Banjo-Kazooie
Member
Actually I was just thinking that, because MS was originally the publisher. Still can't believe the game isn't out lolI wouldn't be shocked if that page hasn't been updated since E3 2013.
Actually I was just thinking that, because MS was originally the publisher. Still can't believe the game isn't out lolI wouldn't be shocked if that page hasn't been updated since E3 2013.
Agreed that the Xbox customers in no way should be blamed for not throwing money at those games that didn't work out as they'd hoped, but I think it's being brought up in discussion cause there seems to be some revisionist history that because these games didn't turn out well, it's like MSFT never developed and released attempts at new IP and diversifying their lineup.
Unfortunately, this gen hasn't been a successful one for new IP for Xbox (Ori being the only resounding success thus far).
That would be...surprising for Below to get a physical release imo. Hopefully it's coming out this year though, looks really cool.
Was berated because he liked Mass Effect Andromeda, as far as I know... Decided to leave.
He left because people couldn't deal with him liking Mass Effect Andromeda. They hounded him and said he was basically just trying to sell the game rather than genuinely liking it.
Shinobi just got tired of Neogaf. Really the straw the broke the camels back was about his positive preview he wrote for us about his early time with Mass Effect Andromeda, and then people endlessly shitting on him for it. Go look at the review thread if you're curious.
I think there are various reasons for why a product does not perform well. It isn't solely "because they didn't want it".
Blaming the lack of diversity on gaffers is one of the most insane things I've ever read on this forum. People here are hardcore and I'm sure most Xbox owners who have expressed diversity concerns are buying those new games. Because obviously they WANT diversity.
The only thing your point proves is that Xbox's audience on large scale is really made up mostly of dudebros who play the same shit over and over. Yet when things like that are said here, posters like you get pissed and say otherwise. I know I've got a ton of shit for saying that around here. And if it really is an audience/demographics problem, it's 100% Microsoft's fault for completely failing to nurture and expand that audience into something bigger and wider.
It's not the average Gaffer/internet gamer enthusiast's fault that these games aren't selling well. There's only so many of us.
I mean hell, even if you look at some of the "different" games from Sony's side that GAF clamors about (Last Guardian, Gravity Rush 2, etc.) it's not like those games sold all that well either. But the difference is the expectations, it seems like, between the two companies on how these games will perform.
It's also not the consumers' fault for rejecting games they have no interest in. You can't say "oh you wanted something different, *this* is different so buy it!" and expect them to fall in line. That's not how it works.
Actually I was just thinking that, because MS was originally the publisher. Still can't believe the game isn't out lol
I'll admit, in my frustration I had gone a bit too far and insinuated something that isn't 100% true. I apologize.
However, the point still stands that barely anyone--in the realm of Xbox at large--is buying these games. They're flopping out the gate, by and large, while large staples like Halo and Gears are, despite more stiff competition, still being talked about, are still being played, are still being bought, regardless of lower ROI compared to previous entries in the franchises.
My issue with Microsoft has always been more the general lack of effective marketing in recent years than the lack of AAA-level titles outside of the expected franchise entries. It's their responsibility to make people want to buy their games, and they're largely failing to do that this generation.
The problem with the diversity argument, however, has always been that the argument is almost always made in favor of singleplayer story-driven games or garnering more Japanese support. The latter I fully agree with--Microsoft should be evangelizing the platform to more Japanese devs, they should be getting every IP not tied down to PlayStation because of Sony money on their box. But the singleplayer bit of the argument is more problematic for me.
Its fundamental flaw is that it ignores the potential diversity gained from continuing to develop new multiplayer-focused IPs, or fostering existing multiplayer-focused IPs, and instead favors a diversity that is in favor of only one outcome. That's ... not diversity. It's the opposite of diversity.
Consumers deserve quality titles on the box that they purchased--that's why they even purchased said box. However, that quality is often equated to singleplayer story-driven AAA games, not multiplayer-focused AAA games. That's a lopsided argument blatantly in favor of personal preference rather than the actual goal of diversity.
As I've said before, Microsoft should be pursuing shit like Splatoon, not just pursuing shit like Horizon.
I'll admit, in my frustration I had gone a bit too far and insinuated something that isn't 100% true. I apologize.
However, the point still stands that barely anyone--in the realm of Xbox at large--is buying these games. They're flopping out the gate, by and large, while large staples like Halo and Gears are, despite more stiff competition, still being talked about, are still being played, are still being bought, regardless of lower ROI compared to previous entries in the franchises.
My issue with Microsoft has always been more the general lack of effective marketing in recent years than the lack of AAA-level titles outside of the expected franchise entries. It's their responsibility to make people want to buy their games, and they're largely failing to do that this generation.
The problem with the diversity argument, however, has always been that the argument is almost always made in favor of singleplayer story-driven games or garnering more Japanese support. The latter I fully agree with--Microsoft should be evangelizing the platform to more Japanese devs, they should be getting every IP not tied down to PlayStation because of Sony money on their box. But the singleplayer bit of the argument is more problematic for me.
Its fundamental flaw is that it ignores the potential diversity gained from continuing to develop new multiplayer-focused IPs, or fostering existing multiplayer-focused IPs, and instead favors a diversity that is in favor of only one outcome. That's ... not diversity. It's the opposite of diversity.
Consumers deserve quality titles on the box that they purchased--that's why they even purchased said box. However, that quality is often equated to singleplayer story-driven AAA games, not multiplayer-focused AAA games. That's a lopsided argument blatantly in favor of personal preference rather than the actual goal of diversity.
As I've said before, Microsoft should be pursuing shit like Splatoon, not just pursuing shit like Horizon.
The Recore situation is strange, very odd to see MSFT people complaining about review scores publically, especially when the consensus seems to have been that the game has potential, but that it could have used some more time in the oven.Don't get me wrong, I think the major reason MS isn't producing many new games is because of the lack of success for past games, but not for lack of trying. The beginning of the generation was very different. It's part of the reason why I think they are being extra careful with with development of Sea of Thieves, taking a fan first community approach to development. But when you have the head of Xbox crying about bad review scores for Recore you wonder if they truly get it. Maybe it was because it just wasn't a good game Phil!
An earlier post in this thread talked about goalpost shifting when it comes to internal development, and while I agree dismissing games that didn't come from internal studios is foolish, more and more I have expectations for internal teams to step up to the plate compared to external development.
I know 1st party external development can come up with great stuff not inferior or better than what internal teams can come up with, as we saw with Sunset Overdrive, Alan Wake & Gears 1-3. And in Sony's case, Ratchet & Clank, Bloodborne, etc.
But if this generation has been indicative of anything, it's that these relationships don't last, can easily break down, and more and more I question the capability of some of the less established developers to deliver polished, high quality AAA games in the same caliber as teams with at least 100+ headcount.
Established developers matter, because while a 50 person team might be able to make a game that has the 3D models, scale, and presentation that can come close to that of a AAA game, there is still a far leap between what Armature delivered with ReCore and what Remedy delivers with their games.
Of course, there are devs that are able to step up their game and prove their mettle despite scale of studio. But it doesn't leave one with a sense of reassurance.
For me, Crackdown 3 is that game. From how the game is a 3-studio collab between the cloud-tech, the creative team and presumably the asset/coders at Sumo Digital, it screams to me of a "AAA game that a small team cannot make on their own, so they need significant support from two other studios that aren't part of the traditional dev pipeline."
I might be proven wrong and that it turns out the 3-studio collab as as efficient as Ubisoft's 10-studio collaboration, but from the outside looking into it, it feels that way.
The sense that AAA funding are being given to studios/teams who aren't up to snuff to deliver that superb AAA game.
Here's a tease.
Here's a tease.
Prob a marketing deal. I don't think Ubi have ever done an exclusive for MS.
Also calling it now... crackdown 3 purchase will include beta for Halo 6. Returning to the successful formula they did with original Crackdown.
Agreed that the Xbox customers in no way should be blamed for not throwing money at those games that didn't work out as they'd hoped, but I think it's being brought up in discussion cause there seems to be some revisionist history that because these games didn't turn out well, it's like MSFT never developed and released attempts at new IP and diversifying their lineup.
Unfortunately, this gen hasn't been a successful one for new IP for Xbox (Ori being the only resounding success thus far).
Right now the focus is really on the content that were building, he says. I know I get some community pushback on our first-party [slate], and what position were in, and I want to say to people: that same level of commitment you felt from myself and from the team as weve evolved platform over the last three years as weve evolved service over the last three years, as weve evolved and innovated hardware over the last three years is going on with our first party. I dont want to go and pre-announce a bunch of things, but we are upping our investment, theres no doubt about that.
The audience for those big story-driven games... I wont say it isnt as large, but theyre not as consistent, says Spencer. Youll have things like Zelda or Horizon Zero Dawn thatll come out, and theyll do really well, but they dont have the same impact that they used to have, because the big service-based games are capturing such a large amount of the audience. Sonys first-party studios do a lot of these games, and theyre good at them, but outside of that, its difficult theyre become more rare; its a difficult business decision for those teams, youre fighting into more headwind.
What was he trying to say here? Horizon and Zelda are both doing very well on the market.
I mean he's right and wrong at the same timeThe takeaway here is that MS is all about GaaS now.
lol at downplaying Zelda success.
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
They most certainly should.And why not have both. I mean he's privey to the analytics and what makes the most money and what not.
They most certainly should.
To me it seems like they have a budget, and they choose to spend a majority of it on GaaS.
We can all disagree or agree with it, but we can at least see why they are focusing on games with longer tails since their metric of performance is MAUs now. They want to keep and grow MAUs with GaaS titles that are more privy to helping that metric
Agreed, it makes sense for MS to go after that, all things considered. I just think they could put more effort into that SP side.They most certainly should.
To me it seems like they have a budget, and they choose to spend a majority of it on GaaS.
We can all disagree or agree with it, but we can at least see why they are focusing on games with longer tails since their metric of performance is MAUs now. They want to keep and grow MAUs with GaaS titles that are more privy to helping that metric
On one hand, Phil is saying they are upping their first party efforts but on the other, they don't want to announce stuff too early.Plant your flag at E3 this year Phil, show us what you got.
Imagine if the only new revealed games are Forza 7 and Halo 6, lol.
What was he trying to say here? Horizon and Zelda are both doing very well on the market.
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
What was he trying to say here? Horizon and Zelda are both doing very well on the market.
Agreed, it makes sense for MS to go after that, all things considered. I just think they could put more effort into that SP side.
On one hand, Phil is saying they are upping their first party efforts but on the other, they don't want to announce stuff too early.
So, they may focus on the titles you mentioned over games farther out and wait for next E3 to display what they've been working on. I guess it just really depends on what would be considered "too far out". Anything not launching now to the end of next year?
Plant your flag at E3 this year Phil, show us what you got.
Imagine if the only new revealed games are Forza 7 and Halo 6, lol.
Plant your flag at E3 this year Phil, show us what you got.
Imagine if the only new revealed games are Forza 7 and Halo 6, lol.
Agreed, it makes sense for MS to go after that, all things considered. I just think they could put more effort into that SP side.
On one hand, Phil is saying they are upping their first party efforts but on the other, they don't want to announce stuff too early.
So, they may focus on the titles you mentioned over games farther out and wait for next E3 to display what they've been working on. I guess it just really depends on what would be considered "too far out". Anything not launching now to the end of next year?
New Sea of Thieves video feat. Phil Spencer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv5UoOmPnLs
(About ten minutes of gameplay, shows off swordplay possibly for the first time)
That would be depressing. But if Phil is making statement like that then maybe they do have something to show from their new studios?
I tried to illustrate in m response that I fully agree and they are more tilted to GaaS side and need more traditional model titles. Sorry if I didn't convey that enough, I agree with youThis is a bizarre quote. Horizon, Uncharted 4 and Zelda:BotW will all probably end up in the 8-10 million sales bracket. Sure, it's not as much as Overwatch, Destiny or The Division, but on the contrary I'd say if there are more and more GaaS games there will also be more hunger for high quality story-driven SP games.
I mean, it doesn't need to be one or the other. A good line-up focuses on diversity of genres as well as a differing business strategies.
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)
Yeah, there will be uproar (just online fussing, nothing serious) if they go that route this year. I think they should show at least 1 major title that is a ways off. It'll be fine if the bulk of their conference is stuff coming much more soon.I'm fine with that approach, but shit you can't do E3 and that's it. You need to do at least another event.
What was he trying to say here? Horizon and Zelda are both doing very well on the market.
Spencer truly does not get it when he makes comments about Zelda and Horizon, both system sellers, especially Zelda with the 1:1attach ratio
It might be too early to talk about stuff from new studios. I think the game that's farthest out we will see is Halo 6. Focus will be this year with maybe one or two announces for next year aside from Halo.
Upping investments doesn't mean anything is coming soon.
Looks like multiplayer Elder Scrolls
Yeah, there will be uproar (just online fussing, nothing serious) if they go that route this year. I think they should show at least 1 major title that is a ways off. It'll be fine if the bulk of their conference is stuff coming much more soon.
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.
I'm fine with that approach, but shit you can't do E3 and that's it. You need to do at least another event.
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.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.