• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Sony buying Epic would make the Metaverse a reality

Topher

Gold Member
Sony buying Epic would make this place like North Korea.

north korea GIF
 
I’m talking about the real actual Metaverse that we envision when we watch something like Ready Player one or snowcrash. Fortnite is already huge and already exists as a metaverse with the amount of licensing it has and the virtual concerts and events.

If you pair that with a capable VR Unit you would pretty much have what we’d consider the first real step into a gameified metaverse and not something weird vague tech speak for “connectivity” or whatever facebook and other corps are pushing.

I guess VR GTA Online would also work without the licensing
Daydream Nation. Why would Tim sell to Sony, because you think there best buds , is that why? Because Sony is investing in Epic, is that why? Sony is one of 38 companies that are invested in Epic, but why Sony, is only because of the VR that Sony has coming that can only be played with a PlayStation 5 and nothing else but a PlayStation 5?
 

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
If you played the game you will know that it very much is like one.
4OnZigJ.jpg

Wow, FFXIV etc I can agree on its metaverse, despite its a stupid name and they are mmos.

But destiny 2 is too instanced to be considered a mmo, or, in this case, metaverse.
 
Last edited:

SJRB

Gold Member
We really should not want an actual metaverse. It won't be anything like the rose-tinted cool 90's era futuristic "we're gonna live in the machine duuuuude" tech.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Timmy ain’t gonna sell to anyone anytime soon
Probably not, but it will be interesting to see how Tim views the Activision acquisition situation, Surely, it is only a matter of time if Gamepass hobbled PlayStation via conditioning users to not buy AAA games, and them losing the CoD percentage that will directly impact Epic eventually, leaving them vulnerable to Microsoft putting a product in place to usurp unreal.

Tim might consider the idea of a merger with SCE, meaning Sony would only need front the cost of buying out Tencent's amount. IMO the Activision deal is dangerous because it potentially creates a domino effect with all the big players repositioning, and I suspect that isn't good for us as gamers.
 
Last edited:

Skifi28

Member
Please stop drooling for huge corporations becoming even bigger and more powerful. When they'll be screwing and milking you down the line, you probably won't like it as much.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
I very much doubt Sony buy Epic but not sure I see why Epic would not clear regulators due to unreal of all things. Unreal is one of the most widely used engines in a specific space but Unity exists too as do inhouse engines. It's akin to MS buying Havok, ubiquitous and often tightly integrated in the industry, especially for those who can't afford their own physics engine, but regulators are not going to care much because it's not consumer facing and inhouse ones compete. The alternatives are there and they are pretty competitive. Besides, it's not like there is the risk of the engine not being licensed.

You…forgotten Epic makes Fortnite?

If MS is facing regulatory scrutiny over possible exclusivity for Call of Duty, why would you imagine Fortnite would be any different when it’s just as big a franchise?
 

Lasha

Member
I very much doubt Sony buy Epic but not sure I see why Epic would not clear regulators due to unreal of all things. Unreal is one of the most widely used engines in a specific space but Unity exists too as do inhouse engines. It's akin to MS buying Havok, ubiquitous and often tightly integrated in the industry, especially for those who can't afford their own physics engine, but regulators are not going to care much because it's not consumer facing and inhouse ones compete. The alternatives are there and they are pretty competitive. Besides, it's not like there is the risk of the engine not being licensed.

Regulators do not like horizontal acquisitions. Especially ones where the acquirer leverages unrelated revenue to buy marketshare. Unreal's prevalence as an industry tool and Epic's position as a storefront on PC make its circumstances quite different from buying a company like Havok which is basically a single technology. Regulators would ask why Sony couldn't build their own PC storefront like Microsoft, EA, Valve, Ubi, Epic, etc instead of buying its way in. Unreal is used by all of Sony's competitors and dominates non-indie development which also begs competitive questions. Sony could license Unreal but roll its most advanced features into its own engines and keep them off the market. That is why I think such a deal would be difficult to close.
 

Amiga

Member
Sony have the technical resources to do this without Epic. Why spend billions to add nothing to their capabilities?
 

JLB

Banned

Fret Runner

Member
*takes a big bong hit* ok, hear me out, guys. *takes bigger hit* what if, like, amazon, Sony, Disney and Apple all merged together and formed like a corporate Power Rangers megazord?
Who doesn't like big robots? nobody, that's who.
South Park Weed GIF by Myles Hi
 

Three

Member
You…forgotten Epic makes Fortnite?

If MS is facing regulatory scrutiny over possible exclusivity for Call of Duty, why would you imagine Fortnite would be any different when it’s just as big a franchise?
For Fortnite yes I can see but not because of Unreal engine. He was talking about the engine being the issue for regulators. Havok was not an issue even though it is integrated into most of the games in the industry because licencing doesn't stop after the aquisition.
 

Three

Member
Regulators do not like horizontal acquisitions. Especially ones where the acquirer leverages unrelated revenue to buy marketshare. Unreal's prevalence as an industry tool and Epic's position as a storefront on PC make its circumstances quite different from buying a company like Havok which is basically a single technology. Regulators would ask why Sony couldn't build their own PC storefront like Microsoft, EA, Valve, Ubi, Epic, etc instead of buying its way in. Unreal is used by all of Sony's competitors and dominates non-indie development which also begs competitive questions. Sony could license Unreal but roll its most advanced features into its own engines and keep them off the market. That is why I think such a deal would be difficult to close.
Sony isn't even in the business of licensing engines. Storefront I can understand but you are saying Unreal engine would be an issue. It's akin to Havok because Havok is used in almost everything and dominates development too. Call of duty, Assassins Creed, Killzone, The Last of Us, Horizon ZD, BoTW, etc all used Havok, the list is absolutely huge. All they would need to do is allow licensing.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
I’m talking about the real actual Metaverse that we envision when we watch something like Ready Player one or snowcrash. Fortnite is already huge and already exists as a metaverse with the amount of licensing it has and the virtual concerts and events.

If you pair that with a capable VR Unit you would pretty much have what we’d consider the first real step into a gameified metaverse and not something weird vague tech speak for “connectivity” or whatever facebook and other corps are pushing.

I guess VR GTA Online would also work without the licensing
Epic can make Fortnite VR without Sony, and Sony can make PS Home 2 / PS Home VR without Epic. And well, Epic is very likely too big to be bought by Sony: its value should be around a quarter of the entire Sony.

They make a shit ton of money with Unreal Engine (and in a smaller scale, with Fortnite), not only with gaming.

But not sure if what Epic can provide has enough value to Sony: the game engine that they already can use without buying them and some very successful games (Fortnite, Rocket League, Fall Guys) they already have because all of them are multiplatform and that don't know if they will turn into franchises or if their devs will be able to deliver another new IP of similar success (more likely will be 'one hit wonder' devs).

Sony isn't even in the business of licensing engines.
Sony provided a multiplatform game engine for decades (I think for free) that dozens of development teams did use in a lot of (many of them multiplatform) games, and also invested on 3rd party engines or tools without asking them exclusivity (example: Epic/Unreal Engine).
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Epic can make Fortnite VR without Sony, and Sony can make PS Home 2 / PS Home VR without Epic.


Sony provided multiplatform a game engine for decades (I think for free) that dozens of developmend did use in many games, and also invested on 3rd party engines or tools without asking them exclusivity (example: Epic/Unreal Engine).
Yeah it also provided Decima for Kojipro for free but it's not really selling an engine. its marketshare would be virtually zero, way below id, Crytek, Unity, etc. Id Tech didn't face any engine regulatory issues either when Zenimax was bought.
Sony are not selling engines to anyone. To the point that if it bought unreal engine it would be like a new entrant buying big rather than being considered a horizontal merger. The idea that 'but they can hold the latest features back' applies to things like Havok too. If however they restricted licencing that would become an issue.
 

Lasha

Member
Sony isn't even in the business of licensing engines. Storefront I can understand but you are saying Unreal engine would be an issue. It's akin to Havok because Havok is used in almost everything and dominates development too. Call of duty, Assassins Creed, Killzone, The Last of Us, etc all used Havok, the list is absolutely huge. All they would need to do is allow licensing.

Are you not aware that Sony makes its own engines and licenses at least one of them? Reread what I wrote. A regulator would rightfully be worried about Sony locking features of Unreal from other studios and giving themselves an advantage. Your Havok example is strained and ignores the entire context I attempted to elaborate. Basically every engine comes with physics now. It's partially why Microsoft was able to buy Havok in the first place.

A hypothetical Sony acquisition of Epic takes place in a completely different context than buying a smaller middleware company. Epic has too many moving parts that could end up with reduced competition for it to easily pass regulators.
 

Topher

Gold Member
thats whole sony, interactive entertainment… not so much. In any case, yeah, its impossible either way

If anything it would be Epic buying Sony’s gaming division.

"In 2022, video game publisher and software developer Epic Games is projected to generate approximately 6.27 billion U.S. dollars in gross revenues, up from 5.1 billion U.S. dollars in 2020."

 
MS buying Bethesda and Activision hit some people hard.
What does Microsoft buying Bug-thesda and Activision have to do with the VR metaverse? The main company in this discussion is Epic, who is a major key figure in gaming and one of Sonys biggest partners. Does Microsoft have a game engine or gaming platform used by 90% of the industry?
 

Three

Member
Are you not aware that Sony makes its own engines and licenses at least one of them? Reread what I wrote. A regulator would rightfully be worried about Sony locking features of Unreal from other studios and giving themselves an advantage. Your Havok example is strained and ignores the entire context I attempted to elaborate. Basically every engine comes with physics now. It's partially why Microsoft was able to buy Havok in the first place.

A hypothetical Sony acquisition of Epic takes place in a completely different context than buying a smaller middleware company. Epic has too many moving parts that could end up with reduced competition for it to easily pass regulators.

Phyrengine? Yes I'm aware. It's free like id Tech. It's marketshare is virtually zero even if you don't look at revenue but games released, 0.X%. The Havok example is pertinent because it too is an engine, a highly ubiquitous one. Countless game engines do not have their own physics and rely on Havok Suite same as how countless games don't have their own game engine and rely on Unreal. As long as licencing is not restricted in any way there is no issue with regulators at all.

Your idea that engines come with their own physics is mostly incorrect too which is why Havok is so ubiquitous. Unreal Engine even used PhysX the time Havok was aquired and will replace it with their own in house Chaos Physics Engine which is still in beta AFAIK.
 
Last edited:

Lasha

Member

Phyrengine? Yes I'm aware. It's free like id Tech. It's marketshare is virtually zero even if you don't look at revenue but games released, 0.X%. The Havok example is pertinent because it too is an engine, a highly ubiquitous one. Countless game engines do not have their own physics and rely on Havok Suite same as how countless games don't have their own game engine and rely on Unreal. As long as licencing is not restricted in any way there is no issue with regulators at all.

Your idea that engines come with their own physics is mostly incorrect too which is why Havok is so ubiquitous. Unreal Engine even used PhysX the time Havok was aquired and will replace it with their own in house Chaos Engine which is still in beta AFAIK.

Decima....I can tell you're googling at this point because you're more interested in sticking to your guns than having a debate. You're literally comparing Epic to a boutique company that was probably sold off for under half a billion dollars. Havok and Unreal are apples and oranges. I've said my piece, you're just on repeat, were done here.
 

Three

Member
Decima....I can tell you're googling at this point because you're more interested in sticking to your guns than having a debate. You're literally comparing Epic to a boutique company that was probably sold off for under half a billion dollars. Havok and Unreal are apples and oranges. I've said my piece, you're just on repeat, were done here.
I can tell you can't even google because Decima is not a licensed engine. It is completely proprietary and cannot be licensed. Decima marketshare would be absolutely nonexistent.
 
Last edited:

Sleepwalker

Member
What
We really should not want an actual metaverse. It won't be anything like the rose-tinted cool 90's era futuristic "we're gonna live in the machine duuuuude" tech.
It will be straight up cancer but people seem to want it for whatever reason.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Tencent owns 40% of Epic. No way would Sony be buying them. The opposite would be more likely.

Right....Tencent bought shares of Epic. And so has Sony. And so has Kirkbi. Meanwhile, Sony owns 100% of SIE. Epic is the privately owned company willing to sell its shares to other companies. So this idea that Sony would be the one more likely to sell SIE doesn't make any sense.
 
Last edited:

sainraja

Member
I can't be excited for anything VR related until it's in a small form factor (e.g. glasses, contact lenses, projected from the Apple watch in some way, I dunno). Putting on a big damn headset and fiddling around with setting up zones is just a bit too much and seeing cutoff hands is just all too weird for me.
 

sainraja

Member
Epic Games was valued at $32 billion this past April. Sony has a market cap of $85 billion.

[/URL]
[/URL]

A merger would be more plausible than either acquiring the other. But neither is likely.
Yeah, I was thinking that as well. The two are more likely to merge vs acquired. Didn't Blizzard also merge with Activision to form Activision Blizzard?
 

yurinka

Member
Epic Games was valued at $32 billion this past April. Sony has a market cap of $85 billion.

[/URL]
[/URL]

A merger would be more plausible than either acquiring the other. But neither is likely.
Yeah, I was thinking that as well. The two are more likely to merge vs acquired. Didn't Blizzard also merge with Activision to form Activision Blizzard?
Doesn't make sense to consider the merge of companies like Sony and Epic.

Sony is way bigger than Epic: Epic was valued in $32B. Sony's market cap is $88.6B, their valuation would be way higher, at least more than 3 or 4 times Epic. Only looking at SIE, they made $25B per year and are in a growing trend, so in a few years will be generating the same revenue than Epic's valuation.

Epic's games are on PlayStation, which is their main platform so they won't remove them from there. Epic has several very successful games but we have to see if they can be turned into IPs with similarly successful games, movies, etc. So yes, their IPs have value but their long term future is a bit doubtful and they don't need to buy them to have them, and even less spending dozens of Billions.

Unreal Engine makes money, but Sony also makes their own engines (and even share them with others) but isn't their market: Sony focus more on selling hardware and final product (games, movies and music) instead. And well, Sony and everyone can use it. In fact, to own it wouldn't stop the competition to use it, so there is no point on spending dozens of bilions to buy it.

So Epic would be an interesting acquisition, but they are too big to be bought by them, too small to merge with them and there aren't enough reasons to want to buy or merge with them.

If Sony would have $32B to invest in acquisitions they would be better spent on buying Square Enix, Capcom, Bandai Namco, ARC System Works, Dimps, Sega and Kadokawa (with this money they could buy most of them).
 

Topher

Gold Member
Doesn't make sense to consider the merge of companies like Sony and Epic.

Sony is way bigger than Epic: Epic was valued in $32B. Sony's market cap is $88.6B, their valuation would be way higher, at least more than 3 or 4 times Epic. Only looking at SIE, they made $25B per year and are in a growing trend, so in a few years will be generating the same revenue than Epic's valuation.

Epic's games are on PlayStation, which is their main platform so they won't remove them from there. Epic has several very successful games but we have to see if they can be turned into IPs with similarly successful games, movies, etc. So yes, their IPs have value but their long term future is a bit doubtful and they don't need to buy them to have them, and even less spending dozens of Billions.

Unreal Engine makes money, but Sony also makes their own engines (and even share them with others) but isn't their market: Sony focus more on selling hardware and final product (games, movies and music) instead. And well, Sony and everyone can use it. In fact, to own it wouldn't stop the competition to use it, so there is no point on spending dozens of bilions to buy it.

So Epic would be an interesting acquisition, but they are too big to be bought by them, too small to merge with them and there aren't enough reasons to want to buy or merge with them.

If Sony would have $32B to invest in acquisitions they would be better spent on buying Square Enix, Capcom, Bandai Namco, ARC System Works, Dimps, Sega and Kadokawa (with this money they could buy most of them).

All good points. I agree this hypothetical doesn't make sense on many levels.
 
Top Bottom