20 ms·

Disney gets more IP in front of more 13-25 year olds. This is a very impressionable age group, and can create life long fans. This is a good value proposition

Disney gets more IP in front of more 13-25 year olds. This is a very impressionable age group, and can create life long fans. This is a good value proposition for Disney. Epic probably gets an increase in valuation -- lifeblood for tech companies. Collaboration skins are massive for revenue. However, I'm concerned this relationship will force uncool collaborations with Fortnite and reduce it's appeal. Disney has had some flops recently. Long term the trick for Fortnite is to become the most sticky online videogame in history, with most games bleeding audience over time. Epic is more than just Fortnite, but I imagine this deal is entirely about Fortnite.

hmcdona1 3y ago
No, Disney uses Unreal for their rendered real-time sets. This is about more than just Fortnite.
- reactordev 3y ago
  This. Virtual Set Production is almost entirely Unreal engine. Fortnite is just a marketing platform. The real meat is the digital production pipeline that made Mando cool. That enabled Star Trek’s recent series’, and provides a “holodeck” for their just unveiled holo-floor.
  - jrockway 3y ago
    I don't think Fortnite is just a marketing platform. They wouldn't have bothered suing Apple and Google over app stores if it were merely a loss leader to remind film execs that Unreal Engine is a thing.
    - callalex 3y ago
      While I agree with you that Fortnite shouldn’t be considered a loss leader, the strategy behind challenging Apple in court is more nuanced. Epic also operates a rather large software/games store and I am sure they would love to see it grow.
    - Hikikomori 3y ago
      I mean they have epic games store that competes with steam on windows. They likely want to be able to the same thing on phones.
  - pnw 3y ago
    AFAIK Unreal was only used in the first season of the Mandalorian several years ago. Disney switched to using ILM's Stagecraft software, which is what they use for their films as well.
    - reactordev 3y ago
      which is Unreal Engine + ILM stuff... they call StageCraft.
- jsheard 3y ago
  Do they still? They used Unreal for the virtual sets in The Mandalorian S1, but for S2 they switched over to a different solution. https://www.ilm.com/vfx/the-mandalorian/ https://www.ilm.com/vfx/the-mandalorian/ > For season one of the series ILM StageCraft utilized Unreal Engine to perform the real-time render https://www.ilm.com/vfx/the-mandalorian-season-2/ https://www.ilm.com/vfx/the-mandalorian-season-2/ > The real-time render engine called Helios was specifically developed by ILM engineers > Ctrl-F "Unreal" - no results
  - reactordev 3y ago
    StageCraft IS Unreal Engine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/StageCraft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/StageCraft ILM used Unreal Engine to make StageCraft and kept iterating on it until it’s the awesome tech that it is. They have a vested interest in seeing the underlying engine continue to prosper.
    - jsheard 3y ago
      They made a point of highlighting the use of Unreal during the production of Season 1, but then it's completely absent from their discussion of later seasons, instead only referencing an in-house renderer they call Helios. Have they specifically said anywhere that they're still using Unreal Engine? https://www.ilm.com/industrial-light-magic-to-expand-stagecraft-led-virtual-production-offering-with-new-facility-in-vancouver/ https://www.ilm.com/industrial-light-magic-to-expand-stagecr... This 2021 article mentions that external productions using StageCraft services can choose to use either Unreal or Helios for rendering, so the Unreal integration may still be available for those who want it, but obviously ILM didn't write a brand new renderer for the fun of it. Unreal must not have been cutting it for their own productions.
    - katabatic 3y ago
      StageCraft WAS Unreal Engine; it is not anymore.
      - westurner 3y ago
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  Epic has purchased VFX companies in the past, and Unity was eying that market before they imploded recently, making a bunch of acquisitions. It’s an obvious and huge opportunity for game engine experts to grow their influence.
- mogoh 3y ago
  That would be less expensive.
- codexb 3y ago
  They use it in their rides as well -- https://web.archive.org/web/20200311075335/https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2018/03/28/walt-disney-imagineering-nvidia-star-wars-galaxys-edge-millennium-falcon/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200311075335/https://blogs.nvi...
resolutebat 3y ago
My kids already think many recent Fortnite collabs (Star Wars, Marvel, etc) are lame. Hasn't stopped them from playing though. https://www.dexerto.com/fortnite/every-fortnite-collab-crossover-battle-royale-history-1645672/ https://www.dexerto.com/fortnite/every-fortnite-collab-cross...
- sublinear 3y ago
  I had the same reaction 20 years ago to Kingdom Hearts. Disney is definitely at risk of becoming irrelevant with their stale IP.
  - totetsu 3y ago
    When kingdom hearts was released I got my first glimpse of how some people seem to throw their logic and taste out the window for Disney. It just seemed the dumbest thing to me. And why was the sword a key.. [edit: this was my teenage selfs opinion]
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Some people like goofy mashup fun. There's a ton of people who apparently really liked Kingdom Hearts. It's pretty elitist to consider some IP too sacred to remix.
      - jvanderbot 3y ago
        Everyone in my friend group considered it a runaway hit. They all played a ton. I was amazed.
      - tombert 3y ago
        I only played Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2 on the Playstation 2 as a teenager, and I did enjoy them while playing, but I have to admit that I have absolutely no idea what the hell happened story-wise by the end of the second game. The story just got increasingly convoluted and harder to follow, and the juxtaposition of serious Final Fantasy characters and Disney characters never really stopped being funny to me.
citizenpaul 3y ago
Id say fortnight has quite the ways to go then. Counterstrike and World of Warcraft have 15-20 years headstart and are still going.
- gamepsys 3y ago
  I was actually thinking about World of Warcraft when I was thinking about a game that failed to be sticky. World of Warcraft peaked in subscriber count in 2010, and has generally seen steady decline since then. I think the numbers for WoW look worse when you consider how sharply it's share of the video game market has declined. The video game market has ballooned in size while Wow's user base is slowly bleeding out. It's hard to get accurate data, but Fortnite has roughly 100x more users than World of Warcraft. Counterstrike is an even smaller userbase.
  - meheleventyone 3y ago
    A game that has lasted twenty years as a commercial project has definitely not failed to be sticky! There’s a lot of hope and desire for “forever games” particularly from investors but there is no such thing. They will all have a peak and a steady decline at some stage. Social networks exhibit this pattern as well.
  - Reason077 3y ago
    > ”World of Warcraft peaked in subscriber count in 2010, and has generally seen steady decline since then.” Sure, but even in 2024 this 20-year old game has a paid monthly player count well into the millions. Extremely successful by any measure. And perhaps one of the most profitable game franchises of all time.
  - spookie 3y ago
    How is Counter Strike small? It has consistently 1.5 million daily players. It's about the same as Fortnite.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    World of Warcraft is no failure by any measure, but it’s not the world-defining explosion it once was. Existing players keep playing but you rarely hear of new players; at best they may convince old subscribers to return. Minecraft is also old but seems to be collecting new players decently well.
ydg6 3y ago
Disney is the last standing Old Media company. All other Media and Entertainment companies are either owned by Comcast/AT&T or are Tech companies (netflix, amazon,apple,sony,youtube,tiktokk) that have carved out a chunk of the media and entertainment sector. Disney is basically on the back foot here, at a time when the attention economy is wrecking chaotic unpredictable havoc on the the media sector.They had to do something cause shareholder revolt has been brewing for a while.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  ATT sold its media business to Discovery, which is now Warner Bros Discovery, which is old media. Also, there is still Paramount. Sony Pictures started in 1987, so that should qualify as old media too. And there is also Lionsgate. Disney is by far the biggest and most relevant, though.
  - WorldMaker 3y ago
    Given how much the Discovery arm seems to be in control, Warner Bros Discovery may be "new media" in old media clothing. Skydance is trying to buy National Amusements to take over Paramount and arguably be a similar new media in old media clothing if that deal goes through. > Sony Pictures started in 1987, so that should qualify as old media too. I know objective that's almost 40 years ago and probably does qualify for old, but that still seems too recent in Hollywood Empires. But Sony Pictures also has the advantage it bought truly old media Columbia/TriStar and didn't seem to kill them and kind of left them to continue to do their thing, so maybe Sony gets more of a pass too. > And there is also Lionsgate. Lionsgate was formed in 1997. Maybe you are thinking about MGM (and its famous Lion logo), which Amazon has been trying not to kill since it acquired that ancient studio brand, but also is very much appearing to be Amazon still being Amazon just wearing that brand (which was on life support or already a zombie when purchased) like a skin at this point?
- Staple_Diet 3y ago
  Really? I thought Disney was doing well. Their subscription service is only behind Netflix and Amazon, the latter of which includes its service in Prime so is not an equal competitor. Further, their ownership of Marvel has provided them some of the largest grossing films of all time, and their Star Wars acquisition seems to be paying off. The parks seem to be quite strong, but I've only experienced the Japan ones. Overall I find it difficult, from a layman's perspective, to believe Disney is in trouble but welcome any other information.
itsoktocry 3y ago
>Disney gets more IP in front of more 13-25 year olds. This is a very impressionable age group, and can create life long fans. This is a good value proposition for Disney. Perhaps. Perhaps, also, it's the old media playbook interpreting what young people want as "jam advertisements in front of them". >Long term the trick for Fortnite is to become the most sticky online videogame in history They might achieve this (certainly World of Warcraft holds the title). But I think video games are inherently faddish. If I had to go one way or the other, I'd bet this is a bit of a desperate move by Disney who are becoming less relevant and whose cash cow (Marvel) is withering.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

hmcdona1 3y ago

No, Disney uses Unreal for their rendered real-time sets. This is about more than just Fortnite.

reactordev 3y ago
This. Virtual Set Production is almost entirely Unreal engine. Fortnite is just a marketing platform. The real meat is the digital production pipeline that made Mando cool. That enabled Star Trek’s recent series’, and provides a “holodeck” for their just unveiled holo-floor.
- jrockway 3y ago
  I don't think Fortnite is just a marketing platform. They wouldn't have bothered suing Apple and Google over app stores if it were merely a loss leader to remind film execs that Unreal Engine is a thing.
  - callalex 3y ago
    While I agree with you that Fortnite shouldn’t be considered a loss leader, the strategy behind challenging Apple in court is more nuanced. Epic also operates a rather large software/games store and I am sure they would love to see it grow.
  - Hikikomori 3y ago
    I mean they have epic games store that competes with steam on windows. They likely want to be able to the same thing on phones.
- pnw 3y ago
  AFAIK Unreal was only used in the first season of the Mandalorian several years ago. Disney switched to using ILM's Stagecraft software, which is what they use for their films as well.
  - reactordev 3y ago
    which is Unreal Engine + ILM stuff... they call StageCraft.
jsheard 3y ago
Do they still? They used Unreal for the virtual sets in The Mandalorian S1, but for S2 they switched over to a different solution. https://www.ilm.com/vfx/the-mandalorian/ https://www.ilm.com/vfx/the-mandalorian/ > For season one of the series ILM StageCraft utilized Unreal Engine to perform the real-time render https://www.ilm.com/vfx/the-mandalorian-season-2/ https://www.ilm.com/vfx/the-mandalorian-season-2/ > The real-time render engine called Helios was specifically developed by ILM engineers > Ctrl-F "Unreal" - no results
- reactordev 3y ago
  StageCraft IS Unreal Engine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/StageCraft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/StageCraft ILM used Unreal Engine to make StageCraft and kept iterating on it until it’s the awesome tech that it is. They have a vested interest in seeing the underlying engine continue to prosper.
  - jsheard 3y ago
    They made a point of highlighting the use of Unreal during the production of Season 1, but then it's completely absent from their discussion of later seasons, instead only referencing an in-house renderer they call Helios. Have they specifically said anywhere that they're still using Unreal Engine? https://www.ilm.com/industrial-light-magic-to-expand-stagecraft-led-virtual-production-offering-with-new-facility-in-vancouver/ https://www.ilm.com/industrial-light-magic-to-expand-stagecr... This 2021 article mentions that external productions using StageCraft services can choose to use either Unreal or Helios for rendering, so the Unreal integration may still be available for those who want it, but obviously ILM didn't write a brand new renderer for the fun of it. Unreal must not have been cutting it for their own productions.
  - katabatic 3y ago
    StageCraft WAS Unreal Engine; it is not anymore.
    - westurner 3y ago
vineyardmike 3y ago
Epic has purchased VFX companies in the past, and Unity was eying that market before they imploded recently, making a bunch of acquisitions. It’s an obvious and huge opportunity for game engine experts to grow their influence.
mogoh 3y ago
That would be less expensive.
codexb 3y ago
They use it in their rides as well -- https://web.archive.org/web/20200311075335/https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2018/03/28/walt-disney-imagineering-nvidia-star-wars-galaxys-edge-millennium-falcon/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200311075335/https://blogs.nvi...

resolutebat 3y ago

My kids already think many recent Fortnite collabs (Star Wars, Marvel, etc) are lame. Hasn't stopped them from playing though. https://www.dexerto.com/fortnite/every-fortnite-collab-crossover-battle-royale-history-1645672/ https://www.dexerto.com/fortnite/every-fortnite-collab-cross...

sublinear 3y ago
I had the same reaction 20 years ago to Kingdom Hearts. Disney is definitely at risk of becoming irrelevant with their stale IP.
- totetsu 3y ago
  When kingdom hearts was released I got my first glimpse of how some people seem to throw their logic and taste out the window for Disney. It just seemed the dumbest thing to me. And why was the sword a key.. [edit: this was my teenage selfs opinion]
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Some people like goofy mashup fun. There's a ton of people who apparently really liked Kingdom Hearts. It's pretty elitist to consider some IP too sacred to remix.
    - jvanderbot 3y ago
      Everyone in my friend group considered it a runaway hit. They all played a ton. I was amazed.
    - tombert 3y ago
      I only played Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2 on the Playstation 2 as a teenager, and I did enjoy them while playing, but I have to admit that I have absolutely no idea what the hell happened story-wise by the end of the second game. The story just got increasingly convoluted and harder to follow, and the juxtaposition of serious Final Fantasy characters and Disney characters never really stopped being funny to me.

citizenpaul 3y ago

Id say fortnight has quite the ways to go then. Counterstrike and World of Warcraft have 15-20 years headstart and are still going.

gamepsys 3y ago
I was actually thinking about World of Warcraft when I was thinking about a game that failed to be sticky. World of Warcraft peaked in subscriber count in 2010, and has generally seen steady decline since then. I think the numbers for WoW look worse when you consider how sharply it's share of the video game market has declined. The video game market has ballooned in size while Wow's user base is slowly bleeding out. It's hard to get accurate data, but Fortnite has roughly 100x more users than World of Warcraft. Counterstrike is an even smaller userbase.
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  A game that has lasted twenty years as a commercial project has definitely not failed to be sticky! There’s a lot of hope and desire for “forever games” particularly from investors but there is no such thing. They will all have a peak and a steady decline at some stage. Social networks exhibit this pattern as well.
- Reason077 3y ago
  > ”World of Warcraft peaked in subscriber count in 2010, and has generally seen steady decline since then.” Sure, but even in 2024 this 20-year old game has a paid monthly player count well into the millions. Extremely successful by any measure. And perhaps one of the most profitable game franchises of all time.
- spookie 3y ago
  How is Counter Strike small? It has consistently 1.5 million daily players. It's about the same as Fortnite.
- bombcar 3y ago
  World of Warcraft is no failure by any measure, but it’s not the world-defining explosion it once was. Existing players keep playing but you rarely hear of new players; at best they may convince old subscribers to return. Minecraft is also old but seems to be collecting new players decently well.

ydg6 3y ago

Disney is the last standing Old Media company. All other Media and Entertainment companies are either owned by Comcast/AT&T or are Tech companies (netflix, amazon,apple,sony,youtube,tiktokk) that have carved out a chunk of the media and entertainment sector. Disney is basically on the back foot here, at a time when the attention economy is wrecking chaotic unpredictable havoc on the the media sector.They had to do something cause shareholder revolt has been brewing for a while.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
ATT sold its media business to Discovery, which is now Warner Bros Discovery, which is old media. Also, there is still Paramount. Sony Pictures started in 1987, so that should qualify as old media too. And there is also Lionsgate. Disney is by far the biggest and most relevant, though.
- WorldMaker 3y ago
  Given how much the Discovery arm seems to be in control, Warner Bros Discovery may be "new media" in old media clothing. Skydance is trying to buy National Amusements to take over Paramount and arguably be a similar new media in old media clothing if that deal goes through. > Sony Pictures started in 1987, so that should qualify as old media too. I know objective that's almost 40 years ago and probably does qualify for old, but that still seems too recent in Hollywood Empires. But Sony Pictures also has the advantage it bought truly old media Columbia/TriStar and didn't seem to kill them and kind of left them to continue to do their thing, so maybe Sony gets more of a pass too. > And there is also Lionsgate. Lionsgate was formed in 1997. Maybe you are thinking about MGM (and its famous Lion logo), which Amazon has been trying not to kill since it acquired that ancient studio brand, but also is very much appearing to be Amazon still being Amazon just wearing that brand (which was on life support or already a zombie when purchased) like a skin at this point?
Staple_Diet 3y ago
Really? I thought Disney was doing well. Their subscription service is only behind Netflix and Amazon, the latter of which includes its service in Prime so is not an equal competitor. Further, their ownership of Marvel has provided them some of the largest grossing films of all time, and their Star Wars acquisition seems to be paying off. The parks seem to be quite strong, but I've only experienced the Japan ones. Overall I find it difficult, from a layman's perspective, to believe Disney is in trouble but welcome any other information.

itsoktocry 3y ago

>Disney gets more IP in front of more 13-25 year olds. This is a very impressionable age group, and can create life long fans. This is a good value proposition for Disney. Perhaps. Perhaps, also, it's the old media playbook interpreting what young people want as "jam advertisements in front of them". >Long term the trick for Fortnite is to become the most sticky online videogame in history They might achieve this (certainly World of Warcraft holds the title). But I think video games are inherently faddish. If I had to go one way or the other, I'd bet this is a bit of a desperate move by Disney who are becoming less relevant and whose cash cow (Marvel) is withering.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]