Sony's profit rises on robust performance for music, films and games
Japanese technology and entertainment company Sony logged an 18% rise in profit for the fiscal year through March on healthy results at its music and video game operations.
Tokyo-based Sony said its annual profit totalled 1.14 trillion yen (£5.1 billion), up from 970.6 billion yen in the previous fiscal year.
Annual sales were virtually unchanged, inching down to 12.957 trillion yen (£66 billion) from 13.020 trillion yen.
One area that lagged among Sony's sprawling businesses was the financial segment, where revenue stalled.
But its film division and its imaging and sensor solutions segment did well.
Among the films that fared positively at the box office for the fiscal year through March were Venom: The Last Dance, featuring the Marvel Comics superhero, and Bad Boys: Ride Or Die, an action comedy in which Will Smith and Martin Lawrence come back in their popular police roles, the fourth instalment in the series.
Sony, which makes the PlayStation console and game software played on that machine, also marked healthy results in the gaming business.
Its music operations, which also held up, include recordings, streaming services and music for games.
The top-selling recorded music project for the latest fiscal year globally was SZA's SOS Deluxe: LANA, followed by Beyonce, Future & Metro Boomin and Travis Scott.
For the Japan music business, the top-seller was Kenshi Yonezu's Lost Corner album, followed by offerings from Stray Kids and Six Tones.
For the January-March quarter, Sony posted a 197.7 billion yen (£1 billion) profit, up 5% from 189 billion yen in the same quarter in the previous fiscal year.
Sales were 2.6 trillion yen (£13.3 billion), down 24% from 3.48 trillion yen.
Sony is forecasting a nearly 13% drop in profit for the fiscal year through March 2026, to 930 billion yen (£4.75 billion), on 11.7 trillion yen (£61 billion) sales, down 2.9% on-year.
Sony stocks lost 3% in Tokyo morning trading.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Verge
35 minutes ago
- The Verge
The Access-Ability Summer Showcase returns with the latest in accessible games
Now in its third year, the Access-Ability Summer Showcase is back to redress the lack of meaningful accessibility information across the ongoing video game showcase season. As we see progress broadly slow down, it's also a timely reminder of the good work that's still happening in pursuit of greater accessibility in gaming. 'At a time where we are seeing a slowdown in accessibility adoption in the AAA games space,' organizer Laura Kate Dale says, 'we're showing that there are interesting accessible games being made, games with unique and interesting features, and that being accessible is something that can bring an additional audience to purchase and play your games.' The showcase is growing, too. In 2025, it's longer, more packed with games, and streamed concurrently on Twitch, Youtube (where it's also available on-demand), and on Steam's front page. That growth comes with its own challenges — mitigated this year by Many Cats Studio stepping in as sponsor — but the AA Summer Showcase provides an accessible platform in response to the eye-watering costs of showcasing elsewhere (it has previously been reported that presenting trailers across Summer Game Fest starts at $250,000), while providing disabled viewers with the information they need to know if they can actually get excited about new and upcoming releases. It's lesson Dale hopes other platforms might take on board. 'I grow the show in the hopes that other showcases copy what we're doing and make this the norm,' she says. 'If I could quit hosting the AA Summer Showcase next year because every other show in June committed to talking about accessibility as part of their announcements, that would be wonderful news.' To help that along (sorry, Laura, don't quit just yet), The Verge has collated the games featured in this year's Access-Ability Summer Showcase below. Visual accessibility in focus A major theme that emerged from this year's showcase is color blind considerations. The showcase kicked off with ChromaGun2: Dye Hard by Pixel Maniacs, a first-person color-based puzzler. In its color blind mode, colors are paired with symbols for better parsing and those symbols combine when colors are mixed. A similar spirit is echoed in Sword and Quill's Soulblaze, a creature-collecting roguelike that's a bit of Pokémon mixed with tabletop RPGs (dice included). It also pairs colors and icons, adding a high level of customization to color indicators, difficulty, and an extensive text-to-speech function that supports native text-to-speech systems and NVDA. Later, Gales of Nayeli from Blindcoco Studios, a grid-based strategy RPG, showcased its own color blind considerations and an impressive array of visual customization options. Room to breathe A welcome trend carried over from last year, games continue to eschew time pressure and fail states. Dire Kittens Games' Heartspell: Horizon Academy is a puzzle dating simulator that feels like Bejeweled meets Hatoful Boyfriend. Perhaps its most welcome feature is the ability to skip puzzles altogether, though it also features customization for puzzle difficulty. Sunlight from Krillbite Studio is a chill hiking adventure that tasks the player with picking flowers while walking through a serene forest. It does away with navigation as you'll always be heading the right way, while sound cues direct you to nearby flowers. This year's showcase featured two titles from DarZal Games. Quest Giver is a low-stakes management visual novel which casts the player as an NPC handing quests out to RPG heroes, while 6-Sided Stories is a puzzle game involving flipping tiles to reveal an image. The games were presented by Darzington, a developer with chronic hand pain who develops with those needs in mind and, interestingly, with their voice (thanks to Talon Voice). Both games feature no time pressure, no input holds or combos, and allow for one-handed play. Single-handed controls are also a highlight of Crayonix Games' Rollick N' Roll, a puzzle game in which you control the level itself to get toy cars to their goal without the burden of a ticking clock. Highlighting highlights Speaking of highlights, this was another interesting trend to emerge from this year's showcase. Spray Paint Simulator by Whitethorn Games is, in essence, PowerWash Simulator in reverse. Among a suite of accessibility features that help players chill out and paint everything from walls and bridges to what looks like Iron Man's foot, the game allows you to highlight painting tasks and grants a significant level of control over how those highlights appear and how long they last. Whitethorn Games provides accessibility information for all its games here. Cairn, by contrast, is a challenging climbing game from The Game Bakers which looks like transplanting Octodad onto El Capitan. As it encourages players to find new routes up its mountains, the game allows players to highlight their character's limbs, as well as skip quick reaction minigames and rewind falls completely. Highlights are also important to Half Sunk Games' Blow-up: Avenge Humanity, in which players can desaturate the background and customize the size and tone of enemy outlines to make its chaotic gunplay more visible. Something Qudical's Coming Home, which debuted during the showcase, also offers in its tense horror gameplay as you evade a group of murderers. You can switch on a high-contrast mode that highlights objects to distinguish them from the environment (including said killers). Unsighted If this year's been challenging for accessibility, it's been even more disappointing for blind players when it comes to games that are playable independently. The AA Summer Showcase, however, included an interlude showing off the best titles from the recent Games for Blind Gamers 4, a game jam in which all games are designed with unsighted play in mind and judged by blind players. Four games were featured: Lacus Opportunitas by one of last year's standouts shiftBacktick, The Unseen Awakening, Barista, and Necromancer Nonsense. This was chased by a look at Tempo Labs Games' Bits & Bops, a collection of rhythm games with simple controls and designed to be playable in its entirety without sighted assistance. A difficult subject Accessible indie games often favor the cozy, but this year's AA Summer Showcase brought a standout game that bucked that trend. Wednesdays by ARTE France is a game that deals with the aftermath of childhood abuse. That's certainly in keeping with the host of trauma-driven indie games out there. Wednesdays, however, positions itself as a more hopeful examination of that trauma, both through its visual novel style memories and theme park manager gameplay. Like so many of the showcase's games this year, Wednesdays includes mitigations for color blindness — though no essential information is tied to color in-game — as well as a comprehensive text log for cognitive support, manual and automated text scrolling, and customization options for cursor speed, animations, fonts, inputs, and more. Better yet, all those options are displayed at launch and the game always opens in a windowed mode to allow for easier setup of external accessibility tools.
Gizmodo
an hour ago
- Gizmodo
‘Marvel Tokon' Puts Marvel Back in Its Best Gaming Home
Before the likes of Insomniac Games and Square Enix got their hands on Marvel, the publisher's superheroes inhabited many a genre. But they were most at home in the fighting space—X-Men: Children of the Atom, Marvel Super Heroes, and of course its many, many crossovers with Capcom, which famously include the vs. Capcom series, are fondly remembered and define Marvel's video game presence. Since 2017's Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite, and with the growing popularity of cinematic action-adventure titles, no one knew if Marvel would ever return to the fighting space. Then came PlayStation's recent State of Play stream, which concluded with the reveal of a wholly new title: Marvel Tōkon: Fighting Souls, courtesy of Arc System Works, the Japanese studio best known for BlazBlue and several Dragon Ball fighting titles. The 2026-bound game has caught attention online thanks to its art style and the pedigree of its developer. Oh, and it's a 4v4 tag team fighter, the very same thing which defined Marvel vs. Capcom. (Save for that series being 3v3.) A behind-the-scenes video for Marvel Tōkon shows this wasn't just a happy accident. Marvel Games' Michael Francisco explicitly stated PlayStation came to them with a desire to 'bring Marvel back to the forefront of the tag-team fighting genre,' a tacit admission that Infinite came and went faster than expected. The game reportedly missed its sales targets after less than a year of release, and launched to decent, but not glowing, reviews. A particular critque was aimed at its roster; previous entries got to have big, then-out there choices like Nova, MODOK, and Silver Samurai. Infinte was not so lucky, and coming out at the height of the MCU, it primarily featured characters Marvel had the rights to, which famously meant the loss of a bunch of series staples, including no Doctor Doom or X-Men of any kind. Since then, things have worked in Marvel's favor (read: Disney bought all of Fox) that it's been less restrictive about who's in their big video games. Blade, the Fantastic Four, and various X-Men are all over Marvel Rivals and Midnight Suns when they wouldn't have been just a decade earlier. That freedom will be a big help for Tōkon; rosters are a huge draw of fighting games, and Arc System Works showed it's got the juice right away with its opening lineup including Ms. Marvel (Kamala Khan), Ghost Rider (Robbie Reyes), Storm, and Doctor Doom. There's likely some intentional cross-mixing here with NetEase's future Rivals additions—sooner or later, Kamala and Robbie will be in the game, I'm certain—but it also doesn't hurt that several characters will use this game to make their debut in the genre. Fighting games are big and flashy as hell, and one way to get people interested would be showing how someone like Miles Morales or the Vision translates to a genre we've never seen them inhabit before. Also working in Tōkon's favor is how it'll run unopposed in the licensed fighting game space for a while, at least when it comes to its direct competitor. After Injustice 2 in 2017, NetherRealm has kept its focus on Mortal Kombat, likely in part because it didn't know if it'd even get to to keep making Injustice. Now that it's closed the book on Mortal Kombat 1, a third Injustice is probably around the corner eventually. But making games takes time, and the studio's next project is likely a year or two away from a reveal, much less release. Until then, Arc System Works will keep on showing off its roster, gameplay mechanics, and art design to an audience more than eager to play with a shiny new Marvel thing. With the existence of Marvel Tōkon, a popular joke floating around is how put out Capcom might feel about all this. The Resident Evil publisher has had plenty of hits in recent years that it might be willing to let Marvel vs. Capcom hang on the shelf indefinitely, but it might also renew the developer's desire to get the franchise back on track. A collection of remastered games from 2024 might've helped get the ball rolling on a potential revival, and last year, Capcom producer Shuhei Mastumoto underlined that both companies would be keen to bring MvC back. Having a classic fighting series stand alongside a fresh new one would definitely be a boon to Marvel and their respective developers. We won't know until we know, but regardless of how things shake out, lovers of the fighting game space will be more than satiated.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
What Suno And Udio's AI Licensing Deals With Music Majors Could Mean For Creators Rights
In the space of a year, the major record labels have shifted from legal crusaders to would-be business partners. When Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music filed copyright-infringement suits against AI up-starts Suno and Udio last summer, the industry assumed a bruising court fight was inevitable. Nine months later, the same companies are at the table hammering out AI music licensing deals that would let the startups keep training on label catalogues, provided the labels, and eventually their artists, get paid. These talks are not just about settling a lawsuit. They are about setting the rules, or perhaps abandoning them, for how copyrighted music is used in training AI, how future licensing structures might look, and who gets to be in the room when those decisions are made. For many artists, this is déjà vu, and not the good kind. The pivot is striking. Just months ago, the majors accused Suno and Udio of having trained their models on copyrighted sound recordings 'at an almost unimaginable scale,' offering prompts that could generate near-identical copies of existing songs. The Recording Industry Association of America alleged 'mass infringement' and sought sweeping legal remedies. Now, according to The Wall Street Journal, the labels are seeking licensing fees, compensation for past use, and minority equity stakes in both companies. In return, the startups would receive the right to continue using major-label catalogs to train their models with new controls and attribution systems in place. Among the key conditions: a fingerprinting and attribution layer modeled after YouTube's Content ID system. This technology, if feasible, would enable Suno and Udio to trace how and when songs influence AI outputs, allowing rights holders to track usage and collect revenue accordingly. The labels also want veto power over future AI music tools, including voice-cloning features and remix suites, a position one executive compared to the 'controls labels already exercise in sync deals.' But even as these negotiations accelerate, one truth remains unaddressed: labels don't control everything. As Gadi Oron, CEO of CISAC, the global body representing authors' societies, points out: 'Negotiating solely with the majors will not provide the full set of rights required by AI companies. Labels can only license the rights they control, which are the rights in the master recordings.' Underlying compositions and lyrics, the lifeblood of songs, are typically managed by collective management organizations, and these rights have not been part of the current licensing discussions. Oron warns: 'To use music lawfully, especially for training or generating new content, AI companies also need to obtain rights to the underlying compositions and lyrics. These rights are typically managed by CMOs on behalf of songwriters and publishers. Without separate agreements with CMOs for the compositions and lyrics, AI companies would infringe the rights of music creators, which is the current situation in the market.' Loredana Cacciotti, founder of Future Play Music, a company specialised in digital licensing strategies for labels and distributors, echoes this concern, and places it in historical context: 'History has taught us that the major labels often act based on short-term financial gain rather than long-term protections for artists and the industry as a whole. And that concerns me. We may once again find ourselves locked into licensing frameworks that fail to account for the deeper implications, both in terms of creative control and economic fairness for the independent community when a unified voice should be front and center when responding to disruptive innovation." She adds: 'Yet, given the fragmented nature of our industry, there's a real risk that we will once again be passively swept into a new era, one shaped by decisions in which much of the music community has had little to no voice.' To artist advocates and collectives such as the Musicians' Union and the Ivors Academy, the exclusion of songwriters and performers is both predictable and dangerous. Many are sounding the alarm that history is repeating itself, only this time, it's not just the distribution of music that's being reshaped, but the right to exist as a creative identity. Phil Kear, Assistant General Secretary of the UK's Musicians' Union, asked pointedly: 'Will the consent of the music creators be sought? What share of the licensing revenue will they receive, if any?' Meanwhile, Ivors Academy Chair Tom Gray warned that these agreements 'appear to not offer creators an 'opt-in', an 'opt-out' or any control, whatsoever, of their work within AI.' Gray added: 'The same companies who have stated they wish to 'make it fair' seem instead to be 'on the make.'' And Oron's concern extends beyond who is in the room, it is about how the economic pie is being divided: 'In the early days of the digital music market, some services operated without the required licenses, but at a later stage, negotiated deals with the major record labels in exchange for the lion's share of income… With AI, the connection to the underlying musical works is even more essential, and should entitle creators to a larger share of the makes it all the more important for composers and lyricists to be included in licensing negotiations from the start, with a clear stake in the outcomes. Failing to recognize this reality risks repeating past mistakes and marginalizing the very creators whose work underpins these technologies.' Cacciotti agrees. She warns, 'These developments carry a distinct sense of déjà vu. We've been here before—most notably during the rise of streaming, when rights holders had to decide between fighting the tide or shaping it. But this time, the stakes are arguably even higher." This isn't theoretical. GEMA, the German authors' society and a CISAC member, has already filed suit against Suno, citing exactly this disconnect. These are not trivial or speculative technologies. Suno and Udio have evolved from experimental demos to near-production-level toolsets. Suno's June 2025 update allows users to upload full tracks, manipulate them with 'weirdness' and 'reference' sliders, and export 12 multitrack stems to a digital audio workstation. Udio's most recent build added 'intro/verse/drop' sectioning, faster generation times, and support for hybrid genre compositions. But these features are only possible because the underlying models were trained on enormous datasets, including, by many indications, commercially released music without permission. And while Suno claims its models don't memorize or reproduce music, evidence from lawsuits shows that, when prompted, they've generated lyrics and melodies 'identical or nearly identical' to protected songs. The urgency behind licensing negotiations between the major music companies and AI startups like Suno and Udio isn't coincidental. Several structural pressures are converging to make this a uniquely combustible moment, one in which both the music industry and AI companies may see a narrow window to shape the future before external forces lock it in for them. First, regulatory uncertainty looms large. The recent and abrupt firing of U.S. Copyright Office Director Shira Perlmutter, who had pushed back against broad "fair use" exemptions for AI training, sent a chill through the creative industries. Her removal has raised fears that a new Trump-appointed director could reshape federal copyright policy in favor of AI developers, weakening enforcement mechanisms for rightsholders and potentially legitimizing unlicensed dataset training. Then there's investor pressure. Suno's $125 million raise in 2024, which valued the company at $500 million, reflects both excitement and risk. Venture capital firms increasingly want 'clean' AI pipelines, ones backed by licensed data and clear rights frameworks. That means unresolved litigation is now a liability. For companies like Suno and Udio looking to scale or exit, licensing deals are no longer optional; they are the precondition for long-term capital access. Finally, international policy is catching up. The European Union's AI Act and the UK's stalled exceptions for text and data mining both signal that the days of unregulated scraping in Western markets may be numbered. Compliance obligations, audit trails, and provenance disclosure could soon become mandatory. For Suno and Udio, this is likely the last best moment to secure cooperative licensing arrangements before governments impose restrictions that could limit how and what their models are allowed to ingest. What's emerging from these negotiations is a licensing framework that strongly resembles the major labels' approach during previous tech disruptions, most notably their transition from suing Napster to licensing Spotify. At the top of their list is the demand for fingerprinting at the model layer. Labels want systems that can not only detect direct sample reuse but also flag stylistic derivations within generative model outputs. The ambition is to move beyond surface-level detection and toward embedded attribution systems, although whether that's technically feasible with current diffusion models remains an open question. As Mike Pelczynski, Head of Licensing and Industry Relations at Sureel AI, which builds instant attribution systems for generative content explains: 'Attribution systems are fundamentally more powerful than traditional content ID in the age of AI because the sheer scale and speed of new content creation make it impossible to track every instance of reuse manually. Only neutral attribution frameworks can identify relevant works, respect opt-outs, and give rightsholders real-time visibility and control.' Next, the majors are pushing for commercial veto rights over product features. This would mean that any future tools released by Suno or Udio, from voice-cloning plugins to remix engines, would require prior approval. It's a mechanism similar to the one labels have long enforced in sync and advertising licenses. Financially, the proposed package includes cash settlements for past use, usage-based royalties going forward, and minority equity stakes in both AI startups. This echoes the labels' early equity positions in Spotify, which later became highly lucrative, but also controversial, as artists had little visibility or participation in those deals. One reason the majors are negotiating from a position of strength: many have likely registered copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office that they believe Suno and Udio used for training. If proven, that could expose the startups to statutory damages, potentially amounting to hundreds of millions in liability. 'The crucial point in the Suno and Udio licensing discussions,' said Liz Cimarelli, Head of Business Development at Cosynd, a platform that simplifies copyright registration and ownership tracking for creators, 'is that the major labels have likely registered copyrights with the Copyright Office that they believe these companies used for training their AI models. Given the potential statutory damages of $150,000 per willful infringement, this could serve as a significant negotiating advantage for the majors.' But she also warned: 'The risk for the wider industry is that the major labels might agree to terms that set a low standard for everyone else. Without new legislation, policy changes, or infrastructure, this could diminish the economic opportunities that AI should offer. Generative AI has already been predicted to cost music creators $22B in income over the next five years. How low can we go?'. Lastly, there's a nod toward creator control: artist opt-outs for certain use cases such as vocal cloning. But crucially, there's no sign yet of a rights framework that would allow artists to license (or deny) their work directly, nor clarity on how royalties will be tracked or distributed at the artist level. For many creators, this feels less like consent and more like default inclusion with an escape clause. And as Oron makes clear, none of this addresses songwriters' rights: 'AI companies must seek permission from all relevant rights holders, not just the labels. Without compositions and lyrics written by humans, there's nothing for SUNO or Udio to offer.' For attribution advocates, the stakes are higher than just tracking AI training inputs, it's about future leverage. 'Flat licensing without attribution is blind licensing,' said Dr. Tamay Aykut, founder and CEO of Sureel AI. 'Artists (and their labels) would lose control and could end up competing against their own AI derivatives. Labels can't price what they can't measure, and AI can't avoid what it can't track. Attribution is the difference between knowing and guessing and if they are indeed pursuing licenses, then neutral attribution can only strengthen their hand with the AI companies who want to do the right thing.' Aileen Crowley, co-president of Sureel AI, added: 'As an industry, we must come together to demand that licensing only happen when an independent attribution system is in place. Any future licensing deals must guarantee that rights holders can clearly and effectively exclude their works, and only attribution technology can deliver this level of control and transparency.' That sentiment was echoed by Benji Rogers, also co-president at Sureel AI: 'Opt-in and opt-out rights must be non-negotiable, and only neutral attribution can provide this level of transparency and protection.' These licensing negotiations could define not only the outcome of current litigation but the licensing infrastructure for AI music globally. Three distinct scenarios are emerging: In one scenario, licensed acceleration, the majors strike a deal this summer. Suno and Udio integrate attribution and payment systems, and AI-generated remix tools launch inside premium tiers. Labels win a new revenue line, and high-profile artists who embrace the tech gain visibility. But those who opt out, or were never consulted, get left behind. In a second, stalemate, negotiations collapse and lawsuits drag on. If Trump-era regulators tilt toward AI-friendly fair use policies, case law may erode the legal basis for any future licensing obligations. In the third, patchwork, one or two majors settle, others hold out, and AI companies develop regionalized tools trained on different catalogs. The result is a fragmented landscape that mirrors the dysfunctional world of sync licensing. Amid all the strategy, five foundational questions remain unanswered: This is not just a music industry story. It's a proxy for how every creative sector, from writing to voice acting to film, navigates the shift from human artistry to machine synthesis. For the majors, this may feel like the inevitable next step in monetizing technological disruption. But for the artists, songwriters, and composers whose music trained the machines, this is about power, authorship, and cultural survival. As with the rise of streaming, the question isn't whether the business will change, it's whether the people who make the music will be allowed to shape that change. As AI music licensing negotiations between AI startups and major rights holders quietly unfold, songwriters, composers, and performers are once again fighting for a seat at a table where their work is the main asset, but their voices remain Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment were contacted for comment. As of publication, neither had responded.
