NightlyPoe said:
What do you mean? Seems to me that Disney has done an incredible job of maintaining the properties they buy or absorb. Part of Disney's success in all these acquisitions has been that they maintain a distinct brand. The only example I can think of is, ironically, shuttering LucasArts when they got the rest of Lucasfilm. But that was just Disney cutting off the crust of their Lucas sandwich. Disney's success and the reason they seem so big is actually because there's an inherent corporate culture in favor of curation. Sometimes it breaks down (Direct-to-video glut of the 90s, live-action remakes of today), but Disney's real strength is that they place a value on their IPs and look to make them something special in the long run. To that end, the companies they acquire tend to maintain their distinctness. Lasseter remained in charge of Pixar. Feige took the point with Marvel. Dave Filoni was put in charge of Lucasarts Animation. Kennedy (for good or ill) was left to oversee Lucasarts. And so on down the line. Disney's acquired a lot of properties, but most of them have retained distinct from the Mouse in the years since and have continued to thrive. Obviously, Disney won't be buying Nintendo. But if they theoretically did, Nintendo would likely continue to remain a distinct entity and continue with a certain amount of freedom. |
Disney doesn't really care about video games. That's why they think EA is doing a great job with the Star Wars license. You think Disney would give a shit about anything except Mario and Pokémon? Maybe Zelda if every game sells 10 million plus. Disney doesn't allow for freedom, that's why Warren Spector had to tone down Epic Mickey and then his studio was shut down shortly after Epic Mickey 2. Its like saying From Software will have their freedom and can make whatever they want if EA or Activision buys them. They would have a chance or two and then be dissolved if they didn't make a huge profit.
