild card to make gamers jump to xbox/Pc/Gamepass instead of PS.
The reality is only time will tell. But I suspect after 3 more call of dutys, surely people will start getting bored anyway.
How does that follow? My comments were specific to Call of Duty, which is the single-largest franchise in North America console/PC sales, and is hugely lucrative in DLC/MTX/battle pass sales.
That makes no sense, if the game will be so big and will be also on xbox, then what would be the point of microsoft losing the call of duty exclusivity? Xbox would have both, that would be a win for xbox.
The smart thing to do would be a great exclusive shooter to bring back the call of duty fans they would lose to xbox.
I'm saying if there is a big user base on xbox of destiny or another new ip from bungie , i doubt micrsoft would make call of duty xbox only, alienatiing the ps5 userbase, only to have sony then alienate xbox players. It will be a bad move from both companies.
What i think sony will do is put a hard focus on shooters , to try make playstation the console of choice for shooters/
I agree that Sony can and should bring back their shooter franchises. MAG, Killzone, etc.
That said, Sony becoming "the choice for shooters" would be like the Xbox becoming the choice for "narrative-driven third-person adventure titles" over Sony.
Microsoft owning Halo, Gears, Doom, Quake, Prey, potentially advantaging itself with CoD (having it in Game Pass, early access to DLC/MTX), etc., is an advantage that Sony probably can't match in the near-term, so all they can do is mitigate Microsoft's advantage.
Ditto how no matter how many narrative-based third-person action games Microsoft releases, the best they can do in the near-term is mitigate Sony's advantage with Spider-Man, Wolverine, TLOU, Horizon, God of War, and too many others to list.
Most if not all my friends who own playstation, they couldn't care less for Doom, Quake, Prey.
And the next 3 call of duty will still be on ps5, and by the time the first call of duty not on ps5 launches the generation will be on year 5 already, by then the series S will be discounted.
Most playstation players like myself prefer playstation due to single player adventures, Spiderman, last of us, Ratchet, god of war, uncharted, and so on, even GT7 is now focused on single player.
Theres already too many multiplayer games out there, they don't need more.
You don't have to believe me, just look at playstation vs xbox sales since the beginning. Sony always succeeded on single player adventures, like metal gear solid, resident evil, tomb raider.
My best friend who is a total addict to call of duty war zone, top 50 player in the world, he said when such time comes when call of duty is only on xbox, he will then think about it, he also says he'll never get an xbox, he's even more of. a playstation guy than me, because me I still love the xbox and Microsoft games, some of my favourite games started on xbox like Ori. I also loved Gears before number 4, and also a huge Halo fan before number 4. Still haven't tried the new one.
Remember playstation not only gets way more exclusives, but also people love the usual series, assassins creed, far cry and so on.
Also a thing to remember, xbox games are also on PC, no exclusives ever. Most ps exclusives are only on PS, and Microsoft will have to work hard to catch up to Sony, the ps5 already had Death stranding, Spiderman, demon souls, sifu, kena, ratchet, returnal, and is now having GT7 and horizon 2, and soon the new god of war and more.
Xbox had forza horizon 5 and halo, that's it. So those big purchases will take years to show something for.
I agree with you that CoD is bigger than Doom/Quake/Prey, but those are still big franchises too. The fact that your friends aren't into it is anecdotal, and not relevant to the analysis. Game sales would be a better gauge than your friends list.
Are you aware that the next three Call of Duties are launching over the next two years? Are you aware that Microsoft appears to have explicitly said that Call of Duty is likely to continue on PS beyond those three games? Your assumption that Year Five will see an exclusive CoD appears to be unsupported by public statements from any of the companies involved.
Clips and save re: Series S. I don't believe it will be discontinued by then. I believe a system with that level of power will persist (perhaps similar to how it is, perhaps a revision with an optical drive), with AI-upscaling and game streaming helping keep it relevant. Time will tell which of us is correct. The difference is, I'm not making the mistake of asserting that my supposition is fact. You are making that mistake, however, IMO.
You appear to be assuming that because PS has a history of more exclusives, that it will continue in perpetuity. Time will tell, as we find out exactly which Zenimax titles are and are not exclusive (beyond Starfield) and what all the other studios they purchased are working on.
It appears that most (likely all) Sony first-party games are coming to PC, and I think that the delay from PS release to PC release will continue to shrink. And it doesn't seem to matter anyway, as even with all first-party Microsoft titles going to both Xbox and PC day-and-date, this is the fastest out-the-gate generation of Xbox yet. So I don't see much relevance to that (if any at all).
But that's the plan, Microsoft doesn't plan to alienate the ps5 call of duty players, they want these players to buy an xbox for call of duty. That is the plan, to increase gamepass and xbox user base. A series S is not too expensive as a second console.
If Bungie helps 1 or 2 of Sony’s other studios to make another game on the caliber of success as Destiny, Bungie will pay itself off several times over.
That's not a sure thing. Despite how successful Destiny 2 is, Bungie's revenues are only $200 million a year (and their profits far less than that).
People have short imaginations. I imagine a new game on the level of the first halos. As Sony exclusive shooters.
Or it could also be they will be tasked to build the next killzone. Anything is possible.
I really hope for a totally new series. I’m tired already off the same call of duty and halo. We need freshness in gaming.
The problem is the "they will be tasked to..." part. Taken at the their word, Sony and Bungie are saying that Sony has essentially made an investment in Bungie, rather than a purchase. Bungie claims they have contractual protection against Sony tasking them with anything. Bungie claims they have the ability to work on the projects they want, for the platforms they want, and the right to reach publishing agreements with whomever they want. It seems Bungie believes that Sony can't task them to do anything. Which is... really weird!
I just hope they're not all the same games with a different story. I'd love to see resistance back, or some other fusion , like what they did with titanfall. Timesplitters would be good.
Again, short imagination, I imagine a futuristic shooter, like a mix of Halo with mass effect, in a big universe and big open world planets. I'm talking real next gen stuff, with ability to fly ships and have ship battles too.
So...Sony made the best deal of the year confirmed?
Nothing against the guy, but many of his big claims just went "reversal".
It's almost like magic, Patcher say "right" will be the thing... then "left" becomes a thing.
Right
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I think Pachter is correct on this one. For what it's worth, Microsoft feels the same way, they reportedly backed out of negotiations when the price went above $2 billion.
Possible.
If bungie does not play a large bordering on decisive role in the development of future PlayStation live service titles, then he is 100% correct, regardless of how inflammatory the headline is. The fact that Sony is unwilling or unable to push some degree of content exclusivity for future bungie output puts even more pressure on Sony’s other live service ventures to succeed.
Sony is betting an enormous amount of capital that Bungie’s developer talent is simply better than the rest of the industry. And it might be. But they had better deliver the goods.
It certainly seems like it, based on the fact that it’s Bungie and all they have is Destiny, and that Bungie is basically remaining third party.
But if they leverage Bungie’s live service skills into meaningful backbone for other live service games, the move could easily pay off. So really, who knows, it’s too early to tell. It’ll be years before anyone can tell.
Also, people need to stop chopping up the 3.6B and acting like the payout portion of that doesn’t count as part of the purchase. If you have to pay out over a billion dollars to Bungie shareholders so that they don’t leave, then that’s part of the purchase price.
It's hard to know how well they'll be able to leverage Bungie's tech and experience, when Bungie A) has demanded and received a massive level of independence, and B) Bungie wants to take the money from the purchase and expand into non-gaming media anyway.
This deal, although not the smartest one financially for Sony as it has been mentioned, it does keep a well know developer creating content for them even if they out games on Xbox. Had they've gone with Ms the next Destiny would never appear in a PS systems at all.
Why are some people thinking that having 1/3 going toward bonus needs to be stated like it makes a difference? At the end, Sony has to pay it. It is PART of the acquisition cost, no matter how you spin it lol
The industry in general thinks that they overpaid it and you do not need an economic master to do the math, while Patcher is a bit late to the party as always, don't make this sounds like he is not right, because he is... Not because he is good, but because this is so obvious.
Does it mean that it is a bad acquisition? Not at all, this is a good one and they are addressing multiple threats with this acquisition. Also there is another AAA in dev. from Bungie. But this only, does not justify the price and this is very likely a grab to make sure someone else would not grab them as Bungie was open to be acquired (which is most likely why they overpaid for it).
Yeah, since GlassDoor suggests Microsoft pays the best in the industry, probably all the people at all the teams Microsoft has purchased in recent years are now paid better than before Microsoft purchased them. But those extra millions (billions?) aren't included in the advertised price that Microsoft paid.
Way to attempt to discredit the main reason why both you and Pachter are very wrong.
Sony did not NEED to pay that additional 1/3. they CHOSE to pay it because they wanted to, that is the very huge difference between overpaying for something and not. Overpaying would mean that that 1/3 was tied in with simply being able to acquire the studio. It wasn't. Sony could have chose to not pay that 1/3 extra and still acquired for the studio in the end.
Its like going to a resturant and giving a big tip because you loved the service, did someone force you to pay that big tip? Of course not, you wanted to.
Then we have someone at the next table over like you going "ohh you overpaid for that meeeeeal heuheu heu" Nobody forced Sony at all to pay that extra bit, they did so because they wanted to, hence! Sony did not at all overpay for anything and both you and Pachter are very wrong.
Disagree, I think Sony would have overpaid even if the deal had been 33% smaller. Bungie does not have a war chest of IPs. Bungie's revenue is only about $200 million a year (and the profit considerably less). Bungie negotiated an unprecedented level of independence that will require Sony to negotiate publishing rights WITH THEIR OWN SUBSIDIARY.
$2.4 billion may have been overpaying, and $3.6 billion is definitely overpaying, IMO. Someone wanting to overpay at a restaurant via an unusually large tip is still overpaying. Sony overpaying for Bungie because they wanted to is still overpaying.
Bungie doesn't have $3.6 billion worth of IP, or technology, or revenue. They therefore have very little value outside of the staff. Overpaying to keep them therefore makes sense IF you're buying Bungie. But that's a reason to do so if buying them, that's not a reason TO buy Bungie.
"chose to pay" LOL Are you real? ahah. NO businesses out there 'chose' to pay 1.2B to be nice, NONE. Sony is paying this because it made them actually win the deal, that's all. This is part of the price they will have to pay, period.
"Sony chooses to pay"... Seriously, that's another thing about how some people perceive Sony... "they are here only for gamers, they do not make games for the money but for art, they are so nice they CHOOSE to pay 1.2B more". No, like not even close, Sony is a business and they showed how actually unfair and very sharky they can be on multiple occasions (we saw that too during the Epic lawsuit). Come on now
You are actually, factually, incorrect. The point being made by people about the retention bonus is a very important factor. I listened to a whole podcast about this from Rick Hoeg, who’s a lawyer who does exactly these kinds of acquisition deals.
Retention bonuses are pretty standard for an acquisition, but the Activision deal, like most other deals, did not count the retention bonuses in that $69bil figure. Sony did, though. So, the acquisition deal was effectively $2.3bil.
At $2.3bil, I’m not sure if Sony overpaid. But where they definitely won (according to Rick Hoeg) is in the fact that they negotiated to have the retention bonus paid over 3 years; so, not only do employees have to remain at Bungie for 3y to get that money, but it also allows Sony conserve more money for 3y before paying that $1.3bil out (as well as allowing for beneficial tax breaks in the meantime).
Hell Sony AND Bungie press releases themselves are talking about a 3.6B acquisition... But oh, if one podcast (probably from Sony enthusiast) you are watching tries to spin this to make it seem less, fine, that's not "factually" correct tho :)
Stop using "factually" or "I watch lawyer podcasts" words to make it more credible. Math is factually correct, 2.3B + 1.3B = 3.6B, which is what Sony will need to pay for this deal to happen, which is also what amount Sony/Bungie gave to everyone during their press release. Period.
You seem very triggered by this entire subject. You should reflect on that.
Paragraph 1: Yes, RH discusses that in the episode and proposes a reason for why it was announced this way, rather than the typical way—which again, would’ve announced this as $2.3bil, excluding the retention bonuses. And you’re wrong again; Rick Hoeg covers everything in video games related to law. He is not a Sony loyalist. He covered the Microsoft acquisition of ABK in at least one or two episodes.
Paragraph 2: I feel like you didn’t even read what I wrote. I explained it to you. I’m not gonna explain it all again. You’re wrong. Microsoft didn’t announce their deal as $75bil or such to include their own retention bonuses; they announced nearly $69bil, which did not include the bonuses. This really isn’t difficult to understand. Surely you must be seeing why your original statements were incorrect. If not, I’m afraid there’s no help for you. But Rick Hoeg can educate you, if you’re willing to listen to him before continuing to say and believe more incorrect things.
Word of advice: argue with the message not the messenger, being condescending and coming up with your "you seem very triggered", or "cannot help you", "maybe you Rick Hoeg can educate you" and your "factually", does not make you sound smarter or righter...), just respond to the content if you want to. This is a game everyone can play.
Now regarding Virtual Leg., he does not, at any point spin this to say that Sony is acquiring Bungie for 2.3B only, they are acquiring Bungie for 3.6B, and you are spinning what he is saying about the fact that 1.3B is for retention (and that's all, nothing there says that the acquisition will only cost 2.3B...) you are wrong. Simple as that. Again, you are spinning this to make it like it is a good deal cause those 1.3B should not be taken into consideration for some reason while at the end Sony STILL have to pay it.
The topic is about: "how much Sony payed" for Bungie and was it overpaid; not "oh look Microsoft did pay more for AB"... I mean, do you even READ yourself, At no point, I talked about Microsoft or even argue about how much they paid at the end... But you are telling me that "I'm wrong about it..."... What do you want me to respond to that lol, you are coming up with imaginary stuff, being condescending at hell about it, and telling me that I'm wrong about it... What Microsoft paid for AB has nothing to do with what we are talking about here and the OP. Nothing. And you are the only one arguing about how much they paid at the end of AB. I do not care and it does not matter.
Just to be sure, your quote: "You’re wrong. Microsoft didn’t announce their deal as $75bil or such to include their own retention bonuses; they announced nearly $69bil, which did not include the bonuses. ".
GlassDoor suggests that Microsoft is the best paying in the industry, has a reputation of letting teams have meaningful impact on the projects they're working on, and is earning a reputation that when they buy a developer they give them extra time to finish projects (Psychonauts 2 delay, etc.). So Microsoft don't need to overpay to keep staff.
Whereas buying Bungie they own very little IP, so there's nothing left if the staff leave. That's why you need to overpay to buy Bungie. That's a reason to overpay IF buying Bungie, but it's not a reason TO buy Bungie. Microsoft was also negotiating to buy Bungie, but reportedly backed out when the price went above $2 billion.
Microsoft paid only about twice that amount for Zenimax, despite getting a bunch of development teams, and decades of important IPs. And GlassDoor suggests Microsoft pays so much better than the rest of the industry, and with Microsoft apparently giving teams meaningful feedback into the projects they work on, and Microsoft seemingly giving teams ample time to do it right (they immediately delayed a bunch of projects after purchasing developers so that they could get them right, such as Psychonauts 2), that Microsoft likely doesn't need to give incentives to keep the developers on the teams they're buying like Sony is with Destiny.
Seems like not everyone agrees with you =p Sony made the decision in 24h after drinking vodka due to the Acti buy.
