Embracer Group Buys The Lord of the Rings IP, Maneater Dev, Limited Run, and More

They will start their own subscription service one day, they have enough to do it.

No one can moan about them either as atleast their games will remain multi platform

More consolidation, and no sight of slowing down

Genuinely think we are going to be in a future where most devs/publishers are owned by one of Sony, Microsoft, Tencent or Embracer.

@UltimateOtaku91 I'm interested to know your thoughts - is more consolidation OK as long as games remain MP?

If they were interested they could launch their own platform at this stage! It's crazy how much ip they own. Its quite concerning in many ways!

Given the link between Warner Bros and LOTR, does this sale make their acquisition more or less likely at this point 🤔

What gets me about Embracer is there doesn't seem to be a strategy beyond "buy everything we can get our hands on".

Embracer are massive at this point, more consolidation is not great but that’s the direction gaming is going and there’s nothing we can do to stop it. Chinese state run Tencent I have the biggest issue with so at least it’s not them this time.

@IAmAshCohen17 as long as games remain multi-platform or Sony buy them he’s okay with it.

I just hope it all doesn't go south at some point in the future and we lose all these game developers

@IAmAshCohen17 I can't answer that right now, we need to see how embracer run these companies first and what they do with ip's like tomb raider and lord of the rings. I mean THQ were saved by them and have been putting out a steady stream of games so hopefully the rest can do the same.

@Fenbops Too Right!

There's plenty of worse choices LoTR could have went to and I'm glad it didn't go to Amazon. Thought WB would be the best fit for it though

Scary how much they have managed to acquire . Wonder how long before any games are released

Embracer group buys Sony..

@UltimateOtaku91 funny u should say that yet when they purchased the ips from square their website about the purchase clearly says that they are basically open to the highest bidder so no that depends who they rent the ips out to and whether they decide to keep them multiplatform or not

@Martsmall so embracer have said companies can bid for their ip's?

Ugh. They are going to horde all these IPs without developing worth while games. They will spend the least on developing games since they have a lot of IPs. Their games would be average at best which is sad compared to the magnitude of heavy hitter franchises they have

@UltimateOtaku91 yeh after the financial section

This could change positively if the company decides to enter a deeper strategic relationship with one or more platforms around the upcoming pipeline.

Notice the ONE or

In other words show me the money !!

@uptownsoul

This could change positively if the company decides to enter a deeper strategic relationship with one or more platforms around the upcoming pipeline.

Yes it does

Does seem to me with all these studios there output is severly lacking at the moment. I can't think of many games released under the embracer group this year.

@uptownsoul my comment wasn't about backlash it was about them having business motivation sorry I should have put more

backlash or not it's about the money for em ,no company actually gives a hoot about the ppl buying the games as long as they make lots of money

And with embracer group as soon as someone offers them enough for a IP to b console/pc exclusive they will take it

Hence yeh they have lots of business motivation to do so

Instead buying more studios they should focus on improving what they've got, many of these studios have so far put out average at best efforts

@Shepherd_Tallon I hear you. Luckily I still have them on my laptop to play. Very backwards way of going about it (lots of user tutorials online to get it to work) but I get to play both one and two once more. Happy times!

there is 0 sense for them to go single platform and lock themselves from millions of users. they dont have a stake in a console. and with MTX, they wont take slightly more $ for exclusives.

The thing that people need to remember about Embracer is that they’re effectively just an arm of an investment collective. They don’t actually have any interest in video games.

Sony needs to sign a deal to get their games on ps plus. Maybe after 6 months after release every game will be added to ps plus or something like that

Really wondering where they're getting all this money. I know they been selling stock for investment,but the amount of things they are buying is insane. There is danger when you grow too fast.

The only thing that's makes me ok about this is the IP's will not be tied to one platform. I'd rather an acquisition by them than Sony or Microsoft who would lock me out of a chosen platform somewhere.

Oh, and remaster LotR: The Third Age please.

I look forward to a future headline of Embracer Group bought by “insert bloated Chinese/American company here”

@IAmAshCohen17 Even the big publishers? (SE, Sega, Capcom, Konami, Ubisoft, Take Two, EA, WB, etc.)

@UltimateOtaku91 That depends on how they decide to operate in the future. Game Pass can be considered 'Multi-platform' as games can be played on Xbox Consoles, PC's, and a whole host of platforms via Streaming.

In the future, you may have multiple streaming services - like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+ etc - but EA Access, Ubisoft+, Xbox Game Pass, Embracer Cloud - and the only way to play on any device is by Streaming.

If Sony, Nintendo and MS are also still making hardware, they could still opt to go the 'streaming' route and get you to sign up on their streaming service on your PS/Switch/Xbox to play their Games. They 'could' be exclusive to their Service - even if that service is available on a wide range of Platforms.

There are so many advantages to devs/publishers - only develop for 1 platform (cloud) and everyone gets the same game as its running on the same hardware, no hacking, modding, cheating, stealing (code, assets etc), no piracy, no 'manufacturing and distribution' costs and total control over THEIR assets. Its also a 'regular' revenue stream - which obviously fluctuates a LOT in a 'sales' based model - so 'risk' is reduced and can even be more 'experimental' - put out smaller, experimental ideas and see how gamers respond before spending 'big' on developing a AAA game around that idea - its often much less 'risk' to make a sequel, a copy/clone of whatever is 'popular' etc than to experiment and develop new ideas.

Point is, these could ALL become 'Exclusive' to Embracer services requiring you to Subscribe to their 'Platform' (even a 'streaming' app on a brand name Console is its own 'platform' - that console is just a 'host'.

@ChrisDeku I don't mean to sound cynical, but I wonder if the 'real' publishers don't have a similar attitude, TBH.

@Fyz306903 I think in the long term, yes. Take 2 and EA I think will be the last, but my feeling would be in 10 years time, only a handful of big ones will exist, all others will be under them

Why is the FTC not stopping these guys? And people talk about Microsoft...

@somnambulance they could even sell them IPS off tomorrow( not tomorrow as the deal hasn't totally finished but u get my point lol ) if they wanted to ,they are in it for the money NOT to make gamers happy
Everyone saying oh multiplatform games blah blah ,not the case at all and anyone that thinks that chances are will b very disappointed in the future

@BAMozzy I think that future is possible at some point. MS and Sony (and maybe others) will still make consoles, but they are essentially streaming boxes. And each major publisher has a streaming service, i.e. everything is exclusive but also nothing is exclusive. I don't think this'll become reality until the end of the 10th gen, though. (Say 2034?)

Edit: Also, I think PS+ Premium and GamePass could eventually become available on their 10th gen competitors, too.

@snake_v5 because they dont own a console. oh and it doesnt take them above the market share/monopoly/bad for consumer threshold. plenty of reasons

@WCB Must admit,hadn't been aware of his passing...kind of explains why things appear to be a bit more open slather & at the whims of the licensees if enough $$ are thrown around.🤔
@Rob_230 Quite true,Embracer/THQ could have quite the IP arsenal if they chose to go down the streaming path...albeit to date we haven't seen an absolute blockbuster remake/reboot out of all their buy ups to date.
Still as others have said,it's not console exclusive nor someone like Tencent...not ideal,but could be worse.
Whilst not always a great fan of the Limited Run Games,(& especially Strictly Limited Games, different company,I know),business model, I wonder how it'll affect the indie games scene still getting releases? That said,still remain annoyed at retro games like Night Trap Anniversary (an LRG release),& Wonderboy Anniversary Collection (SLG), not getting wider digital releases!😑

Its all good.can i have another middle earth shadow of mordor.and shadow of war game.2 excellent games.word up son

Seems concerning to keep seeing such consolidation. Lord of the Rings is one of my most beloved franchises, so this really grabs my attention. It’s not like anyone has been doing much with the IP lately, but I still worry about one entity having sole ownership of it and then squandering it. (Such as the Star Wars / EA partnership)

These guys go on a shopping spree like every month but everyone seems okay with it, the purchases also go through fast and with no resistance. Why is that though? 🤔

@BAMozzy They have their subs from big games I don’t see the incentive for smaller games and I see less I se cringe for games that don’t have MTs as they will bring in their own revenue while other games won’t. I also think game pass is being subsidized by MS’s pockets so that’s a dangerous thing for us when they don’t want to subsidize it anymore.
It fluctuates normally, but it also has more earnings potential.

@BAMozzy that's a good point, though I do feel you need a massive library of games to sustain a subscription service hence why ubisoft plus and ea access haven't really took off that well and why googke stadia flopped on arrival, that's why ubisoft and EA want their subscription services merged with gamepass and playstation now as it's not working for them especially at their price point, they need hundreds of other games and range of genres to make it work, so yeah even if the embracer group do make a subscription platform tbey would need sony or microsoft services to sustain it.

@Fyz306903 I think its down to infrastructure as well as the cost to Research, develop, manufacture and distribute hardware with 'sufficient' specs to keep up with the 'latest' game requirements.

If you consider that a console is expected to sell say 10-15m units a year, that's 10-15m individual SSDs, Chips, RAM modules etc etc. With 1TB of SSD storage, that's a LOT of SSDs that need to be made. Costs of raw materials, especially Silicon for example, in supply starved and of course increasingly costly 'shipping' prices - not only important all the parts/materials for manufacture, but shipping those consoles around the world globally...

All of that material could be used to build 'gaming' servers with 100's, if not thousands of TB of Solid State Storage, all those CPU/GPU cores, so much RAM etc - all dedicated to streaming games whatever their size, complexity etc - because its all running in the cloud. If a game file size is say 2TB's because of the sheer scale and high quality of its assets - not having to be scaled down and heavily compressed to fit on a Disc, on internal storage or not have to wait a week to download/update etc, no probs for the cloud. You could also use much more complex physics, AI etc because its not limited by the 'weakest' hardware for consistency and, like I said, it has all the other benefits to the devs/publishers - including not having to port multiple versions, not having to distribute physical media or 'pay' locked platforms (Consoles) to release on their platform - 3rd Party games have to 'pay' to use their trademarks (releasing on PS5/Series X, their colours and adhere to their guidelines etc (censorship of content) but with streaming, they don't. Of course Console platforms also benefit from lack of competition on Digital content as MS/Sony get 30% retailer profit on sales which streaming would impact too.

As for the future, I am sure MS would love to put Game Pass on Playstation & Switch - but then if you could play MLB21/22, B4B, Plague Tale etc by paying MS $10 a month on PS5, that would seriously dent Sony's 'profit'. Not only are digital sales likely to be affected (that 30% retailer profit), but also Physical sales too (so a drop in the 'license' revenue from using their trademarks etc)

It may happen when Sony change their business model to move more away from being primarily Sales based, more to a Service base - like MS has. Until then, getting people to 'buy' their Hardware and their Software is the priority - hence no day 1 releases to PS+ or PC - they want to maximise 'each' title to sell as many copies and consoles as possible and then once its 'dropped' off significantly, exhausted that use, its released into PS+/PC to get more PR and a new Advertising cycle to maximise their 'brand'. Nothing wrong with that, but until they move to a Service based model with 'Sales' being secondary and purely optional for their customers, they won't be in a position to allow their games/services on their competition and vice versa.

@UltimateOtaku91 There are other factors in play - Ubisoft and EA aren't really offering streaming, they are offering a similar service to PS+ - which still requires them to 'port' and release those 'console' versions which you can then 'download' and play once they enter those services - which is often months after release when the 'sales' are not really generating much income anymore. These are 'secondary' services behind their Primary Sales focussed business model.

MS puts all their games into their 'Service' day 1 and release on multiple platforms the same day too. That is not maximising their Hardware or Software sales at all. Its a Service driven business model with 'Sales' being 'optional'. If you don't want to Subscribe, you can buy. You are not 'forced' to buy a MS branded Console to play, as its available on MANY platforms day 1 too - so if you want, you could just pay $10 and play on your student (non-gaming) Laptop with your PS/Switch Pro controller (if you don't like K&M).

For these '3rd' party Publishers, they would need to make their own 'servers' and essentially have their 'own' platform. Like I said above, they can't rely on Back Catalogues to keep people subscribed and need a good supply of Day 1 games too - but then if games like Tomb Raider, Lord of the Rings and other 'big' franchises are ONLY available through subscription, then they may not need multiple new games every month as you'll have no choice but to subscribe or 'miss out'. If you don't want to Subscribe to Game Pass, you can still buy those games on PC/Xbox. People buy PS for PS exclusives, buy into the Xbox Ecosystem for its exclusives, and would likely buy into Embracer too if all their IPs were 'exclusive'. If EA made Battlefield, Star Wars, Fifa, Madden etc all 'exclusive' to EA Access and the only way to play was by Subscribing to their service (regardless of Hardware choice), it would be more popular - but then they would need to build the infrastructure to 'stream' and their 'multi-platform' app to access their servers.

Its the difference between being Sales focussed primarily (like Sony, EA, Ubisoft and Embracer are right now) and being primarily Service driven as MS are. Google 'failed' really because their business model was kind of a 'hybrid' - you needed to Subscribe 'first' and then had to buy as well. It didn't have the history and experience of the Gaming industry either - just saw Gaming as an area of 'growth' that could be financially rewarding to their 'online' presence. MS at least had 20yrs of experience and 1000's of Games released on Xbox hardware which means they had a 'big' back catalogue of Games to fill up Game Pass to start with and then build up their Studios to build up their day 1 releases and Service based plan. They still had the 'infrastructure' in place to fall back on the sales. If only 1m subscribed to Game Pass, Forza, Halo etc were sold on PC/Xbox to 'non-subscribers' so had that 'sales' model to fall back on until the Service based model is by far the most 'dominant' way people access their games with 'Sales' as a bonus for those who still prefer to buy hardware/software.

I can't be the only one nervous over the possibility that Microsoft, Sony or Tencent will attempt to acquire Embracer Group? Imagine all those IP's, studios and games locked behind one platform. Gives me shudders just thinking about it.

@MacRider Sony really can't afford em as it's worth approx 88.08 billion
SEK( 8,409,274,171.20 US) and that's without the newer acquisitions
And Sony as a whole as of August 12, 2022 is $106.16B.
I cant see them betting the whole company on buying embracer group

Although I can see them buying single IPS on the future if someone doesn't get to them first of course

And my personal opinion is apple ,I could see them buying them then renting out the ips to the rest and sit and rake it in ,make the other smaller companies bring in Ur profits ,it would be a massive hit for them and with all the ips that Thier collecting it's a big lot of the gaming /console pie

And lotr rights on Apple TV only in the future ,ppl would pay for that

@somnambulance I can't see anything positive about any of the deals ,it's a money move, collect all you can then either sell or rent parts out .
I'm hoping they keeping all the ips and 4/5 years down the line we will see all these IPS out or at least been announced ,only time will tell

Do whatever, buy whatever, but for those who grey up gaming in the 90s ect, I would absolutely love to see a legacy of kain released. Most ppl will have no idea what game that was, but just to play through it was a masterpiece back then. Sony style of story telling with a great game play to it

This is just ridiculous. Once a vibrant landscape of many many companies is rapidly over a few years becoming Hollywood. 4-6 major studios, some indies, and that's it, you'll take what you're given.

It was fun to follow video games companies because they were many, diverse, and connected to their products and customers. Now it's just a handful of megabanks trading around paper value. If we ask ourselves why we're following video games anymore instead of stock markets, do we even have a logical non-emotional/sentimental reason? Is comparing Sony vs Embracer vs Tencent more pleasing than comparing Proctor & Gamble vs Unilever vs Kraft Foods? At the end of the day we might as well make our hobby comparing oil company profits. Same difference.

Embracer is an odd duck. The founder/CEO is very invested in games, it's not just an investment collective. But he's also gone bankrupt at least twice in prior ventures. And how they're buying everything big that exists like they're competing at MS/Tencent financial levels, but with no actual plan...they're just buying it all. A company run by a guy that's already gone bankrupt in the games business. Twice. I kind of LIKE that they're games-focused vs Tencent and the like, but.....this just seems like a future failure in the waiting. They're absorbing debt like it's candy. And this is a bad economic time to absorb endless debt. As though there's ever a good time. Much as I hate the consolidation and am worried if Embracer succeeds, I'm also worried that failure is inevitable at this point, and what happens to the IPs? I see it either capsizing in debt and being auctioned off in pieces again, or a power move megabuyout by Tencent/NetEase/Apple/Google (not even MS.)

And regardless of who buys it, the idea of Lord of the Rings, carefully protected since the 60's to stay true to the literary originals, becoming nothing but a comic franchise IP rented out in the image of Peter Jackson's creation is even more depressing than the entire gaming industry being owned by Tencent.

let's be honest for a minute. the vast majority of embracer's IPs are forgettable and B-tier. i also have serious concerns about its ability to give its tentpole releases the budget needed to make a mark. for example, will embracer give the next tomb raider game a comparable budget to what s-e was providing? i doubt it. i feel like we are going to get a "poor man's" lara croft by comparison. this will apply across the board for all of its IPs if i had to guess. embracer has a lot to prove yet.

@BAMozzy Also keep in mind that, MS is also forging into the Stadia/Geforce Now hybrid model of adding on the ability to stream "select" purchased games from your library on the service. I've said from the beginning the ability to stream your own purchased games from the cloud was inevitable for them and sure enough they're starting to dip their toes in. That means GPU will also be able to function like Stadia/GFN where you buy games to stream them on a cloud-rented console.

All they need to suspend states/quick resume on the cloud, and they could out-Switch Switch wherever streaming works well, while not hitting the brick wall Google did with a terrible value proposition for the subscription. They locked you out of full quality if you didn't subscribe. GP with owned library streaming would be identical but they front-load the value of the sub by giving access to a large games library as well.

EVENTUALLY Sony will offer that as well. It's bizarre they don't offer PS5 streaming at ALL right now, and I know they're trying to not put too much on their streaming service because they're falling back on trying to push as much hardware as possible, but I don't see any model where PS Plus Premium (or above) doesn't offer the ability to stream games you buy on PS to any device in the future. But if MS pushes it out and sees growth, Sony will absolutely support that.

What I still find surreal is that Sony was the first to do this, and then abandoned it. Sony stopped being much of an innovator after the dawn of the Compact Disc, but they were truly the first to see the full potential of cloud gaming and push it, so it's just incomprehensible they basically walked away from it just as it was getting it's moment in the spotlight.

@Porco To be fair, most of the IPs they bought were at their best BEFORE they were given monster budgets that turned them into something they weren't. The devs might learn to do more with less with a smaller budget. It's getting to the point in games that too much money is a problem and not a solution in development. Nintendo built around that idea a long time ago, and it's working out fantastically for them. I'd argue Sony did their best, most memorable games before they went all in on throwing as much money at them as possible, too.

The confusion around KOTOR R development ‘reports’ maybe related to what’s going on?

I thought Warner Bro. owned The Lord of the Rings IP.

Man, Embracer is like the runaway freight train from the film Unstoppable- (RIP Tony Scott) just no signs of slowing down!

The trajectory of this company over the last 10 years has been insane to watch.

@UltimateOtaku91 gamepass lovers would lol how dare they not add their own titles to gamepass it's not fair

@bindiana tiny tinas wonderlands , saints row , destroy all humans 2 reprobed , new tales from the borderlands , dead island 2 ,spongeBob squarePants: the cosmic shake those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head that have been released recently or are coming soon ish

@Martsmall Thanks for the info. That now leaves only Microsoft and Tencent. Here's hoping they leave Embracer alone.

@Ken_Kaniff They didn't. They was only licensing exclusive for the films from Zaentz. Zaentz has put those that rights up for sale earlier this year... Granted WB still say that they have some rights to the films.

@AverageGamer Oh okay, thanks for clearing that up.

What if Embracer are buying all these devs and ips because they are secretly working o their own console. And want exclusive games etc. To compete with Sony and ms?

@KidBoruto

Nintendo don't need to do anything, they will do what they do now.

Have any of the company's this group owns ever published a AAA game (after they were bought out? I always hear their name in the news but have no idea what games they've actually published.

@NEStalgia you bring up a good point... but i'm curious which sony games you are referring to (of which were superior with smaller budgets?). the ps3 uncharted trilogy was near the top of the industry in terms of budget for the time... the 4th entry upped the budget substantially... had uncharted 4 turned out to be a disaster, that would be a waste of resources, but many agree that uncharted 4 is the second best entry in the series behind 2. god of war (2018) and god of war 3 were just as good as god of war 1/2 (relative to their time of release) despite substantially higher budgets. the only example where the budget doesn't add up to success is last of us 2, but that is for completely different reasons (subject matter and politics, etc).
but yea, i can't think of many sony franchises that went off the rails as their budgets increased...

@uptownsoul Microsoft was the big evil now they maybe will meet their match. The started by trying to let Sony develop their console and tried to buy out Nintendo.

You dont have to be their knight in shining armor they have more then enough money and lawyers to do that for them.

Stop acting they are a small company that are being picked on the bought bloody Activision Blizzard.

@Porco It's not so much that the high budget series got worse as the budgets went up, so much as they stopped making all but the biggest budget series, and those lower budget games, as one off games or as series were much more interesting than the most mass market "safe" bets that the bloated budget games are. The bigger the budget the more people the game has to please to garner enough sales to justify it, which means it has to become ever more generic, one size fits all, rather than a lot of ideas for a lot of different people. Modern Sony games are technically impressive, and are all "good" and "enjoyable" enough to buy and play, but none really stand out as truly special either. They're very safe, a very big tent to draw a large number of people by being sufficiently average in design.

Which is expected with their film pedigree, it's the same design. Blockbuster movies are something everyone can enjoy but rarely are they especially classic.

Edit: tou2 is kind of an example of that really. It didn't play it safe like you'd expect.... And boy did that backfire... Though that game has a variety of problems beyond not playing it safe.

oh, i totally agree with you there. i must have misinterpreted your original comment. the lack of creativity and originality in the AAA space is definitely a concern. sony was better in the ps3 era at complimenting its tentpole releases with smaller titles — games such as puppeteer, tokyo jungle, rain, etc... perhaps they figured the indi scene is already taking care of that side of things so there is less incentive now? it doesn't look like we will see any more auteur projects (such as last guardian) coming out of sony any time soon sadly.