From what I've read about it, it was a combination of Level 5's inexperience programming online components and Microsoft's insistence that the game use voice chat as well as a generally poor relationship between the two companies.
-
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 mismanagement ofthird party partnerships leaving developers in a bad state?
- Thread starter nynt9
- Start date
Yes, I know. It just wasn't feasible on the N64. The original Mario 64 was even planned to be 2 player and Luigi was planned for the game as well.
But current rumors swirling around with MS though is that they set an impossible milestone. And that is something a company will do to purposely cancel software in the most scummiest ways. That's the bigger issue here compared to some of the cancellations most are bringing up.
You should read these kinds of threads more.
Multiple people who post on here think this way and there have even been threads IIRC dedicated to how gaming would be better if there was only one
Sony is the one always mentioned IIRC
I have even seen people been ridiculed by others for thinking that Sony would take advantage of a situation that they were a monopoly in the console hardware space.
While you might be able to argue that gen 7 created a lot of the features that are integral to gaming now, I don't think games wise you can argue that, at least not objectively.
The 360 might have been the pioneer of the digital storefront on consoles, but PCs had that for years before that.
I don't know what your criteria is for "true operating system" so I can't say.
Controllers improve every gen anyway, so I don't see how this is a point.
That's true, but how is this a point again?
The indie scene existed on PC before the 360, was already gaining steam, and is still strongest on PC. Surely XBLA had a positive impact, but it doesn't seem to have had lasting power.
Microsoft have definitely shaken things up in the console space, but they've also stirred some problems as well. Paid online and trying to do always online DRM off the top of my head.
I'd also argue that, personally, achievements are a net negative, but that's just me.
Team Filler
Member
Another point to be made. Microsoft's history with Japanese devs for Xbox. They're not particularly good.
You'll never see a Tales game on their hardware again. Vesperia was the last and only one. we don't particularly know why, or at least I don't. The cancellation of True Fantasy Online which was a big blow to the Japanese audience. Phantom Dust mess is a recent one too.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Your entire list is hilarious.
I don't see what's funny.
MS set expectations on a lot of things we now expect to be standard in a console.
What? Gen 7 might be the best if you're young. It's probably my 5th best generation. I'd take Nes Era, super Nes/Genesis era, Ps1 Era and ps2 era over gen 7.
Pathfinder
Member
If by hilarious you mean true.
Team Filler
Member
Helping set higher expectations is one thing (and something I agree Xbox did in certain areas), but that list is a bunch of malarkey.
Kurt Angle
Member
which one of his points are funny or false?
Your entire list is hilarious.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
Years before? Steam as a digital storefront didn't really happen until around the end of 2005 (which is also when the 360 came out). That was their first publisher deal to release games on Steam. One publisher that wasn't them.
True operating system? It's an operating system. Not just a place to launch a game and set the time.
Controllers improve every gen? I know Microsoft and Nintendo do. Sony needed to have their ass handed to them and have the 360 controller become the defacto PC standard before FINALLY changing the terrible dual shock controller.
The point is about Microsoft being good for the industry. The PS4 being the console it is is a direct result of the success of the 360. How is that not an important point?
Yes, indies kinda existed before the PC. That's it. They existed. The indie gaming movement only really got into the spotlight because of XBLA.
Ultimately, the industry needs Microsoft for better or worse. Same way it needs Nintendo and Sony. But for different reasons. There's a nice balance between the 3 right now.
Pathfinder
Member
Care to explain why it's a bunch of malarkey?
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
I'd love to hear why. I'm fairly certain nothing I posted was incorrect or a lie.
Im wrong? Steam in its current incarnation was not a thing before the 360. Their first publishing deal with ONE publisher releasing a few games via the Steam client was October 2005. The 360 was released in November 2005 with a full digital storefront from a variety of publishers.
Indie games obviously existed before the 360, but it's hard to argue XBLA didn't put them in the spotlight.
SmoothRunningGun
Member
Maybe platinum is at fault? We need more then vague tweets from whoever is in the op.
Fairly inaccurate as there's a bunch of other good things left out that MS brought to consoles such as
Your entire list is hilarious.
- Custom soundtracks
- Packing in HDD removing need for memory cards
- Matching making service
- Template for others on account and game share
- Greatest implementation of BC
and much more
I just don't understand how Microsoft keeps mis-managing these third party relations. I understand theres two sides to every story and all, but some of this just rings true.
Microsoft lately has been pushing the "games as a serivce model" all of their exclusives recently has had loot crates or some type of shit microtransaction (Halo 5, Gears 4, Forza in some regards, etc). Look at the phantom dust story: it was a story game that turned into them wanting it to have MP with no more money thrown at the studio.
I wouldn't be shocked if Scalebound was suppose to just be a single player narrative journey at the start but microsoft wanted to make extra cash on it and asked for a co-op/online component at the last minute. Platinum games most likely had to get a vertical slice working quickly for E3 to hype the crowd, and shortly after that realized they couldn't pull off the online component without funding or found out it just didn't mesh well with the game (the co-op it's self looked anyway, TBH). Just sounds really bad.. and doesn't bode well for the future of 3rd party relations for microsoft. And they need all the help they can get if they want 3rd parties to support Scorpio
Microsoft lately has been pushing the "games as a serivce model" all of their exclusives recently has had loot crates or some type of shit microtransaction (Halo 5, Gears 4, Forza in some regards, etc). Look at the phantom dust story: it was a story game that turned into them wanting it to have MP with no more money thrown at the studio.
I wouldn't be shocked if Scalebound was suppose to just be a single player narrative journey at the start but microsoft wanted to make extra cash on it and asked for a co-op/online component at the last minute. Platinum games most likely had to get a vertical slice working quickly for E3 to hype the crowd, and shortly after that realized they couldn't pull off the online component without funding or found out it just didn't mesh well with the game (the co-op it's self looked anyway, TBH). Just sounds really bad.. and doesn't bode well for the future of 3rd party relations for microsoft. And they need all the help they can get if they want 3rd parties to support Scorpio
RealityPales
Member
Even with games that launched, like Ryse from Crytek - that's a studio that's not in great shape.
Kurt Angle
Member
the things MS did with the 360 was so far ahead of its time that the current gen consoles don't even have those features. not even their own fuckbox one
ps2, 360, snes GOATS
Team Filler
Member
Very well.
-Digital storefront: 360 did not pioneer the digital storefront.
-Operating Console: what? And if Collingwood means what I think they mean, it's still not true because devices like the PSP came before 360.
-Controller stuff is pure fan-delusions. A better point would be that 360 controller made PC & gamepad better than it's ever been.
-360 is the reason the PS4 is how it is? What is even meant by this?
-The indie game scene existed before Microsoft even entered the games business, let alone the Xbox line. More fan delusions. What "ushered" in the indie game scene is widespread adoption of digital distribution, which was helped by more than just XBLA.
-Digital storefront: 360 did not pioneer the digital storefront.
-Operating Console: what? And if Collingwood means what I think they mean, it's still not true because devices like the PSP came before 360.
-Controller stuff is pure fan-delusions. A better point would be that 360 controller made PC & gamepad better than it's ever been.
-360 is the reason the PS4 is how it is? What is even meant by this?
-The indie game scene existed before Microsoft even entered the games business, let alone the Xbox line. More fan delusions. What "ushered" in the indie game scene is widespread adoption of digital distribution, which was helped by more than just XBLA.
demogorgon
Banned
With the cancellation of Scalebound, we have the third instance this gen of Microsoft cancelling a third party game because it didn't make expectations, leaving the developer in a poor situation.
First we had Obsidian's Stormlands, which was cancelled after seven months of development, leaving Obsidian in a state of near ruin, at which point they had to lay off 30 people, go to Kickstarter, start work on a f2p game, and turn the remnants of that game into Tyranny.
Then we have the infamous Phantom Dust debacle. I'll just leave some choice quotes here:
The end result is that Darkside went out of business.
Then we have Scalebound, which according to several sources involved Microsoft setting very high milestones and withholding pay
And as a result a significant portion of Platinum workers are without a task, Kamiya on mental health leave, and the studio bereft of payment for a month of work.
We also have Fable Legends, though that was a first party game so not sure how that fits in here.
So, overall, if this were just one developer and one set of rumors, maybe it would be some bad apples and conjecture. But this same pattern has happened several times with them, which begs the question, is it all bad third party relations, or perhaps some sort of mismanagement from Microsoft? I don't wanna be all "doom and gloom" but can this be really attributed to a series of coincidences and bad partnerships? Even then, isn't it still on them making those partnerships?
My presumption is that Microsoft perhaps underestimated the effort it would take to get games with as-a-service multiplayer (which seems to be their big push with all the full priced titles with pay2win microtransactions) that also has a AAA grade campaign out of smaller studios with newer IPs. They tried their luck at getting these projects at a low cost, but then as management and goals changed (a lot of these projects must have started during Mattrick and Ballmer's era and shifted to Spencer and Nadella) they no longer were interested in that kind of investment for that kind of project. Presumably not wanting to back out of contracts, they just used increasingly high demands on developers to burn them out and make them drop the contracts instead, taking the damage with them. Is this an unfair characterization of the situation?
Given an attitude like this towards new AAA IP, it seems it would be difficult for them to grow new IPs in this climate without investing significantly. Perhaps this signals a change in philosophy in Microsoft?
I'd like to discuss these subjects without being bogged down by the specifics of the individual games, as there's threads for those. This seeming strategy change and possibility of mismanagement (or arguments against it) are the specific points I'd like to speculate on.
not to cherry pick here, but MS games are never Pay2Win. it's a big reason I like them so much. Halo and gears are very balanced moreso then any other game and there is no way to gain a competitive edge with real money or time even. it's a big difference from say TLOU MP where they released a tactical shotgun that was OP and cost 5 bucks and wasn't even part of the season pass. Or a BF1 where you can pay to level up faster for better guns, or CoD etc.
How I see it every point you made really didn't mention gaming. Less than 50% of people pay for Live or plus. So everything you mentioned about online More than 50% of gamers wouldn't care about. So how can you say those things made it the best generation, when so many Don't care about it?
BrownieBrownBrown
Neo Member
I'm concerned for Microsoft. What is happening with the Xbox brand?
You know there were digital distribution platforms before steam, right? Stardock is one example.
I still don't understand your criteria here. Is your criteria internet connectivity? Dreamcast had that. Is it launching apps? The notion of apps as we know it didn't exist before that gen so it's not really that previous consoles didn't try. PSP had a bunch of stuff beforehand as well.
Re: controllers, sure.
Well, if you're arguing for MICROSOFT being good for the industry, their original idea for a follow-up to the 360 was a disaster.
I guess if you only pay attention to console gaming they weren't in the spotlight, but that's the issue for only a specific subset of gamers. Their current stance towards indies (parity clause and all) and their bad blood with indies at the end of last gen means they kind of tanked whatever inroads they made.
I did give you that MS had some positive aspects last gen (though many came with caveats and aren't as big deals as you want them to be) but currently they're not the player they used to be. And your claim about last gen being the best is still preoposterous.
Nice Sony Too™, but the definition of pay2win is being able to buy microtransactions that give you non cosmetic advantages. Gear packs in Gears 4, req packs in Halo 5, vehicles in Forza are all examples of this.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
So your counter points to mine are simply "Nu huuuh"?
I explained all my points. Fairly well in my opinion. You countered them with nothing.
Stillmatic
Member
This is a bad post.
- No, Steam was.
- This doesn't mean anything.
- Nintendo changed their controllers every gen. Sony have also altered their controllers previously.
- One of many factors.
- No it didn't. But it possibly helped
tiredheadcrab
Member
I wrote this before on this thread but I'll say it again, if Sony or ms drop console gaming and it's just one of them vs Nintendo I will switch to pc fully. Not even kidding. We have seen what happens when companies get these big heads and with no competition it will be probably worse. I don't think developers would like it either.
I know someone will reply by saying pc will compete with Sony or ms which has never been true on even remotely the same scale.
Team Filler
Member
If that were true you wouldn't have other people besides myself asking what you meant behind some of your points. You made an effort though, so there's that.
onemanasylum
Banned
The PS3 is why the PS4 is the reason it is what it is, not the 360...sony learned hard lessons with ps3.
Controller always get looked and improved every gen, Ms had nothing to do with that, Sony heard complaints about ps3 controller.
Store fronts were not new MS did not invent them, steam was already big as are many other digital fronts. MS being a pioneer for storefronts is laughable, many did it before and better.
Some features MS helped push for sure, but thats about it.
MS being good for the industry could be debatable, they ruined a lot of good will with indies, their DRM vision was loathed and anti consumer and terrible all around.
They did some good in gaming sure, but Collingwoods arguments are nonsensical.
Controller always get looked and improved every gen, Ms had nothing to do with that, Sony heard complaints about ps3 controller.
Store fronts were not new MS did not invent them, steam was already big as are many other digital fronts. MS being a pioneer for storefronts is laughable, many did it before and better.
Some features MS helped push for sure, but thats about it.
MS being good for the industry could be debatable, they ruined a lot of good will with indies, their DRM vision was loathed and anti consumer and terrible all around.
They did some good in gaming sure, but Collingwoods arguments are nonsensical.
The funny thing about Collingwood's post is that there are more legitimate arguments to be made for MS's contributions but the post itself just focuses on weird non quantifiable things or things that just aren't true so it kinda undermines itself.
But that's kind of a detail anyway. Maybe if the argument were to be made in respect to third party relations that would have been more interesting. But on that note, many major indies have come out of last gen with a negative outlook on MS, and the parity clause this gen has been quite controversial, and the indie lineup on Xbone is a lot weaker, so there's some problem there as well in terms of third party relations.
But that's kind of a detail anyway. Maybe if the argument were to be made in respect to third party relations that would have been more interesting. But on that note, many major indies have come out of last gen with a negative outlook on MS, and the parity clause this gen has been quite controversial, and the indie lineup on Xbone is a lot weaker, so there's some problem there as well in terms of third party relations.
tiredheadcrab
Member
Xbox live was the reason we got a unified system on PS3. They set a gold standard that Sony didn't have until actually after the PS3 was released. They didn't help push. They created a network that was easy to use and fast.
onemanasylum
Banned
You don't know this, proof? The entire industry was moving this way regardless of MS, sony was working on PSn for a long time, it just didn't pop up when sony saw Live. Sony was touting unified online before ps3 was supposed to launch in 2005 before the delay.....
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
But the overall point of the first post you initially replied to was that Microsoft on the whole are needed. Them leaving would be shit. Yes, they fucked up THIS gen, but that's part of the ebbs and flows of the industry.
Sony fucked up LAST gen, which forced them to up their game THIS gen, which in turn is causing Microsoft to up their game.
Pathfinder
Member
It's a pity you didn't make one, at all.
Then prove him wrong dude, drive by posts man come, we are better than this.
Your entire list is hilarious.
For the indie thing, what "ushered" in the current era of indie games was the proliferation of all-in-one game development toolkits/environments that lowered the barrier of entry across all levels, from cut-and-paste tile-based RPGs a-la Game Maker, to modular drag and drop developement in Unity, to UE3/4 for more complex projects helmed by experienced developers. 360 just happened to be one of the platforms that existed at the same time as the rise of these tools. Had another western console existed in its place, it would've benefited just as much from the rapidly expanding indie scene. The arrival of Kickstarter and crowdfunding as a capital raising technique also changed the paradigm of indie development, and that has nothing to do with the 360 whatsoever.
Unless you want to argue that XNA is what eventually lead to modern indie development? Because I'm quite confident it didn't.
Unless you want to argue that XNA is what eventually lead to modern indie development? Because I'm quite confident it didn't.
tiredheadcrab
Member
Yeah probably after live launched in 2002. Was Sony talking about this before 2002 as well?
Thats a huge leap, 360 introduced the idea of feature rich OS with multitasking specifically for consoles, the fact you could continue speaking to your friends online while you exit a game and load another was mind blowing for the time. They created the mould here and brought their OS experience to progress this area of console gaming. They were also the first to open thier console to entertainment services like Netflix, HBO etc.
There's obvious influence from 360 with Nintendo and Sony pads, the type of sticks and inclusion of triggers are the obvious nods to 360. And as you mentioned they made thier pad accessible to PC crowd.
Sony stepping up 3rd party relations in the west, improving PSN basing alot of its behavior on 360 (account share, friends system & chat), their controller opening up to PC crowd is thanks to the successful practices and ideas that MS brought previously.
Team Filler
Member
In these situations I indeed find that it takes very little effort when you've got facts on your side.
The 360 was the pioneer of the digital storefront
False. The Atari 2600 had downloadable games in the 80s. Steam pioneered the modern digital storefront.
The 360 was the pioneer of a true operating system on a console
False. The CD-i (Philips) and the CD32 (Commodore) were both consoles built on a computer base, which both pre dated the Xbox, itself built on the base of a PC.
The 360 drove both Nintendo and Sony to up their controller game in Gen 8
There's no evidence, the particular layout of the Xbox controller hasn't been copied. Improving a design is normal over time.
The 360 is the reason the PS4 is what it is
I'd say fumbling at the start with the PS3 on price and vision, on top of bad relations with devs due to their attitude, was much more a factor.
The 360 ushered in the indie scene we now enjoy
The PC did.
Talking of tinted glasses... Yeesh.
Pathfinder
Member
Does this mean you're finally going to drop some facts on us?
onemanasylum
Banned
LOL there is an awful lot of reaching here...Sony looked at triggers on x1 controller as inspiration? LOL, ms did not invent triggers or analog sticks.
Sony has always had huge relations with western third parties going back to ps1....had ZERO to do with MS.
They released drives for PC because of PC remote play, not MS lol.
360 pioneered OS , multitasking, talking online? What? Dreamcast did a lot of this and PC did forever...
curiouscharles
Member
yeah, as mad as i might be at MS right now, it's just too trendy for people to insta-blame MS [in any scenario].
so until we get more than innuendo from the precise kind of people who insta-blame MS on twitter, i'll just play a wait and see approach.
I dont think you really understand the notion of idea's and successful implementation of them, in a way where it becomes a blueprint.
Halo didnt invent dual stick aiming, but it set perfect implementation of it. Halo didnt invent matchmaking but it set the best implementation of it. There's no denying that other manufacturers had thier own implementations of the points you made but it was MS that brought the ideas into a standard and made it work for consoles which was adopted by others.
inpHilltr8r
Member
The 360 hardware owed a lot to the PS2. Embedded VRAM, optional hard drive, strong GPU + weak CPU.
For what it's worth, I don't know any developers that have had a positive experience working directly with Microsoft. They're extremely controlling and hands-on, and everything is designed by committee and requires huge levels of executive buy-in. They are so desperate for success that everything becomes a giant exercise in avoiding risk, to the point that they don't even trust the developer they hired to make the game.
The main issue, though, is that MS is constantly changing overall strategies on a whim, and that impacts the products. Because everything has to fit the overall strategy, even if there was nothing really wrong with the original product before.
i.e. Signing a game as a single player game, then adding co-op later because the overall company strategy changed.
They also know that they're Microsoft, and they have a lot of clout and can't be easily sued. So they really play hardball on prices, contract renegotations, etc. even when they're in the wrong or drastically change the scope of a project.
For example, a friend's studio signed their indie game with MS. It was for a new MS platform, and they had to constantly renegotiate the contract to get paid. Why? Because they technically kept missing milestones because Microsoft wasn't delivering the APIs for that platform on time.
The main issue, though, is that MS is constantly changing overall strategies on a whim, and that impacts the products. Because everything has to fit the overall strategy, even if there was nothing really wrong with the original product before.
i.e. Signing a game as a single player game, then adding co-op later because the overall company strategy changed.
They also know that they're Microsoft, and they have a lot of clout and can't be easily sued. So they really play hardball on prices, contract renegotations, etc. even when they're in the wrong or drastically change the scope of a project.
For example, a friend's studio signed their indie game with MS. It was for a new MS platform, and they had to constantly renegotiate the contract to get paid. Why? Because they technically kept missing milestones because Microsoft wasn't delivering the APIs for that platform on time.
onemanasylum
Banned
Wow that is incredibly scummy.
360, not X1, theres an obvious influence.
Western studios especially PC studios flourished in the console space with help of Xbox architecture and tools.
Not sure what your saying here. Drives?
PC had a lot but there wasnt any attempt to bring those into a package that worked for consoles. There was no console that offered friends list, online status, invite system and online chat the way XBL did, its the reason why others have implemented it.