Sections

When will Disney get back into video games? | Opinion

Suggesting Disney should buy Activision Blizzard is half correct; its gaming strategy needs re-evaluation, but that's the wrong acquisition

With the closing of Disney's $71.3bn acquisition of most of Fox' media properties, an updated image of the giant company's holdings went viral online. Showing all of Disney's interests and subsidiary companies on a single, appropriately Mickey-shaped diagram, it wasn't entirely clear whether it was meant to shock or impress -- but it certainly made clear the scale and reach of the company.

From its immensely popular parks and resorts via movie studios and TV networks through to print publishing, merchandising and licensing, Disney has its fingers in almost every pie related to entertainment. Moreover, thanks to an incredible series of acquisitions over the past decade or so, Disney owns a fairly dramatic slice of the world's most beloved entertainment franchises.

Pixar (acquired in 2006), Marvel (2009), and Lucasfilm (2012) each brought with them incredibly valuable IP -- Toy Story, The Avengers, Star Wars -- and Fox is no different, not only reuniting a large part of Marvel's film rights with the successful MCU franchise but also giving Disney ownership of everything from The Simpsons and National Geographic through to the Alien, Avatar and Independence Day franchises.

"It's weird that we've just capped off more than a decade of Marvel movies, and yet the closest thing to a game is a squad-based shooter that doesn't use the MCU characters and isn't out until next year"

There is, however, one gaping hole in the Disney empire -- and it's no secret what it is. The company's enormous ambitions in almost every other area of the media, including its aggressive attempt to corner a large part of the streaming video market with Disney+, simply don't seem to extend to video games. The firm makes no bones about it; CEO Bob Iger told investors earlier this year that "the best place for us to be in that space is licensing and not publishing", reiterating a party line that was set with the closure of Disney Interactive Studios back in 2016.

The company's ungracious exit from video games had been signalled for several years -- it shut down several studios on its way out the door, including Black Rock (Split/Second) and Junction Point (Epic Mickey). Since then, it's focused almost entirely on licensing out its properties, notably working with EA on Star Wars titles and with Square Enix on an upcoming Avengers game.

At least one investor thinks Disney needs to suck up the taste of its former failures in this market and get back in the game; Nick Licouris at Gerber Kawasaki, which owns about $22 million worth of Disney shares, argued this week that the company should take advantage of the recently depressed share price of Activision Blizzard and make that into its next major acquisition target.

Now, Gerber Kawasaki isn't exactly a disinterested party here; the firm also owns about $4.3 million worth of Activision shares. That makes it easy to dismiss this story as "guy who would make a packet from Activision being bought by Disney thinks Disney should probably buy Activision, News at 11" -- but even if Gerber Kawasaki's interest is obvious, the idea itself is worth thinking about a little.

Since the struggles of Disney Infinity, the entertainment giant has had little direct involvement in video games, instead opting to license out if properties

Since the struggles of Disney Infinity, the entertainment giant has had little direct involvement in video games, instead opting to license out if properties

Sure, Disney hasn't had much success in running its own game studios -- but it's hard to see its current arms-length attitude to games as being in the company's best interests. The firm's prior failures in this market were largely attributable to a lack of experience and understanding of video games within Disney's executive levels; the company had the know-how and background to successfully complete the integration of acquisitions like Lucasfilm and Marvel without damaging their creative cultures, but working with video games just proved a bridge too far.

The result has been that despite licensing efforts, Disney's IPs are dramatically underserved on the video games front. It's not that anyone wants a return to the bad old days of undercooked tie-in titles being launched alongside every major movie release -- ugh. But I think we sometimes don't appreciate just how weird it is that we've just capped off more than a decade of Marvel movies with a $2.7bn grossing mega-hit like Avengers Endgame, and yet the closest thing there is to a game that will capitalise on that enthusiasm and love for the franchise is, um, a squad-based shooter that doesn't use the MCU versions of the characters and isn't out until next year. Let alone that we're about to hit the third Star Wars film in a new trilogy -- a new Star Wars trilogy! -- and the fifth film made under the Disney banner, and so far all we've got to show for it is an online multiplayer FPS game from a couple of years back that people mostly remember for some very unpopular monetisation choices.

"Disney is a little more active in mobile -- but money spent on a license translates into a desperate need to monetise in incredibly aggressive ways"

By comparison, Sony owns the tiniest sliver of the Marvel universe -- Spider-Man and his associated characters -- and it managed to spin that into one of the best PS4 games of the past year, linking it cleverly to the character's history both in print and on screen, and even tying it to the brand new Spider-Man: Far From Home with both a free DLC for the game and a subtle nod in the movie itself.

"Sony is pretty good at this video games lark" isn't exactly a truth bomb, but the point stands that given only the tiniest fraction of the IP powerhouse Disney controls, the firm has managed to make video games and movies into a mutually beneficial circle (perfectly balanced, just as all things should be). Hell, for all that DC Comics has struggled terribly in Marvel's shadow with its film adaptations, it's knocking it into a cocked hat with games -- the Arkham series of Batman games and the Injustice beat 'em ups are both solid franchises that both draw from and feed back into the IPs upon which they're based.

When Disney has found success with games in recent years, it's largely only been in partnerships which mix its IPs into other companies' formulae -- revivals of Kingdom Hearts with Square Enix and of Marvel vs. Capcom with, well, Capcom being the key examples. By and large its licensing approach doesn't seem to be working; it's not just that it loses the company opportunities to tie together video games, TV shows and movies in interesting and compelling ways; that would be forgivable if licensing was resulting in world-class games that Disney didn't feel it could create on its own, but that just doesn't seem to be the case.

If anything, the licensing approach seems to result in weaker games -- perhaps because the inevitable bureaucratic overhead introduced by not one but two giant corporations leaning over the developers' shoulders is a significant burden on creativity and speed. Or perhaps because the sheer amount of money involved in the license dampens the appetite for risk-taking in the creative process. Or perhaps simply because building games at arm's length from the people who are creating everything else to do with the IP isn't a great idea to begin with. This seems to be especially severe in the mobile space, where Disney is a little more active than in PC or console -- but where the amount of money being spent on a license translates into a desperate need to monetise in incredibly aggressive, off-putting ways.

Sony has demonstrated with Marvel's Spider-Man how Disney-owned IP can be better adapted to the video games space, and even tie in with films

Sony has demonstrated with Marvel's Spider-Man how Disney-owned IP can be better adapted to the video games space, and even tie in with films

In short, whatever competence Disney thinks it lacks right now in games is a competence it should really be trying to acquire one way or the other, because "we'll just license it out" isn't an approach that's going to wash forever for a company of this size and stature. Sure, Disney can't do everything at once and right now it's still focused on integrating the Fox acquisition and gearing up for an epic streaming showdown with Netflix -- but this is a company that's always in search of the next growth opportunity, so constantly overlooking a market the size of video games just isn't an option.

"Should Disney be buying Activision Blizzard? Oh, hell no"

So, should Disney be buying Activision Blizzard? Oh, hell no. An acquisition of some kind might make sense for the firm -- after all, if the issue is a lack of knowledge and experience of games in the C-suite, then a well-managed acquisition of a successful game publisher ought to come with that in droves.

Good acquisitions, however, are additive; they bring growth to a company by allowing it to expand into new markets and find synergies with the existing business to the benefit of both sides. Activision may be cheap right now, at least by the standards of large game publishers -- it would probably cost about $40 billion to acquire -- but it's cheap for a reason. It's had a rough few years and hasn't convincingly shown how it's going to break out of that cycle; its knack for creating valuable new franchises seems to have faded and several of its biggest existing franchises seem to be slowly winding down. If Disney doesn't have the know-how to handle game publishing on its own, it certainly doesn't have the know-how to turn around an expensive acquisition that's struggling somewhat.

Of course, Activision may well turn things around for itself -- I have no doubt that it's working hard on products designed to do just that, but until it proves itself, it's hard to see how Disney would justify opening its war-chest for this acquisition.

If Disney is shopping around, Activision isn't the only company on the shelf. Indeed, for the kind of money Disney has paid for some acquisitions, it could go straight to the top -- Sony's market cap is only around $70 billion, which is an absolute steal for a firm that would bring with it another prestige film studio, a major music label and a huge consumer hardware empire, plus assorted billion-dollar odds and ends.

That's a pipe dream, of course, not least because Sony has absolutely no desire to be acquired right now -- but if you flick through company valuations and daydream a little, you can find any number of better ways for Disney to get into this market -- if and when it gets over its C-suite level reticence and realises that this is a sector it can't afford to sit outside forever.

Related stories

Disney hires former PlayStation portfolio boss to head up games licensing

John Drake says it's an "amazing time" to bring the worlds of Star Wars, Marvel and Fox to video games

By James Batchelor

Call of Duty League adds LA, Minnesota slots

LA's Immortals Gaming Club to compete under OpTic Gaming brand

By Rebekah Valentine

Latest comments (11)

This will never change. There have been attempts since the 90's and all have failed for the same reason....The Disney Way. Every knowledgeable game talent who has ever worked for them has experienced the unwanted and unneeded direction from Disney film and animation. Interference in all aspects of the development process by inexperienced Disney staffers is inevitable.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Chris Ochs Software Development 13 days ago
I was at studio acquired by Disney and experienced first hand what happens. The Disney Way indeed. These people are just entirely unsuited for the game industry. It's not just operations, they don't understand the industry well enough to even make smart acquisitions.

The acquisition I was a part of Disney got everything wrong you could get wrong from the start. Their valuation was completely off, they overpaid. They then did everything they could to kill it off, which is exactly what happened.

So it's to their credit I think that they stay out of making games. But invariably they will try again once the sting and lessons learned from the last failure start to fade.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jeff Kleist Writer, Marketing, Licensing 13 days ago
Microsoft’s Disneyland game is pretty enjoyable for the most part. Some mini games were clunky, but I had a lot of fun
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Show all comments (11)
Shane Sweeney Academic 13 days ago
I would of thought Disney would primarily be after Nintendo.

Would be a terrible idea for Nintendo, but I’m surprised Disney haven’t been pushing that for years.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
I will like to see AT&T Games (formerly WB Games) and a new Disney Interactive (from small studio acquisitions). Great article BTW.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Klaus Preisinger Freelance Writing 12 days ago
Disney has an assembly line of content that is unimaginable in video game terms. For starters, they have at least 10 major movies each year which they expect to gross extremely well. Star Wars Solo at $400 million isn't defended much if people call it a flop and the makers of it have a social media breakdown. I want to see any video game studio head accuse their audience of not getting it after making $400 million in the first four weeks on this site.

Disney could buy EA, Activision, Ubisoft and Take 2 and their combined output would still not satisfy Disney's idea of production pace. In my opinion, Disney would not enter the video game space as one publisher of many. It would enter on the level of Sony and Microsoft, be their own platform, with an all year round schedule of $60 Disney games. In essence, buy Sony.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jeff Kleist Writer, Marketing, Licensing 12 days ago
@Shane Sweeney: Disney is one of the very few companies that could merge with Nintendo. There are extremely few foreign companies that have the clout with the Japanese public to where it would be seen as good or a loss of face. Of course, Nintendo isn’t motivated in that sector right now due to their relationships with Geneon Universal and WB.

It isn’t the production space, it’s that Disney is absolutely clueless when it comes to consumer goods. Everything they do and make is licensed and outsourced. They know how to make movies and experiences, but every single time they try to do anything in merch it bombs hard.
Disney Infinity wasn’t a release quantity issue, it’s a pacing issue. They’re used to the box office where you make all your money in the first 30 days. it was that the guys in charge quintupled production runs in expensive to make toys after the initial sellout. I believe the line was “we sold a million Hulk toys, unfortunately we made two million”
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Richard Browne Head of External Projects, Digital Extremes11 days ago
Don’t know how to do merch? What the Company with 400 stores worldwide and billions in revenue from it? Disney’s pretty good at everything bar interactive ; their hiring in the space has always been poor and acquisitions curious at best. the fact their mobile success was down more to original brands by inspired internal creatives (Where’s My Water) shows how inept the management was there. But Disney’s bigger problem in Interactive is brand based and their protection of that. Activision is a non-starter ; Call of Duty shooting women and children terrorists under the Disney umbrella? Yeah that’s hard to see. Now they have Fox one could argue they have an out but that really depends how they handle that brand. We shall see.
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Kevin McIntosh Head of Production, Torus Games11 days ago
My company worked with Disney Consumer Products during 2014-2015 and enjoyed the experience. We started with portions of the development, and as we proved ourselves we were given more titles and content to create. We had a growing influence on the product and creative control. There was certainly a focus on each element of the game, and we spoke frequently about details that some may see as minor to the experience, but it improved the overall quality of the product. Others had always warned with some horror stories about working directly with Disney, but the whole process was much smoother than I had been led to expect. We ended up winning Disney Developer of the Year for our work on a range of projects. The team at Disney knew games and product development well.

My two cents is that Disney should be involved in their own products - licensing is a retreating business and devalues their brands when left in the hands of others. When I visited Disneyland a couple of years ago, I was amazed to see that the range of licenses that were represented, all the way back to brands which hadn't been touched for 30+ years. They've done a great job of keeping some of their brands alive on low boil and cross-generational, as opposed to others who missed their opportunity. My kids understand if I make reference to Mickey Mouse or Mary Poppins (even before the reboot), but would look at me weird if I talked about Daffy Duck or Bugs Bunny. There are some big name licensing opportunities like Star Wars / EA which make sense (sort of), but it would be great to see a Disney game strategy. I'd be happy to contribute to that. :)
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jeff Kleist Writer, Marketing, Licensing 10 days ago
@Richard Browne:

They don’t do it, they approve it. There is no Disney clothing factory or division.
They outsource basically everything you see at Disney parks. They don’t produce their own toys, they don’t produce their own shirts. The most iconic Disney merch, the watch and the phone both were made by third parties. Here’s a fan site complaining about this very thing

http://studioscentral.com/studiosweekly/the-big-problems-with-walt-disney-world/

Disney Infinity was the first time they tried to make their own toys. We’ve seen what happens when they try to make their own games.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Adam Campbell Game Manager, Azoomee10 days ago
@Jeff Kleist: Doesn't the Japanese government get involved when it comes to potentially huge foreign acquisitions?

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Adam Campbell on 8th July 2019 2:40pm

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.