Over the past 15 years, Warner Bros.' video game division certainly wasn't among the most innovative, but it was undoubtedly the most profitable in the industry, responsible for titles such as the "Batman Arkham" series, the successful reboot of "Mortal Kombat," and a multitude of popular LEGO games. On top of that came last year's success with the controversial but nonetheless beloved "Hogwarts Legacy," which sold 24 million copies and was intended to demonstrate that gamers primarily enjoy single-player titles.
Nevertheless, the CEO of Warner Bros.' Global Streaming and Games division, JB Perrette, ensured a few days ago caused a stir and, with one statement, called into question the publishing policy and AAA future of the media giant.
Warner loves monetization!
While acknowledging the success of "Hogwarts Legacy" as a single-player experience, Perrette stated at a Morgan Stanley event that the AAA game business is very volatile. Going forward, the company plans to focus more on free-to-play and mobile titles, drawing from Warner's four major franchises: Mortal Kombat, DC, Harry Potter, and Game of Thrones. Perrette anticipates seeing the first results of this strategy between 2025 and 2027, with plans to release the first free-to-play games on mobile platforms by the end of this year.
This planned approach by Warner Bros. Interactive is not a good sign for players or the industry. However, considering the past few years, it's not entirely surprising. Warner has always been known for seeking additional ways to monetize its games. Loot boxes in an action-adventure like "Middle-earth: Shadow of War" or the time crystals in "Mortal Kombat" were intended to extract more money from buyers and generate substantial profits for Warner Bros. To be fair, though, these mechanics were gradually removed from the Middle-earth game by the developer after significant criticism from the press and players.
Half-baked attempts
But at the latest with “Gotham KnightsIt became clear that Warner Bros. harbors a deep-seated fondness for live service titles. Numerous gameplay mechanics made it evident that the adventure of Batgirl, Robin & Co. was originally intended to be a multiplayer game, complete with numerous in-game currencies and loot items. As a result, players were sometimes more preoccupied with assessing the value of their equipment than with following the – actually quite compelling – story.
Why the title was ultimately released as a regular full-price game can only be speculated. Perhaps the time wasn't considered right, especially since some free-to-play decisions by other studios at the time still caused a considerable backlash from various fan groups.
The recently published “Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League“has a real knack for live service mechanics. Weapons with varying stats, numerous costumes available for real money, and the shifted focus towards multiplayer gameplay rather than story clearly underscore this – as does a look at the roadmap for future content. Various season updates, new missions, characters, and enemies – all free of charge, at least – are intended to ensure long-term player engagement.”
However, after the title received only rather average reviews, fans were also rather reserved and left the game on the shelf. This was confirmed by Warner's CFO in the latest financial report, who expressed disappointment with the game's performance just a few weeks after its release.
How should it go on?
And this very flop should really show those in charge at Warner Bros. Interactive that their upcoming strategy is on the wrong track. Sure, some mobile games and free-to-play titles have generated huge revenues and profits for their developers in recent years, but wouldn't a middle ground be the healthier option for everyone involved? What's wrong with two or three AAA titles per year for consoles and PC, along with a reasonable selection of mobile and free-to-play games?
If even heavyweights like Sony overreach themselves with their service game strategy and have to cancel no-brainers like a multiplayer spin-off of The Last of Us, then Warner should have some very good games in development to make their future concept a success. Otherwise, they'll quickly go out of business again, and in the end, everyone will be wondering how things got so bad. And it certainly won't be the CEOs and other executives who have to leave after flops.
I only feel sorry for the New York Times and Mark Crusade franchises. Sure, Mark Crusade's visuals, good story, and the digitized faces of the actors cost money and have to be reinvested, but on the other hand, very few Mark Crusade fans asked for John Seaner and Peacemaker.
Better to fill the roster with MK figures first before incurring costs for actors and figure licenses. And Rocksteedy, "Suicide Squad kills Rocksteedy."