Banjo-Kazooie
Member
Actually I was just thinking that, because MS was originally the publisher. Still can't believe the game isn't out lol
-
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
Don't get me wrong, I think the major reason MS isn't producing many new games is because of the lack of success for past games, but not for lack of trying. The beginning of the generation was very different. It's part of the reason why I think they are being extra careful with with development of Sea of Thieves, taking a fan first community approach to development. But when you have the head of Xbox crying about bad review scores for Recore you wonder if they truly get it. Maybe it was because it just wasn't a good game Phil!
Mass Effect
Member
Below is still coming right? Because I've been waiting for that game for years.
daTRUballin
Member
Wow. That's pretty shitty to hear. Come on GAF, you're better than this......
Hopefully he comes back at some point.
I'll admit, in my frustration I had gone a bit too far and insinuated something that isn't 100% true. I apologize.
However, the point still stands that barely anyone--in the realm of Xbox at large--is buying these games. They're flopping out the gate, by and large, while large staples like Halo and Gears are, despite more stiff competition, still being talked about, are still being played, are still being bought, regardless of lower ROI compared to previous entries in the franchises.
My issue with Microsoft has always been more the general lack of effective marketing in recent years than the lack of AAA-level titles outside of the expected franchise entries. It's their responsibility to make people want to buy their games, and they're largely failing to do that this generation.
The problem with the diversity argument, however, has always been that the argument is almost always made in favor of singleplayer story-driven games or garnering more Japanese support. The latter I fully agree with--Microsoft should be evangelizing the platform to more Japanese devs, they should be getting every IP not tied down to PlayStation because of Sony money on their box. But the singleplayer bit of the argument is more problematic for me.
Its fundamental flaw is that it ignores the potential diversity gained from continuing to develop new multiplayer-focused IPs, or fostering existing multiplayer-focused IPs, and instead favors a diversity that is in favor of only one outcome. That's ... not diversity. It's the opposite of diversity.
Consumers deserve quality titles on the box that they purchased--that's why they even purchased said box. However, that quality is often equated to singleplayer story-driven AAA games, not multiplayer-focused AAA games. That's a lopsided argument blatantly in favor of personal preference rather than the actual goal of diversity.
As I've said before, Microsoft should be pursuing shit like Splatoon, not just pursuing shit like Horizon.
Nightengale
Member
An earlier post in this thread talked about goalpost shifting when it comes to internal development, and while I agree dismissing games that didn't come from internal studios is foolish, more and more I have expectations for internal teams to step up to the plate compared to external development.
I know 1st party external development can come up with great stuff not inferior or better than what internal teams can come up with, as we saw with Sunset Overdrive, Alan Wake & Gears 1-3. And in Sony's case, Ratchet & Clank, Bloodborne, etc.
But if this generation has been indicative of anything, it's that these relationships don't last, can easily break down, and more and more I question the capability of some of the less established developers to deliver polished, high quality AAA games in the same caliber as teams with at least 100+ headcount.
Established developers matter, because while a 50 person team might be able to make a game that has the 3D models, scale, and presentation that can come close to that of a AAA game, there is still a far leap between what Armature delivered with ReCore and what Remedy delivers with their games.
Of course, there are devs that are able to step up their game and prove their mettle despite scale of studio. But it doesn't leave one with a sense of reassurance.
For me, Crackdown 3 is that game. From how the game is a 3-studio collab between the cloud-tech, the creative team and presumably the asset/coders at Sumo Digital, it screams to me of a "AAA game that a small team cannot make on their own, so they need significant support from two other studios that aren't part of the traditional dev pipeline."
I might be proven wrong and that it turns out the 3-studio collab as as efficient as Ubisoft's 10-studio collaboration, but from the outside looking into it, it feels that way.
The sense that AAA funding are being given to studios/teams who aren't up to snuff to deliver that superb AAA game.
I know 1st party external development can come up with great stuff not inferior or better than what internal teams can come up with, as we saw with Sunset Overdrive, Alan Wake & Gears 1-3. And in Sony's case, Ratchet & Clank, Bloodborne, etc.
But if this generation has been indicative of anything, it's that these relationships don't last, can easily break down, and more and more I question the capability of some of the less established developers to deliver polished, high quality AAA games in the same caliber as teams with at least 100+ headcount.
Established developers matter, because while a 50 person team might be able to make a game that has the 3D models, scale, and presentation that can come close to that of a AAA game, there is still a far leap between what Armature delivered with ReCore and what Remedy delivers with their games.
Of course, there are devs that are able to step up their game and prove their mettle despite scale of studio. But it doesn't leave one with a sense of reassurance.
For me, Crackdown 3 is that game. From how the game is a 3-studio collab between the cloud-tech, the creative team and presumably the asset/coders at Sumo Digital, it screams to me of a "AAA game that a small team cannot make on their own, so they need significant support from two other studios that aren't part of the traditional dev pipeline."
I might be proven wrong and that it turns out the 3-studio collab as as efficient as Ubisoft's 10-studio collaboration, but from the outside looking into it, it feels that way.
The sense that AAA funding are being given to studios/teams who aren't up to snuff to deliver that superb AAA game.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
I'm sure it'll be out in time to take full advantage of Scorpio 2.
Salty Hippo
Member
Diversity is not just to go in the opposite direction of the competition though. You don't want to JUST diversify yourself from the other box. There are people who only have an Xbox who want to be able to play all kinds of games on their system. That's diversity, to offer the widest array of experiences in your box as you can. It has little to do with japanese games, it has some to do with having both SP and MP games, and it has a lot to do with genres. You should have everything.
Quantity helps too. I'd argue that covering 10 completely different genres with quality SP-only games provides more diversity than offering 3 quality SP and 3 quality MP games of somewhat redundant genres/styles. Of course there will always be people who don't care at all about SP games, just like there are people who don't care at all about MP, but if we go down that rabbit hole of picking and choosing consumers we can easily discredit absolutely anything.
Why Microsoft never did a soda Sunset Overdrive marketing collaboration I'll never know. They even had special cans made and sent to reviewers!
And I don't think most gamers here are just clamoring for single player only experiences (well maybe a few). Games like Gears, Halo and Forza all have strong single player and multiplayer experiences in one package. I actually think a lot of gamers (outside of Gaf) consider AAA games by the variety in the package. Take a look at Halo, Destiny, CoD, Division, GTA. These games have mutli modes aimed at a variety of gamers, from campaign, to cooperative, to competitive.
For example, I honestly think a lot of people were excited for the idea of a large Rare made AAA pirate RPG but when you learn that it's mostly multiplayer oriented and doesn't have the other RPG trappings a solo player might enjoy, you can't help but feel disappointed.
Then you have the issue of having to add in multiplayer components to a game instead of just letting it be single player like what we've heard what happened with Scalebound because it doesn't fit the games as a service bill. It's not even just the issue of having a game be single or multiplayer either, but the idea that it has to be a service as well and just can't stand by itself.
A lot of these things though are out of our control and just speak to the changing landscape of what the majority of Xbox gamers want. They want service driven games like Minecraft, Ark Survial, CoD, GTA Online, Smite, etc. And MS is in the business of giving the people what the want. If you want story driven single player only games, then you'll just have to buy a PlayStation and that's OK.
(On a side note I was just looking at the most popular games on Xbox One right now and Black Ops 2 is number 3 on the list lol holy shit. People really like that game.)
Lack of solid single player games has definitely hurt them when it comes to 3rd party games as well. Games like a Resident Evil 7 or FF 15 that should be selling more on Xbox one as compared with their predecessors on 360 are not, mainly because people are flocking to PS4 where they know they can expect a good mix of single player and multiplayer games. Microsoft needs to appeal to not just the gamers that are into Destiny/COD/Battlefield but those that appreciate story driven single player focused games.
Steelyuhas
Member
The Recore situation is strange, very odd to see MSFT people complaining about review scores publically, especially when the consensus seems to have been that the game has potential, but that it could have used some more time in the oven.
I think you bring up a good point here about AAA work being given to studios that maybe don't have the abilities/resources/experience/etc to pull that work off. The AAA game market has been getting squeezed in recent years; it's become more expensive and requires more people to deliver high quality AAA work, which has run a number of studios out of business (including MSFT's own studios). The demand for those games hasn't waned of course, so now we're seeing publishers like MSFT turn to other methods to get these games made (and turning to other models for revenue such as embracing GaaS).
Head.spawn
Junior Member
Here's a tease.
peppa pig is an insider?
Here's a tease.
Prob a marketing deal. I don't think Ubi have ever done an exclusive for MS.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
The only time they've done an exclusive was SC: Conviction and that was waaaaay back in 2010.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case. Seems like a sensible way of building hype for Halo 6 as well as guaranteeing extra sales for Crackdown 3.
Steverulez
Member
Big concern that the only bankable new ip they got is the one that launched day and date on Steam when they don't want to do that with their games.
I hope Ori 2 doesn't skip Steam at launch
Didn't watch that interview, that's nice.
gaming_noob
Member
Thanks for the quote. We will probably see some of them this e3. I hope the doubters like Salty Rice (whom I can understand why would be doubting based on Spencer's actions so far) can be convinced.
Good to hear! I want Xbox to knock it out of the park and make everyone happy.
Nice, but I want to see the results.
tiredheadcrab
Member
What was he trying to say here? Horizon and Zelda are both doing very well on the market.
Yeah no clue what he's on about there. Didn't Uncharted 4 sell almost 10m ?
I'm sure BOTW sold a lot too. When all is said and done will probably outsell the previous gen games for Sony at least. Maybe Nintendo too.
Sonys 1st party is one of the main reasons why they have that 2:! ratio. It's a gateway to everything else (one of which is the amount of players they've secured for those big service based games). Phil is wrong here imo. Even if Sony makes a loss on those 1st party exclusives they don't care too much because they are there to get more people to pick the PS4 over the X1. And they've succeeded in that overwhelmingly. Sony gets it. Phil doesn't seem to.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
I mean he's right and wrong at the same time
He's wrong because SP games are important for the diversity of the portfolio and if done correctly can sell north of 2million and provide a good return on investment.
He's right in the fact that it is a One time sale with little room for more monetization. MS would rather sell 1mil copies of Crackdown 3 with micro transactions and ways to service the title in the future with more revenue gain opportunities than 2 million copies of Scalebound with only one sale opportunity
very exciting quote
And why not have both. I mean he's privey to the analytics and what makes the most money and what not.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
They most certainly should.
To me it seems like they have a budget, and they choose to spend a majority of it on GaaS.
We can all disagree or agree with it, but we can at least see why they are focusing on games with longer tails since their metric of performance is MAUs now. They want to keep and grow MAUs with GaaS titles that are more privy to helping that metric
Bits N Pieces
Member
Plant your flag at E3 this year Phil, show us what you got.
Imagine if the only new revealed games are Forza 7 and Halo 6, lol.
That1BlackGuy
Member
Yep, think less Sony and more Valve.
DriftingSpirit
Member
Agreed, it makes sense for MS to go after that, all things considered. I just think they could put more effort into that SP side.
On one hand, Phil is saying they are upping their first party efforts but on the other, they don't want to announce stuff too early.
So, they may focus on the titles you mentioned over games farther out and wait for next E3 to display what they've been working on. I guess it just really depends on what would be considered "too far out". Anything not launching now to the end of next year?
New Sea of Thieves video feat. Phil Spencer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv5UoOmPnLs
(About ten minutes of gameplay, shows off swordplay possibly for the first time)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv5UoOmPnLs
(About ten minutes of gameplay, shows off swordplay possibly for the first time)
Triggerhappytel
Member
This is a bizarre quote. Horizon, Uncharted 4 and Zelda:BotW will all probably end up in the 8-10 million sales bracket. Sure, it's not as much as Overwatch, Destiny or The Division, but on the contrary I'd say if there are more and more GaaS games there will also be more hunger for high quality story-driven SP games.
I mean, it doesn't need to be one or the other. A good line-up focuses on diversity of genres as well as a differing business strategies.
wapplew
Member
They don't have the same impact they used to be?
Can't speak for Horizon but we just witness Switch become fastest selling Nintendo console ever, how much more impact a game can be?
Which beg the question, MS publishing want to fund game that make money or want to fund game that move console?
I'm fine with that approach, but shit you can't do E3 and that's it. You need to do at least another event.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Ori 2 will definitely be there, but who knows what else they have cooking. Hopefully at least one big AAA game to reveal.
Papacheeks
Banned
That would be depressing. But if Phil is making statement like that then maybe they do have something to show from their new studios?
Yeah they put minimal effort in single player games. Their end products on most part lack a lot of quality and then they wonder why the single player game failed. If they come out with a top notch single player game it would make a difference.
Phil is ass.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Can't check out the full interview right now, but he's right that even the best selling single player experiences pale before the kind of dough a service or procedural game can rake in. First parties still need them though; smaller pubs can get away with being invisible, but MS needs to be concerned with mindshare, which those kind of festivals definitely contribute to.
It might be too early to talk about stuff from new studios. I think the game that's farthest out we will see is Halo 6. Focus will be this year with maybe one or two announces for next year aside from Halo.
Upping investments doesn't mean anything is coming soon.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
I tried to illustrate in m response that I fully agree and they are more tilted to GaaS side and need more traditional model titles. Sorry if I didn't convey that enough, I agree with you
I was just saying I understand in a way why they are skewed
Looks like multiplayer Elder Scrolls, especially the sword fighting
DriftingSpirit
Member
Yeah, there will be uproar (just online fussing, nothing serious) if they go that route this year. I think they should show at least 1 major title that is a ways off. It'll be fine if the bulk of their conference is stuff coming much more soon.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
He's saying there's way more Mankind Divideds out there than Horizons. After a couple days those games are out of sight and out of mind as people go back to the multiplayer mainstays they play year round until the next single-player thing shows up. When the staying power is that low for the vast majority of single player games and the negatives for being unsuccessful are so harsh its hard for studios and publishers to justify investing in them.
Triggerhappytel
Member
I suppose maybe he's trying to downplay their significance because MS has nothing like that on their slate? I can't think of any other reason why. It's even more troubling if that's what he truly believes.
What new studios do they have?
You mean like The Elder Scrolls Online?!
If it's a good hype tool, then why not. It's served Sony very well in the last couple of years. Not a strategy I'm personally fond of, but it's clearly a pretty good way of getting the audience excited for games even if they're a few years off.
Sure, but by the same token there's many more games like Kill Strain or Warface or APB than there are League of Legends or R6: Siege or Counter-Strike, and so on.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Their output isn't big enough to do more than one event. Sony spread themselves over 2-3 press conference events per year, and still manage to outshine Xbox every year at E3, for which Xbox saves up all of its ammunition.
Before they closed such a big percentage of their studios, it might have been possible, but not now
DriftingSpirit
Member
But I think that is why those SP games can benefit from internal development. Horizon and Zelda took years to be developed and released and they greatly benefited from it.
MS can do the same and build a major title. Yes, the process is difficult and expensive but that is game development in general. Throw in a few smaller SP titles that are constructed wisely (in terms of budget and expectation) and you've got a decent amount of different games to go alongside the main focus of GaaS.