How Unity CEO Matt Bromberg stopped the ‘war’ against its customers
01:14:21 Share

This podcast is supported by Google.

Hi, I'm Dave, one of the product leads on Google Gemini. We just launched Gemini Canvas. It's my new go-to for real-time collaboration with Gemini. Write docs, edit code, get feedback, iterate, all in one new interactive space from a blank slate to a built-out prototype. My favorite part? Ask Gemini to leave feedback and suggestions just like you would with a teammate. Check it out for free at gemini.google.com.

Whatever you look for in a getaway, you can find it at Virginia Beach. When you're there, you'll be able to enjoy some of the best cultural attractions, activities, and culinary experiences the world has to offer. You could take a stroll on the world's longest pleasure beach that travels for miles and miles.

Or you could take part in their annual festivals, concerts, and waterfront dining. And if you're in the mood for dinner, make sure to check out their fresh local seafood with farm-to-table ingredients. It's a trip that everyone in the family will remember for a lifetime. Go to visitvirginiabeach.com to learn more. Robinhood is built for the future of trading. Learn more at robinhood.com. Investing is risky. Robinhood Financial LLC member SIPC is a registered broker-dealer.

Hello and welcome to Decoder. I'm Neil Apatow, editor-in-chief of The Verge, and Decoder is my show about big ideas and other problems. Today I'm talking with Matt Bromberg, the CEO of Unity, one of the leading video game development platforms. He's been in that job for less than a year, and in many ways, Matt is the perfect Decoder guest. See, Unity is one of those companies that we love talking about here on Decoder, because we all interact with its products all the time, but the company itself is somewhat hidden from view.

Unity doesn't really make or publish its own games. Instead, its core product, the Unity game engine, is what all kinds of other games, especially mobile games, run on. If you play games on your phone, which you probably do, you've used a product built with Unity. It's not just phones by a long shot, you'll hear Matt and I talk about that, but Unity as a company is what enables such a core part of the mobile phone experience.

That's a Decoder episode all by itself, but Matt took over the job as CEO in a moment of crisis, and he's made significant changes to the company since. You'll hear him describe Unity as being at war with its customers prior to joining. He's not wrong. Matt's predecessor as CEO, John Riccatello, led the company through what would have been a major change to its pricing model, called the runtime fee. That runtime fee would have effectively raised costs on many of its customers.

On top of that, the communication around that pricing model change was also, frankly, terrible. Unity developers went into open rebellion, which led to Riccatello's resignation, and eventually, Matt's decision to scrap the runtime fee altogether. So you hear me ask Matt about the decision to walk back the runtime fee, because it was clear to everyone that that was the first decision the new CEO would need to make.

And you'll hear him explain that while he knew he needed to make the decision, how to actually execute that decision was a slow and methodical process that involved a lot of communication.

Matt's also in charge of Unity during a moment of contraction for the game industry overall. Studios are closing and some big bets on things like the metaverse and live service games just haven't paid off. So we talked about all that and where Matt sees growth ahead. Unity isn't just a game engine provider, but rather the platform for everything from running those big live services and the monetization on top of them.

One note before we start, because it really grabbed me. Matt is one of the first CEOs to come on Decoder and disagree with me about the importance of structure. I tend to think of a company's structure as a proxy for the trade-offs it makes and the culture it enables. There's a reason I'm always joking that Decoder is a show about org charts. If you tell me your org chart, I can pretty much guess 80% of your problems. But Matt told me he thinks culture isn't actually enabled by structure. You'll hear what he means. Okay, Unity CEO Matt Bromberg. Here we go. ♪

Matt Bromberg, you are the new CEO of Unity. Welcome to Decoder. Thank you so much for having me. It's really my pleasure. I am very excited to talk to you. I was saying this is like a perfect episode of Decoder. You are less than a year on the job as the new CEO. You took over. You've made a bunch of changes to the company. You've restructured the company. You've hired a new C-suite. You used to work for the old CEO. And then Unity itself is like a very core piece of technology now.

that I think is undercover. So it's like a perfect episode. Thanks for joining us. You bet. Like I said, Unity is kind of undercover. It's on everyone's phone. Everyone has games on their phone. Unity is almost certainly powering those games. What is Unity? What are game engines? Yeah, I mean, game engines are effectively the thing that developers use to build games. You know, maybe that's obvious, but the technology, to your point, is pretty deep and pretty complex. But it's really, Unity is really a platform

where developers can aggregate all the tools, technologies, content they need to build interactive applications. And yeah, to your point, it's a really important tool in our world. About seven out of every 10 mobile games in the world are built on Unity. About 30% of the PC games in the world. Seven out of the 10 best AR games were built in Unity last night or two nights ago at GDC. Eight

Eight out of 10 of the top independent games that won awards were built on Unity. So we're an important partner in that ecosystem. There's a lot of history in game engines, in investment in game engine development. There's a lot of companies that made popular games and then thought they could peel the engine out of those games and turn that into businesses. That's worked or mostly not worked in various ways. Unity is just an engine company, right? You're not trying to make consumer-facing games.

That is correct. We do a little bit. It's funny you should say that. Generally speaking, that's absolutely true. We are not a game developer and a publisher.

We have recently been doing more development ourselves on a couple of projects, but only for the purpose of ensuring that our tools are production ready and kind of dogfooting what we're doing. So we have a really expert team that does some of that, but it's really about feeding that back into our development process more than trying to be a games company. I was...

the chief operating officer of Zynga for a lot of years, I know what it is to run a games company. I think it'd be very hard and unnecessary to try to run a games company and an engine company. The reason I made that comparison explicitly is your biggest competitor is Unreal Engine, which is Epic Games. Epic is a games company. They're the Fortnite company.

They're doing both, and then they're expanding their engine, right? They're expanding into Hollywood, into automobile design, all this other stuff. You seem pretty narrowly focused on games still. How do you think about that competition? There's a lot to unpack there. First of all,

First, there are increasingly lots of applications of Unity outside of gaming. And in fact, what we call industries is the fastest growing part of our subscription business. But we are, to your point, much more focused than we were before. We were chasing sort of everything.

Hollywood and architects and digital twins for building nuclear reactors and all sorts of things. Right now, we're really just focused on a few core verticals. For example, most of the in-dash experiences in cars are built on top of Unity.

If you think about the little computer that's in your dashboard in your car, it feels a lot like a phone or some other small device. And that's sort of really our strength to be able to design, develop interactive experience for those things. Virtual retail, lots of applications on the manufacturing floor. So we do do a fair bit outside of gaming. And I guess the other thing to understand is that Uni as a platform is really focused on making games, but

We are the only company in the world that helps developers through the whole lifecycle of development, right? So from prototyping through building through operating and live service, and then crucially to acquire new players and monetize and inventory in your game. So the big second piece for us is

is the advertising and marketing piece. It's a piece that we think grows really organically out of our core business, which is about deeply understanding consumers and helping developers build for those consumers. And then when they turn to that next phase where they need to acquire players, we're also there to help them.

One of the things that's interesting about that, I kind of understand why all the car makers use Unity. They underspec the processors in their cars. And the closest comparison to that is a mobile phone, which is power constrained. I don't think a car is power constrained. I think they're just cheap. But there they are. They're just using underspec mobile processors to drive their dashboards. Unity is a great engine for mobile phones. It makes sense that you would just expand in that direction.

But that's not games, right? That's just like another set of constraints that looks familiar, so you end up there. When you talk about games, we've just gone through like an apocalypse of live service games recently. That industry doesn't seem as predictable, right? It doesn't seem like the games industry knows where its next set of growth will be, how many people it should employ quite broadly, right?

There's some big change there that it feels... I can't draw the line as quickly as I can to the expansion into cars. Yeah, listen, there's a lot of consternation about the video game industry. I'm not someone who shares that. Okay. You know, I've been around long enough to know that towards the end of hardware cycles, everybody's kind of throwing up their hands and saying, gee, I don't think gaming is doing so well. You know, I've been through this cycle several times. Here's what happens.

Creative people innovate and they make new experiences and those experiences explode into hits and that drives growth. That has always happened. I think the pain that we're feeling right now in the industry is principally a pain born of creative destruction. So I accept that there's been a fair bit of pain. There have been a lot of layoffs and other really unfortunate things. I think that's about folks reimagining themselves for the future.

The explosion of new devices and new experiences is going to be the gateway into that innovation. The thing about Unity is it's not so much that we're optimized to run on low-spec phones. It's that when you build any experience in Unity, it can operate at a really high level of performance fidelity anywhere.

That's where consumers are moving. You know, we used to be in this world where, and I kind of remember this, I worked at Electronic Arts for many years. We were in this world where folks believed that visual fidelity, high quality visuals was the primary thing that video game consumers wanted and they were obsessed with it. And I think what we've realized now is that's not what's driving

I don't think it ever has been what's driving the consumer. We're really proud of the quality of our visuals, but what really drives consumer adoption is innovation in gameplay,

And all that is what's going to drive this industry forward. And so I'm hugely optimistic about it. Keep in mind, again, web games, AR, VR, we're going to get a new Nintendo platform. We're going to get new Sony and Microsoft platforms. Phones are going to become ever more powerful. You've got dual screen phones. There is the form of games will change. The nature of them will change, but the sort of appetite for interactive experiences to

to my eye, has not lessened in any way. So just in the context of what is a game engine, what you're kind of describing here is I have an idea for a game. I see a market that's changing. Unity is going to provide me with the physics engine that lets me build the game with the ability to render the game in high fidelity across a number of platforms.

and that number of platforms is important because you need to be everywhere now. You'll operate the live service that lets people connect to multiplayer, and then you'll help me monetize the game by putting ads in it. What's the part that's the hardest right now? Because it seems like the games industry is –

Every part is the hardest. And it seems like you have a much clearer view. So what do you think is actually the hardest part? My experience of making video games for many, many years, which is what I did before I came to Unity, is that generally speaking, especially game publishers of any scale, there's a really simple equation. At the end of every year, they come to the end and they look at their P&L and they say, how much money can I spend next year making new things?

They usually have a big live service or several or many. That's what's kind of driving forward the business on a day-to-day basis. But the video games world is about hits and about new experiences. And you have to make investments. You also have to control and modulate those investments. So the most important equation is people and time. So if it's 300 people and three years to make a game versus 50 people and a year,

That equation is very, very different. The amount of innovation I can afford, the amount of new starts I can afford, the amount of marketing I can afford, very different in both equations. So to me, when I think about Unity's place in the world and where we can be the most help, it's there. We're a proud tools provider. We help video game developers make games hopefully as efficiently and as quickly and easily as possible so they can spend more time creating innovation and

And if we're really good at our job, they can have more starts because they're moving more quickly and they can do it more efficiently. And that's the role I'd love to see us play there. And then to your point, as many new starts as we can get out there, great. Now we've got to go out and find new players. So that's the flywheel you want to see. All right. Let me ask one more kind of existential question, and then I want to get into the changes you've been making at Unity. Sure.

I feel like maybe every industry, but in particular the games industry, got fundamentally confused by the combo platter of the pandemic in Fortnite. Like Meta was like, we're all going to wear headsets all day long in our house. And like, I don't know, it doesn't seem like that's happening. A bunch of companies thought, okay, we can see all these people playing Fortnite. The future of live music is going to happen in video games. And we're going to build these huge live service platforms.

multi-experience games and everyone's gonna spend all their time in them. And all that's left from what I can tell that's sustainable is Fortnite. Like there aren't, there's not another Fortnite.

And that drives a lot of your competitors' business. That drives a lot of Epic's business. Do you see that as a mistake that the industry is correcting from? Or do you see other games being able to reach that level and then go even one step farther into, okay, we're having true metaverse experiences? Because I don't see that anywhere right now. Yeah, I don't think about it exactly that way. Listen, I think that the pandemic...

More than anything, pulled demand forward. Like it pulled about a couple of years of consumer demand forward. And then we did see some natural slackening after having pulled all that forward. And I think that part of the dynamic is obvious. I mean, I just want to point out Meta renamed the company. They're like, we're not Facebook anymore. We're Meta now. And I don't know if that's paid off for them.

I was never a massive believer in the metaverse during that period of time. And I'll tell you why. That because as a game maker, I experienced all those new platforms and just thought they were garbage. And I thought, this looks like games we tried to make 15 years ago. Like, there is no way that's a sustainable consumer experience. All the sort of metaverse companies. I was completely confused by it.

Having said that, I actually continue to believe and I do see the vibrancy of big live service platforms and communities as continuing to be fundamental to the games business. I mean, yeah, Fortnite, but Roblox and FIFA and every major company has many enormous live services with millions or tens of millions of players.

And in some ways, that is the fundamental feature of the video game business right now. You know, 80% of the people are deeply invested in this experience that they've been playing for years. I think one of the challenges now is, okay, how do I get those folks to...

to move to something new. And I think that's the push-pull that we've had. But I see platforms and communities and interactive communities of gaming continuing to dominate and explode. And I do think we'll see some new things. I think we'll see innovation, some lighter experiences that will begin to challenge those. But I wouldn't confuse the sort of failure of the metaverse with some lack of sustainability in major live service gaming.

Okay. That's a connection that has always been the most interesting to me. If you believe that the world is going to be big live service games, it's not that much of a jump to say, and we'll all wear headsets all day long, right? Like we're spending time virtually, that will just get more immersive. That's a straight line. But it seems like we didn't hit the first spot, you know? No, I think some of that has to do with, you know, again, put aside the sort of idiocy of some of the metaverse stuff.

The future, to some degree, also is going to be tied to massive consumer adoption of peripherals, or maybe that's an old-fashioned word for it, but new devices. So, you know, I'm an enormous believer in AR, for example. Like, I think that one of the things that happened during the course of the pandemic and, you know, a couple of years since is

is we're starting to get closer and closer with every rev to something that's real here. I have no doubt that a couple of years from now, everybody's going to be wearing AR glasses. And how long has it been since Google Glass came out, right? But

The combination of AI and voice, which enables really easy interactions with the form factor and the battery life that is now possible, and the ability to sort of overlay information and services in front of your eyes, to me is obviously going to explode. And we're going to look back and think on the time when we kept reaching into our pockets to pull out this thing for everything. It's going to seem quaint.

But it takes a long time to get true mass consumer adoption of these devices because it all has to be perfect. But once it hits, it explodes. You're a glasses wearer. I can see you. For the audio audience, I can see Matt. He's wearing his glasses. I wear contacts. My theory is that you have to deliver far more value than is required to care for whatever you mount to your face.

And glasses deliver an extraordinary amount of value. I'm horrible at my glasses. They're very scratched. They're very dirty. I wear them just to go to bed. But like I don't have to care for them, but they deliver – I'm allowed to see. That's a huge amount of value. But you go outside in the sun. You put on sunglasses, right?

But I only get value at that time. I don't come back in and keep wearing my sunglasses, which is what I think Meta wants me to do. And I think they want us to believe that transition lenses are going to be cool. And maybe they'll pull that off. Who knows? Mark Zuckerberg is wearing a chain. He's got a haircut. Maybe he's going to pull this off. We will see. My point is right now the most compelling AR experience is way down on the curve, right? It's actually the Vision Pro, which is a huge thing that has an external battery and

limited app support. Do you see, when you put on the Vision Pro, do you see, okay, I can get from here to there if the hardware improves on some curve? Because when I reviewed it, my conclusion was we're racing down a dead end. Like this is the best pass-through VR that I've ever seen and we should not keep doing this. Like it's never going to get better than this. We partner with Apple in the creation of that device. And I would say this, I would not, you know, history is littered with

kind of first generation devices that seemed absurd in another form became ubiquitous. And I do fundamentally believe that when the device form factors get right,

that consumers will adopt them. I do think it'll be a mix though. I think one of the things we learned is that there's a pretty high bar for folks wanting to isolate themselves completely from the world. And that's why, so when I think about AR, I think the first mass adoption devices we'll see will be those that allow people to continue to be social and interact in the world while overlaying or enhancing that experience.

completely, you know, absorptive experiences. I think folks will engage in those things, but there'll be a time and a place for it. My view of that device was it's a first swing. And also, by the way, Apple has a very long history of that as well. Like the first generation of device is not necessarily the thing that takes off. So I continue to be hugely encouraged by that.

Are you of the view that – I think the cliche was this is a simulator for the thing they want to actually build? I don't know. I mean, I guess maybe that would be something you'd say after you've shipped it. It didn't go quite as well as you'd want it to, but I –

I applaud their willingness to put a stake in the ground and get out there with something and then go back to drawing board and continue to invest. I mean, at the end of the day, all of us making technology products need to do that. So pushing the envelope for me is a good thing. Yeah, I ask this because, again, the games industry as it is currently configured, we are at the end of a console generation. It appears to be restructuring resources

re-consolidating in some ways, falling apart in other ways. It was just GDC. There's just a lot of turmoil when you get the whole games industry in one conference center and talk about the future. And the big bets, right? We're all going to play a bunch of AR games where Pokemon Go just got sold, right? Like a lot of the big bets seem to be structurally changing, right?

And Unity obviously plays a part in that. But the sort of like sugar rush of the pandemic led Unity itself to making big decisions about how much demand there would be that fundamentally you've had to undo, right? The decision to charge the runtime fee feels like your predecessor, a CEO saying, okay, there's going to be this much more demand for all this stuff. I can now extract a toll. Do you see that in that framework? I don't. By the way, I also don't

fundamentally, I believe in the vibrancy and growth of the video game business, which, by the way, is still growing nicely and, by the way, continues to be larger than streaming media, streaming music, and theatrical distribution combined.

And this year will grow high single digits, maybe low double digits. So I see this business as really vibrant. I don't think the things that Uni has done in the past was sort of a... And frankly, the other folks are doing were a direct response to demand. I accept that maybe as folks staffed up across the industry and then demand slackened a little bit. I don't think that's so much this year, but maybe in the prior year before, you had some dislocation. But I think for us...

The thing about Unity, which is spectacular and fascinating, is that we sit at the intersection of so many powerful forces. 3D, digital advertising, interactive entertainment, AI. I could go on. And you could convince yourself that you have a meaningful role to play in all of that.

Because we have this platform and this engine, this tool that is connected deeply to all those kind of powerful forces. But you have to make choices in the world if you want to execute at an exceptionally high level. And the way we're thinking about this business now is that we are going to make some really focused choices and just hit the ball out of the park around those things and kind of re-earn value.

the trust of customers, be better partners, and deliver at a much higher level, and that all good things are going to come from that. It's great to be expansive, but if you want to deliver, you've got to make choices. We have to take a quick break. We'll be right back.

The brain can store vast amounts of information, up to 2.5 million gigabytes. But unlike a hard drive, our brain is always reorganizing information based on what's most important to us. So instead of using brain power researching, say, credit cards or auto insurance, the nerds at NerdWallet can give your brain a break to find the right financial product for you.

It's this kind of processing that researchers like Carlos Gershenson study as they explore how our brains are both like and unlike computers. This depends on how our brain evolved. So there are some things that might seem complex, but since our ancestors relied on solving certain problems for survival, then we do it naturally. And there are other things that might seem not so complex, but since our brains were not evolved to solve those tasks, it is difficult for us

Thankfully, that's when our brains can reach for other tools. Extended mind theory basically says that since our brains are limited, we extend cognitive abilities to our environment. We are becoming smarter simply by relying on this external technology. Neurowallet could be seen in the context of the extended mind because instead of memorizing where I spend what, then you're just extending.

When it comes to your finances, you're not expected to remember everything. Give your brain a break and let NerdWallet find the right financial products for you. Get matched in minutes at NerdWallet.com. Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home. Out. Uncertainty. Self-doubt. Stressing about not knowing where to start. In. Plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done.

Out. Word art. Sorry, Live Laugh Lovers. In. Knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today.

Hey everyone, Sean here. I'm really excited to share with you our special series, AI and Us, sponsored by Canva. We'll take an in-depth look at how AI will impact our lives in the future and explore the observations, ambitions, and reasoning behind it all. In our first episode, I'll interview futurist and tech pioneer, Jaron Lanier, about the

current state of AI, the potential it can unlock if we manage this technology well, and the implications for humanity if we don't. And then in the second episode, I'll talk to Julia Longoria, host of Vox's Good Robot, about the beliefs and ideologies of the people building, funding, and influencing artificial intelligence.

and how looking at this AI origin story can provide clues into how this technology will change the way we live and work. You can find our special series, AI and Us, right here on The Gray Area.

Welcome back. I'm talking to Unity CEO Matt Bromberg about how Unity fits into the entire video game industry. That industry is very much under pressure right now, and Unity in particular was under a lot of pressure when he stepped in as CEO less than a year ago. So I wanted to know, how did he restructure Unity to meet the moment?

I think this is a perfect transition to what I think of as the decoder questions. I want to start with a quote. You gave an interview to IGN recently, and you said, we want to be a fundamentally different and better company. It is what we want. We have to have a fundamentally different relationship with our customers, our community. We want to develop and deliver products in a fundamentally different way. And that starts with you thinking about it differently. One of my ideas for the show is that structure is a proxy for culture, right? You have to build a corporate structure that enables the culture you want.

You're basically talking about totally transforming the company in that quote. Everything has to be different down from how you deliver the products to what your relationship with the customer is. You've been there less than a year. How have you restructured Unity to get to the culture you want? Yeah, it's funny. Culture is a really interesting thing. And the way I think about culture is that I think it's actually fundamentally backward looking in a way. What I mean by that is

When we think about our culture in the context of a company, what we're usually doing is saying, hey, we got together to do this thing and it went pretty well. Now let's stop for a second and look backwards and ask ourselves, how were we behaving? What were our values while we were doing that? Because it went pretty well. Let's write those down.

you know, we'll put them on a mug or a t-shirt and those are going to be, you know, that's how we're going to talk about our culture. And that's not a criticism from me, from my perspective. I just think that's sort of, it's usually this thing where we look back to understand how we're behaving because it's worked. So the way I think about transforming culture is about setting really clear expectations and communicating more than anything, an approach that

And an expectation about how we're going to behave with one another, what's going to count as the way we do what we do. Like, how do you know you work here? Because every great company feels that way. Like, hey, this is how we do.

So when you unpack that idea, folks getting clear on that, having a common view of it, but having that view be authentic to the actual experience is important. So, for example, my first day, there was a lot of pressure to do the kinds of things that you'd expect in a big company. Hey, we should send out new values. I don't do that.

Because how do I know? I just got here. I haven't met anybody. We haven't done anything yet. Like, how about let's work together. Let's get to know each other. And then we go back in an authentic way that's actually connected in a way that isn't about like mugs and t-shirts. Can we get to a short list of like what we expect of one another? And that's sort of how I think about culture.

It's interesting you say that. It reminds me that when we started The Verge 13 years ago, we used to argue endlessly about what a Verge story would be. And now our audience knows, right? And that's a backwards looking reflection of like, we made some definitions and held on to them, communicated them. But you have also restructured the company, right? You have a new COO, you have a new CTO, you have a new CFO. That's an entirely new C-suite. You've rethought how the company should work. What are the changes that you've made?

First and most important thing for us was to reinvest in the relationship we had with customers and to be a better partner. We were at war with our customers effectively when I arrived. Folks were boycotting us. They were really unhappy with how we were charging them and how we spoke. You can't have a business where you're at war with your customers. That's insane, right? So the first thing was to take a breath and reorient ourselves around being good partners.

around authentically trying to listen to people and authentically try to deliver what they need as the primary touchstone of what drives our behavior. And I know that in a way that sounds like obvious and like a cliche, but some organizations do that and some don't.

And the process of coming to understand in an authentic but also in an accurate way what signals to hear and listen to and respond to is more complicated than it seems. But the first piece was be better partners. The second piece, to your point, was I wanted us to lead differently. I wanted our organization to be different and to have different values. And in my experience, the fastest way to do that is to make changes at the top.

Especially, by the way, if you think you might later have to change the rest of the organization. What is soul-destroying for people is when somebody comes into a company that's having a little bit of difficulty, and they start restructuring the company, and they leave the management layer intact, and they think, well, hang on a second. Who was responsible for all this stuff? How do we skip over the folks who were in charge and suddenly, I'm taking it in the neck? How did that happen?

So if you want different outcomes, if you want different approaches, some of it's changing culture, but a lot of it's changing people. And especially if you want to do it quickly, you can't be afraid because you need alignment. You need instant and immediate alignment if you want really fast results. So yeah, we changed a lot of leadership. And then the other things we did

We did some important things in our business, which, you know, we can talk about if you want to, just in terms of like, we needed to make certain investments, especially in our advertising business and other things. But putting those aside for a second, the third big thing, like from a culture and a company perspective was, I think we went about trying to redefine how we do what we do. And honestly, that is my obsession. I am someone who believes that the what is a lot less important than the how.

If you have the how right, all the what's will go better. And you have to ask yourself when you come into any organization, if that organization is not organically producing really high quality answers all the time, what you should not do is run around trying to tell people what to do and ask them to do it differently. There's no leverage in that. There's no leadership in that. There's no inspiration in that. What you need to do is ask yourself,

Why is that? How come this organism doesn't produce good answers and start to get into the how and start to fix the how, and then you start getting better answers, and that's the key to transformation. Those ideas are in a little bit of tension. Let me just push on that. There's the notion that you came into the company, you didn't want to impose culture from the top down. You wanted to wait and see and diagnose the problem of how the company made choices and

Then there's, I need to move fast and taking out all this old management, putting in new people, and you have to have a vision in order to go hire all those new people and change fast. Those ideas are a little bit of opposition. Totally fair. Listen, the truth is you got to do both. You have to do both in a way that is authentic and effective. I am generally very, very clear, and we as a team are very, very clear about what we want to do and what we think the right direction is.

But here's where they're not in conflict. It's the process through which you get clear about what you want to do, which is where all the action is. So it's not, hey, here I am. Here's what we got to do, right? It's much more about, hey, here I am. Help explain to me how we got here.

What do you do? What are the challenges? How do you guys see this? You fly all over the world. You talk to customers. You meet with everyone you can inside the company. You have hundreds of conversations. Hundreds. Because in the beginning when you get here, you have no idea. If you're being honest with yourself, you ought to have no idea what to do.

Where you get that inspiration is through the coalescing of the hundreds and hundreds of conversations. And at least what I experience is I begin to understand that.

where the areas of energy are and where the areas of opportunity are. And so then when you show back up and you stand up in front of people and you say, hey, here's the direction I think we ought to go in, it doesn't feel like something you came up with by yourself in a room with a legal patent. It's a reflection and an echo of

of what you heard from all the assembled people. And so it's organic to what you're doing, and it's a byproduct of listening as opposed to stuffing it on top of people. And that's why it's, if you do it that way, it ought to be better. You're the CEO now, but you used to work for the old CEO, John Riccitello, who was CEO of Electronic Arts when you worked for Electronic Arts. You eventually became the CEO of Unity, and then you replaced him.

What did you learn about what to do or not do from that experience? So John actually hired me in my first job in video gaming. Now, it wasn't my first job in video gaming. He hired me in Electronic Arts in 2012.

And I learned a lot of what I learned about this industry from him of enormous amount of respect and admiration for him. I really no inclination to sort of pick apart what he, what he did or didn't do. The world is an, is a new place now than it was four or five years ago. Uni is a new company and we're, you know, we're pursuing a different direction, but it's, you know, for me, it's not, it's not, it's about the company. It's not about people.

All right. It was worth a shot. So you made some changes at the top. I think this is the big decoder question. How is Unity structured now? Here's the thing. And maybe you and I just won't agree about this. I'm much less interested in structure than I am in behavior. And I'll tell you why. I've worked in big companies before.

A lot of them over the years. And my experience is that what people want to do, especially if they think they want to improve things, is they immediately go to an org chart. And they start moving things around. The truth is, if people are not properly oriented, if they're not properly situated, if they're not spiritually in the right place to do what you need to do, I don't care what the structure is. It's not going to work.

And there is no right answer to structure. People think, oh, if I could just get it in the right shape, it's going to be okay. The truth is some structures accelerate some outcomes and create different tensions. Other structures accelerate other outcomes and create other tensions. So I tend not to think first about structure. I try to think first about landing approach and behavior.

Once we get oriented around how we're going to do what we're doing and people start behaving differently, different things happen. So if somebody comes to me, for example, and says, you know the reason we can't do this? It's because this thing is over in this division and this thing is over in that division and they can't talk to each other. They should be in the same division. I have no time for that conversation. What do you mean? Do you have a phone for that person?

Do you guys sit down and have a conversation about that? Like if we're properly motivated, what difference does it make where it sits? Right. So of course I've restructured things and I've changed things. So again, I don't want to, but in terms of orientation, like I want to land one before the other because one I think is more substantive and more likely to fundamentally change things than the other, if that makes sense.

It does. My joke on the show is I always ask that question because, to your point, if you tell me a structure, I can abstractly tell you 80% of your problems. I can identify the tradeoffs that come with various structures. And it seems like you are making different tradeoffs. You've changed the structure, which means there's something you wanted to change in the tradeoffs you were making. Yeah, I'd say principally the change in the structure, the only real meaningful changes we made were around making sure that

Reducing layers and making sure that everybody was communicating and we could quickly escalate any issues, make decisions and move on. And so that we always had the right folks in the room to operate in a unified way. And if ever there were issues, we insist that they get escalated and resolved quickly. So if there was some organizational thing that made it impossible for us all to sit together or if there are too many layers, I couldn't see that.

we made some of those changes. And I do think those have been important. But again, not as important as the behavioral changes.

Obviously, part of restructuring is shrinking. You've had a few rounds of layoffs now. Last year, January, 25% of the company was let go. You just had another one a couple months ago. Is that all to get smaller, to reduce those middle layers, or is there something else going on there? I wasn't at the company for that really, really big one. But I'll offer my strategy and my approach to these things. And I'm

And I can already anticipate you're going to tell me there's a tension in them, but I'm going to say it. Welcome to Decoder. The producers, by the way, joke that that is what the tagline is. Yeah, no, no. And by the way, that's life, right? Nothing is black and white. It's a Zen thing. But I never, and we as a management team, do not think about trying to get financial leverage by doing layoffs. I hate that.

I think it's nonsensical. What you have to do is make decisions and try to be really disciplined about the very few things you think you can do really, really well and be a little bit ruthless about stopping the other things. And so for me, those kinds of restructurings are about putting your money where your mouth is as it relates to investing in the things that are important and ceasing the other things. The thing I think that most people

many leaders miss is when they stand up and they talk about things that are important, what they don't realize is that all they're doing is adding another thing to people's to-do lists. Because last week you said something else was important. The week before you said something else was important. And folks drown in those priorities. And nobody ever tells you what to stop doing because that requires courage. Because you probably wouldn't be doing them if

It wasn't a pretty good idea at some point. There's a reason why people do things. But if you want organizations to perform really well, you have to be really, really clear about what you're not doing. And then you have to put your money where your mouth is with respect to that. And sometimes there's real pain associated with that. And it's the unfortunate part about it. But in my experience, you come out the other end in much better shape. Thank you.

We've got to pause here for another short break. We'll be back in just a minute. It's a question everyone has asked at some point in their lives. Now what?

And on the Prop G Show, we're finally going to try to answer it. We're running a special series right now where I'll answer listener-submitted questions about the best way to further their careers and how to position themselves for success as they consider the next step in their professional journey. It's time to look to the future and stop worrying about the past. So tune in Wednesdays to the Prop G Pod for these special Q&A episodes sponsored by Canva. You can find us wherever you get your podcasts. Support for the show comes from Charles Schwab.

At Schwab, how you invest is your choice, not theirs. That's why when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices. You can invest and trade on your own. Plus, get advice and more comprehensive wealth solutions to help meet your unique needs. With award-winning service, low costs, and transparent advice, you can manage your wealth your way at Schwab. Visit schwab.com to learn more.

Hear that? Spring is here, and the Home Depot has great prices on grills to make this season yours. So if you're working on improving your hosting skills, you're going to want the NextGrill 4-Burner Gas Grill for $229. And of course, pair it with the NextGrill 8-Piece Grill Tool Set. Now get outside and show off those new skills. Shop a wide selection of grills under $300 at the Home Depot.

Welcome back. I'm talking with Unity CEO Matt Bromberg. Right before the break, he was walking me through the ways he changed the organization after he came in, which perfectly tees up the next big decoder question. How did he make those choices? Here's the other big decoder question. How do you make decisions? What's your framework? I'm a big believer in full transparency and context-based

and sharing with people and having them share with me everything they understand about something and then holding that up and making a call. And so for me, it's about engaging in a really deep conversation, being sure we're talking about the same thing, that we understand at the same level. I expose all the thinking I have on a topic. I'd like you to do the same thing. And we balance the pros and cons and then we make a call and we move on. For me,

It's much more important that we make a decision than it is what that decision is. And it goes back to what we were talking about before. I believe in the how more than the what. If it turns out that decision was wrong, we'll make a different decision. But the thing that kills companies, especially large companies, is a lack of courage and clarity around making decisions. So my thing about decisions is mostly make them.

Yeah, that one comes up a lot. You are an interesting person to ask that question to because you came into the company and one decision that you had to make was obvious, I think. You said you came into a company that was at war with its customers and that is because of the runtime fee that your predecessor had announced, which shifted the pricing model of Unity to a per install fee. Every time someone installed the game, the developer would have to pay. This would skyrocket costs.

I don't know why that fee was instituted. It was obviously a problem. Here you are. You're the new CEO. You knew you were going to walk that back, right? But you're saying the how was really important. Walk me through how you made this decision where the outcome seems so clear. You're absolutely right. And I appreciate you asking the question because I do think it's a good example of what we're talking about. I absolutely knew I was going to roll it back before I even took the job.

The important part was not that I was going to roll it back in the way in which we're going to roll it back, but how we did it. So for me, the most important thing, as I said, was, hey, I want to get back into a place where we were being partners with our customers. And so what I did was I got on an airplane and I started flying around and meeting with customers and saying, hey, between you and me, we're going to repeal this fee. I have some ideas about how. What do you think of them? Here's what they are.

If you want to vent about how upset you were about the old thing, that's why I'm here too. But I prefer to say, if I did this, how would that strike you? And we started an open conversation. You had to select the folks you talked to because it was confidential. It's important. You have to trust people. But we consulted.

And what we heard again and again was, hey, I accept that we're not paying you enough. I actually think you're delivering more value. I just hate the way you ask for the money. I don't like the structure. I don't like the tone. And by the way, if you're going to raise prices, I need you to deliver better and execute better because the two together strike me as aggravating.

And so by the time that it took a little while, you know, it wasn't a very long time. It was a few months and people were saying, how come it took you so long? But it's because I wanted to be sure we heard people and I want to be sure they understood that we were going to do things differently. We're going to be disciplined. We're going to communicate. We're going to execute at a high level. We're going to listen.

And so what came out of it was like pretty sharp increases that by and large, and listen, nobody likes to have prices raised, right? But we came out of it with a stronger bond with our customers. And the way we talked about it internally was equally important because to your point, we made this decision, which was really ruinous for the company. You got to ask yourself, how did that happen, right? And so how we made the new decision was,

How we have that conversation, who's at the table, what kind of analysis do we do? What kind of feedback do we take? Like getting into that and using that exercise to fix the organism and fix the process was equally important. So it's like, again, it was less about the thing and much more about using the thing to get healthy.

Can you, just in a sentence, diagnose how the decision to impose the runtime fee was made since you looked into it, and then how the decision to pull it back was made since you made that one differently? I see Unity as a product company, and I'm a big believer that the way we create value is by delivering product value, and then folks will pay us for the value that we create. The thing about the runtime fee is

was that it was a business model. We were thinking about dynamics and how can you get people to do this versus that. We raise one price here, then they'll be forced to do that. That has nothing to do with creating value. That's a trick. It's a business model trick. It's a hack. I don't believe in that.

I believe you create value by building better products. And so the runtime fee decision was about, hey, we've got an engine business and we've got this ad business and we can't exactly figure out how those two things work, leverage one another and work together really well. Okay, here's a way. I think we can structure a fee that brings them together and sort of encourages, which would be a kind word,

folks to spend in one area if they spend in another. I think customers found it more coercive than encouraging, but whatever. My point is that, no, the way those two things come together is because both the developer part of our business and the ad part of business depend on a deep understanding of consumer behavior.

And just as folks who are building games need to understand how consumers are behaving in those games in order to effectively acquire users, they also need to understand how consumers behave and that we can create product linkages and value there and that that's how we'll drive value. And that's substantive. So I think that was sort of the distinction between the two approaches, if that makes sense. Yeah, it does. I'm curious what

When you rolled back the runtime fee, you increased prices on some of the tiers of Unity. It seems like those could go up independently if you think you're delivering more value there. But they did go up pretty steeply, as you mentioned. And then there's the monetization side where you're making investments in ad companies to help you deliver more monetization. There's a tension there.

You can see one helps you get more money if there's more installs. So you might want to keep that price low to capture more market share. You can see that increasing ad monetization helps you get more money if there's more installs. So you might want to lower the price on the engine to get more market share and compete there. But if you increase the price on the engine, you might just make more money up front against this ad thing that you have to keep developing. How are you reconciling those things?

I agree that there is a tension. We're going to make a decoder game in Unity called There's a Tension There. That's my new project. Any ad business at a high level thrives by opening the top of the funnel as broadly as possible. That's what drives so that you're left with something at the bottom of the funnel. That's what ad-driven businesses do. And you're right. There is some tension. And if you charge for the product, then presumably fewer people will use it. And then that's not good.

I think the important thing to understand about our structure is that Unity is free for everybody if you make less than a couple hundred thousand dollars in revenue. So the top of the funnel is really big and broad, and there are millions of developers of Unity. And that's why in the aggregate, we have something like 8 billion DAU. It's not deduplicated. Cut it in half. Say 4 billion DAU.

people who are touching that Unity runtime in some way. So it is hugely distributed. But I accept that if it was completely free, maybe you'd have more people using it. But again, keep in mind that you're only paying us once your game is really successful. And as a percentage of what you're making, it ought not to negatively impact you.

That's interesting because I've seen that dynamic play out on other platforms, particularly the app stores, where you're free to a point and then you tick over into the next tier of success and suddenly you're paying a penalty or what developers perceive as a penalty for success.

You've tipped over into the amount of revenue that would cause you to pay, and you actually have an incentive to stay just under a certain level of success in order to stop paying more money, in order to prevent paying more money. Do you see that dynamic in Unity? I think that in general, our customers and community understands that in order to invest in the engine –

it's important for us to be able to charge folks. And engines are very complex beasts, and there's a lot of engineering there, and there's a lot of investment we make every year. And in general, I think there's an understanding about that. The hard part of the ads business, particularly on mobile, is that...

You're up against the platform vendors, which are interested in ads in various ways. Google, particularly interested in ads in various ways. Apple, not interested in ads in various ways. The mobile ad business, particularly iOS, took a big hit from app tracking transparency, which...

Apple is interested in their own ad business. They're definitely interested in their own ad business. Just to be clear. They're not interested in anyone else's business. I think that's a good call out. But, right, they made the ad business on iOS much harder, right, with app tracking transparency. And you can say, I think, I would argue they made the correct tradeoff. They made it harder to track people across apps and platforms and the web and mobile. I don't know that anyone perceives that that has gotten better. I still feel awfully tracked.

But it had an impact on, for example, Meta's business to the tune of billions of dollars. Is that a challenge that the ad industry has overcome? Is that a challenge you're still working on? I think it's a challenge that largely the industry has overcome. It's certainly had a meaningful impact. You know, different folks could be more or less cynical about what Apple's motivations were or not. I don't know. But I think now it's largely in the rearview mirror.

and that in general, the systems have adapted. You mentioned Apple's interested in its own ad business. The other thing they're particularly interested in is in-app purchases. Their services revenue line is the one that's growing. Is iPhone sales taper or even decline? Yeah.

I look at a show like Severance or Ted Lasso and I say, okay, that's the shiny face on a huge revenue line that is mostly in-app purchases and games. Candy Crush Whales are the growing business and we just get Ted Lasso for free because we don't want to talk about in-app purchases and games in that way. I think 60% of the app economy is actually the game economy.

How much pressure do the platform vendors put on that? Because across the non-game iOS app ecosystem, the developers we talk to are basically just in full outrage mode. Right. Apple calls them. They call it a shakedown. You can see various developers argue loudly for and against Apple. Sometimes the rules change. Sometimes all of Europe issues a regulation that changes the app store. The games industry has not been as loud.

The game makers have – in-app purchases make everybody money and it seems to be left alone. Do you see that same conflict or that same angst there? Well, I think Tim Sweeney at Epic has been exceptionally loud in fairness. That's true. But listen, I think that there's a tension there. But are you all just falling behind Tim? I guess that's my – We are. No, I mean – Are you just letting him take the heat? Apple and Google are incredibly important partners to the industry.

And they're incredibly important partners of ours. They're platform partners. They're partners to our customers. And so there's a tension. I think it's probably a brilliant flash of the obvious to learn that folks would rather pay less. But I think what you're seeing in the industry is a tension between

Folks who are relatively small in the scheme of the world have important partnerships and probably don't have a lot of interest or incentive to be at war with their biggest platform partners. Right. That's why I'm asking about Tim. I was going to come to that. Most game makers are not willing to be at war with

He is because he has Fortnite. That's just a weapon that he can wield or shield, I suppose, from attacks he might face. No one else has that as far as I can tell. Is the industry just sort of waiting to see what happens with Epic or is there anything else concerted going on? Because I would say the pressure from the platforms is coming in different ways, particularly as different –

countries around the world regulate their fees and how open they have to be, they're going to seek that revenue. And games are already the largest portion of the revenue. I think that you're right. Your description of the landscape is accurate, right? There's clearly pressures, significant pressures, regulatory pressures in Europe, regulatory pressures in the US, lawsuits, alternative app stores,

you know, new devices. These are all pressures. I do think that that is a feature of the, of the world right now. And I think there, I'm sure Apple and Google are feeling some pressure around those things. We started at the top of the episode. You were saying you perceive that there's a lot of growth yet to come in the industry. You mentioned the switch to, right? There's a new console generation. There's new form factors. Potentially there's new hardware that's coming. All of that's up against those pressures. Yeah.

That's the escape valve. Like Apple can keep squeezing gaming on the iPhone for fees, but if you can escape and the business is actually on a switch to that'll relieve the pressure. If the business actually Ray-Ban AR games, let's say that works, maybe that relieves the pressure. You get some competitive relief there. What's the number one relief valve that you see as being viable in the near term?

Well, you know, one of the things that's really interesting in the most recent version of Unity that we shipped, we shipped with support for WebGPU. I think web gaming is a really fascinating, really fast-growing part of our world. And it's maybe a little bit back to the future, but I think that's a great example of what you're talking about. I see the web isn't out for a lot of App Store problems. And then there's a lot of pressure on, are the browsers good enough? Are they being...

They're being held back by the mobile vendors in particular. Do you see the browsers being held back? Is there something you want to do in the browser that you can't do on a mobile phone? I think that as it relates to tools and standards, there's progress we need to make. But I'm optimistic about that. And again, I see web gaming exploding. So I think we've largely got what we need. And you're going to see more of it. Do you think that web gaming on a phone or web gaming on a desktop?

I think principally it'll be on your phone. So you see people playing more games in mobile Safari? Why not? I think Apple can think of reasons why not. That's the problem, right? Well, I just think that from a consumer, the consumer will ultimately push partners where they have to be pushed. And I don't know exactly how that'll play out, but I don't see Apple and Google as preventing

Web gaming. Well, I'm curious because the other thing I see from our audience is boy, people love building gaming PCs, right? And that's actually – that's another relief valve in a way. Boy, people love the Steam Deck. That's another relief valve in a way. But it doesn't seem like those are flickers of growth that –

would give you some relief from the pressure on mobile. I am much more optimistic in general, I sense, about the industry than you are. So I wouldn't say flickers and you're making me feel sad about it. I don't see it that way. Well, I think the feedback is real, but it's not... It's real. It sort of seems to be it is what it is. The sizable audience, I don't know that it's going to become some suddenly more massive...

place of mass more massive consumer adoption gaming happens in your tv it happens on your phone happens on your pc those are there's overlap in some of those places but we continue to be i think more of a lean back society in the living room and a more on the go society than we are a

sit down at your desktop. So I think you'll see those two probably grow more quickly than the third. I want to be very clear for you and the listener. The Verge is an organization very high on the Steam Deck. I feel like if I didn't assign other stories, we would only write about the Steam Deck. That might be the only thing that happens in our newsroom. But I also know who we are. Yeah, no, listen, we are usually supportive of PC gaming too. As the tool,

what we mostly think about is how can we ensure that whatever the new platforms are, we're supporting them on day one so that developers

can push to those platforms. We don't have favorites. We don't choose. We want to be everywhere. And that's mostly how we think about that. The one thing that would change that is another idea that sort of, I think, flashed really brightly, particularly during the pandemic and then has maybe come back to earth, which is the idea that we would stream the games, right? That

Unity would run on big data centers operated by Netflix or Microsoft or someone. And really what we're doing is live streaming video, which maybe requires a total re-architecture of the entire industry. Everyone loved this idea. This idea has not, I would say, panned out in any realistic way. Do you think it has a future? Not in the near term. Why is that? I don't see it. You know, I think the hurdles were a combination of technical, you know, really hard problems to solve there.

It was sort of a consumer solution looking for a problem that people didn't have. I was like, well, I don't know. I'm playing this game on my PlayStation or my PC. Why do I need to use my phone as a controller or get some other controller? Because you want to deliver me the game. And I mean, OK, I downloaded the game last month. What are we talking about here? I just don't think consumers cared. I think there was some desire to

to play the games everywhere? I agree with you. It obviously didn't happen. But the thing that really prevented it, right, was you couldn't install a game streaming app on a mobile phone, which would have been, I think, at least one thing to market as opposed to however the platforms wanted you to do it. Do you think if they opened that up, it would become more viable? I don't. Again, I think that the input device is maybe more important than people understand in this context.

I don't want to play Call of Duty on my phone with an external controller. And I want to pick a mobile version of Call of Duty, which is a different experience. So I think different platforms should be developed as unique experiences on those platforms. And so this idea that it was going to be this one version, which...

I get it at a high level, at a technical level. I just – it didn't – I don't think consumers wanted it. I feel like I'm required by law to ask you about AI to wrap up this conversation. I have to say it's been a relief to not be mostly talking about AI with the CEO. Yeah. I appreciate that.

But it is also true that AI – I would never force you to talk about AI if you don't want to. Well, again, I appreciate it. If you listen to some other episodes of Decoder, you can see I'm just fighting it for an hour. In games industry, like almost every creative industry, in turmoil because of AI, right? The creatives are upset. We see video game voice actors putting out Instagram reels about having their voices cloned by AI for AI characters.

You see entire games being made in AI. Actually, there's a very funny video where someone claims a game is AI, but it's actually just Elden Ring. It's deeply amusing to me. But you see this happening, right? I generated some simplistic game using AI. I vibe-coded it. Here, I shipped it. We're ready to go. And then you see the creatives in the industry really worried that their jobs will be taken over by AI. I know Unity is somewhat agnostic to this. I think that's actually the phrase you use. The Unity platform is agnostic to the derivation of the 3D asset.

But then there's the actual making of the game. Then there's who gets paid. There is layoffs across this industry for a variety of reasons and rethinking of cost structures. How do you see AI playing out? Yeah, this is a big topic and we could probably spend longer than you'd want to talking about it. I would say this. First, you're right. We are agnostic with respect to where and how 3D assets get created because uni is an assembly point. And it's always been a place where you...

ingest or build the assets you want to build, you assemble the tools you want to assemble, and then you build these deep systems around them, which become fully formed games. I actually don't think that any of the layoffs we're seeing in gaming are driven by AI. I don't think that. I think what video game

developers and publishers will do, as we talked about a little bit earlier, if they gain efficiencies in the making of games, I think they'll make more games. And that's where they'll use that extra wiggle. What we sort of believe will happen sort of at the end of, maybe at the end, later in this process is that there'll be human creators sitting in the middle of a process of creation of these games,

using a platform to create them. And they will have vertically oriented agents that are helping them do so. So an agent that is specialized in physics, an agent that specializes in sound, an agent that specializes in IO, whatever it is. And there'll be multiple people in that loop and they will have those tools at their disposal and they will need to bring them together into an interactive experience. We,

would like to continue to be at the center of that. And we think there is a need for a platform to be there. I think that it's sort of a potentially kind of slightly grognardy and boring point to make, but it's critical. The biggest problem with either these creation of assets or even these full imagining of games, this hallucination of full game experiences, there's no connection to workflows.

Games are massively deep systems, successful games, that need to be built around some of these assets and even some experiences. And I think AI will be a really important part of

putting those things together. But the systems and the workflows and the connections and how you manage large teams of people doing those things and how we output and distribute those things, those are likely to be a part of this process for a really long time. Last question. We have talked about a lot of things that are pressure on the industry, and you've pointed out that you're more optimistic. What are the things that are making you excited about the future of games right now?

There almost isn't anything that's not making me excited about the future of games. Again, I see the difficulty we're experiencing as this moment of creative destruction where the industry is going to have to reimagine itself to some degree. And that reimagination is going to take the form of innovation in gameplay, innovation in distribution, innovation in business models,

And just, we're going to rethink. Like, if you, just to take one example, because I think we haven't talked about it. Think about how meaningful game-related intellectual property has become in the broader entertainment industry. That, by the way, was never true until very recently, right? There had been a million unsuccessful movies and things that were related to games. Very few good ones. Now, suddenly, there's this whole other life.

You know, we've talked about some of the new possible distribution platforms, some of the shifts in the business models and platform partners. Like, all these things are opportunities. And, yeah, we as companies, you feel pain and then you respond to that pain. And I think the history of the industry is that we innovate through those things. Do you agree with me that Uncharted would have been better as a long-running series instead of a movie? Yeah.

I do. This is my thesis. They got good when we started making TV shows out of them, not movies. It's easier. Yeah. I mean, I think The Witcher was good as a series, at least initially. Ooh, spicy take. I know. I know. I'm sorry. I enjoyed it. Fallout was great.

I think there are a lot of things that are better in that form than a full movie form. All right. Well, Matt, we're going to have to have you back and only talk about video game adaptations for a full hour. That's my next pitch to you. This was great. Thank you so much for coming on, Decoder. It is my pleasure. Thank you for having me.

I'd like to thank Matt for taking the time to join Decoder, and thank you for listening. I hope you enjoyed it. If you'd like to let us know what you thought about this episode, or really anything else, drop us a line. You can email us at decoderattheverge.com. We really do read all the emails. You can also email us directly on Threads or Blue Sky, and we have a TikTok and an Instagram. They're both at decoderpod. They're a lot of fun. If you like Decoder, please share it with your friends and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Decoder is a production of The Verge and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Our producers are Kate Cox and Nick Statt. Our editor is Ursa Wright. The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. We'll see you next time.