News Disney announces strategic restructuring of media and entertainment divisions.

[UNCgolf]

Try naming a game from either franchise that has had as much of a cultural impact as Mortal Kombat.

Hint: There's none.

Also, video games based on licensed properties are almost always terrible, and any bad game could significantly damage the IP value for years. Why else do you think everything has gone downhill for Superman since the nightmarish N64 game?

Cultural impact doesn't matter; sales figures do. Mortal Kombat is the only one of those arcade IPs that can potentially compete with a quality Star Wars/Marvel game, but you can't release a Mortal Kombat game every few months. You could easily release a new Star Wars and/or Marvel game every few months because there's a far wider variety of game types available.

Your second sentence is wrong. There have been some terrible cash grab IP games, but there have also been plenty that have performed exceptionally well. Star Wars has had numerous successful games for 30 years now along with some terrible ones -- those terrible ones certainly haven't affected the value of Star Wars. There was a highly successful and critically acclaimed Spider-Man game just two years ago. It sold 4.3 million copies in 3 days; Sony may have made more money off that game than they did from Spider-Man: Homecoming. An Avengers game was released last month and was the best selling game of the month, and it wasn't even based on the MCU. There was a Star Wars game released last fall that sold over 10 million copies.

I feel like you're unaware of how massive the video game industry is today. It absolutely crushes both the movie and music industry in revenue; it's not the 1990s.

 

[brb1006]

Disney to cut back on TV, sports biz in India

The move follows a global announcement of the company’s intention to reorganize its media and entertainment businesses to “focus on developing and producing original content for the company’s streaming services”

www.livemint.com

It increasingly feels like buying the Fox assets was a waste of money.

But X-Men and The Fantastic Four are coming to the MCU.

 

[Slpy3270]

But X-Men and The Fantastic Four are coming to the MCU.

That fans still think the deal was all about that annoys me to no end.

 

[UNCgolf]

Also, as far as WB Games goes -- they are the closest competitor to Disney in terms of IP, but it's not because of Mortal Kombat and other arcade games. It's because they have Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and DC Comics. Lord of the Rings is a tough property for video games, though, because there are many limitations as to what you can do with it; far moreso than most other similar IPs. DC also has issues, because although Batman is a major property (and there have been several very successful Batman games in the last few years), most of the other DC heroes don't have the same draw. Superman is likely the closest, but he just doesn't really work as a video game character.

AT&T was looking at selling off the games division (because they inherited it as part of their takeover of Time Warner as opposed to being something they were actually interested in), but most stock analysts seemed to think that was a crazy idea that would bring in a little bit of short term cash at the cost of significant long-term gains. More recent news suggests that AT&T decided/realized it was too valuable to sell.

 

[_caleb]

None of the other media conglomerates have the sheer quantity of video game ready IP that Disney has.

Not only IP, but actual game assets. When they make an computer animated film or short (or, to a lesser degree, CGI effects in a live action film), they‘re actually creating the components of a video game: assets, characters, lighting/cameras, environments, etc. This is a HUGE part of the time and expense that goes into making a game. Disney has all this stuff from hit animated movies just sitting on the digital shelf, ready to be turned into games.

 

[Slpy3270]

Completely jaw-dropping.

Meanwhile, ViacomCBS is putting the guy running Pluto TV in charge of all streaming, including CBS All Acc...sorry, Paramount Plus.

ViacomCBS Streaming Shake-Up: Pluto TV’s Tom Ryan to Head New Global Division, Marc DeBevoise Steps Down

ViacomCBS named Pluto TV's Tom Ryan head of a newly created global streaming unit and announced that Marc DeBevoise will exit the company.

variety.com

 

[_caleb]

Completely jaw-dropping.

Meanwhile, ViacomCBS is putting the guy running Pluto TV in charge of all streaming, including CBS All Acc...sorry, Paramount Plus.

ViacomCBS Streaming Shake-Up: Pluto TV’s Tom Ryan to Head New Global Division, Marc DeBevoise Steps Down

ViacomCBS named Pluto TV's Tom Ryan head of a newly created global streaming unit and announced that Marc DeBevoise will exit the company.

variety.com

Too many branded platforms all fighting for the same general audience.

Besides the big dogs who already dominate the market, the only ones that are doing well are the ones that focus on curated content for niche audiences Crunchyroll, BritBox, Shudder, etc) and create "skinny bundles" that could be picked up and incorporated by bigger platforms (Hulu, YouTubeTV, Samsung TV Plus).

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Too many branded platforms all fighting for the same general audience.

Besides the big dogs who already dominate the market, the only ones that are doing well are the ones that focus on curated content for niche audiences Crunchyroll, BritBox, Shudder, etc) and create "skinny bundles" that could be picked up and incorporated by bigger platforms (Hulu, YouTubeTV, Samsung TV Plus).

When do you think Apple TV will buy Masterclass?

 

[_caleb]

When do you think Apple TV will buy Masterclass?

When Masterclass realizes that not enough people want to pay $180/year to hear celebrities try to do what actual experts actually do on YouTube for free.

 

[Jrb1979]

Too many branded platforms all fighting for the same general audience.

Besides the big dogs who already dominate the market, the only ones that are doing well are the ones that focus on curated content for niche audiences Crunchyroll, BritBox, Shudder, etc) and create "skinny bundles" that could be picked up and incorporated by bigger platforms (Hulu, YouTubeTV, Samsung TV Plus).

That's why many are saying Disney putting all their eggs in the streaming basket is a bad idea.

 

[Basil of Baker Street]

Too many branded platforms all fighting for the same general audience.

Besides the big dogs who already dominate the market, the only ones that are doing well are the ones that focus on curated content for niche audiences Crunchyroll, BritBox, Shudder, etc) and create "skinny bundles" that could be picked up and incorporated by bigger platforms (Hulu, YouTubeTV, Samsung TV Plus).

To me the great thing about streaming service is no commitment so I bounce around. I swear allegiance to no one! I cut cable years ago so my bill is never more that $10-$15 a month.

 

[_caleb]

That's why many are saying Disney putting all their eggs in the streaming basket is a bad idea.

Who says they're putting all their eggs in the streaming basket?

And Disney is already one of the big dogs.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Remember, not all OTT streamers are pay-for. Many are free with commercials. Some are just bundling YouTube channels. Some produce videos as part of their institutional mandate, like the Smithsonian.

 

[_caleb]

To me the great thing about streaming service is no commitment so I bounce around. I swear allegiance to no one! I cut cable years ago so my bill is never more that $10-$15 a month.

Right. Just like all the people who cancel their insurance/home security/newspaper/credit card/mobile phone/cable subscription to move to another provider just to take advantage of an introductory pricing offer. There are lots of you (teasing you here), but not nearly as many as those who just want to pick one and stick with it.

The difference, besides any unique content, is the relationship the customer has with the service provider. You may swear allegiance to no one, but literally millions are and will swear allegiance to the Mouse!

 

[_caleb]

Remember, not all OTT streamers are pay-for. Many are free with commercials. Some are just bundling YouTube channels. Some produce videos as part of their institutional mandate, like the Smithsonian.

Yep. There are lots of models out there. Twitch, for example, has a very unique monetization model that is pretty big with the kids these days.

 

[Slpy3270]

Oof....

 

[_caleb]

Oof....

Maybe other streaming/gaming options took a piece of that projected revenue?

 

[Slpy3270]

Maybe other streaming/gaming options took a piece of that projected revenue?

Analysts seemed to downplay that since Netflix is the undisputed streaming king.

Still, these are not the results they wanted to see. They wanted the same kind of explosive growth seen in the spring since they were betting people would see it as an "essential" service.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Disney+ is the only one I pay for. I can watch cooking channel and the late night shows for free.

Honestly that’s way more content than I need already.

If anything I feel like people are over the streaming thing after having more time at home. Not that I think it’s going away, but the model that multiple companies are betting on is not going to be the long term answer for them. Imho of course.

 

[_caleb]

Analysts seemed to downplay that since Netflix is the undisputed streaming king.

Still, these are not the results they wanted to see. They wanted the same kind of explosive growth seen in the spring since they were betting people would see it as an "essential" service.

Yeah. Especially with so many people around the world social distancing and working from home!