Sony Should Buy Ubisoft and Here is Why

Sony’s been putting a lot of effort (read: money) into the PlayStation 3 product line with very little impact in the market. They’ve got this “10 year plan” but haven’t really executed a strong plan for their first two years of said plan. Sony’s plan seems to be “outlive the competition’s technology” while all of its competition stomps on their sales and market share with older and a bit “outdated” products.

Thus far there have been five spins of the PlayStation 3 hardware with price cuts only coming as a result of a “fire sale” of old hardware revisions. Sony, like many, believes the Nintendo Wii isn’t a direct competitor in their space; the outstanding sales of the Wii probably haven’t impacted the PlayStation 3 sales too much. The Xbox 360, however, has definitely cut them deep in all regions of sales.

Microsoft has built some unexpected momentum in Japan with Square-Enix making them a few console seller titles and the price cuts in Europe boosted sales over 200% all while the US continues to buy into the 360 hardware despite its most obvious red-ringing flaws. Microsoft has great partnerships with some fabulous companies, Bungie and Epic for instance, to build them exclusives that move even more 360 units.

Motorstorm is one of the PlayStation 3’s best games, selling over 3-million copies. While, as of January 2008, Halo 3 sold 8.1 million units for the Xbox 360. Now, Metal Gear Solid 4 has sold roughly 3.94 million copies since August of 2008 yet unsubstantiated rumors exist stating MGS4 could make its way to the 360. Combined awesome titles for the PlayStation 3 may not even exceed one of the competitors best selling products; where is the PS3 excitement?

Little Big Planet, Rachet and Clank, Resistance 2 and, someday, Massive Action Game (MAG) could produce some buzz around the PS3. By far, Little Big Planet has been the gold nugget Sony has been looking for and was published by Sony so they’re able to take full glory of this might-be console mover. What else do they have up their sleeve?

One or two blockbuster titles would compete well in a smaller market like last generation, but with Microsoft dragging in huge sales in all regions, Sony is going to need a real momentum killer. They’re already stating we’ll have no price cuts in 2008 leaving us asking, “why am I going to invest in a PlayStation 3?” Sony needs to figure out a long term battle plan and that involves blockbuster game titles which cannot be played on another console.

If Sony is willing to throw money out the window to keep the PlayStation 3 alive in this competitive market, why not spend it on their future? With a 10-year plan in place, that plan should involve picking up a company like Ubisoft. Ubisoft is a well respected public developer and publisher founded in 1986 and now consists of many well established smaller studios whom they’ve picked up along the way.

Ubisoft has some huge titles, Assassins Creed, Brothers in Arms, Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell, Rayman, Rainbow Six, Driver and has published many great titles for smaller studios. Imagine a Heroes of Might and Magic exclusive on the PlayStation 3 or a graphically intense exclusive Prince of Persia. Sony could steal titles away from the Wii such as Rayman and all his raving rabbids. Even 30% of these popular titles, being produced as exclusives for the PlayStation 3, could turn around this console.

Sure, Sony could pay for console exclusives on a handful of these great titles but, at this point, they’re going to pay out the nose to try to hold even a timed exclusive considering how many of these titles would arrive on the 360 in order for Ubisoft to recoup development costs for such a small PS3 audience.

Could Sony drive Ubisoft into the ground by limiting their exposure in the game industry to a single console? Indeed. There is always room for fatal errors when acquiring talent and executing them against your own 10-year plan. It would have to be a very aggressive attack with a very strong plan of execution in order to turn titles around on the PlayStation 3 in fast succession and with large PR hype.

Sony has shown they are willing to spend endless amounts of money all while turning their cheek to the obvious 360 domination. Why not take some of that money and re-invest it in the future of your 10-year plan by buying a company like Ubisoft before someone like EA does it first. With the huge market decline and the US bringing down the global economy, times may be ripe to grab a company and grow them to your own.

The real question would be, could Sony hold the talent at Ubisoft if they were to be purchased by such a large company with a sub-par sale standard console? Throw more money at the problem and bribe the talent to stick around for a few years and perhaps you’ve got a plan.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Smart Business Choices During Economic DownturnsSmart Business Choices During Economic Downturns

Many game studios are being dropped following a bit of an economic downturn in the United States and globally. Activision has to deal with being agile enough to survive the economic times like anyone else and has dropped a few games that had great potential.

Gamers continue to ask the question, “why?” when some of their highest potential games were dropped to the floor. Ghostbusters and Brütal Legend are a couple examples of games with eager fans already salivating prior to its launch. Some of these fans are a bit ticked off that Activision named them as dropped franchise opportunities.

People ask why a company holds one “mediocre” title while getting rid of other potentially awesome ones. Don’t forget, this is a business and a good studio/publisher is going to make good business decisions without emotional attachments – those that bring emotions into play may end up with a highly valued product (to them) with no additional potential and lower revenue. This isn’t to say developers cannot be passionate about their games and their industry, they just have to build games gamers will buy and continue to fall in love with release after release.

Activision CEO Bobby Kotick is one of these business savvy individuals who knows where investors will find profits for the future, and he also know how to manage employees, with the use of software like this sample pay stub for payments and more.

“[Those games] don’t have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million dollar franchises. … I think, generally, our strategy has been to focus… on the products that have those attributes and characteristics, the products that we know [that] if we release them today, we’ll be working on them 10 years from now.” (1up)

Ghostbusters is a great example of a title which could be well received and fun to play but probably wouldn’t be an exploitable franchise. The game, based on a popular movie, has limited potential for yearly releases and huge franchise success. Ghostbusters fans would probably disagree, but that’s when emotion comes into play. Think dollars and cents, not awesome fun gaming.

Oddly enough many of these business decisions from Activision, Electronic Arts and other big publishers arrive when the economy is in free fall and investors are eying your revenue potential. People make their most important and, usually, unfriendly business decisions when their company is at risk.

During uncertain times, protecting operations becomes just as critical as protecting profits. Visit FastFireWatchGuards.com to learn about professional fire watch services that help businesses stay secure and prepared.

It’s sad to think money comes first and entertainment value comes second but we’re not the ones trying to make a profitable living in the industry. Put yourself in Kotick’s shoes as he walks into a board meeting to discuss future plans, road maps and profitability – you’d do what you have to do to keep your job, right?

Episode 685: D&D’s Star LordEpisode 685: D&D’s Star Lord

Jonah will be in LA for an E3 that no longer exists, but we’ll all have our opinions on Microsoft’s presentation on June 11, especially the Starfield Direct presentation. In the meantime, Jonah argues with Scott and TJ about the latest Dungeons and Dragons movie.

The news includes:

  • Meta Quest 3 is official, $499, and arriving this autumn
  • Riot threatens to cancel the entire League of Legends summer season
  • PlayStation accused of “abusing” games industry with PS5 exclusives
  • No Dragon Age: Dreadwolf or Skate until after March 2024 says EA

No podcast next week. We’ll have one after the Microsoft event, though.

Evolution of RPG’s – Gamers Don’t Want an End?Evolution of RPG’s – Gamers Don’t Want an End?

I remember a day when old RPG games had either a level cap or a definite ending. From Pool of Radiance to Secrets of the Silver Blades to Final Fantasy the game had a final boss or stage and often had some type of level cap. Today, gamers don’t want it to end, they’d rather have the option to wonder around aimlessly or completing minor quests in order to soak up every ounce of money they spent on the title.

linkNow even Bethesda is saying “we’ve learned our lesson” from the whiplash of ending their game title and capping levels. Gamers want to go back and re-try content they missed, they want to run side quests and talk to everyone in the world they want to grind themselves to über powerful levels and become a god in their fantasy world. Can you blame them?

You can’t really blame them for wanting to maximize the content, although it’s slightly more evolved than RPG’s of old. Perhaps it was World of Warcraft and other MMORPG’s that brought us to the stage in life where we all want to squeeze every last RPG dime out of the title. As a kid I wondered the world of Hyrule and covered every tile of graphical color, burned every bush, bombed every stone looking for all the content. However, even Zelda had an end with scrolling credits – you didn’t just land on a platform with your master sword and a dream.

Other titles have used level caps to limit you and draw you into the next release of the game. This was popular in the D&D world because the game is designed to target specific levels of difficulty. They may only allow you to gain level 10 because the enemies are no tougher than level 13, allowing the challenge to be good but not overwhelming. If they allow you to get to level 50 they’d have to design the game so all the enemies grow powerful along with you — that’s not always a desired result.

Final Fantasy is a popular franchise that typically allows you to grow infinitely powerful depending on how much time you want to spend repeat killing the same enemies. Gamers aren’t always into the grind, they just want to grind “enough” to make the challenges a little more do-able.

Today, however, with larger storage capacity, larger development teams and the desire to build more value into your gameplay experience titles have dozens of side quests and sub-plots that are totally optional. The result of so many sub-quests results in a player who is much more powerful at the end of those quests compared to a player who sticks to the narrow path of the main plot. So, games much grow dynamically challenging to keep the fun per dollar high.

Do you like your RPG’s to have a definite end and a high but capped level?