Support NeoGAF

[Papacheeks]

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.

Actually no, go look at GTA V pre-online launch. It sold very well. There are a lot of games that sell well that are mainly single player experiences with sometimes optional online.

Issue is XBox has never had a lot of faith in trying for the long game. Which Sony, Nintendo have.
Which is why more games get published, or localized from the east. If having a stable of content from PC developers was still part of their initiative like it was in the OG xbox early xb360 days, this thread wouldn't exist.
But they are trying to chase that game as a service rabit that works for certain games and apply it to most of their lineup/output.
And that's why there is almost this disconnect with their established franchises halo, gears and games like Recore, QB, sunset(I know they didn't make them first party wise).

They are going this route because the never believed in the foundation they had when they started in this industry. They were just trying to get to selling you a service, and not a console that plays great games one person and enjoy and then if the game supports it play it online or on a couch with a friend.
They basically cultivated a audience that they see only GAAS can satisfy. Sunset was very unique and deserved a second game, but they would rather put their marketing chops behind titanfall at the time. Which was the talk of the summer which was when sunset came out.

If all their games going forward are GAAS, the numbers for xbox owners won't be increasing. GAAS works only if the game has an audience that wants that and accepts it. Which is why it works on PC for certain games.
It's one of the contributing factors why halo, gears sell less and less on top of the franchises are showing fatigue in general.
I just don't see xbox making the changes for long term relationships for development. They want games to have services to them and that seems to be the goal. Because the parent company has shaped xbox to be just that, One big service.

 

[wapplew]

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.

Sure, there are very few reason to fund those game...
If you are thrid party publisher.

 

[Steverulez]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/27/xbox-chief-netflix-video-games-episodes-subscription-downloads-phil-spencer

Christ.

 

[Zukkoyaki]

You mean like The Elder Scrolls Online?!

Yeeeeahhh completely slipped my mind that game haha

 

[Papacheeks]

Christ.

That article title, Netlix of video game service?

Like WTF?

They are jumping the shark again.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

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.

That's the thing though. The third party publishers don't have the guts to do it, so a big demand for single-player games is not being catered to. It's the role of platform holders to fill that void. Both Sony and Nintendo release games no one else does. They feel like they serve a purpose. What purpose does MS serve in gaming when they only release the sort of games everyone else is doing?

 

[m23]

What new studios do they have?

No idea. I'm replying to someone else.

 

[Steverulez]

What was he trying to say here? Horizon and Zelda are both doing very well on the market.

I meant to quote this post.

All I will say is, they are really putting thenselves in a bad position if everything is GAAS/MP service thing because:

1) they have next to no sticking power with titles, especially service based titles (see fable legends. Project spark)
2) they will have no diversity and will be leaving money on the table
3) their games will all be competing for the same group and those people are probably gonna go play destiny instead

Maybe I mistook his comment but if they have no games like Horizon coming in terms of delivery then that's just really bad.
They don't need their entire line up to be that, but it seems to me the problem with MS is that they just put all their eggs in one basket ever since Shane Kim and Peter Moore left, constantly playing catch up and generally just missing the mark.

KI has done well but has anything else they've done come close to that?

Also, seems like a reaction to the fact that whenever they try to make games like Zelda and Horizon that what they do just isn't good enough which is a larger problem than the buying habit of the consumer

 

[Somnia]

“The audience for those big story-driven games... I won’t say it isn’t as large, but they’re not as consistent,” says Spencer. “You’ll have things like Zelda or Horizon Zero Dawn that’ll come out, and they’ll do really well, but they don’t have the same impact that they used to have, because the big service-based games are capturing such a large amount of the audience. Sony’s first-party studios do a lot of these games, and they’re good at them, but outside of that, it’s difficult – they’re become more rare; it’s a difficult business decision for those teams, you’re fighting into more headwind.

I don't get the pushback here. He's not downplaying Zelda or Horizon like a lot of people posted, he's even saying that those two games did really well, but the vast majority of single player story focused games do not. He's stating that the service games take up a much larger amount of the audience is all. Hell later on he even states how Sony does those games and is very good at them, but outside of them it's becoming much more rare for these type of games to happen.

I do not agree with Phil though if this means he will not be funding any single player story focused games ever. They don't have to do as many as Sony, but they do need to do some to have more diversity in their portfolio.

 

[Zedox]

Using Zelda (my goty, I don't give a fuck what game comes out this year) was not a good example because you can still do DLC for that world, and the same goes for Horizon. But looking at the whole outlook of what he's trying to say with Xbox Game Pass and single player games it makes more sense.

If you release a game on XGP, you can have profit of that game over a longer period of time (you can always add DLC free and paid for it) than you would if it was just a single go 'round. I think Zelda is definitely an exception because that's an old franchise that's been worked on buy a lot of people for a long period of time. I doubt we'll get that type of single player experience consistently. Also, 3rd parties aren't going to put that much effort into a single player game as well.

But using Zelda and Horizon was not a smart idea. I get where he's going but how he phrased it is going to ruff some feathers. I think Xbox game pass is a big game changer if they put exclusive (GOOD) games on it and that's where they can put the more experimental single player games in like the ReCores of the world and that's obviously a good future for them...but we'll see.

 

[MarveI]

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.

And where do the majority of console gamers play those MP games these days ? You don't think there's a correlation there ?

1st party games are much more than the amount of games sold. Even disregarding the fact that Uncharted 4 and possibly Zelda BOTW are bigger than ever when it comes to 1st party so clearly not only is the impact bigger but the audience for it too. Isn't Uncharted 4 the most sold in the series ? And how is that any different than previous gen ? SP&MP, 1P&3P, games coexisted perfectly. We had great MP games back then too. Yeah microtransactions,service based games weren't big back then but we still had season passes and such. And I bet the profit off those 1P MS games in the 360 era made a lot more than any of their MP games today with microtransactions.

My point is 1P games are crucial. Maybe even more so. The key is getting people to play the 3P games on your hardware. And when 3P games are practically the same on both consoles the decisive factor is 1P. I always found Phils viewpoint regarding exclusives very flawed and it might be the one thing that will hurt Xbox the most.

 

[tiredheadcrab]

So to what phil is saying about single player games and GaaS. I think MS will of course make more single player games. Looking at Halo 6 it will obviously have a single player campaign and will hopefully be better than halo 5's mess. Hopefully they can market that as a good selling point like bungee did and then hook people into the multiplayer. Same with Gears. Crackdown is an open world game and will probably have a single player campaign. The hook that keeps players around in that game will be the multiplayer.

I do still think they will invest in single player only games. They did a $40 recore, they could pull a $40 banjo game and it can still be amazing and fun.

I think it is stupid for MS to be chasing Horizon zero dawn, as that does cost money and time. Lots of time, like 5-6 years was put into that game. It payed off so well, but nothing guarantees that anymore. Sony is in a far better position to take a huge risk like Horizon. MS is playing a strength that they have had for a very very long time. There is nothing wrong with making their future games a GaaS as long as they dedicate themselves to great story telling as well.

 

[Hero]

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

It doesn't have to be one end of the spectrum or the either. You need a balance. Sony has done a great job at this with the PS4.

 

[blakep267]

It's easy to see where he's coming from. Look at a game like Ghost recon or for Honor. On the Xbox most played lists it got out to a good start being in the top 10. But a month or so later it's dropped to the 15-18 range while games like GTA5, NBA2k, black ops 3 go back into the top.

They start out hot but don't have the same staying power.
When they look at engagement and what the users of the Xbox want, they see service games. So they play to that base/strength.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

I meant to quote this post.

All I will say is, they are really putting thenselves in a bad position if everything is GAAS/MP service thing because:

1) they have next to no sticking power with titles, especially service based titles (see fable legends. Project spark)
2) they will have no diversity and will be leaving money on the table
3) their games will all be competing for the same group and those people are probably gonna go play destiny instead

Maybe I mistook his comment but if they have no games like Horizon coming in terms of delivery then that's just really bad.
They don't need their entire line up to be that, but it seems to me the problem with MS is that they just put all their eggs in one basket ever since Shane Kim and Peter Moore left, constantly playing catch up and generally just missing the mark.

KI has done well but has anything else they've done come close to that?

Also, seems like a reaction to the fact that whenever they try to make games like Zelda and Horizon that what they do just isn't good enough which is a larger problem than the buying habit of the consumer

Man, they really need to go back to the drawing board with Scalebound, maybe reduce the scope a little, make it a single-player adventure and try again. A big budget Platinum action RPG could be so amazing - and they already did a great job with Nier Automata.

I don't get the pushback here. He's not downplaying Zelda or Horizon like a lot of people posted, he's even saying that those two games did really well, but the vast majority of single player story focused games do not. He's stating that the service games take up a much larger amount of the audience is all. Hell later on he even states how Sony does those games and is very good at them, but outside of them it's becoming much more rare for these type of games to happen.

Sure, but most online multiplayer games don't do well either, and people will go back to playing Battlefield or Destiny or whatever rather than the newest release. This door swings both ways and GaaS isn't some magical cure-all which is always successful and retains its audience.

I agree thought that they definitely need more story-driven stuff, even if it's a little smaller in budget like Recore or Gravity Rush 2. Heck, start small and build up, like they've done with State of Decay.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

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.

From what Phil says they intend to do that. They want to test out using Game Pass as a business model for story-driven games. Something like Hitman.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Actually no, go look at GTA V pre-online launch. It sold very well. There are a lot of games that sell well that are mainly single player experiences with sometimes optional online.

I don't understand how this is a counterfactual. Taken as a whole, singe player experiences make less money than service or procedural titles. This isn't controversial. The likes of LoL, Dota, and Minecraft carry that on their own, and even significantly less successful titles can have huge profit margins, significantly lowering risk.

Issue is XBox has never had a lot of faith in trying for the long game. Which Sony, Nintendo have.
Which is why more games get published, or localized from the east. If having a stable of content from PC developers was still part of their initiative like it was in the OG xbox early xb360 days, this thread wouldn't exist.
But they are trying to chase that game as a service rabit that works for certain games and apply it to most of their lineup/output.
And that's why there is almost this disconnect with their established franchises halo, gears and games like Recore, QB, sunset(I know they didn't make them first party wise).

They are going this route because the never believed in the foundation they had when they started in this industry. They were just trying to get to selling you a service, and not a console that plays great games one person and enjoy and then if the game supports it play it online or on a couch with a friend.
They basically cultivated a audience that they see only GAAS can satisfy. Sunset was very unique and deserved a second game, but they would rather put their marketing chops behind titanfall at the time. Which was the talk of the summer which was when sunset came out.

If all their games going forward are GAAS, the numbers for xbox owners won't be increasing. GAAS works only if the game has an audience that wants that and accepts it. Which is why it works on PC for certain games.
It's one of the contributing factors why halo, gears sell less and less on top of the franchises are showing fatigue in general.
I just don't see xbox making the changes for long term relationships for development. They want games to have services to them and that seems to be the goal. Because the parent company has shaped xbox to be just that, One big service.

You're conflating a lot of stuff here, some of which I agree with and some of it I don't. I don't think, for instance, that the lack of Japanese support has anything to do with the issues were discussing here. That's about market share. The only reason the 360 got the support it did was because of its punishing advantage in NA, and because MS was willing to outright pay for it in a way they're clearly not interested in doing right now. That has nothing to do with their unwillingness to commit to building single player first party franchises long term, which I do agree is a problem.

On the flip side I feel like your last paragraph is kind of undermining itself because like you said, Xbox IS a service now. They don't have to care about propping it up as a distinct platform when they can just put it on PC as well. Financially it's a strategy that seems to be working quite well for them despite not filling in the traditional secondary console success metrics like hardware sales or even per unit software sales. Losing those Japanese games and not having much in the way of new single player IPs sucks for Xbox owners that want them, but MS doesn't really seem to have a reason to care beyond, again, narrative.

I would also point out that it's weird that you're accusing them of not doing the "multiplayer suite with single player component" when their biggest franchises are literally exactly that.

 

[chaosmaster(1)]

As people have said in this thread it comes down to the diversity. I see why they'd go heavily GaaS but at the same time they should have SP story driven games on the platform. Spencer says in the article he wants his platform to be great for both kinds of experiences. With SP story driven games becoming less and less it's up to a 1st party to fulfill those needs in the portfolio.

Having a couple SP story driven games that have dlc/expansions capability, that are main stays in the portfolio to compliment the GaaS plus smaller scale recore esque projects sprinkled through out would be fine.

 

[Granjinha]

Actually no, go look at GTA V pre-online launch. It sold very well. There are a lot of games that sell well that are mainly single player experiences with sometimes optional online.

You mean the game that made most money through it's online portion?

 

[Somnia]

In a perfect world I'd love to see the amount of revenue a game like Gears of War 4 did vs. some other larger single player only games that sold a few million.

I'm really curious how much they've made off DLC and crates, etc. even though the overall sales of the game are way down compared to past games.

Same with Halo 5, we know Halo 5 has made a killing with REQ's, but I'd love to see how much profit they've made off Halo 5 vs. say Halo 4 despite selling less overall copies.

We'll never get this info, but still.

 

[Freiya]

Actually no, go look at GTA V pre-online launch. It sold very well. There are a lot of games that sell well that are mainly single player experiences with sometimes optional online.

Issue is XBox has never had a lot of faith in trying for the long game. Which Sony, Nintendo have.
Which is why more games get published, or localized from the east. If having a stable of content from PC developers was still part of their initiative like it was in the OG xbox early xb360 days, this thread wouldn't exist.
But they are trying to chase that game as a service rabit that works for certain games and apply it to most of their lineup/output.
And that's why there is almost this disconnect with their established franchises halo, gears and games like Recore, QB, sunset(I know they didn't make them first party wise).

They are going this route because the never believed in the foundation they had when they started in this industry. They were just trying to get to selling you a service, and not a console that plays great games one person and enjoy and then if the game supports it play it online or on a couch with a friend.
They basically cultivated a audience that they see only GAAS can satisfy. Sunset was very unique and deserved a second game, but they would rather put their marketing chops behind titanfall at the time. Which was the talk of the summer which was when sunset came out.

If all their games going forward are GAAS, the numbers for xbox owners won't be increasing. GAAS works only if the game has an audience that wants that and accepts it. Which is why it works on PC for certain games.
It's one of the contributing factors why halo, gears sell less and less on top of the franchises are showing fatigue in general.
I just don't see xbox making the changes for long term relationships for development. They want games to have services to them and that seems to be the goal. Because the parent company has shaped xbox to be just that, One big service.

This is a really good post and I agree with you so much. Its one of the main reasons why I feel they ruined Scalebound.

 

[blakep267]

In a perfect world I'd love to see the amount of revenue a game like Gears of War 4 did vs. some other larger single player only games that sold a few million.

I'm really curious how much they've made off DLC and crates, etc. even though the overall sales of the game are way down compared to past games.

Same with Halo 5, we know Halo 5 has made a killing with REQ's, but I'd love to see how much profit they've made off Halo 5 vs. say Halo 4 despite selling less overall copies.

We'll never get this info, but still.

theres a lot that would go into it. Live subs, reqs, digital vs physical, any effect halo 5 will have on Game pass etc. how Forge on W10, affected engagement

Also it's coming up on 2 years since release of 5. Was halo 4 even remotely alive 2 years after launch

 

[Zedox]

As people have said in this thread it comes down to the diversity. I see why they'd go heavily GaaS but at the same time they should have SP story driven games on the platform. Spencer says in the article he wants his platform to be great for both kinds of experiences. With SP story driven games becoming less and less it's up to a 1st party to fulfill those needs in the portfolio.

Having a couple SP story driven games that have dlc/expansions capability that are main stays in the portfolio to compliment the GaaS plus smaller scale recore esque projects sprinkled through out would be fine.

Basically, putting Single Player Games on Game Pass is what I think they will announce at E3 (this year or next). Put two good ones on there and I'll buy Game Pass for a year.

 

[Somnia]

theres a lot that would go into it. Live subs, reqs, digital vs physical, any effect halo 5 will have on Game pass etc. how Forge on W10, affected engagement

Also it's coming up on 2 years since release of 5. Was halo 4 even remotely alive 2 years after launch

Yep I'd love to see the effects overall on all of that lol, like I said we'll never get that though.

 

[Head.spawn]

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

They usually have a few things for Gamescom each year.

 

[Steelyuhas]

In a perfect world I'd love to see the amount of revenue a game like Gears of War 4 did vs. some other larger single player only games that sold a few million.

I'm really curious how much they've made off DLC and crates, etc. even though the overall sales of the game are way down compared to past games.

Same with Halo 5, we know Halo 5 has made a killing with REQ's, but I'd love to see how much profit they've made off Halo 5 vs. say Halo 4 despite selling less overall copies.

We'll never get this info, but still.

Yeah it would be interesting to see for sure, but it is telling that they are leaning into those models.

 

[FelipeMGM]

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)

Apart from the bit boring beginning, a very fun showcase of gameplay

 

[DriftingSpirit]

In a perfect world I'd love to see the amount of revenue a game like Gears of War 4 did vs. some other larger single player only games that sold a few million.

I'm really curious how much they've made off DLC and crates, etc. even though the overall sales of the game are way down compared to past games.

Same with Halo 5, we know Halo 5 has made a killing with REQ's, but I'd love to see how much profit they've made off Halo 5 vs. say Halo 4 despite selling less overall copies.

We'll never get this info, but still.

John Harker (an insider) spoke on Gears 4 revenue.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=226428957&postcount=217

 

[Somnia]

John Harker (an insider) spoke on Gears 4 revenue.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=226428957&postcount=217

That revenue talk is just about game sales retail/digital, I'm curious on the revenue including crates, etc.

 

[AAMARMO]

I wonder what this could be.......

Let’s Talk About Assassin’s Creed: A Panel Discussion

 

[Papacheeks]

You mean the game that made most money through it's online portion?

How many copies has it sold? Let's look at physical copies sold, not money they get from online transactions within the game.

They have sold 60+ million copies of that game. 30 million was on PS3,360 before it even really took off online wise. People just wanted to play a great open world game by Rockstar.

Red dead redemption has sold like close to 12 Million and that was just on PS3 360. And it had basic online for just regular multiplayer shoot outs.

The point is GTA V wasn't designed in the beginning for the online stuff that organically took on a life of it's own that they continued to support.

The online wasn't even done until months later when the game released. MS is making games from the ground up to be that instead of letting the community decide by playing it. People in GTA were doing crazy stuff in mods, so rockstar straight up made it part of the game by officially supporting some of the things the community came up with.

Microsoft is making those decisions for the community, instead of letting the game develop and see how they can support it.

Which is why their approach on lot of these games won't work.

 

[Herp Derpington]

How many copies has it sold? Let's look at physical copies sold, not money they get from online transactions within the game.

They have sold 60+ million copies of that game. 30 million was on PS3,360 before it even really took off online wise. People just wanted to play a great open world game by Rockstar.

Red dead redemption has sold like close to 12 Million and that was just on PS3 360. And it had basic online for just regular multiplayer shoot outs.

The point is GTA V wasn't designed in the beginning for the online stuff that organically took on a life of it's own that they continued to support.

The online wasn't even done until months later when the game released. MS is making games from the ground up to be that instead of letting the community decide by playing it. People in GTA were doing crazy stuff in mods, so rockstar straight up made it part of the game by officially supporting some of the things the community came up with.

Microsoft is making those decisions for the community, instead of letting the game develop and see how they can support it.

Which is why their approach on lot of these games won't work.

Huh? Don't you remember the bullshit surrounding heists when the game first came out?

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

I guess people forgot half the marketing hype around GTAV was around it's online.

 

[rrc1594]

I guess people forgot half the marketing hype around GTAV was around it's online.

This

 

[Wedzi]

I meant to quote this post.

All I will say is, they are really putting thenselves in a bad position if everything is GAAS/MP service thing because:

1) they have next to no sticking power with titles, especially service based titles (see fable legends. Project spark)
2) they will have no diversity and will be leaving money on the table
3) their games will all be competing for the same group and those people are probably gonna go play destiny instead

Maybe I mistook his comment but if they have no games like Horizon coming in terms of delivery then that's just really bad.
They don't need their entire line up to be that, but it seems to me the problem with MS is that they just put all their eggs in one basket ever since Shane Kim and Peter Moore left, constantly playing catch up and generally just missing the mark.

KI has done well but has anything else they've done come close to that?

Also, seems like a reaction to the fact that whenever they try to make games like Zelda and Horizon that what they do just isn't good enough which is a larger problem than the buying habit of the consumer

I think this is part of a larger problem with Microsoft Game Studios, a point I was trying to bring up before being rudely dismissed, is that it's not just the amount of diverse games MS studios puts out, but the quality just hasn't been there this generation. Listen, most of us in this thread are fans of MS Studio's games, it's why we're posting here to begin with. We believe they can do better and have the talent and resources to do so but they aren't going to achieve this if they don't execute properly. From the way Recore turned out buggy and unfinished, to Quantum Break's long development schedule, recasting and the whole TV show thing that was supposed to be apart of it, from Ryse being a Kinect game then changing gameplay to a quick time fest, to Scalebound getting multiplayer shoved down it's throat, to Lionhead wanting to make Fable 4 but being forced to make a service based Fable game no one wanted, and the way the Halo franchise has been handled trying to spread the story across multiple mediums causing to distance itself from long time fans. This generation has had it's bright spots, Gears 4 was great, Sunset is my favorite new IP this generation and Forza is still consistently the best racer on the market but all of these fuck ups just go back to MS Game Studios management just doing a piss poor job and driving game development. Yes, they've had a lot of bad luck but eventually it forms a trend.

As for the games as a service approach, those games still take a large investment to make considering if you run out of content for players to do, they'll leave and it's not guaranteed they'll come back. And that's not good when your business model is all about consumer retainment. It's why I'm worried about Sea of Thieves. If that games launches with minimal support in the form of a Game Preview game, people won't stick around and they won't come back when new content is released.

 

[Papacheeks]

Huh? Don't you remember the bullshit surrounding heists when the game first came out?

I was talking about the main selling point of the game, which was and always has been the single player. They made online for it when they were developing it. But the life the community took on a good year after it's release was something they did not plan. Having the community come up with mods for track mania that ended up getting streamed was something the did not design when in development.

I'm talking about how the online evolved over time through the mods and community which is why it's so big now.

It happened organically, Microsoft is doing the opposite with their games they are designing them first and foremost to be service games.

I guess people forgot half the marketing hype around GTAV was around it's online.

You mean the one trailer/gameplay video they came out with after people were already pumped for the single player? You mean all those copies that sold in it's first couple months while they go online working were because of the online hype?

All those GOTY awards were about the online hype?

No.

 

[Zeta Oni]

Ok, that's like the eighth post I've seen this week saying Scalebound apparently had multiplayer forced in by Microsoft, despite it being obviously present in original announcement trailer for the game.

Also, its really a bit odd how many people have been pulling out Scalebound as a talking point for games MS should be making more, not less of, but going back to the complete lack of interest in the main topic I made for the game, and re-reading every other topic on this site concerning it paints a pretty different picture on how a lot of people were feeling about the game before it got canceled.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

You mean the one trailer/gameplay video they came out with after people were already pumped for the single player? You mean all those copies that sold in it's first couple months while they go online working were because of the online hype?

All those GOTY awards were about the online hype?

No.

What do the majority of people play GTA for? Story? No. It was the promise of a fully utilized online world to do whatever you want. After the online launched you rarely see people playing the single player content.

 

[Chris1]

Ok, that's like the eighth post I've seen this week saying Scalebound apparently had multiplayer forced in by Microsoft, despite it being obviously present in original announcement trailer for the game.

Also, its really a bit odd how many people have been pulling out Scalebound out as a talking point for games MS should be making more, not less of, but going back to the complete lack of interest in the main topic I made for the game, and re-reading every other topic on this site concerning it paints a pretty different picture on how a lot of people were feeling about the game before it got canceled.

Also Kamiya came out and apologized to Platinum fans, this is the guy who has a temper and publicly calls MS shit on twitter.

Whatever caused the cancellation, Platinum clearly had a big part in that or Kamiya would have made it known about 10 minutes after he got the news. I mean they shipped 7, maybe 8 games during Scalebound's development time, yet Scalebound was constantly getting delays after delays.

I'm sure MS played their part too don't get me wrong but to me it's painfully obvious Platinum isn't innocent here. They clearly bit off more than they could chew with Scalebound.

I guess people forgot half the marketing hype around GTAV was around it's online.

People knew what GTA was and what to expect, multiplayer of that with heists? sounds amazing.

if GTA Online was a new IP by developer XYZ it wouldn't of had as much hype IMO

 

[blakep267]

Ok, that's like the eighth post I've seen this week saying Scalebound apparently had multiplayer forced in by Microsoft, despite it being obviously present in original announcement trailer for the game.

Also, its really a bit odd how many people have been pulling out Scalebound out as a talking point for games MS should be making more, not less of, but going back to the complete lack of interest in the main topic I made for the game, and re-reading every other topic on this site concerning it paints a pretty different picture on how a lot of people were feeling about the game before it got canceled.

Nobody cared about who Scalebound was till it put on the mask

And don't give me that "it was the most anticipated Xbox game" that's because nobody even cared to vote in the Xbox poll here as opposed to the other systems.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

People knew what GTA was and what to expect, multiplayer of that with heists? sounds amazing.

if GTA Online was a new IP by developer XYZ it wouldn't of had as much hype IMO

Exactly. Any other dev with that promise would have been looked at with skeptical eyes but because it was Rockstar people believed and got more hype to buy the game.

 

[Chris1]

Edit: Oh I didn't even notice Zeta already posted his topic lol

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

Ok, that's like the eighth post I've seen this week saying Scalebound apparently had multiplayer forced in by Microsoft, despite it being obviously present in original announcement trailer for the game.

Also, its really a bit odd how many people have been pulling out Scalebound as a talking point for games MS should be making more, not less of, but going back to the complete lack of interest in the main topic I made for the game, and re-reading every other topic on this site concerning it paints a pretty different picture on how a lot of people were feeling about the game before it got canceled.

Yep, before the game was cancelled many, if not most, posts I saw about the game were negative and focussed on the ropey public showings of the game.

This revisionist history where GAF couldn't wait for the game is so bizarre.

 

[Papacheeks]

What do the majority of people play GTA for? Story? No. It was the promise of a fully utilized online world to do whatever you want. After the online launched you rarely see people playing the single player content.

So GTA 4, GTA SAN ANDREAS, GTA VICE CITY sold because multiplayer?

12 million people bought red dead redemption another open world rockstar game because of multiplayer?

Multiplayer is an added incentive, and maybe for some it's the only inceptive, but when you get critical reception off of the campaign alone a month before the online is even launched it's because of the main selling point, that it's gta.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

So GTA 4, GTA SAN ANDREAS, GTA VICE CITY sold because multiplayer?

12 million people bought red dead redemption another open world rockstar game because of multiplayer?

Multiplayer is an added incentive, and maybe for some it's the only inceptive, but when you get critical reception off of the campaign alone a month before the online is even launched it's because of the main selling point, that it's gta.

The next GTA is gonna go hard on multiplayer. They have that audience. If marketed and done right it'll double what V is doing now. Multiplayer is everything. Even RDR2 as much as people are talking about the story they're also wondering how the online will match with V.

 

[PanicFreak]

I was talking about the main selling point of the game, which was and always has been the single player. They made online for it when they were developing it. But the life the community took on a good year after it's release was something they did not plan. Having the community come up with mods for track mania that ended up getting streamed was something the did not design when in development.

I'm talking about how the online evolved over time through the mods and community which is why it's so big now.

It happened organically, Microsoft is doing the opposite with their games they are designing them first and foremost to be service games.

You mean the one trailer/gameplay video they came out with after people were already pumped for the single player? You mean all those copies that sold in it's first couple months while they go online working were because of the online hype?

All those GOTY awards were about the online hype?

No.

All of what you are saying is true but they are making a literal killing on microtransactions for GTA Online. I can't remember whether this revenue milestone was for a single quarter or for the most recent fiscal year but GTA Online is making Take Two more than a billion in revenue. That's enough to account for approximately 25,000,000 new copies of the game.

 

[Wedzi]

Ok, that's like the eighth post I've seen this week saying Scalebound apparently had multiplayer forced in by Microsoft, despite it being obviously present in original announcement trailer for the game.

Also, its really a bit odd how many people have been pulling out Scalebound as a talking point for games MS should be making more, not less of, but going back to the complete lack of interest in the main topic I made for the game, and re-reading every other topic on this site concerning it paints a pretty different picture on how a lot of people were feeling about the game before it got canceled.

Ok that trailer really doesn't hint at multiplayer, also multiplayer wasn't officially confirmed until the Gamescom 2015 as a reveal. Perhaps my wording was harsh, but whether or not that was an issue with the overall development of the game has yet to be determined. The fact that it's a believable story speaks more.

My post was to illustrate a disturbing trend of mismanagement of first party/partnered games in recent times, Scalebound was just one example but sure, lets go back to the nobody cared on Gaf till it was canceled sentiment, that's productive.

I feel like I should also state, yes, nobody cared about Scalebound that much, on Gaf, on anywhere before it was cancelled. It didn't demo well, had major framerate issues, and Xbox just doesn't have the type audience to support a game like that. The deal to make that game was probably done before MS knew exactly just how much PS4 was going to dominate that market. But like I said, Scalebound is just one of many missteps.

 

[EmiPrime]

Scalebound looked bad in all the demos and there were serious misgivings about it being multi-player and the multiple Drews, hence the lack of interest but people still held out hope that Kamiya would pull through and deliver a masterpiece with the final release given his pedigree. If he had done it would have blown up like Nier Automata did especially if there had been a playable demo before release.

There was no NeoGAF anti-Xbox conspiracy. That nonsense is tired.

 

[Zeta Oni]

Ok that trailer really doesn't hint at multiplayer, also multiplayer wasn't officially confirmed until the Gamescom 2015 as a reveal. Perhaps my wording was harsh, but whether or not that was an issue with the overall development of the game has yet to be determined. The fact that it's a believable story speaks more.

My post was to illustrate a disturbing trend of mismanagement of first party/partnered games in recent times, Scalebound was just one example but sure, lets go back to the nobody cared on Gaf till it was canceled sentiment, that's productive.

The end of that trailer more than hints at co-op, get out of here with that. You can say it wasn't officially announced until whenever, that trailer is clear in its intentions.

And regardless of if its believable or not, its a bit dishonest to put the blame entirely on the shoulders of one party without knowing the details, even if there is history. I was more than hyped for this game as you can probably tell, but you don't see me throwing it out as an example because honestly: I don't know what went wrong.

There was no NeoGAF anti-Xbox conspiracy. That nonsense is tired.

What are you talking about?

The point being made is that there was no hype for the game anywhere, not just GAF.

 

[Wedzi]

The end of that trailer more than hints at co-op, get out of here with that. You can say it wasn't officially announced until whenever, that trailer is clear in its intentions.

And regardless of if its believable or not, its a bit dishonest to put the blame entirely on the shoulders of one party without knowing the details, even if there is history. I was more than hyped for this game as you can probably tell, but you don't see me throwing it out as an example because honestly: I don't know what went wrong.

We still don't know if that was multiplayer, could have been AI controlled dragons, switching between multiple dragons on the fly like weapons in DMC. Also, when I say multiplayer I don't just mean co op like was probably the main focus but pushing a more service oriented approach to the game. Asking Platinum to develop more around co op than other features. Plus if you watch any of the previous demos multiplayer looked the most rough. *Also if I recall Ken Lobb said Scalebound was supposed to be a combination of what Microsoft does best (multiplayer, Xbox Like) and what Platinum does best (action games). The marriage just didn't work out.

As I've said before, I'm not putting the blame squarely on one company or the other, put it's one of many missteps. Maybe Microsoft shouldn't have even did business with Platinum and instead worked with Obsidian? Idk but whether or not MS was squarely at fault, it's another fuck up one way or the other for a company that can't really afford to fuck up anymore when it comes to their first party games.

Scalebound looked bad in all the demos and there were serious misgivings about it being multi-player and the multiple Drews, hence the lack of interest but people still held out hope that Kamiya would pull through and deliver a masterpiece with the final release given his pedigree. If he had done it would have blown up like Nier Automata did especially if there had been a playable demo before release.

There was no NeoGAF anti-Xbox conspiracy. That nonsense is tired.

I don't know if it would. Sadly the audience just isn't there. And yes, Neogaf does mostly skew towards PlayStation but you barely heard any port begging type posts about Scalebound. There was very little hype.