The game industry has apparently looked at its ongoing consolidation problem and decided the obvious solution is a larger building with more franchises inside it. Following Skydance’s completion of its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount Games Studio and Warner Bros. Games are being brought together under one combined games operation. According to Video Games Chronicle, the new portfolio includes studios such as Avalanche Software, NetherRealm Studios, Rocksteady Studios, TT Games and Warner Bros. Games teams in Montreal and Boston. Paramount’s side contributes projects and properties connected to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Avatar, SpongeBob and Star Trek, while Skydance’s existing work includes Marvel 1943: Rise of Hydra. The broader company now controls an extraordinary collection of entertainment properties across film, television, animation, streaming and games.
That sounds impressive because it is impressive. It also creates a familiar corporate illusion: if a company owns enough recognisable worlds, talented studios and production technology, a coherent game strategy will naturally emerge from the pile. It won’t. A franchise collection is an inventory. A studio structure is an organisation. A creative strategy explains what experiences the company wants to build, why its teams are suited to building them and how those games will earn player trust. Those things can support one another, but they aren’t interchangeable. The merger may eventually provide greater investment, shared expertise and more stable production pathways. It may also create duplicated leadership, standardised processes, pressure to exploit licences and the quiet destruction of knowledge that doesn’t fit neatly inside a corporate spreadsheet. There isn’t enough public information yet to know which direction the combined games group will take. What we can examine is the design and production challenge in front of it. Skydance hasn’t merely acquired more brands. It has inherited teams with different histories, methods, audiences and creative strengths. The value of those studios won’t come from making them look alike. It will come from understanding why they were different in the first place.
WHAT ACTUALLY CHANGED
The official Skydance announcement confirms that the completed merger brings Paramount, Warner Bros., HBO, CBS, CNN, Nickelodeon and a large collection of other entertainment businesses and franchises into one company. VGC reports that the newly formed Paramount Games Studio will be combined with Warner Bros. Games’ internal development teams, with Paramount Games Studio president Tony Driscoll leading the merged operation. That produces an unusually broad games portfolio. Some studios develop internally owned franchises. Others specialise in licensed worlds, family games, fighting games or large action adventures. Some have proprietary technology and long-established production practices. Others work through external development partnerships.
| Part Of The Portfolio | Known Strength Or Responsibility | Production Challenge |
|---|---|---|
| NetherRealm Studios | Fighting games and Mortal Kombat | Protecting specialist combat, animation and competitive knowledge |
| Rocksteady Studios | Character-driven action and Batman games | Rebuilding confidence while preserving valuable design expertise |
| Avalanche Software | Large licensed worlds such as Hogwarts Legacy | Supporting expensive world production without turning it into a universal template |
| TT Games | Accessible family games and the Lego catalogue | Preserving a distinct audience, tone and production model |
| WB Games Montreal and Boston | Internal development and support capabilities | Giving each team a clear purpose inside the combined structure |
| Paramount Games Studio | Paramount, Nickelodeon and Skydance properties | Turning a large IP catalogue into focused, credible projects |
| External partners | Licensed and co-developed games | Maintaining consistent expectations without flattening partner autonomy |
A corporate announcement can combine these groups in a paragraph. Production can’t combine them that quickly. Reporting lines can be changed immediately, but trust, communication, technology and creative alignment have to be built over time. There has been no public confirmation that every studio will share the same tools, pipelines or development model. There also hasn’t been enough information to judge how much independence each team will retain. Those uncertainties matter because the value of the merger depends less on the size of the portfolio than on how deliberately the portfolio is managed.
Insider Tip: When a merger is announced, separate the legal structure from the production structure. Ownership can change overnight. Useful collaboration requires clear responsibilities, compatible tools, trusted relationships and enough time for people to understand how the new organisation actually works.
SCALE CAN SOLVE PROBLEMS AND CREATE BIGGER ONES
Scale has real advantages. A large games group can invest in technology that would be too expensive for an individual studio. It can share localisation, accessibility, analytics, online infrastructure, quality assurance, legal support and release expertise. Teams can learn from one another. A studio facing a temporary production problem may be able to draw on people or technology elsewhere in the organisation. The danger begins when executives confuse the ability to share something with a requirement to standardise everything. A technology that works brilliantly for a fighting game may be unsuitable for a large open world. A review process designed for family entertainment may not help a studio building competitive combat. A production structure built around annual releases may damage a team whose work depends on longer experimentation. One studio’s efficiency can become another studio’s expensive migration project.
| Promise Of Scale | Useful Version | Dangerous Version |
|---|---|---|
| Shared technology | Teams adopt proven tools that solve a defined problem | Every team is forced onto one pipeline regardless of need |
| Shared staff | Specialists support projects during genuine production pressure | People are constantly moved between teams and lose project ownership |
| Shared IP | Studios gain access to worlds suited to their strengths | Every successful franchise is distributed through an internal content factory |
| Shared data | Teams learn from audience behaviour and previous releases | Metrics replace creative judgement or context |
| Shared leadership | Strategy becomes clearer across the portfolio | Decisions move further away from the people making the games |
| Shared services | Studios spend less time duplicating administrative work | Central processes become slower than the problems they were meant to solve |
This is the central contradiction of large creative organisations. They need enough consistency to collaborate without creating so much consistency that every project begins to resemble the same production plan wearing a different licensed costume. The strongest shared systems are usually invisible to the player. They remove duplicated effort, improve reliability and help developers concentrate on the parts of the game that genuinely need to be distinctive. Weak shared systems do the opposite. They consume time, produce meetings and force the creative work to adapt around a corporate solution nobody on the project requested.
Insider Tip: Standardise the work players don’t need to feel and protect the work they do. Build shared solutions for infrastructure, compliance and repetitive production problems, but require a clear project-specific benefit before standardising design tools or creative processes.
A FRANCHISE LIBRARY ISN’T A DESIGN STRATEGY
Skydance now controls a collection of properties capable of producing the sort of franchise diagram that causes licensing executives to breathe heavily near a whiteboard. Batman, Harry Potter, Mortal Kombat, Lego, SpongeBob, Star Trek, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Game of Thrones and numerous other worlds can all be discussed within the same corporate structure. That creates possibilities, but possibility isn’t direction. A franchise doesn’t become suitable for a game simply because an audience recognises its name.
A successful adaptation needs a playable fantasy. It needs to identify what the player should repeatedly do, what rules make the world believable and how those actions express the identity of the property. Batman offers a fantasy of preparation, fear, investigation and controlled violence. Mortal Kombat is built around expressive combat, spectacle and competitive mastery. SpongeBob depends on absurdity, optimism and comic timing. Star Trek can support exploration, diplomacy, leadership and ethical conflict. These aren’t skins waiting to be placed over one universal game structure.
| Franchise Question | Weak Answer | Stronger Design Answer |
|---|---|---|
| Why should this property become a game? | The brand has a large audience | Its central fantasy can be expressed through meaningful player actions |
| Which studio should make it? | The studio currently has capacity | The team’s expertise matches the intended experience |
| What should be shared with other projects? | As much technology as possible | Only systems that reduce cost without weakening the fantasy |
| How should success be measured? | Recognition, reach and launch revenue | Player understanding, satisfaction, retention and long-term trust |
| What does the licence contribute? | Familiar characters and locations | Rules, relationships, behaviours and expectations the player can inhabit |
| What must the game avoid? | Anything difficult to market | Actions or systems that contradict the identity of the world |
The larger the IP catalogue becomes, the easier it is to start planning from the brand rather than the experience. The conversation becomes “What can we make with this property?” instead of “What game could express something meaningful about this world?” That difference sounds small until a team spends four years developing the wrong answer. The best licensed games don’t simply reproduce recognisable imagery. They translate the property into behaviour. Players believe they belong in the world because the mechanics ask them to think, act and make decisions in ways that suit the fantasy. A larger IP vault only creates value when the company can repeatedly find that alignment.
Insider Tip: Before approving a licensed project, describe the fantasy without using the franchise name, famous characters or visual iconography. If the game still sounds distinctive, the team may have found a playable idea rather than a brand-dependent pitch.
STUDIO IDENTITY IS PRODUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE
Studio identity is often discussed as though it is branding: a logo, a history page, a cheerful photograph of the team standing beside an award and perhaps a sentence about creating unforgettable worlds. In practice, studio identity is operational knowledge. It exists in how designers review work, how artists communicate with engineers, how producers identify risk and how experienced developers know which promising ideas are likely to explode six months later. It exists in tool conventions, naming systems, informal mentorship and the people who remember why a strange technical restriction was introduced in 2019.
Much of this knowledge isn’t documented because documenting everything would require the studio to stop making games and begin producing the world’s least exciting encyclopaedia. Teams rely on relationships and shared context to move quickly. Mergers can damage that infrastructure without deliberately targeting it. Leadership changes. Roles overlap. Experienced staff leave. Teams are reorganised around new priorities. A central group replaces a local process because the local process looks inefficient from outside. Six months later, everybody discovers that the apparently redundant process was preventing three other problems nobody remembered to mention.
| What A Studio Appears To Own | What It Actually Depends On |
|---|---|
| A game engine or toolset | Developers who understand its weaknesses and workarounds |
| A successful franchise | Years of accumulated audience and design knowledge |
| A production pipeline | Relationships between disciplines that keep it moving |
| A recognisable visual style | Review standards and specialist craft knowledge |
| A combat system | Animation, input, encounter and balancing expertise |
| A company culture | Repeated behaviour supported by trust and leadership |
| Historical project data | People capable of interpreting why past decisions worked |
This is why retaining talent after a merger matters beyond simple staffing numbers. When experienced developers leave, the organisation doesn’t only lose production capacity. It loses interpretation. Documents, source files and metrics remain, but the meaning connecting them becomes harder to recover. Protecting studio identity doesn’t mean preventing change. Some processes should change. Studios can become isolated, inefficient or dependent on habits that no longer serve the project. The goal is to identify which differences create value and which differences merely create duplicated work. That requires observation before reorganisation. Leadership needs to understand how each studio functions, what its teams are unusually good at and which dependencies are invisible from the corporate level.
Insider Tip: Before merging teams or replacing their processes, conduct a knowledge-risk audit. Identify the people, relationships, tools and review practices the studio can’t easily rebuild if they disappear. Treat those assets with the same seriousness as technology and intellectual property.
SHARED TECHNOLOGY NEEDS A SPECIFIC JOB
Large groups often imagine shared technology as an obvious saving. If several teams are solving similar problems, surely one platform, engine or service can solve them once. Sometimes it can. Shared build systems, testing infrastructure, accessibility support, localisation tools and online services can remove enormous amounts of duplicated work. The benefits are strongest when the problem is stable, common across projects and poorly differentiated from the player’s perspective.
The calculation becomes more complicated when the technology shapes the creative work. Moving a studio between engines is expensive even when both engines are good. Tools contain years of assumptions about content, iteration and performance. Developers have built habits around them. Pipelines connect to external software and internal automation. Existing assets may need to be converted. Features that appeared simple in the old environment can become specialist research projects in the new one.
| Technology Decision | Question To Ask Before Standardising |
|---|---|
| Game engine | Does it support the project’s scale, interaction model and target platforms? |
| Animation pipeline | Does it preserve the studio’s required responsiveness and visual quality? |
| Online services | Are the player, security and operating requirements genuinely shared? |
| Analytics | Will teams receive interpretable evidence or merely more dashboards? |
| Build infrastructure | Can it improve reliability without slowing local iteration? |
| Content tools | Do they support how designers and artists actually author the experience? |
| Automated testing | Is the system testing meaningful behaviours or only easily measured ones? |
A shared tool should earn adoption by solving a production problem. It shouldn’t be treated as a cultural loyalty test. The combined company may have excellent opportunities to share technology and expertise. NetherRealm’s combat knowledge, Avalanche’s world-production experience, TT Games’ accessibility and family focus, and Skydance’s cinematic expertise could all generate useful conversations. That doesn’t mean every studio needs the same pipeline. Collaboration can involve principles, people and lessons without requiring identical implementation.
Insider Tip: Give shared technology a measurable purpose before requiring adoption. Define which cost, delay or quality problem it will solve, then include migration time, retraining and lost productivity in the calculation. “We already own it” isn’t a production strategy.
PLAYERS NOTICE WHEN STEWARDSHIP BECOMES EXTRACTION
Players don’t see most corporate structures, but they experience their consequences. They notice when a studio’s games lose the qualities that made them distinctive. They notice when a franchise appears in projects that understand its imagery but not its fantasy. They notice when monetisation, release cadence or cross-promotion feels designed around the portfolio rather than the experience. This doesn’t mean every change is evidence of corporate interference. Studios evolve. Teams change.
Audiences romanticise the past. Sometimes a new direction is exactly what a series needs. The problem is not change itself. The problem is change without a convincing creative reason. Franchise stewardship requires deciding what the company shouldn’t make. A large catalogue creates pressure to keep valuable properties active, but constant activity can reduce their meaning. Players become sceptical when every brand is treated as an obligation to produce content.
| Extractive Franchise Behaviour | Stewardship Behaviour |
|---|---|
| Approve projects because the licence is available | Approve projects because the team has a strong playable interpretation |
| Chase whichever genre is currently successful | Choose structures that support the property’s fantasy |
| Move developers between projects without context | Build teams with ownership and relevant expertise |
| Treat recognition as guaranteed demand | Earn interest through a credible design promise |
| Respond to weak results with faster exploitation | Examine whether the project understood its audience |
| Preserve every brand equally | Allow some properties to rest until the right idea appears |
Player trust is particularly important when a company inherits studios with complicated recent histories. Announcing a new project can create attention, but it doesn’t automatically restore confidence. Players will look for evidence in the game itself: coherent direction, stable performance, respect for the property and a reason the project needed to exist. The company’s greatest advantage may therefore be patience. A large portfolio doesn’t need every franchise working simultaneously. It can choose projects carefully, match them with appropriate teams and give those teams enough time to form a defensible creative identity.
Insider Tip: Create a franchise brief that defines the property’s non-negotiable player fantasies, not just its characters, locations and visual rules. Use that brief to reject projects that reproduce the brand without producing the experience.
JUDGE THE MERGER BY WHAT IT PROTECTS
Corporate combinations are usually announced through scale: more properties, more reach, more technology, more talent and more opportunities for audiences to engage with familiar worlds. Those statements are easy to make because they describe what the company owns. The more useful question is what the new structure protects. Does it protect teams during the unstable period between projects? Does it preserve specialist knowledge? Does it give studios clear mandates? Does it allow creative leaders to make decisions close to the work? Does it invest in technology that actually improves production? Does it avoid turning successful teams into support departments for whichever licence is currently receiving the largest presentation slide?
| Evidence To Watch | Encouraging Signal | Warning Signal |
|---|---|---|
| Studio leadership | Clear, stable creative responsibility | Repeated reorganisations and unclear ownership |
| Project selection | Games matched to studio strengths | Franchises assigned according to available capacity |
| Technology | Optional shared services with demonstrated value | Compulsory migration without project-level need |
| Talent retention | Experienced teams remain and develop successors | Knowledge leaves through layoffs and attrition |
| Franchise strategy | Fewer, more coherent projects | Constant announcements across every available property |
| Communication | Specific plans and accountable leadership | Broad language about synergy without production detail |
| Player relationship | Projects demonstrate understanding of their audience | Recognition is treated as a replacement for trust |
The merger is too recent to score against that table. The current news establishes the size of the opportunity, not the quality of the execution. That distinction is important. Skepticism shouldn’t become certainty before evidence exists, but corporate scale shouldn’t be mistaken for creative health either. The new organisation has inherited talented developers, valuable technology and some of entertainment’s most recognisable worlds. Those assets create potential. They don’t remove the need for discipline.
Insider Tip: Evaluate a merger through production evidence rather than announcement language. Watch where decision-making moves, which people remain, how projects are assigned and whether shared resources reduce friction for developers or simply increase reporting above them.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Paramount and Warner Bros.’ combined games operation could become a remarkably capable creative group. It contains studios with specialised knowledge, globally recognised properties and experience across fighting games, family games, action adventures, licensed worlds and large-scale production.
It could also become an enormous machine that mistakes access for direction. The difference will come from how carefully leadership connects studios, technology and franchises. Shared infrastructure should remove repetitive work. Studio identity should be treated as production knowledge. Licences should begin with playable fantasies. Teams should be selected because they understand the intended experience, not because a corporate chart has placed them near the property. A bigger IP vault creates more possible games. It doesn’t tell anybody which games deserve to exist. That decision still requires creative judgement, production discipline and the willingness to leave a valuable franchise alone until somebody has a genuinely good reason to open the door.
That’s it for this one! Subscribe to The Design Lab for more breakdowns and analysis. Please like, share, and comment if you found this article useful AND…
Need help applying these concepts to your game? Most games don’t fail because of bad ideas. They fail because the systems don’t work together to evoke immersion.
> Work with me:
https://thedesignlab.blog/services/
> Or go deeper into this framework:
Register for my upcoming book – Immersive Design Framework – below and get a second book, now, free!
Grab Myles’ FREE ebook now and find 15 indispensable design patterns that will equip you to craft exceptional Web3 gaming experiences. We’ll also notify you when his new book on immersive design is out!