• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

gofreak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,736
So Daniel Loeb, the activist investor at third point, is gunning again for Sony to break up its businesses, this time advocating for a spin off the semiconductor/sensors business into a new publicly traded 'Sony Technologies' leaving a 'New Sony' focused on Games/Movies/Pictures, with a decreasing interest in electronics, as well as divestment of some assets like Sony Financial Services, to allocate capital for new investment in those core entertainment businesses.

But anyway - he has published his argument and analysis, including a significant study of the game business. He's very bullish on Sony's position in games, and his analysis has some hitherto unpublished insights from his company's own research, and from comments made by Sony to investors about certain things (like PSNow). It's pretty interesting if you're into that kind of thing.


Some of his observations

- the industry has matured to a point of consolidation, and from cyclical to stable recurring revenues.
- he predicts significant margin growth as players move more and more to digital consumption - he says Sony earns 60% more gross profit on first party digital downloads vs physical, 100% more on third party
- PS+ is now the 5 largest consumer subscription service in the world (between Hulu and Apple Music)
- He believes SIE stacks up very well compared to the 'big 4' standalone publishers:

CyrvITd.png



He identifies the two perceived 'bears' weighing on the perception of Sony's game business - cyclical profit changes, and cloud game streaming.

On the cyclical nature of the business:

8Zgnsdm.png


He's... very skeptical to say the least about cloud game streaming. He thinks comparisons with Netflix are flawed:

c5nvDEf.png


iMW4Yjk.png


kQGBR9V.png


dS9SZrW.png




Research commissioned by Third Point on buying and 'switching' intentions next gen:

hyrTxn0.png


How they see the competitive landscape:

cWPPX8j.png



vpqTNfo.png


There's a lot of other interesting stuff in there in terms of how the videogames business has changed, and where they see it going, with some specific forecasts for Sony gaming revenue and profit growth over the next few years.

The cloud gaming analysis is particularly interesting I think - breaking down the comparisons with other media/Netflix, the relative value proposition etc. Not the first time I've seen a bit of cold water splashed on the hype around cloud gaming recently by an analyst.
 

ArmGunar

PlayStatistician
Member
Oct 30, 2017
6,527
Lol he called a truce few weeks ago when he wanted Sony to sold their Pictures segment

Thanks for that
 

plusaflag

User requested ban
Banned
Jan 7, 2019
625
I would recommend you don't pay attention to anything related to sales figures or rankings in this presentation. He mentions VGChartz on the very first slide in the OP.
 

ArmGunar

PlayStatistician
Member
Oct 30, 2017
6,527
They are right about several points, especially the fact that Sony is undervalued at stock market
 
Oct 25, 2017
21,452
Sweden
i think the tables at the bottom of this slide make the most salient point of this presentation:
dS9SZrW.png

who is cloud gaming even for? why do people think it will shake the industry to the core
 

Omnistalgic

self-requested temp ban
Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,973
NJ
They are right about several points, especially the fact that Sony is undervalued at stock market
If I had money I would buy some Sony and Nintendo stock. Need some fail money man

Besides some of his flawed stats, lot of his analysis sound pretty reasonable IMO.

I just think Sony should emulate Nintendo slightly more and produce some evergreen titles outside of Gran Turismo. Bring back Ape Escape and LBP and Socom and keep them going every gen with new gameplay ideas. Whoever gets tired of platform games and MP shooters?
 

Jeffram

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,924
I think the doubt on streaming's Ability to expand the market are spot on and the bar chart showing why people don't game on consoles with reasons not being answered by streaming is in line with my expectations.
 

SolidSnakex

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,378
i think the tables at the bottom of this slide make the most salient point of this presentation:
dS9SZrW.png

who is cloud gaming even for? why do people think it will shake the industry to the core

I think Google are really the only ones right now betting that it'll shake the industry to its core. Sony seems to be building a system just in case it actually does. Gaming is obviously very important for them, so they don't want to be in a position where they get caught on their heels if it takes off. They've really been pushing Cloud gaming for years now, it's just that they aren't hinging their entire business on it.
 

monmagman

Member
Dec 6, 2018
4,126
England,UK
Its not harsh if thats what they are aiming for. Xbox games being multiplatform could turn into a strength, or at least mitigate the fact that Playstation has a larger userbase.
Yea,that's true I guess.It's such a different strategy to what the norm has always been with consoles.
I don't game on Xbox but I'm glad they have finally found their feet as we move into next gen,it will benefit everyone I think.
 

ArmGunar

PlayStatistician
Member
Oct 30, 2017
6,527
If I had money I would buy some Sony and Nintendo stock. Need some fail money man
I wished I bought Sony stock back in 2013 after E3 2013 when it was low

Sony is probably rolling their eyes again.
Probably not, their idea of create the New Sony focusing on Entertainment + a Sony tech with semiconductors would improve a lot their value
And the whole analysis about gaming seems reasonable imo
 

Jade1962

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
4,259
People will hone in on VGchartz but those survey are bang on when it comes to this idea that there is a huge untapped market of people that want to play AAA games but are afraid of consoles or PCs. The software spend chart also supports Matt's point yesterday that people that spend money on hardware they spend more money on software.
 

Wolfgunblood

Member
Dec 1, 2017
2,748
The Land
I guess then the question is how many people really have accessibility/convenience problems with modern console and of gaming

Game availability and ownership of hardware is a barrier, significantly so in many regions. Lifestyles are also changing to the point that people now expect access to entertainment content anywhere using mobile hardware.

how is accessibility improved by requiring a constant internet connection able to provide gigabytes of data per hour

Internet is cheaper and more widely available in many regions than console/PC hardware and retail software. I refer to accessibility also in the context that people more and more will expect access to games from anywhere. You're right that data caps are a factor for many in some regions, there are many different conditions that will affect the appeal of a streaming game service.
 
Oct 25, 2017
21,452
Sweden
Internet is cheaper and more widely available in many regions than console/PC hardware and retail software. I refer to accessibility also in the context that people more and more will expect access to games from anywhere. You're right that data caps are a factor for many in some regions, there are many different conditions that will affect the appeal of a streaming game service.
you said it was not about price though? "it's not about price, it's about accessibility because of lower price"

also, none of these services are launching in regions where console availability is low
 

Wolfgunblood

Member
Dec 1, 2017
2,748
The Land
you said it was not about price though? "it's not about price, it's about accessibility because of lower price"

also, none of these services are launching in regions where console availability is low

Cost is a part of accessibility overall. It's not about solving price of entry per se, but solving accessibility.

Services are in their infancy and will expand as the tech matures and is proven out.
 

Mr_F_Snowman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,881
The analysis is actually pretty good - the way Stadia is currently positioned is not at a mass market, it provides less value and a worse experience. Its 100% niche and the hybrid model is far and away the better way to go
 
Oct 25, 2017
21,452
Sweden
Cost is a part of accessibility overall. It's not about solving price of entry per se, but solving accessibility.

Services are in their infancy and will expand as the tech matures and is proven out.
That assumes the services do well enough at launch to justify continuing to support them

If they are a bad value proposition in the places where they actually launch, there is no reason to believe that the services will actually do well enough to justify continued support
 

teague

Member
Dec 17, 2018
1,509
I think this slide is underrated too:

vpqTNfo.png


If Sony and Microsoft both feel that Google and Amazon are a real threat, this strategic partnership probably is the first step towards a lot more collaboration between those two companies. Sony proved this gen that exclusive games still matter--imagine if there are 3 streaming platforms, one with Ubi games and Google exclusives, one with as-yet-unknown Amazon exclusives, and one with every major Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo franchise. Which one is going to win? Microsoft, honestly, is happy to make money wherever they can, and if that happens to be as an infrastructure provider to their gaming rivals you can bet they'll jump on it immediately. I would also bet that Microsoft's early studio acquisitions this year and last will look a lot more important once Google and Amazon start snatching up studios.
 

Tom_Cody

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,970
I'm very surprised at Sony's massive 1st party successes this generation. Going back to the PS2 and most of the PS3 eras, Sony's 1st party ceiling was typically ~5 million units (outside of a few GT games). The Last of Us really broke the mold and created a large market for other similar titles.

It's also pretty shocking to see their total software sales up at 40M. I would have expected half of that. For comparison, Nintendo's million+ selling titles did over 64M last year.
 

Cactuar

Banned
Nov 30, 2018
5,878
So 30% and 77% is more than 100% on that "switching" slide. This data is flawed.

Most likely both polls were done with separate groups of participants to show the consistency in percentage when the question is asked different ways.

From the "Sony's in-house game studios" page...

Games created by Sony's studios account for ~15-20% of PS4 game sales

Is this true? No console has the third party support that the PlayStation 4 has, so for that to be true speaks incredible volumes. That also ties into the aforementioned point about people owning the PS4 staying with the PS5, those particular games you can only get by sticking with the brand.
 
Last edited:

Oklusion

Member
Nov 22, 2018
159
Game availability and ownership of hardware is a barrier, significantly so in many regions. Lifestyles are also changing to the point that people now expect access to entertainment content anywhere using mobile hardware.



Internet is cheaper and more widely available in many regions than console/PC hardware and retail software. I refer to accessibility also in the context that people more and more will expect access to games from anywhere. You're right that data caps are a factor for many in some regions, there are many different conditions that will affect the appeal of a streaming game service.
Accessibility and cost are already covered by mobile. AAA games are less accessible and more expensive by design without taking into account the issues of streaming.
 

Wolfgunblood

Member
Dec 1, 2017
2,748
The Land
That assumes the services do well enough at launch to justify continuing to support them

If they are a bad value proposition in the places where they actually launch, there is no reason to believe that the services will actually do well enough to justify continued support

There's a lot to it, and various sets of conditions all contribute to an overall potential audience for these services. It's appeal as a solution will be for various reasons in various sets of conditions.

Again, the problem being solved is accessibility.
 

Sedated

Member
Apr 13, 2018
2,598
He has some valid points for cloud gaming and the netflix comparison for sure. An inferior experience that requires a lot of data. It solves 2 problems which is no hdd space needed for games and device compatibility(mobile, low power pc). How valued will these points be for the gamer to use cloud after all the disadvantages remains to be seen.
 

Wolfgunblood

Member
Dec 1, 2017
2,748
The Land
Accessibility and cost are already covered by mobile. AAA games are less accessible and more expensive by design without taking into account the issues of streaming.

That's the thing- how to make these expensive games (to make for the publisher and to experience for the player) that people want to play accessible for everyone, everywhere.

Bethesda is at the point of the pencil here as well with Orion.

It's all going to converge- Orion, XCloud/Stadia, internet providers- to a future where gaming is unified (mobile games and traditional games) and is easily and affordably accessible. 'Play what you want, how you want, where you want'
 
Jan 20, 2019
10,681
He has some valid points for cloud gaming and the netflix comparison for sure. An inferior experience that requires a lot of data. It solves 2 problems which is no hdd space needed for games and device compatibility(mobile, low power pc). How valued will these points be for the gamer to use cloud after all the disadvantages remains to be seen.

I also think that when peopel subscribe to netflix is less time require.
 

Drek

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,231
The core concept makes sense in the abstract - spin off the profitable non-entertainment divisions and use the money to strengthen the entertainment divisions - but:
1. would that money be used for acquisitions and if so who/what?
2. does that strengthen Sony in comparison to Microsoft/Google/Amazon, or just streamline them for someone else to acquire them?

Thats the rub here. Who would Sony buy? MS is fishing in those waters and no matter what Sony spins off the financial means between the two is like Sony fishing with a reed and MS fishing with dynamite.

Meanwhile right now Sony's full portfolio, while profitable and compelling, muddies the waters in an industry rife with consolidation. If you lean Sony down into a straight entertainment entity you'd basically have prepped org. to be picked up by any of the major entertainment/services giants already looking for acquisitions.

Microsoft? Solves their primary hardware competition and gives immediate fixes to their first party studios, a massive backlog for XCloud/GamePass, etc.. It also comes with a solid movie/TV studio set that would let them push their own exclusive content.

Google/Amazon? Look at the market position above. Sony basically fills all the missing boxes for both.

That also ignores Disney who at some point will want to address their relatively weak presence in the gaming market but have made it clear they want to own the means of distribution in their markets where possible. Sony checks that, adds to the film/TV studio stable, and as a free little bonus closes out the Spider-Man film rights.

Sony getting lean only works if there was a clear opportunity to shed out of segment assets in a near 1:1 for in-segment assets. If some crazy perfect storm came along where they could spin off the electronics/tech division to pick up Capcom and the financial division to pick up Square Enix great, that would guarantee them a place at the table as the biggest content juggernaut in gaming. But that is pure fantasy.

I've felt like this guys assessments have always been suggestions on how to steer Sony towards acquisition by one of the major super corps though, so not surprising.

So 30% and 77% is more than 100% on that "switching" slide. This data is flawed.
That doesn't prove the data is flawed. There would be a percentage of people who would state that they're changing their primary platform but still plan to own a PS5. The two graphs aren't directly proportionate to each other.

I love how he has Xbox as having no must have exclusive games........bit harsh,lol.
Its only harsh in the CONSOLE WARZ sense. Microsoft openly acknowledges and is working to fix this exact issue. They used to have it with Halo and it carried a ton of water for them in the X360 generation. They've lost that. They'll do everything they can next cycle to fix it.

That's the thing- how to make these expensive games (to make for the publisher and to experience for the player) that people want to play accessible for everyone, everywhere.

Bethesda is at the point of the pencil here as well with Orion.

It's all going to converge- Orion, XCloud/Stadia, internet providers- to a future where gaming is unified (mobile games and traditional games) and is easily and affordably accessible. 'Play what you want, how you want, where you want'
But that only works if there is meaningful overlap between what people want to play on a TV versus what people want to play on the go.

Its basically the newest repackaging of what Sony claimed they'd deliver with the PSP and PSV. "Console" experiences on the go. People didn't want that then. Nintendo has caught some of this with the Switch, but a lot of that is tied to the unique charm of Nintendo's headliner titles that works so well in both formats (hence Nintendo's long standing dominance in the handheld market).

In short, does anyone actually want the convenience of being able to play Assassin's Creed/Doom/etc. on their phone, PC, console, etc. to the point where they'll pay for a service, bandwidth needed to make it work, etc..

Some games will work great for this. Destiny is an excellent choice for a first big headline 3rd party title. But are they going to find themselves in the same position as Sony's handheld efforts with a few games that justified the experience and a bunch of games that were grafted onto the service and gained basically nothing from it? Or will they be able to find the right content to justify the service? Nintendo does this but Google sure as hell doesn't have Nintendo's first party studios.
 

anexanhume

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,913
Maryland
Two thoughts. I think he is underselling the importance and momentum of gamepass. It sits in kind of a nebulous zone between traditional online subscription and true cloud gaming, but it has the potential to be a comprehensive service no one else can match.

Second thought is god damn at WW studios. Their revenue per employee is #1 on that chart. All this says is that they should make more first party games.
 

Wolfgunblood

Member
Dec 1, 2017
2,748
The Land
But that only works if there is meaningful overlap between what people want to play on a TV versus what people want to play on the go.

That concept is going away. Mobile games are what they are due to restrictions in place at the time.

This technology is solving accessibility, but what that means differs from situation to situation, region to region and person to person, depending on needs and priorities. It might be simply having the ability to play Doom Eternal at all for someone, somewhere. For someone else it might mean resuming their Cyberpunk save and playing it on a mobile screen while on vacation. Extrapolate that out to all kinds of various scenarios.
 
Oct 25, 2017
21,452
Sweden
Second thought is god damn at WW studios. Their revenue per employee is #1 on that chart. All this says is that they should make more first party games.
i've been thinking for awhile that sony's first party studios must be incredibly well-managed compared to most of those of most comparable publishers

when you look at the quality of their output, the relatively small staff rolls of these studios are very impressive

sure, to some degree, belonging to the company that designed the hardware and development tools will give you some structural advantages, but it's still very impressive