Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gaming news too small for its own thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Sega Announces Major Investment in Gaming as Performance Significantly Exceeds Expectations

    "Today Sega released its financial results for the first half of the fiscal year, related to the period between April and September 2021.

    The company reports strong performance centered on the Entertainment Contents business, which focuses on video games.

    Both the consumer (meaning home video games) and arcade areas performed strongly.

    Sales and sales and operating income showcased significant improvement year-on-year, as you can see on the tables at the bottom of the post. In particular, operating income is back in the black while Sega operated at a loss during the same period in the past year.

    Similar improvement year-on-year in sales and operating income can also be seen for the Entertainment Contents business. According to the publisher, the results of the business “significantly exceeded expectations.”


    This leads to a revision of the full-year forecast. While the pachislot and pachinko machines segment is predicted to decline due to the semiconductor shortage affecting distribution, this is offset and overcome by the growth of the gaming business, resulting in a small increase in the overall income forecast.

    Speaking of the gaming business, in particular, the strong performance is identified for both new games and those released in previous fiscal years.

    In the future, Sega expects growth in both sales and expenses for the consumer area (home video games for consoles and PC) due to launching more new titles. Free-to-play games also have been performing steadily and Sega plans to launch the global version of one of its titles (Hatsune Miku: Colorful Stage) and a major update for Phantasy Star Online 2: New Genesis on December 15.

    We also get a mention of the plan to create “super games” and the partnership with Microsoft to use Azure tech both within Sega’s games and to update the development environment.

    Perhaps even more interesting is the plan to proactively invest in the consumer game area. Sega expects to invest approximately 100 billion yen ($880 million) by March 2026 to expand its development pipeline, strengthen global mobile and online games, strengthen its customer relationship management department to revitalize user communities, and invest in new business areas like NFT.

    Another 100 billion yen will be invested in what Sega calls its “gaming area” (which actually focuses on Pachinko, Pachislot, and similar activities), and 50 billion will be invested in other activities like start-ups, IP acquisition, and creation of new businesses."

    Comment


      It's nice they're still doing well. I just wish they felt more... relevant to me. The reveal of a new Yakuza game feels like the only time I notice them anymore.

      Comment


        Originally posted by QualityChimp View Post
        [...] and invest in new business areas like NFT.
        Ubi and EA being all in is no surprise. Square-Enix suggesting interest is disappointing though, and now another one...

        NFTs are a bad enough poison to society in the first place, but it spilling into gaming is potentially the most harmful trend to the industry I've seen in my lifetime, and I cannot wait for it to die off.

        Comment


          Do you even fungible though?

          Comment


            Originally posted by fuse View Post
            Ubi and EA being all in is no surprise. Square-Enix suggesting interest is disappointing though, and now another one...

            NFTs are a bad enough poison to society in the first place, but it spilling into gaming is potentially the most harmful trend to the industry I've seen in my lifetime, and I cannot wait for it to die off.
            Not only is it bad for the consumer its even worse for the environment.

            Comment


              Environmental impact is 100% down to whatever system they are tied to and there are many options with zero environmental impact. Conceptually, games companies properly integrating NFTs or similar systems would open up many digital options for us. Buy a skin in-game and you can't sell that on. If it was an NFT, you could. If an entire game was linked to an NFT, you could do for digital games what we can with physical games and pass them on or sell them on. An NFT is little more than a system of showing ownership of a digital asset. Whether it's this or some other way of doing it, I can see this being good for games.

              Comment


                I’d love to be able to sell some of the stuff I’ve earned in games.

                Plus, yeah, even at their worst crypto and NFTs are no less destructive to the environment than gaming itself. Thankfully for maximum profitability they optimally have to be running carbon-neutral/negative. Algorand is a great blockchain for said use.

                Comment


                  I saw suggestion the other day that while all these big studios are talking about making NFT games, most the game won't come out as they are just saying this to appease investors. Money grubbers want everyone to get rich off NFTs but anyone with an ounce of sense can see tat it's a scam that will collapse. So hopefully this all goes away soon when the bottom falls out of it and these are just empty promises to investors.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Dogg Thang View Post
                    Environmental impact is 100% down to whatever system they are tied to and there are many options with zero environmental impact. Conceptually, games companies properly integrating NFTs or similar systems would open up many digital options for us. Buy a skin in-game and you can't sell that on. If it was an NFT, you could. If an entire game was linked to an NFT, you could do for digital games what we can with physical games and pass them on or sell them on. An NFT is little more than a system of showing ownership of a digital asset. Whether it's this or some other way of doing it, I can see this being good for games.
                    Originally posted by dataDave View Post
                    I’d love to be able to sell some of the stuff I’ve earned in games.

                    Plus, yeah, even at their worst crypto and NFTs are no less destructive to the environment than gaming itself. Thankfully for maximum profitability they optimally have to be running carbon-neutral/negative. Algorand is a great blockchain for said use.
                    Sorry to have to disagree with you both, but I really feel that these are entirely idealistic views of what NFTs are, and what the impact of crypto is. You can point to specific blockchains and hypothetical technology, but your BTC/ETH marketplaces that rule the roost most certainly have a damaging effect on the environment, and are currently riddled with prospectors and scammers who are taking advantage of the lack of regulation in the space. The money changing hands in that space right now is very attractive though, I get that.

                    Let's be clear: the resale of digital assets from one account to another does not need NFT or blockchain technology. NFTs don't prove your ownership of anything. If you think EA and Ubisoft are pursuing this as a means to let you sell digital games to your friends, I've got some magic beans to sell you.

                    Comment


                      I don't think there are any NFTs on BTC? Not sure that's even possible. ETH definitely rules when it comes to NFTs right now but it's a space that is changing incredibly fast. Not only is ETH moving away from proof of work (which is where the impact comes in - attached to mining, not NFTs themselves), but there are NFTs on XTZ, Flow and many other chains that have no environmental impact beyond people using computers to access them - so the same as what it took for us to post here. In the art space, where NFTs are big, even at the absolute worst estimates, the impact of attaching an NFT to the ETH blockchain is not worse than that of, for example, printing and shipping those prints globally. So some perspective is needed there.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by fuse View Post
                        Sorry to have to disagree with you both, but I really feel that these are entirely idealistic views of what NFTs are, and what the impact of crypto is. You can point to specific blockchains and hypothetical technology, but your BTC/ETH marketplaces that rule the roost most certainly have a damaging effect on the environment.
                        Ethereum is supposed to be changing to proof of stake in 2022 - this removes the parallel graphics card algorithm mining because there is no competition to find the crypto solutions, rather a node is chosen based on ethereum stake at random to prove the work. Proof of stake should have a significant reduction in power consumption - that's not idealistic, that's just something that's happening.

                        NFTs can prove ownership as the whole point is a read-only historical ledger, but it's certainly not the only method of doing so. I'd agree that if EA, Ubisoft, Take2 etc are interested, it's not to allow you to sell games, it's to allow them to have unique items they can sell to whales for more money.
                        Last edited by MartyG; 09-11-2021, 16:56.

                        Comment


                          Indeed. You can certainly trust those outfits to slap a Diablo III real money auction house in every game they put out.

                          Comment


                            Comment


                              Long article but it has a great breakdown from a developer point of view about how NFTs etc either can't work in a game or would make a game so bad people wouldn't play it. https://docseuss.medium.com/look-wha...m-29c7cfdbbb79

                              Comment


                                The guy said he was going to give me the really simple version and I kept reading and reading until “I’m getting lost in the weeds.” That part was definitely true so I have little reason to doubt the rest but up to that point it’s basically just a guy saying he doesn’t buy it. Which is fine and absolutely valid because, like Bitcoin or actual money, it requires people assigning value to something which in itself probably has none, but it’s no more than that. Going to assume he actually gets into real stuff afterwards but I guess if your starting point is just not really buying it, that’s what you’re going to set out to show. Eventually. I assume,

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X