Layer may be positioned to primarily support developers with their licensing strategies (Ideation, Search and Support) but we sit at the junction of development and IP. This encompasses agents, strategists, advisors and more. This means there are often many opinions to consider on what works and what doesn't. We all know there are many reasons for this....

Anyway, over recent months there has been a lot of publicity within the licensing industry about the lack of K-Pop Demon Hunters game and merchandise initiatives. Do you agree? Are recent announcements a little late? Was a window of opportunity missed? Why was that and what lessons can be learned by IP owners and developers alike? Is this an example of an IP that perhaps lost momentum due to a lack of forward planning? Or was it just one of those things that happens from time to time? But should it?

Yes, so many questions, and we delve in to a few of those within this article.

Suffice to say, it is a magnificent franchise with many more opportunities on the horizon. Let's get in to it a little more.....

Let’s just start off by acknowledging that KPop Demon Hunters enjoyed genuinely blockbuster-level success…..:

• The film, produced by Sony Pictures Animation and distributed via Netflix, premiered on June 20 2025 and quickly vaulted into record territory.
• The soundtrack became a hit in its own right: songs from the film (notably “Golden”) climbed global charts including Billboard and UK Official Singles.
• The film’s themes — a K-pop girl-group who moonlight as demon-hunters, blending Korean mythological motifs with pop music, world-tour visuals, supernatural action — created a fan-culture dynamic.
• As reported: “‘It became the most-watched original title in Netflix history’ … more than 236 million views in two months” per the film’s announcement.
• The merchandise/brand expansion is already in motion (toys, collectables via partnerships between Netflix, Mattel, Hasbro) though game content not yet front-and-centre.

So: here you have a fresh original IP, global in reach, strong in music + youth culture + fandom, a visually rich world, and built (in part) on K-pop sensibilities — which generally are interactive, fan-driven, participatory.

Given all that, you might expect a robust interactive/game ecosystem to spring up simultaneously with the film’s peak. But the observation is that such integration appears delayed or under-exploited so far.

The “lack” of game/interactive tie-ins at the peak:

While the success has been enormous, the interactive/games component is conspicuous by its absence (or at least, slow rollout). A few points:

• Reporting shows that “game developers are rushing to secure rights to a ‘K-Pop Demon Hunters’ video game following global success.”
• But “following global success” is telling — the rush comes after the peak, rather than aligning with the film’s launch window.
• The merchandise announcements (toys, collectables) are starting 2026 onward per the Mattel/Hasbro deal.
• There is no major publicly-announced large scale console/PC game launch tied to the IP at the time of writing, nor a mobile game launch that appears to have hit concurrently with the film’s arrival.
• Given the nature of the IP (music, fandom, K-pop culture, virtual idol concept) one might have expected a rhythm game, mobile live concert experience, or social multiplayer game to go live in tandem with the film’s hype. That hasn’t visibly happened (or at least not prominently).

So the result: the brand hit peak awareness and cultural ubiquity (soundtrack charting, streaming numbers, social media buzz) without (so far) the interactive layer being fully leveraged at that moment of peak.

Sony-Netflix relationship and its potential impact on forward planning for games/interactive:

To understand why the interactive tie-ins may have lagged, we should perhaps look at the corporate / licensing dynamics between Sony and Netflix, and how that may shape game/interactive strategy.

The relationship

• In April 2021, Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE) and Netflix signed a “pay-one U.S. licensing deal” for feature films: Netflix would obtain first pay window rights to SPE titles following their theatrical/home-video windows.
• Sony (via its broader group) has publicly stated that it sees a gap in its portfolio of new original IPs across games, film and anime.
• Meanwhile, Netflix has its own gaming ambitions, but has pivoted toward more “casual/mobile” games rather than full AAA tie-ins.

Implications for “KPop Demon Hunters” style IP

Given this backdrop:

• Sony’s film/animation arm created the “KPop Demon Hunters” IP (via Sony Pictures Animation) in partnership with Netflix for distribution. So the rights structure may lean toward film/streaming distribution rather than integrated game/interactive rollout. A common situation where forward planning of integrated interactive experiences can still be limited when perhaps it shouldn’t.
• Netflix as distributor likely focuses on content-to-stream rather than fully synchronised game/interactive launches (especially multiple-platform). While Netflix now licenses/produces games, its track record and internal focus is more on mobile/casual tie-ins rather than large scale tie-ups at launch.
• Therefore: Sony (as the IP owner/producer) would need to plan the interactive game/licensing strategy ahead of the film launch if a simultaneous game release is to happen—but given the film likely was many years in development (9-year gestation according to Britannica) the interactive layer may not have been fully built into the timeline.
• Further: Game development (especially console/PC/major titles) has long lead times. If the interactive concept was not initiated early (pre-production concurrently with the film), by the time the film launched the game might have still been in early stage and therefore unavailable to ride the hype wave. This does however not need to necessarily limit timely opportunities on other platforms including content integrations.
• Also: Licensing/rights for games often involve separate negotiations (game console, mobile, platform exclusivity, monetisation etc). If the film deal with Netflix didn’t explicitly integrate game rights or interactive multimedia rights, then there may have been friction or delay. We can only speculate on the detail here without visibility.

Thus, the relationship and structural arrangements (Sony producing, Netflix distributing) may have inadvertently created a scenario where the film peaked first and then the game/interactive layer followed, rather than launching in tandem.

So, was this a missed opportunity?

In many ways yes — there are clear signs that the IP had all the right ingredients for interactive/gaming success, and yet the interactive layer didn’t accompany the peak moment.

Why it feels like a missed opportunity

• The K-pop + idol + fandom dimension is inherently interactive: fans want to participate, dance, sing, play, share. A game or interactive concert experience could have amplified that.
• The global record-breaking nature of the film created a window where brand awareness was sky-high. Launching a game at that moment would likely have ridden the wave.
• The absence (or delay) of such an offering means potentially lost revenue, lost engagement, lost momentum in prolonging the cultural moment beyond the film soundtrack and streaming numbers.
• While toys/merch announcements are coming later, these are still downstream. The interactive game might have been the upstream driver to keep the audience engaged until the next film/sequel.

Mitigating factors

It’s also fair to note that:

• Launching a high-quality game (mobile, console, etc) is a big undertaking — poor execution could hurt the brand. Maybe the IP owners opted for caution rather than rushed tie-in.
• Perhaps internal strategy aligned more to film/music/merchandise first, with games as a second phase.
• The film may have been developed without initially guaranteeing a game pipeline; only once success was clear did game developers approach for rights (as the article noted). That means the game strategy follows “reactively” rather than “proactively” in this case.

Net assessment

Yes — in a perfect scenario the interactive component would have been ready or very close to ready when the film launched so that cross-platform synergy would amplify reach, monetisation, and fan engagement. The fact that the game/licensing rush is “post-peak” suggests a missed timing/momentum opportunity.

So are there any lessons here for IP owners & agencies?

From this case of “KPop Demon Hunters” we can draw a set of practical lessons for future IP launches, especially in the era of cross-media (film + streaming + music + games + fandom).

Begin with the ecosystem in mind…..

When building an IP that has potential for multiple media (film, music, games, merchandise, live events), plan concurrently for each layer. Not just “we’ll do a film, then perhaps games later” but “we’re building a universe where film, game, merch, live experience all align”.

Align timing of launches

The moment of peak consumer attention is the best time to launch interactive/gaming tie-ins. If the film drops and becomes a global phenomenon, that initial window is gold. Games launched months later will miss the initial wave and risk weaker traction.

Secure game/licensing rights early (where practicable)

If a film/streaming deal is signed (e.g., distribution via Netflix) make sure that the rights and licensing for interactive/games are “locked in” early — whether internally or via third-party developers — so that development can proceed in parallel with the film. Negotiation delays often result in interactive content lagging.

Consider fan behaviour and platform

In the K-pop-idol context, fans expect more than passive viewing. They expect participation. So interactive formats that support music, dance, viral sharing, user-generated content, social connectivity will resonate. A mobile rhythm game, virtual concert, avatar marketplace, social dance challenge — these would likely have been natural fits. Tailor the game concept to the fandom culture.

Balance quality vs speed

There is a trade-off: launching a game too early may lead to sub-par quality and brand damage; launching too late means missing the hype. Agencies and IP owners must assess development lead time and choose the appropriate platform (mobile is faster; console/PC takes longer). Sometimes releasing a “lite” interactive experience quickly (mobile/AR/social) alongside the film while the “bigger” game follows may be a viable strategy.

Monetisation & platform strategy clarity

Decide early: is the game going to be premium (pay upfront), free-to-play with in-app purchases, console/PC? Will it link music streaming, live events, merchandise? Are there co-brands (toys, apparel) and how do they interlink? Clarifying the business model early helps align stakeholders (film studio, game developer, distributor, merch partner).

Synchronise marketing and cross-promo

Interactive/gaming tie-in should not be an afterthought. Marketing campaigns for the film should include “play the game,” “join the concert,” “download the companion app” etc. Fans need to see this is a holistic universe. Social media, dance challenges, shared UGC (user-generated content) generate momentum.

Evaluate platform partnerships carefully

In this case, Sony (film/animation) and Netflix (distribution) worked effectively for the film. But Netflix’s own gaming strategy is still maturing (and has pivoted to more mobile/casual) which may not align with a high-production console tie-in. When partnering with a distributor or platform, assess their interactive/gaming capability and timeline. If the distributor does not prioritise games, then the IP owner must either manage game development independently or partner with a dedicated game-publisher/ developer.

Plan for post-launch longevity

Interactive content is key to extending the life of an IP beyond the film release window. Sequels, live events, virtual concerts, expansions, seasonal content keep the fans engaged. The game (or interactive platform) can act as a hub for that ongoing engagement. Without a game or interactive content, momentum may drop once the initial streaming/film buzz subsides.

Use data & feedback loops

If you release a companion app/game, you gain data on your audience — what songs they love, what characters they favour, how they engage socially. That data can feed back into film sequels, merch design, live event planning. So interactive content is not just a revenue stream but a strategic asset.

Conclusion

“KPop Demon Hunters” stands out as a brilliant case of a new original IP — one that cracked into the global cultural zeitgeist thanks to a fresh concept (K-pop meets demon-hunting), strong music, fandom appeal, global distribution via Netflix and production by a major animation studio (Sony Pictures Animation).

Yet, despite all the ingredients pointing to cross-media breakout potential, the interactive/game layer did not (as publicly visible) ride the wave at the same moment of peak film success. Instead the game/developer interest appears to be reacting after the fact. That means a potential “missed opportunity” in timing, engagement and monetisation.

The structural relationship between Sony (producer/rights owner) and Netflix (distributor) likely contributed: film/streaming deals may have been finalised without an embedded game-release schedule; Netflix’s gaming strategy is still evolving; and game development lead times may have meant the interactive component lagged.

For future IP owners and agencies: treat the game/interactive component as a first-class citizen in the IP ecosystem, plan it early, align timing, pick the right platforms, secure rights, drive marketing that spans film + game + merch, and use interactive content as both engagement driver and data-feedback mechanism. If done right, an IP like “KPop Demon Hunters” could have generated not just soundtrack hits and streaming records, but also viral dance-game tie-ins, avatar ecosystems, live-virtual concert experiences, mobile rhythm apps and a deeply engaged fan-community all feeding off each other.

For Layer and our network of partners and associated in games, agency and IP owner structures, this story adds a perspective that may knew but perhaps did not always see.

Other website references you may like to read in relation to this article:

After 18 weeks on Netflix, KPop Demon Hunters has surpassed 400 million views | GamesRadar+

KPop Demon Hunters becomes Netflix’s most-watched film with 236m views | Netflix | The Guardian

‍

‍

In what was probably the biggest news of the last 6 months, Electronic Arts announced it had entered into an agreement to be acquired by Saudi Arabia’s PIF, Silver Lake, and Affinity Partners to the tune of $55 billion. In EA’s own words, this sale “positions EA to accelerate innovation and growth to build the future of entertainment.”

But what does more consolidation and limited ownership mean for all the IP that this behemoth licenses in and potentially significantly licenses out?

Has the EA we all know and love been taken off the board as such or is it a new beginning?

An EA statement read; “Our creative and passionate teams at EA have delivered extraordinary experiences for hundreds of millions of fans, built some of the world’s most iconic IP, and created significant value for our business. This moment is a powerful recognition of their remarkable work. Looking ahead, we will continue to push the boundaries of entertainment, sports, and technology, unlocking new opportunities.”

With so many IPs of great note, will outbound licensing take more of a prominent role at EA, or will the new owners invest further to enable further franchise growth.

We take a look at some of the examples of their work, brands and more and their impact over the decades and question what might be next…..

Let’s be honest, few companies have made such a profound impact in the history og the video games industry as Electronic Arts (EA) has. Historically known for its strong portfolio of games, including sports franchises like FIFA, Madden NFL, and others such as The Sims, EA has grown to dominate the gaming landscape. But the company’s strategy of acquiring other companies over the years—coupled with its deft use of third-party intellectual property (IP)—has left behind a fascinating and sometimes perplexing legacy of franchises that, while once at the forefront of gaming, are no longer part of the conversation. But will they now come back…..?

With the recent acquisition of EA by PIF and Silverlake etc, the potential for new acquisitions, IP development, and licensing agreements could be more significant than ever. This move raises intriguing questions about the future of both EA's outgoing licensing projects and its inbound collaborations with other developers and IP holders, particularly with the growing trend of mobile gaming and cloud-based services. But to understand where EA might be going, it’s worth taking a step back and reflecting on the companies and franchises it has brought into the fold—and those that have since faded into the background.

From its earliest days, EA has been known for its aggressive acquisition strategy. In the late '90s and early 2000s, EA's mergers with companies like Maxis (the creators of The Sims) and Westwood Studios (the developers behind Command & Conquer) gave the publisher access to beloved franchises that continue to resonate with fans to this day. Similarly, the 2007 acquisition of BioWare and Pandemic Studios brought iconic RPGs like Mass Effect and Dragon Age, alongside titles like Star Wars: Battlefront—games that became central to EA's identity in the 2010s.

While many of these acquisitions still result in highly successful franchises, some of the brands that once felt like cornerstones of EA’s diverse portfolio have been largely relegated to the history books. Whether through shifting company priorities, changing markets, or simply the passage of time, a number of once-prominent brands have faded into obscurity.

Franchises We Don't See Anymore: Are These Lost EA Brands or are they slowly returning?

1. Westwood Studios and Command & Conquer

Perhaps one of the most significant losses for EA fans came with the fading of the Command & Conquer series. Originally developed by Westwood Studios, Command & Conquer was a trailblazer in the real-time strategy (RTS) genre. Westwood's innovative gameplay mechanics and immersive storytelling captivated millions. After EA acquired the studio in 1998, the franchise went on to have several sequels and spin-offs. However, following a disappointing Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight (2010) and a poor remaster of the original games, Command & Conquer has all but vanished from EA’s active lineup, with no clear direction for the future.

2. SimCity and Maxis

Another brand with immense potential that has been left by the wayside is SimCity. Acquired by EA in 1997, Maxis created one of the most beloved simulation franchises in gaming history. However, after the release of SimCity (2013), which was critically panned for its always-online requirement and lackluster features, the franchise’s future has been uncertain. Despite some signs of life in the form of the Sims series (which remains a massive success), SimCity has been largely abandoned, with no major titles in the series released since 2013. We would love to see this one come back!

We’ve only highlighted a couple of examples here but there are so many more. If you are a Brit, where are all those epic Codemasters IPs? Yes, the market may only be able to take so many franchises but with the proliferation of opportunity, surely there are more outbound opportunities to be exploited. Watch this space!

The Power of Third-Party IPs: EA’s Licensing Successes

While EA has seen some franchises fade away, its ability to develop and market games using third-party IPs has been a key part of its ongoing success. By securing licensing deals over many years with powerhouse brands like Star Wars, The Simpsons, and Lord of the Rings, EA has created games that have resonated with fans and made substantial impacts on the gaming world.

1. Star Wars Battlefront (2015 and 2017)

The aqcuisition of Star Wars game licensing rights in 2013 was a major coup a the time for EA, allowing them to create two highly successful games under the Battlefront banner. The first Star Wars Battlefront (2015) was a visual and auditory feast, offering fans of the franchise a chance to play out iconic battles across multiple environments from the Star Wars universe. The 2017 sequel, Star Wars Battlefront II, offered a deeper experience, though it was marred by a controversy surrounding its microtransactions and loot box system. Even so, both titles found commercial success, demonstrating EA’s ability to leverage an iconic brand to create engaging gameplay experiences.

2. The Simpsons Games

EA also made a significant mark in the casual gaming space by acquiring the rights to The Simpsons franchise, producing multiple games based on the animated series. One of the most notable successes was The Simpsons Hit & Run (2003), a sandbox-style game that combined open-world exploration with the comedic tone of the show. Though The Simpsons franchise hasn’t seen a new AAA release in some time, it remains a prime example of how EA’s licensing prowess can turn popular TV and film IP into fun, engaging games.

Naturally there are many more in this category also, but we have only mentioned a few just to get you thinking. OK, EA do not still own many of these franchises under license but there are a lot more under the hood than many may imagine.

The PIF Acquisition and What It Means for the Future

As per the introduction to this article, fast forward to 2025, and EA is now under the control of the Public Investment Fund (PIF) of Saudi Arabia. This move has major implications for the company, both in terms of its ability to acquire new properties and its approach to licensing on the whole.

The PIF’s significant capital and desire to diversify investments could lead to a more aggressive acquisition strategy, potentially bringing in more high-profile game studios or IPs from outside the gaming world. This could also open doors to collaborations with new media companies, expanding EA’s reach across platforms, including mobile and cloud-based gaming. And that is just one angle. There are so many more.

The shifting landscape might also affect EA's relationships with third-party IP holders. While Star Wars and The Simpsons have provided immense value to EA in the past, the future of major inbound licensing projects is uncertain. Will EA continue to pursue large IP deals, or will it begin to focus more on internal IP creation and take a look back at what is within? After all, it is substantial and worth them pausing to reflect.

With PIF’s influence, we might just actually see EA invest heavily in developing original franchises while also strengthening partnerships with media companies outside of traditional gaming. Some would say not a lot of change then. But we expect notable change.

As Electronic Arts continues to evolve under the new ownership of the PIF, it stands at a crossroads. The company’s acquisition strategy has provided a wealth of classic titles that continue to resonate with fans, but it has also resulted in a number of once-popular franchises fading into obscurity. At the same time, its strategic use of third-party IPs has enabled the company to produce some of its most successful games.

Looking forward, the future of EA may well hinge on its ability to adapt to changing gaming trends while maintaining its reputation for high-quality, licensed games. Whether it focuses more on inward development or increases its investment in third-party collaborations, the coming years promise to be an exciting time for the publisher as it navigates new challenges and opportunities in the gaming world.

What do you think?

‍