Fundamental Thinking featured image

Hit-or-Miss Nature of Video Games Belies Industry’s Consistent Earnings

Video games, much like movies, are a lumpy business. Every so often a hit comes along upon which a publisher can build a long-running franchise—Activision Blizzard’s Call of Duty, for example, just released a well-received 21st installment. Other times, you can find gamers and investors alike grumbling over the industry delays, bugs, and titles that completely flop.

Still, for a lumpy business, the gaming industry is consistently very profitable. Just look at how it stacks up against the Consumer Staples sector, which is arguably the definition of consistency due to the reliability of demand for basic goods. Economic returns, as measured by cash flow return on investment, have not been as stable for video-game companies over the past 30 years as they have been for consumer staples, but their averages are closer than you might expect—and gaming companies have grown faster:

Global Providers of Interactive Home Entertainment vs. Consumer Staples Companies

Source: Harding Loevner, HOLT database.

Recently, some gaming companies have hit a rough patch. French publisher Ubisoft pushed back the release of Shadows, the next installment of its Assassin’s Creed franchise, from November 12 of this year to February 14 next year, citing the need to “further polish” the game and refunding customers who pre-ordered. Ubisoft said it took these steps after learning from its experience with Star Wars Outlaws, an August release plagued by bugs and criticism over the gameplay. The consecutive disappointments led the company to lower its financial forecasts for the year, which also dragged down its stock price.

Additionally, in September, Sony pulled its shooter game Concord off the market two weeks after it was released, saying the game “didn’t land the way we’d intended.” Like Ubisoft, the Japanese conglomerate issued refunds. There is also speculation that Grand Theft Auto VI, which has long been in development at Take-Two Interactive, may get delayed until 2026—13 years after the previous installment in the series was released.

News such as this tends to restart the debate over whether gaming is just a bad industry for investors. In fact, the industry structure seems challenging. The barriers to entry are somewhat low, and the number of substitutes and competitors—including new entrants in China and South Korea—are both high, factors that generally limit a company’s ability to generate sustainably high profits. But the charts above do not depict such a terrible situation. Rather, there may be some weak players, but there are clearly others that have managed to become more profitable and stable over time.

One way some publishers have done this is by building diversified franchises, which leaves them less prone to revenue lulls and limits the impact that a failed release has on the company’s overall finances. Electronic Arts, for example, has a number of successful franchises, including FIFA, Madden, Apex Legends, and The Sims. Activision Blizzard, in addition to Call of Duty, has World of Warcraft, Candy Crush, and Overwatch, among others—a collection Microsoft found so attractive that it acquired the company for about US$70 billion last year (Microsoft owns Xbox). Other diversified players include Tencent and NetEase, both based in China.

Another way that some in the industry have generated more consistent revenue and profits is through add-on digital content. Twenty years ago, video-game publishers were essentially consumer-goods companies. Their games were a physical product, and manufacturing, shipping, and selling these discs carried a significant cost. Playing them was also a one-off experience. Digital technology changed all this, with players increasingly downloading games rather than purchasing new or used discs. This has allowed game developers and publishers to boost the revenue generated by a game after it’s released by offering so-called expansion packs for online purchase, as well as virtual cosmetics to enhance a player’s avatar and virtual currencies. For example, Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 was released October 25, but you can almost guarantee that at some point, perhaps in six months or so, an expansion pack with additional content will become available. Extending the useful life of each game in this way relieves the pressure on developers to quickly crank out the next one. In the second quarter of 2023, Activision Blizzard’s last earnings report before its sale to Microsoft was completed, the company said that downloadable content and micro-transactions accounted for 63% of its net bookings.

The industry’s earnings consistency also has to do with the other types of companies involved in gaming: console makers, such as Microsoft and Sony, as well as businesses that sell tools and services to developers and publishers. One example is Keywords Studios, a provider of game-ready art and quality-assurance testing. Gaming platforms and toolmakers capture a portion of the industry’s revenues, which means they benefit from the overall growth without taking on the risk of any single game.

The recent challenges at Ubisoft and other companies reflect two industry trends that are worth watching. One is that game development has slowed. It’s unclear whether this is due to increased remote work, developers missing deadlines because they’re trying pack more interactive features into a game, pushback against the industry’s overtime habits, or perhaps all the above. In any case, these would seem to be temporary challenges.

Another is that some gamers seem to be spending less money on the hobby, which describes a change in user habits that could be more permanent. However, there’s not enough data to know if that’s the case. Instead, what we can gather from 30 years of financial data is that some gaming companies are built to ride out the rough patches, and so it would be a mistake for investors to write off the whole industry.

Why Own International Companies?

When US stocks have outperformed for as long as they have—creating the world’s first trillion-dollar companies in the process—it’s easy to forget that plenty of highly profitable businesses exist a long way from Silicon Valley or Seattle.

While US companies account for just over 60% of the market capitalization of the MSCI All Country World Index, their weight is a tad misleading given that a few technology giants—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft—weigh heavily on the scale. Together, those four are valued at nearly US$8 trillion, more than the next 15 largest US stocks combined.

Streaming’s Road to Profitability

In the pre-streaming era, cable companies wielded enormous pricing power over consumers by building regional monopolies with few substitutes. Today, Netflix, Disney, and others are attempting to capture the same profit pool that was once controlled by those cable providers. To do so, scale is crucial.

But achieving scale isn’t as easy as loading up an app with as many good shows and movies as possible. Content is expensive, and the formula for profitability is simple: number of subscribers multiplied by average revenue per user minus content costs. Disney overspent on content during the pandemic years in a race to add subscribers. Because of this, the frenzied spending on content has abated. According to Harding Loevner analysts Uday Cheruvu, CFA, and Igor Tishin, PhD, Netflix has shown that to achieve scale and remain profitable, a service needs to offer a sufficient breadth and depth of content so that every person in a household finds the service useful and there is no incentive to cancel—but not so much that it becomes too costly to produce. Watch the videos above for highlights from their discussion at the Harding Loevner 2024 Investor Forum.

OOOM featured image

Chipmaking Is Getting More Complex. Daifuku’s Smart Monorails Keep Fabs Running Smoothly

In semiconductor manufacturing, a single speck of dust poses a threat to production. It’s why cleanrooms, the sterile labs where silicon wafers get etched and cut into pieces, and then packaged as finished chips—with thousands of steps in between—contain few humans. To reduce the risk of contamination and defects, materials are largely transported by automated monorail systems that travel along the ceiling.

Source: Daifuku.
While advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI) have put a spotlight on the companies that design and manufacture chips, as well as their data-center customers, providers of cleanroom technology play an increasingly critical role in a world of high-performance computing. Not only is the industry for cleanroom automation characterized by an attractive competitive structure, but new trends and challenges in chipmaking are also improving the growth outlook for this specialized material-handling technology. One player in particular may stand to benefit, and that is Daifuku.