Support NeoGAF

[Unknown Soldier]

Are we really seeing a dramatic return of JRPGs to home consoles?

Yes? Atlus didn't release a single SMT title on PS3 for instance. Many other JP devs only released RPGs on Vita or 3DS.

Almost from the day PS4 launched, JP devs started announcing titles that were on both PS4 and Vita. That wasn't exactly common place when the PS3 and Vita were the two options.

 

[John Wick]

So MS meddled and ruined this game? I don't get where games like Forza Horizon can be one of the most polished 3rd Party games, and that's because of Playground games. Yet when a game gets cancelled, it's Microsoft's missmanagment. This is the almost always the case in GAF debates. Games are good in spite of Microsodf, games are bad/cancelled becuase of Microsoft.

Great example to use? You do know that Playground and Turn 10 share technology and assets? For Horizon 2 the garage and tuning etc were lifted directly from Forza 5. Makes it much easier when some of the core work is already done.

 

[nynt9]

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.

Yeah, this is the thing. Some people in this thread are assuming that in a contract both parties are at equal footing. MS hold immense power in these contracts both as a legal powerhouse and the platform holder. If they want to take advantage of someone they sign, they have many tools at their disposal to do so. Not saying that's a situation unique to MS, but pointing out the perspective that some people might be missing."Should have made a better contract bro" types of attitudes aren't conducive to discussion or realistic.

 

[onemanasylum]

360, not X1, theres an obvious influence.



Western studios especially PC studios flourished due to 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.

No there is not an obvious influence, you are reaching and seeing what you want.

Western Studios were putting their games on console MS or no MS. They flouished because MS outsold the competition by 20 mill in the US, if it was the other way around it would have been the same.

Drivers, they allowed their controllers to work with PC for remote play, has nothing to do with MS.

Yes they had some features that they pioneered for consoles like party chat, I said that already, but some of the stuff people are attributing to MS (Controllers, PC controller support, store front...) are silly.

 

[Stallion Dan]

Expect more timed exclusives with these original projects failing?

 

[Kill3r7]

Yeah, this is the thing. Some people in this thread are assuming that in a contract both parties are at equal footing. MS hold immense power in these contracts both as a legal powerhouse and the platform holder. If they want to take advantage of someone they sign, they have many tools at their disposal to do so. Not saying that's a situation unique to MS, but pointing out the perspective that some people might be missing."Should have made a better contract bro" types of attitudes aren't conducive to discussion or realistic.

You are right. These studios have to constantly sell/pitch their product to the client even after they have agreed to a contract. The business model is such that it does not permit a small studio to negotiate in equal footing. That said, this is extremely common in the US in many different industries. Even multinational corporations have to pitch and continue servicing their contracts to bigger clients. Money rules the world.

 

[Ravidrath]

Should have made a better contract bro" types of attitudes aren't conducive to discussion or realistic.

While it can't solve everything, there are prophylactic clauses you can put in contracts to help protect you from this kind of thing.

Our contracts all have something akin to "If you ask for something that adds more than two weeks to the schedule, then we force a renegotiation."

Although it's also possible that MS pushes back on these sorts of clauses, and developers go along with it so as not to hurt the relationship / quickly sign the project.

 

[LukasTaves]

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.

Which game was announced as single player and had coop tackled on?

And how that's a corporate change when ms has been delivering games with huge focus on coop from the beginning (one of the reasons that drove to their platform btw)

 

[David___]

Expect more timed exclusives with these original projects failing?

From who exactly?

 

[Team Filler]

Does this mean you're finally going to drop some facts on us?

You could read my post upthread here, and others in the thread have also elaborated, but since I know that won't be enough for you I may as well elaborate here.

1. The 360 was the pioneer of the digital storefront (Stardock and Steam were both up and running before the 360 was on the market. If you expand outside of games specifically, the gap grows even wider. Change "pioneer" to "helped popularize" and there'd be more meat to this point.)
2. The 360 was the pioneer of a true operating system on a console (This is vague to start off but if taken at face value isn't true. Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube, XBOX and PSP all had their own operating systems, afaik. Jumeira makes a much stronger argument in this thread about the 360's OS being significant, maybe playing backup singer for them would be the better choice, Pathfinder.)
3. The 360 drove both Nintendo and Sony to up their controller game in Gen 8 (An argument can be made that Sony focused more on comfortable ergonomics with their controllers because of the 360 gamepad's success, but it's not a strong point considering the 360 controller itself is built on successful design iterations pioneered by Nintendo, Sony, and Sega.)
4. The 360 is the reason the PS4 is what it is (Another vague point that leaves so much room for generalization that it may as well be a non-point. 360's marketshare success in select territories likely influenced how Sony prepared for the PS4, but I daresay it's their stumbles going from PS2 to PS3 that had just as much influence on the platform, if not more.)
5. The 360 ushered in the indie scene we now enjoy (What is meant by "ushered" here? If we're talking about what Jumeira elaborated upon, then I actually agree that the 360 helped foster the scenes boom growth, along with other factors like digital distribution and crowdfunding.)

Jumeira: good points all around, hard to argue with several of them.

 

[TwilightPrincess]

Almost indistinguishable, LMAO. Like they were between the Xbox One and PS4?

Back in OT - OP if you want to do a thread on companies getting burned from exclusive relations then list all the parterships that were good too, then you get some real retrospective. Here I'll help you.

Remedy - Alan Wake
Epic - Gears series
Ruffian - Crackdown
Playground - Horizon
Insomniac - Sunset OD
Bioware - KOTOR, Jade Empire

I can go in a bit, want me to do one for Sony and Nintendo too? My point is this happens everywhere. Yes I admit it is mismanagement in many cases and MS do need to get their shit together. But it doesn't warrant witch hunts in and on GAF. We're all adults.

That's all in the past though. This gen it doesn't look too well (and the second half of 360 lifecircle). They closed studios, canceled games, let Rare make casualgames etc. etc.

 

[Kill3r7]

While it can't solve everything, there are prophylactic clauses you can put in contracts to help protect you from this kind of thing.

Our contracts all have something akin to "If you ask for something that adds more than two weeks to the schedule, then we force a renegotiation."

Although it's also possible that MS pushes back on these sorts of clauses, and developers go along with it so as not to hurt the relationship / quickly sign the project.

Good luck with that. Unless your studio is in good financial shape you have little to no leverage. The client can still refuse to negotiate new terms. They can walk away and you are left holding the bill for massive overhead.

 

[The_Endgamer]

...Then we get to games like TLG, which MS would have pulled the plug on years ago when they realized it wasn't coming out on PS3(360 as it were). If anything, Sony gives their developers (first party especially) too much rope and sometimes they end up hanging themselves with it.

That rope must be really killing Sony right now...

Microsoft could learn to hold out like Sony so that they have a catalogue of unique games but they obviously don't care for that sort of long-term management.

 

[Kaelan]

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.

Very troubling. This games as a service crap needs to stop. Not every game has to fit the overall strategy

 

[TheOfficeMut]

That rope must be really killing Sony right now...

Microsoft could learn to hold out like Sony so that they have a catalogue of unique games but they obviously don't care for that sort of long-term management.

For real. And people tell me that I should hope that Microsoft stays in gaming? Why? I've never liked their corporate culture nor their treatment of intellectual property. Frankly I don't give a fuck if they exit the industry. In fact, I would hope that they do so that in the vacuum left by their exit another company may attempt to fill the void. That or competition becomes primarily centered between Nintendo and Sony and I'm perfectly fine with that. Not to mention that there would then be more games available for PS4/PS5 being that there wouldn't be an Xbox to grab exclusives.

 

[LordRaptor]

Which game was announced as single player and had coop tackled on?

He is obviously not going to tell you the name of the game in question because it exposes the developer to something that if they wanted to air publically would be public.

 

[Ravidrath]

Which game was announced as single player and had coop tackled on?

I used it mostly as an example, but this sounds like what happened on Scalebound: it started as primarily single player experience with some multiplayer, and then shifted to a primarily co-op multiplayer experience.

Phantom Dust was basically the opposite - signed as a MP-focused "eSports" title, but then they decided they needed a strong single player campaign because the original game had one / fans would want one, and MS wouldn't renegotiate.

 

[foolishoptimist]

It's not that fucked up once you see that Darkside agreed to the scope changes without a budget increase and bet they'd be able to secure more funding after the fact.

Developers have little power in that negotiation though. Often, these scope creeps will pop up when the developer is already owed a milestone payment, and they need to pay their staff for the work they've done.

There's no magic button that forces Publishers to pay what they're contractually obligated to pay. There's a time consuming, expensive legal button that burns the entire relationship with the publisher.

 

[Pathfinder]

You could read my post upthread here, and others in the thread have also elaborated, but since I know that won't be enough for you I may as well elaborate here.

Hey, some substance. Now we're talking.

[*]The 360 was the pioneer of the digital storefront (Stardock and Steam were both up and running before the 360 was on the market. If you expand outside of games specifically, the gap grows even wider. Change "pioneer" to "helped popularize" and there'd be more meat to this point.)

Considering we're talking about consoles here, I'd say Xbox 360 did pioneer digital storefronts for the couch/TV market. Steam Link and Big Picture did not arrive until much later.

[*]The 360 was the pioneer of a true operating system on a console (This is vague to start off but if taken at face value isn't true. Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube, XBOX and PSP all had their own operating systems, afaik. Jumeira makes a much stronger argument in this thread about the 360's OS being significant, maybe playing backup singer for them would be the better choice, Pathfinder.)

As far as I know, you could not easily update the operating system on any of those devices to introduce new features and capabilities (Maybe PSP did, I didn't own one). Nor did any of those offer background tasks and task switching while seamlessly staying connected to things such as Party Chat.

[*]The 360 drove both Nintendo and Sony to up their controller game in Gen 8 (An argument can be made that Sony focused more on comfortable ergonomics with their controllers because of the 360 gamepad's success, but it's not a strong point considering the 360 controller itself is built on successful design iterations pioneered by Nintendo, Sony, and Sega.)

Agreed, this one is probably the weakest point mentioned.

[*]The 360 is the reason the PS4 is what it is (Another vague point that leaves so much room for generalization that it may as well be a non-point. 360's marketshare success in select territories likely influenced how Sony prepared for the PS4, but I daresay it's their stumbles going from PS2 to PS3 that had just as much influence on the platform, if not more.)

Ease of programming is no non-point. Much of the success of the 360 came with how easy is was to program for and how easy it was for developers to create and sell content for. There's a reason why the 360 was the primary console for multiplatform developers and why PS3 got all the ports. And you can bet that this ease influenced the creation of the PS4.

[*]The 360 ushered in the indie scene we now enjoy (What is meant by "ushered" here? If we're talking about what Jumeira elaborated upon, then I actually agree that the 360 helped foster the scenes boom growth, along with other factors like digital distribution and crowdfunding.)

We're all agreed on this one.

 

[Sydle]

Developers have little power in that negotiation though. Often, these scope creeps will pop up when the developer is already owed a milestone payment, and they need to pay their staff for the work they've done.

There's no magic button that forces Publishers to pay what they're contractually obligated to pay. There's a time consuming, expensive legal button that burns the entire relationship with the publisher.

Except the article Jason wrote says the team agreed to it because they really wanted to prove themselves and believed it would lead to more funding.

Are we not taking Jason's article at face value?

 

[FinaruDensetsu]

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.

Thank you for the insight Ravi.

I'm not a dev, but I can definitely echo the bolded when I worked between the legal and project management departments of the manufacturer for the OG Xbox and Xbox 360's hardware and accessories. Especially the hardball on prices and contract renegotiations. How MS handled that lead to many stressed out people and table slamming. I even remember our legal counsel breaking down once in front of the president...

 

[Arials]

Almost indistinguishable, LMAO. Like they were between the Xbox One and PS4?

Back in OT - OP if you want to do a thread on companies getting burned from exclusive relations then list all the parterships that were good too, then you get some real retrospective. Here I'll help you.

Remedy - Alan Wake
Epic - Gears series
Ruffian - Crackdown
Playground - Horizon
Insomniac - Sunset OD
Bioware - KOTOR, Jade Empire

I can go in a bit, want me to do one for Sony and Nintendo too? My point is this happens everywhere. Yes I admit it is mismanagement in many cases and MS do need to get their shit together. But it doesn't warrant witch hunts in and on GAF. We're all adults.

Ruffian made Crackdown 2 because Microsoft messed around with the company who made Crackdown 1 - Realtime Worlds. Neither Ruffian or Realtime have thrived since that episode and Crackdown 2 was obviously a cheap rush job. I don't think that's an example of good management or a good partnership.

And Microsoft haven't published a Bioware game since 2007, hardly a contemporary example.

 

[Arials]

We also have Fable Legends, though that was a first party game so not sure how that fits in here.

They had Black Tusk Studios (now The Coalition) developing a new IP for over a year before killing it and turning them into a Gears of War factory instead. That should fit somewhere in this picture of shitty management.

 

[foolishoptimist]

Except the article Jason wrote says the team agreed to it because they really wanted to prove themselves and believed it would lead to more funding.

Are we not taking Jason's article at face value?

Still, employees say they were committed to pulling it off. This was their first solo project. They wanted to prove they were good enough to do it. According to one Darkside source, their tentative plan was to build a fun vertical slice—a playable and demonstrable chunk of the game—and use it to persuade Microsoft into giving them more money.

Yeah, that was on the first instance of scope creep.
But while it says that the team wanted to prove themselves, the article doesn't mention any other options that they had.
Hoping that management would see that the project needed more budget later on isn't malicious, it was just naive.

 

[Papacheeks]

They had Black Tusk Studios (now The Coalition) developing a new IP for over a year before killing it and turning them into a Gears of War factory instead. That should fit somewhere in this picture of shitty management.

I will play devils advocate though when we are talking about Black tusk it is shitty for MS to not want a new IP and believe in it to it's completion. But they gave Black tusk a choice they didn't force them into making gears.

That's actually been backed up by ROD himself.

 

[tiredheadcrab]

For real. And people tell me that I should hope that Microsoft stays in gaming? Why? I've never liked their corporate culture nor their treatment of intellectual property. Frankly I don't give a fuck if they exit the industry. In fact, I would hope that they do so that in the vacuum left by their exit another company may attempt to fill the void. That or competition becomes primarily centered between Nintendo and Sony and I'm perfectly fine with that. Not to mention that there would then be more games available for PS4/PS5 being that there wouldn't be an Xbox to grab exclusives.

Yes you would be fine with that because Sony wont even feel the competition.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Yes? Atlus didn't release a single SMT title on PS3 for instance. Many other JP devs only released RPGs on Vita or 3DS.

Almost from the day PS4 launched, JP devs started announcing titles that were on both PS4 and Vita. That wasn't exactly common place when the PS3 and Vita were the two options.

This isn't really a convincing post. I'm going to be honest, JRPGs aren't really my strong suit. But aside from the fact that we've seen the likes of FFXV, Persona 5, and World of Final Fantasy release now close together, I'm not sure I understand what makes the PS4 such a JRPG powerhouse relative to last gen consoles.

 

[twobear]

I see we're at the 'MS have never done anything for console gaming and everything would have turned out exactly the same or better without them' stage of the MS opinion piece thread.

 

[Shiggy]

I will play devils advocate though when we are talking about Black tusk it is shitty for MS to not want a new IP and believe in it to it's completion. But they gave Black tusk a choice they didn't force them into making gears.

That's actually been backed up by ROD himself.

They had the choice between doing GoW and otherwise likely getting shut down within a year as Microsoft would not greenlight their project?

 

[etta]

I see we're at the 'MS have never done anything for console gaming and everything would have turned out exactly the same or better without them' stage of the MS opinion piece thread.

Woah, dat name change tho

 

[digoutyoursoul]

I see we're at the 'MS have never done anything for console gaming and everything would have turned out exactly the same or better without them' stage of the MS opinion piece thread.

I'm glad they did, really glad Xbox did enter things as my personal opinion is they are still capable of offering great stuff in hardware, software and online features but the potential isn't being realised.

 

[CCIE]

To say MS has done nothing for gaming is completely asinine.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

They had the choice between doing GoW and otherwise likely getting shut down within a year as Microsoft would not greenlight their project?

Why would they not greenlight a project that they've already announced?

 

[Crayon]

Almost indistinguishable, LMAO. Like they were between the Xbox One and PS4?

Yeah just like that. Only moreso because we're talking even smaller pixels this time.

 

[Shiggy]

Why would they bit green light a project that they've already announced?

They only showed a concept piece/trailer. They didn't formally announce a game that Black Tusk was working on.

 

[TheOfficeMut]

Yes you would be fine with that because Sony wont even feel the competition.

Yes I prefer Sony systems but I wouldn't want there to be not a single competitor. Nintendo is fine for me.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

They only showed a concept piece/trailer. They didn't formally announce a game.

They had no reason to do that if they didn't already gave the go ahead to Black Tusk.

 

[therealbigrich]

So far getting the feeling a lot of fans on a certain system would prefer Xbox gets out the console business. Has to be the only business where fans wish the competition would just disappear

 

[tiredheadcrab]

Yes I prefer Sony systems but I wouldn't want there to be not a single competitor. Nintendo is fine for me.

Yeah but it wont be fine for the industry. Thats okay that your prefer Playstation. But we have seen it when the console makers get a big head. Its not something I want to see either MS or Sony go through again.

 

[Shiggy]

They had no reason to do that if they didn't already gave the go ahead to Black Tusk.

Well, they didn't have much else to show. Anyway, it's highly doubtful that the studio really had a free choice looking at how Microsoft shut down every other studio which didn't have a major IP attached (bar for Rare, for which I am honestly surprised they have not been closed down).

 

[etta]

So far getting the feeling a lot of fans on a certain system would prefer Xbox gets out the console business. Has to be the only business where fans wish the competition would just disappear

MS killed a lot of puppies yo

 

[Metal Gear?!]

I see we're at the 'MS have never done anything for console gaming and everything would have turned out exactly the same or better without them' stage of the MS opinion piece thread.

What has MS done other than attempt to turn console gaming into some bizzaro bastard child of PC gaming that they can extract unjustified economic rent from?

 

[TheAdmiester]

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

Spoiler

Sony is the one always mentioned IIRC

console manufacturer.

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.

If that's how these threads always go then I don't think I "should read them more"

 

[digoutyoursoul]

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

Spoiler

Sony is the one always mentioned IIRC

console manufacturer.

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.

The digital foundry guy is one of them

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

To say MS has done nothing for gaming is completely asinine.

Some people will though...

 

[Doffen]

What has MS done other than attempt to turn console gaming into some bizzaro bastard child of PC gaming that they can extract unjustified economic rent from?

Forza Horizon 3.

 

[onemanasylum]

I see we're at the 'MS have never done anything for console gaming and everything would have turned out exactly the same or better without them' stage of the MS opinion piece thread.

Who said that? Examples?

The XB1 itself wasn't designed to follow the 360 path.

Sony designed the PS4 based on developers feedback, not the 360. That was the whole point of their reveal conference

Yep, it is well known sony went to developers and designed the system based on those discussions , not the 360 at all.

 

[Aureon]

Probably too much detail. Edited out.

 

[JP]

What has MS done other than attempt to turn console gaming into some bizzaro bastard child of PC gaming that they can extract unjustified economic rent from?

What about the roads? Irrigation? Aqueducts? Medication?

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Probably too much detail. Edited out.

Sad to see that they would do that to indie games.

Can't be that big of a financial investment from them in those cases.

Didn't saw your edit, I can remove my post if you feel it's best.

I mean, if you think that the PS4 and Xbone are consoles that are in any way designed in PS3's image rather than the 360's—an image that we have no reason to believe Sony wouldn't have stuck with if the 360 hadn't appeared on the scene and given them a severe kick in the teeth—then there's no conversation to be had here.

The XB1 itself wasn't designed to follow the 360 path.

Sony designed the PS4 based on developers feedback, not the 360. That was the whole point of their reveal conference.