Blank check to fix red ring of death
Also it's more of an expression anyways. He even says so in his other tweets
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft Studios (& Partners) Current and Future Landscape
- Thread starter Banjo-Kazooie
- Start date
Blank check to fix red ring of death
I doubt it was cheap to convince that many japanese devs to develop for X360 during the initial years, even less convincing them to develop exclusively for X360
Blank check is an hyperbole, but xbox division indeed had a lot of money to throw around back in the days
digoutyoursoul
Member
Because he's immature perhaps?
rokkerkory
Member
No 
This whole let's pile on Xbox is because of first party games, or lack thereof. You want number wars just wait until this fall's NPD when Switch Mario Kart and PS4 Battlefront/CoD WWII bundles are sitting next to a $499 Xbox One.
Nightengale
Member
I want to just say one thing, not aimed at anyone in general, but in regards to how some folks who happen to have bits & pieces of inside knowledge is treated at times. (Sneakers, Matt, etc )
Nobody's perfect. Even the best 'insiders' have faulty or outdated information, even when they work IN THE COMPANY ITSELF. ( DemonNite got the announcement timing of Bloodborne off, he teased it at TGS )
But acknowledging that they're insiders mean that treating what they share with a measured sense of belief, even if some of the stuff could be wrong. If it's wrong, we accept that as one of the stuff they got wrong and move on. But it should not be a harpoon to say "I think insider X is full of bullshit because they've been wrong these few times!" Of course, if they are constantly wrong after a certain point, then yeah. Their credibility is out the window.
To me, I get that some of you feel that certain insiders feel like they have an agenda, if they're somewhat negative, etc. But EVEN if they have an agenda, there's a big difference between agenda-driven lies and agenda-driven truths/half-truths/etc. And that is assuming IF.
Personally, I think it's bad to automatically attribute a certain malice to any kind of sharing. For better or worse, this gen is trying for MS, for their company has gone through a lot of ups and downs. It's not strange that a lot of financial drama could be going on within.
Nobody's perfect. Even the best 'insiders' have faulty or outdated information, even when they work IN THE COMPANY ITSELF. ( DemonNite got the announcement timing of Bloodborne off, he teased it at TGS )
But acknowledging that they're insiders mean that treating what they share with a measured sense of belief, even if some of the stuff could be wrong. If it's wrong, we accept that as one of the stuff they got wrong and move on. But it should not be a harpoon to say "I think insider X is full of bullshit because they've been wrong these few times!" Of course, if they are constantly wrong after a certain point, then yeah. Their credibility is out the window.
To me, I get that some of you feel that certain insiders feel like they have an agenda, if they're somewhat negative, etc. But EVEN if they have an agenda, there's a big difference between agenda-driven lies and agenda-driven truths/half-truths/etc. And that is assuming IF.
Personally, I think it's bad to automatically attribute a certain malice to any kind of sharing. For better or worse, this gen is trying for MS, for their company has gone through a lot of ups and downs. It's not strange that a lot of financial drama could be going on within.
Welfare
Member
Lmao Zhuge is not a Sony fanboy.
The news surrounding Xbox's budget or investment has been a thing for months. Until Phil actually decides to show new games and not delayed ones, I'm willing to believe what insiders have said.
I highly doubt that when Phil became head of Xbox, he actually planned for only 2 1st party games to launch in 2017 with the One X (Forza 7 and State of Decay 2).
The 3 biggest games Xbox has announced so far are delayed games and have moved 2 of them from 2016 to 2017 to 2018.
Only way Phil is right is if they are putting all their money in like 5 titles.
Welfare
Member
State of Decay 2 was planned for 2017. It got delayed to 2018.
I don't think they ever said SOD was 2017. Crackdown 3 though...
But yeah. If the budget is the same as ever, where is it being spent? Certainly not on new games or marketing... So where?
Where are the savings from the cancellations and studio closures being spent? Where are the dollars saved on marketing deals of the past being spent? Why are so many of their new games so budget looking? Their biggest budget games are 2014 and 15 announcements, and would be considered second tier releases in the 360 era. What is the growth path for them?
But yeah. If the budget is the same as ever, where is it being spent? Certainly not on new games or marketing... So where?
Where are the savings from the cancellations and studio closures being spent? Where are the dollars saved on marketing deals of the past being spent? Why are so many of their new games so budget looking? Their biggest budget games are 2014 and 15 announcements, and would be considered second tier releases in the 360 era. What is the growth path for them?
Nightengale
Member
Wait I think at the Halo Wars 2 launch event they mentioned SoD 2 for 2017. Idk I can't keep the timelines of these games straight anymore lol
I wonder how much money they were ready to invest in their TV ventures back in 2013 when they hired that former CBS exec to work on original content? Remember all of those TV shows they had planned?
Halo, Gears, are still very expensive to make. Maybe Game Pass required a large investment?
Also Sony probably increased investment in PlayStation at some point when they realized they had a real hit on their hands too I'd guess.
Edit: Yeah during the Halo Wars 2 event he said Sea of Thieves, State of Decay 2 and Crackdown 3 were all 2017.
https://www.onmsft.com/news/xbox-chief-phil-spencer-looks-ahead-to-an-epic-lineup-of-xbox-games-in-2017
That headline kind of hurts.
wapplew
Member
I wonder what's their internal software road map look like.
Say they have X budget each year, every year there a Forza, a blockbuster franchise (Halo/Gears), couple of AA/remaster and a third party deal.
What was original planted for 2017?
I also think up investment on first party is real, but not in the sense of they fund more projects, I think they still keep similar number of projects.
They have to invest more money because of the cancellation.
If Fable legends was plan for 2017, the cancellation flush 70m down the drain and they need to fund new project to filled the void, that's extra budget.
Same goes for Crackdown 3, a delay will add dev cost, that's up investment too.
The Halo TV show apparently has a $25 million budget per episode. Each episode will feel like a full feature movie featuring Scarlett Johansson as Cortana, Will Smith as Sgt. Johnson and Dwayne The Rock Johnson as Master Chief.
D
Deleted member 471617
Unconfirmed Member
Even if Zhuge is 100% correct, why would anyone expect Phil Spencer to say anything other than "no"? LOL.
Steelyuhas
Member
CD3
SoD2
SoT
Fable Legends
Scalebound
At some point in those games life cycles, they were probably slated for a 2017 release. Two are dead, none are coming in 2017. The three that are still coming continue to incur development cost.
The story here, imo, is that first party has had some real failures in developing games in the last few years, not that they aren't spending money.
That's how I view it as well, at least mostly. I'd be surprised if their funding hadn't been cut at least a bit. Outside of the big three, pretty much every notable Microsoft Studios project seems to have had development trouble.
You have to imagine every one of those games would have either been released by now or been comfortably slated for this fall if everything went as planned.
Feels like a perfect storm.
wapplew
Member
I thought Fable, CD3 and Scalebound was planed for 2016, they were in the best lineup in Xbox history E3 2015 trailer.
Hell, even Sea of thieves and Halo Wars 2 was expected release in 2016...
Like really, if all those was projects intended for 2016, what project they greenlit that plan to release for 2017?
digoutyoursoul
Member
Replying has done him no favours then
Steelyuhas
Member
Yeah, they were. I was using at some point in their development for 2017 as an example of the failure to deliver these games over the last few years.
Unclear to your question, I assume it's possible that as these expensive projects continue to get delayed, some other ideas get put on hold until later so that they don't have an explosion of cost all at once due to heavy production of delayed projects running into heavy production of what is supposed to be the next wave of developed projects.
wapplew
Member
I thought if they plan to produce 4 games every year, they have to approve 4 projects every year to achieve that right? Like 2013 you sign 4 games for 2016, 2014 you sign 4 games for 2017 and so on.
In theory 2014/2015 is where they lock down deals and projects for 2017/2018, no way they anticipate cancellation and delay at that time base on their original release road map.
I assume they signed same amount of projects back in 2014/15 that plan to release in 2017 and wonder what are those.
And about project put on hold due to delay and cancellation, how does that work? You ask studios stop production, do nothing and wait?
Steelyuhas
Member
I don't think it's stuff like stopping a game currently in production, but there are probably more projects at some phase of pre-production development at any point in time than the stuff that's in production. It's the pre-prod that they might have some flexibility with (on a case by case basis).
Obviously there's a roadmap for years to come, I think outside of a couple years in the future it's something that's probably pretty fluid.
MosquitoSmasher
Member
So i saw this at Reddit, lol
https://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/6vp6n9/xbone_leaks_everywhere_newhalo_nov2018/
The usual bad picture
http://i.imgur.com/ZjjbWbO.jpg
better picture
http://i.imgur.com/weq2kmu.png
If only all of that was true.
https://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/6vp6n9/xbone_leaks_everywhere_newhalo_nov2018/
The usual bad picture
http://i.imgur.com/ZjjbWbO.jpg
better picture
http://i.imgur.com/weq2kmu.png
If only all of that was true.
MosquitoSmasher
Member
Sadly yeah
How I'd love a new Crimson Skies!!!
On top of games like Conker, Banjo etc MS is sitting on Crimson Skies, Mech Assault.... ALL games that can offer MP and for all I care they throw in microtransactions too. Get on it MS, damn.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Love the trashy untitled sequel font and the knockoff Microsoft Studios font they used for "Untitled"? Hilarious fake.
Jetboxx
Member
Ninja Gaiden without Itagaki? Fuck, it'd be shitty. Hayashi just doesn't know how to create a good Ninja Gaiden game... Anyway, it's clearly fake.
Jetboxx
Member
I doubt he would agree. Besides, the team besides Dead or Alive and Ninja Gaiden is Valhalla Game Studios. Almost all the people who made these games great work there.They can hire Itagaki as a consultant now.
It's almost certainly fake, but I'd love to see a new Mech Assault or Crimson Skies (343i would be perfect to handle them and take a break from Halo at the same time). A new Ninja Gaiden would also do it for me, as long as it's single player.
And they should do a new Banjo and Perfect Dark as well while they're at it, instead of sitting on the franchises.
Nightengale
Member
Fake levels are up there in "fanfiction-like" tier, but a few areas that make these extremely unlikely:
- Fixed release dates for projects 2-years away. Naturally all projects have some estimated release window/date planned, but for all projects in the pipeline 2 years out? Way too specific.
- 3 non-MS IPs. ( NG, DR, DC ) It's not like that's impossible, but it's improbable that MS would invest in 3 IPs they don't own, and especially ones that have been historically niche. Tldr; it feels like fanfiction and lack of imagination to list down "new IP X/Y/Z" instead.
- Where the hell is AoE4, Gears 5, and Forza 8? It's really cute that Halo/CS gets a logo with "untitled sequel" but not the next Forza or Gears.
- Fixed release dates for projects 2-years away. Naturally all projects have some estimated release window/date planned, but for all projects in the pipeline 2 years out? Way too specific.
- 3 non-MS IPs. ( NG, DR, DC ) It's not like that's impossible, but it's improbable that MS would invest in 3 IPs they don't own, and especially ones that have been historically niche. Tldr; it feels like fanfiction and lack of imagination to list down "new IP X/Y/Z" instead.
- Where the hell is AoE4, Gears 5, and Forza 8? It's really cute that Halo/CS gets a logo with "untitled sequel" but not the next Forza or Gears.
MosquitoSmasher
Member
I've been seeing some articles here and there and just talks in general how MS needs to improve their first party efforts and all that. Which is of course something I can agree with, but it really isn't as black and white as that sounds, not for MS it is.
Let's take a look at Sony, they come with new exclusives like The last of Us, Bloodborne, Horizon and so on. Those all sold great. MS came with Ryse, Sunset Overdrive, Quantum Break and so on, of these three I would say clearly SO is the best of them and it sold shit. MS was willing to come with new IP and they failed which is a fucking shame. So on one hand it's understandable if they are reluctant to keep investing in new IP when there's absolutely no guarantee they will sell great, unlike when Sony announces a new IP or Nintendo.
It's not only MS at fault here. Sure it's their fault that they don't give as much creative freedom to their developers like Sony does and it could be their fault that several titles were cancelled that should have never been greenlit, but we don't have the full story on things like Scalebound and Fable Legends. And it remains to be seen how Crackdown turns out, but after so many years of development what we saw at E3 is not what you'd expect.
But it's also partly on the gamers. Why didn't they buy Sunset Overdrive? Something entirely different than any of the other exclusives on Xbox. Why did Ryse and QB just do bad? I wouldn't want to be MS right now, because even if MS DID give the Xbox division all the funds in the world and freedom, there wouldn't be a guarantee that we gamers go out and buy it. But again when Sony and Ninty announce and release a new exclusive, especially this generation, they succeed.
Let's take a look at Sony, they come with new exclusives like The last of Us, Bloodborne, Horizon and so on. Those all sold great. MS came with Ryse, Sunset Overdrive, Quantum Break and so on, of these three I would say clearly SO is the best of them and it sold shit. MS was willing to come with new IP and they failed which is a fucking shame. So on one hand it's understandable if they are reluctant to keep investing in new IP when there's absolutely no guarantee they will sell great, unlike when Sony announces a new IP or Nintendo.
It's not only MS at fault here. Sure it's their fault that they don't give as much creative freedom to their developers like Sony does and it could be their fault that several titles were cancelled that should have never been greenlit, but we don't have the full story on things like Scalebound and Fable Legends. And it remains to be seen how Crackdown turns out, but after so many years of development what we saw at E3 is not what you'd expect.
But it's also partly on the gamers. Why didn't they buy Sunset Overdrive? Something entirely different than any of the other exclusives on Xbox. Why did Ryse and QB just do bad? I wouldn't want to be MS right now, because even if MS DID give the Xbox division all the funds in the world and freedom, there wouldn't be a guarantee that we gamers go out and buy it. But again when Sony and Ninty announce and release a new exclusive, especially this generation, they succeed.
PanicFreak
Member
Ryse didn't do poorly. Microsoft and Crytek couldn't work out a deal for a sequel. It's a shames too. Also, QB's gameplay was awesome but it was mixed in with some garbage tier television show that shouldn't have ever been pet of the pitch.
More people should have bought Sunset Overdrive though. I don't know why it didn't do better.
More people should have bought Sunset Overdrive though. I don't know why it didn't do better.
CrimsonEclipse
Member
I actually enjoyed the mini series it did...but I agree more ppl should of gotten sunset.
DriftingSpirit
Member
I think looking at why those titles did not sell well is important too. I think it partially has to do with perceived quality and the benefit of having great review scores. It isn't like absolutely everything MS releases tanks. Titanfall and FH3 sold quite well and they are both critical hits as well. I think that really helped both titles as that gave them great word of mouth and attention.
Something like Ryse, on the other hand, is sitting at a 60 meta and had pretty poor word of mouth.
So, my point isn't that their games need to hit some arbitrary meta number that will determine success. Rather, their games have a better chance of succeeding if they benefit from the positive word of mouth and attention that comes from high critical success. They need more games with talk like "And this game is a reason to own a XB1/X!" around them.
I think Sunset Overdrive was hurt more from when it was released though.
Something like Ryse, on the other hand, is sitting at a 60 meta and had pretty poor word of mouth.
So, my point isn't that their games need to hit some arbitrary meta number that will determine success. Rather, their games have a better chance of succeeding if they benefit from the positive word of mouth and attention that comes from high critical success. They need more games with talk like "And this game is a reason to own a XB1/X!" around them.
I think Sunset Overdrive was hurt more from when it was released though.
HeisenbergWW62
Banned
I think theres certain reviews that are written more to get clicked on than they are to actually accurately reflect the quality of the game, and that kind of bums me out.
I'm not trying to tell anyone that Ryse is a 10... there's things it could have done differently. A sequel could fix these things
I agree I believe review scores are important to a games sales
What also hurt Sunset Overdrive was the amount of toxicity around the brand at that point. And also the low install base (which I don't like saying because obviously Titanfall was a huge success and that came out earlier)
What really hurt SO the most IMO, was that it came out at a time when all the previous MS exclusives except KSR sold really well. Forza, DR3, Ryse, Titanfall all sold good. Sunset was their first "flop", but in hindsight it probably did quite well when comparing to what came later (hw2, qb, recore). I honestly believe if Phil could go back knowing what he knows now he would fund a sequel but it's a little late now since they're working on SpiderMan. When you go from hit after hit after hit to SO, it hits you harder than it should.
Edit: I just read your post properly, Ryse sold pretty well btw. MS was interested in a sequel and I think one was even in the works, it just broke down due to MS wanting to own the IP I believe. Pre SO, their only real flop was KSR which basically killed Kinect games and we all know why that flopped anyway.
wapplew
Member
Doesn't help that current media stuck in old mind set, still can't accept micro transactions are part of modern gaming and reluctant to give games high score with it.
Too many times media give MS exclusives lower score because of MT regardless of quality.
RedSparrows
Member
I actually quite liked Ryse. It was hokum and sagged seriously in the middle, and the less Ballista sections the better, but when it flowed it was really quite fun.
A sequel that gave the player a bit more freedom and fluidity and openess would be cool.
I also really liked the MP structure: Horde mode, basically, but far, far, far more dynamic and thematically ace, given the arena changes. Just got tired of the same hackyslashy after a while, even as it was way more fun than I expected beforehand.
A sequel that gave the player a bit more freedom and fluidity and openess would be cool.
I also really liked the MP structure: Horde mode, basically, but far, far, far more dynamic and thematically ace, given the arena changes. Just got tired of the same hackyslashy after a while, even as it was way more fun than I expected beforehand.
Papacheeks
Banned
You don't always hit a home run with a new IP. And MS did all but dick to help make that game stand out in 2014, they had a much larger push for titanfall.
Sunet should have got a second game to get it right. It had potential to be something of a cool big franchise, just needed a little more content and tweaking to really make it shine.
PanicFreak
Member
I also like Ryse a lot. If you played it on the hardest difficulty, it was really fun. It's a bummer that they couldn't work out a deal to make a sequel.
It's kind of crazy that the only new MSFT IP that did well enough to warrant a sequel is Ori. There hasn't been a good mix of critical and commmercial successes out of its first party this gen.
The biggest error to me was the fact that the air dash was held behind a number of story missions. The movement was incredible when you got the hang of it.
It's kind of crazy that the only new MSFT IP that did well enough to warrant a sequel is Ori. There hasn't been a good mix of critical and commmercial successes out of its first party this gen.
The biggest error to me was the fact that the air dash was held behind a number of story missions. The movement was incredible when you got the hang of it.
Greigor The Fellhand
Member
part of me thinks only new IP's for microsoft thinks they might only come from small AA/new AAA studios approaching microsoft.
I hope im wrong, as I'd love a new IP factory. shit I'd take AA over AAA right now. if the AA does well enough consider turning it into a AAA
I hope im wrong, as I'd love a new IP factory. shit I'd take AA over AAA right now. if the AA does well enough consider turning it into a AAA