Support NeoGAF

[harSon]

I like Phil overall but I feel like this continues to happen. Our very own MH Williams put up an article going over all the things announced in 2014 that have all but been axed: http://www.usgamer.net/articles/revisiting-xbox-e3-2014-remembering-the-dead

I almost forgot how much.

Every time this happens, fans start questioning him and the platform's direction, Phil gives the standard reply "we're committed to games and first party", and then you get the "Ok, phew, thanks Phil!" though that seems to be waning now.

Thing is, you need to allow your teams to branch out and take risks creatively. That's how you grow a brand and ecosystem and new fan bases. This has nothing to do with console war bs, but Sony does this and it's evident. One of their flagship studios known for first person shooters was allowed to take 5 years to build a post apocalyptic open world RPG with a female lead and robot dinosaurs. Another studio (Sony Santa Monica), even though its initial new IP failed, was allowed to radically revamp one of their biggest and most beloved franchises (God of War). Both huge risks. Sucker Punch is on a new IP. Bend is on a new IP, etc. Naughty Dog took time to develop a new IP that's arguably their biggest yet. That's how these become successful franchises.

Besides Rare, which is basically their new IP testbed though relegated to service driven games, Turn 10 works on Forza, Black Tusk was transformed into a Gears factory, 343 is relegated to Halo...it's just tired at this point. To me anyway, even though I still enjoy those series a lot. I want Xbox around forever. I was there day one with my OG Xbox and fell mad in love with Halo, but damn...give us new and exciting things man. I mean nurturing internal first party talent, not signing more deals that don't go anywhere.

Sony being able to take risks is a byproduct of their market dominance though. After the failure of a lot of their new IPs for the generation, Microsoft probably feels they're in a position where they have to at least tread water - and the safest way to do that is to repeat what works. The same thing happened to Sony last generation after early titles like Genji, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Warhawk and Lair failed to make a splash - and the console was struggling to sell out the gate. Sony obviously has a larger internal studio system, so it's not quite as apparent, but their portfolio until the latter half of the Playstation 3's existence was every bit as repetitive as Microsoft's. How much money was spent to develop repeated titles within Motorstorm, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, Singstar, Little Big Planet, Resistance and Killzone franchises? It wasn't until the last few years of the generation, and leading into the Playstation 4's existence - when Sony could truly afford to take risks with its brand - that Sony took their studios from franchise purgatory and allowed for them to take some chances.

I do admit though, Microsoft doesn't have the internal first party clout to get away with recycling the same franchises without it coming off as stale. But on the flip side, I don't think Microsoft simply freeing its existing studios from franchise purgatory is the right movie either. What would happen if Microsoft allowed 343, Turn10 and The Coalition to do their own thing - and those games failed? Without Halo, Forza and Gears of War to carry the brand, as rung out as they are, the Xbox brand would sink spectacularly. What they need to do, is form studios or purchase existing ones - and allow those studios to take the risks (or push their mainline franchises onto them).

 

[Dinjoralo]

He also says he'll be more careful about when new titles are announced

"Yes, starting new is critical. I will think more about when we show new stuff, that's good learning for me."

...Y'know, isn't he in the position where he should've known that already? Seriously, this statement makes him look plain amateurish.

 

[Toki767]

Sony being able to take risks is a byproduct of their market dominance though. After the failure of a lot of their new IPs for the generation, Microsoft probably feels they're in a position where they have to at least tread water - and the safest way to do that is to repeat what works. The same thing happened to Sony last generation after early titles like Genji, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Warhawk and Lair failed to make a splash - and the console was struggling to sell out the gate. Sony obviously has a larger internal studio system, so it's not quite as apparent, but their portfolio until the latter half of the Playstation 3's existence was every bit as repetitive as Microsoft's. How much money was spent to develop repeated titles within Motorstorm, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, Singstar, Little Big Planet, Resistance and Killzone franchises? It wasn't until the last few years of the generation, and leading into the Playstation 4's existence - when Sony could truly afford to take risks with its brand - that Sony took their studios from franchise purgatory and allowed for them to take some chances.

Umm...but half of those were all new IP to last gen. None of those probably sold that well in the first year either but they still got sequels. And their sequels ended up doing better in sales. That's how you build new IP. Not giving up after the first game.

 

[Papacheeks]

Sony being able to take risks is a byproduct of their market dominance though. After the failure of a lot of their new IPs for the generation, Microsoft probably feels they're in a position where they have to at least tread water - and the safest way to do that is to repeat what works. The same thing happened to Sony last generation after early titles like Genji, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Warhawk and Lair failed to make a splash - and the console was struggling to sell out the gate. Sony obviously has a larger internal studio system, so it's not quite as apparent, but their portfolio until the latter half of the Playstation 3's existence was every bit as repetitive as Microsoft's. How much money was spent to develop repeated titles within Motorstorm, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, Singstar, Little Big Planet, Resistance and Killzone franchises? It wasn't until the last few years of the generation, and leading into the Playstation 4's existence - when Sony could truly afford to take risks with its brand - that Sony took their studios from franchise purgatory and allowed for them to take some chances.

I do admit though, Microsoft doesn't have the internal first party clout to get away with recycling the same franchises without it coming off as stale. But on the flip side, I don't think Microsoft simply freeing its existing studios from franchise purgatory is the right movie either. What would happen if Microsoft allowed 343, Turn10 and The Coalition to do their own thing - and those games failed? Without Halo, Forza and Gears of War to carry the brand, as rung out as they are, the Xbox brand would sink spectacularly. What they need to do, is form studios or purchase existing ones - and allow those studios to take the risks (or push their mainline franchises onto them).

No. They took risk's while bleeding millions to almost billions on PS3. They greenlight a lot of games even when PS3 was doing poorly. They just continued to make games like they always have in the past. They have it part of their backbone of the division.

Look at how many new IP's were created last gen MAG in 2010, Puppeteer in 2013, phat princess, playstation all stars in 2012, starhawk also in 2012.

They take risk's regardless they just may not do it all the time with certain studios who 's games dont sell big.

 

[onemanasylum]

Sony being able to take risks is a byproduct of their market dominance though. After the failure of a lot of their new IPs for the generation, Microsoft probably feels they're in a position where they have to at least tread water - and the safest way to do that is to repeat what works. The same thing happened to Sony last generation after early titles like Genji, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Warhawk and Lair failed to make a splash - and the console was struggling to sell out the gate. Sony obviously has a larger internal studio system, so it's not quite as apparent, but their portfolio until the latter half of the Playstation 3's existence was every bit as repetitive as Microsoft's. How much money was spent to develop repeated titles within Motorstorm, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, Singstar, Little Big Planet, Resistance and Killzone franchises? It wasn't until the last few years of the generation, and leading into the Playstation 4's existence - when Sony could truly afford to take risks with its brand - that Sony took their studios from franchise purgatory and allowed for them to take some chances.

I do admit though, Microsoft doesn't have the internal first party clout to get away with recycling the same franchises without it coming off as stale. But on the flip side, I don't think Microsoft simply freeing its existing studios from franchise purgatory is the right movie either. What would happen if Microsoft allowed 343, Turn10 and The Coalition to do their own thing - and those games failed? Without Halo, Forza and Gears of War to carry the brand, as rung out as they are, the Xbox brand would sink spectacularly. What they need to do, is form studios or purchase existing ones - and allow those studios to take the risks (or push their mainline franchises onto them).

No it isn't, early days of ps3 are testament to this. Uncharted for instance sold poorly at first, but sony stuck with it, that's how you build a franchise.

 

[aeolist]

You have to think longterm. Right now theres obviously less people on xbox then there was on 360 last gen. But the 360 was very profitable for them, even with the 3 red lights fiasco. They see the potential. But the only way they will get there again is if they dont fuck up the consoles launch like they did xbox ones.

The xbox one name isnt associated with positivism. It has the same association as Vista had for MS then. No matter how much they improved it, it was still Vista.

This is why i firmly believe that Scorpio NEEDS to drop the xbox one name.

we don't actually know whether the console games business has ever been profitable for microsoft, mainly because they've always been very careful to avoid breaking out any real details for the division. it's always been bundled with other parts of the company that are certainly vastly more profitable for financial reporting purposes.

could they make money off of xbox? i'm sure it's possible, but given the inherent costs of doing business in the market combined with the huge fuckups from all three generations of the product i find it hard to believe that they're in the black overall.

 

[malfcn]

Community: "Don't release broken, shitty games."
Microsoft: *Cancels Scalebound

What if Scalebound was a broken, shitty game? Both financially and reputation, could they have afforded to release it? How many million in, and how many more would it have taken to ship?

Imagine if it landed at 23 on Metacritic.
The chaos, ruckus and discord it would have caused.

Maybe they had no choice to cancel it.
They took a risk and green lit it and things didn't pan out.

It could have also been muddled by pressure to add coop. Who knows, likely both sides are to be blamed. Professionally, we may never know directly.

 

[VincentMatts]

we don't actually know whether the console games business has ever been profitable for microsoft, mainly because they've always been very careful to avoid breaking out any real details for the division. it's always been bundled with other parts of the company that are certainly vastly more profitable for financial reporting purposes.

could they make money off of xbox? i'm sure it's possible, but given the inherent costs of doing business in the market combined with the huge fuckups from all three generations of the product i find it hard to believe that they're in the black overall.

Theyre probably making "more" now then they were then just with the fact that there hasnt been a 3 red lights that cost the division 1B dollars.

And most of their games, Halo5, gears4, forza, are selling. Maybe not at those level before, but are still selling. Technically, they should be making more now.

 

[4Tran]

what they really want is to turn xbox live into a google play-style smorgasbord with people using it to buy every kind of content along with social features to keep them engaged

the massive failure of windows phone/mobile has probably killed that ambition entirely though, and i doubt console owners are buying enough music and movies from the service to justify the entire division

I don't think that Microsoft has entirely given up yet. And when they do give up, it's going to be terrible news for Xbox.

You have to think longterm. Right now theres obviously less people on xbox then there was on 360 last gen. But the 360 was very profitable for them, even with the 3 red lights fiasco. They see the potential. But the only way they will get there again is if they dont fuck up the consoles launch like they did xbox ones.

In its best year, Xbox made around 1 billion in profits. For most companies, that's a bonanza, but it's peanuts for Microsoft. And since that kind of profit can't be guaranteed year on year, it means that Xbox is unimportant as a source of revenue to Microsoft. The potential here is almost nothing as far as they're concerned, and that's reflected in what the company is doing with Xbox currently.

 

[DOWN]

Sony being able to take risks is a byproduct of their market dominance though. After the failure of a lot of their new IPs for the generation, Microsoft probably feels they're in a position where they have to at least tread water - and the safest way to do that is to repeat what works. The same thing happened to Sony last generation after early titles like Genji, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Warhawk and Lair failed to make a splash - and the console was struggling to sell out the gate. Sony obviously has a larger internal studio system, so it's not quite as apparent, but their portfolio until the latter half of the Playstation 3's existence was every bit as repetitive as Microsoft's. How much money was spent to develop repeated titles within Motorstorm, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, Singstar, Little Big Planet, Resistance and Killzone franchises? It wasn't until the last few years of the generation, and leading into the Playstation 4's existence - when Sony could truly afford to take risks with its brand - that Sony took their studios from franchise purgatory and allowed for them to take some chances.

I do admit though, Microsoft doesn't have the internal first party clout to get away with recycling the same franchises without it coming off as stale. But on the flip side, I don't think Microsoft simply freeing its existing studios from franchise purgatory is the right movie either. What would happen if Microsoft allowed 343, Turn10 and The Coalition to do their own thing - and those games failed? Without Halo, Forza and Gears of War to carry the brand, as rung out as they are, the Xbox brand would sink spectacularly. What they need to do, is form studios or purchase existing ones - and allow those studios to take the risks (or push their mainline franchises onto them).

This is nonsense tbh. Sony was doing poorly during PS3 financially and yet out of the games you named there, a bunch of those were brand new IPs last gen and a bunch were not initial hits. Not to mention Infamous, Demon's Souls, a couple of unique games from Quantic Dream, etc.

Sony is absolutely better at taking risks. Even when the fresh ideas bomb or underperform, they go again. Beyond underperformed, but that doesn't stop them from trying a new game in Detroit and doing female led games like Horizon and The Last of Us 2. Knack bombed critically and is getting a sequel.

 

[Papacheeks]

Theyre probably making "more" now then they were then just with the fact that there hasnt been a 3 red lights that cost the division 1B dollars.

And most of their games, Halo5, gears4, forza, are selling. Maybe not at those level before, but are still selling. Technically, they should be making more now.

They are most def are not making the money they were last gen I can guarantee you that. Too many projects that didn't pan out, too many non gaming divisions closed down with xbox.

Games like Sunset, Rise of the tomb raider, among other deals not selling well along with halo 5 gears 4 underperforming.

They have lost a lot of money this gen, which is why more projecta are being looked at with a microscope now budget wise. SHinobi commented on this earlier, things are tight as fuck budget wise because of all the money lost in 2014,2015 going into 2016.

 

[harSon]

No it isn't, early days of ps3 are testament to this. Uncharted for instance sold poorly at first, but sony stuck with it, that's how you build a franchise.

Sony announced that Uncharted sold 2.9 million worldwide. That's fantastic for a new IP, especially given the Playstation 3's install base at that time. That's something you can build off of, and is a no brianer to greenlight a sequel for. The overwhelming majority of the new IPs that Sony crafted franchises out of from last generation were titles that proved to have some form of sales potential. I can't think of many (any?) new IPs they transformed into franchises that sold horribly with their first iteration.

 

[Papacheeks]

Sony announced that Uncharted sold 2.9 million worldwide. That's fantastic for a new IP, especially given the Playstation 3's install base at that time. That's something you can build off of, and is a no brianer to greenlight a sequel for. The overwhelming majority of the new IPs that Sony crafted franchises out of from last generation were titles that proved to have some form of sales potential. I can't think of many (any?) new IPs they transformed into franchises that sold horribly with their first iteration.

Yea 2.9 Million in almost 2 years.

Last of us did those numbers in half the time. I mean hell fucking knack did like 2 million in the same amount of time and that game is somewhat mediocre even though i enjoyed it.

 

[aeolist]

Theyre probably making "more" now then they were then just with the fact that there hasnt been a 3 red lights that cost the division 1B dollars.

And most of their games, Halo5, gears4, forza, are selling. Maybe not at those level before, but are still selling. Technically, they should be making more now.

every iteration of their product has had some enormous cost associated with it. OG xbox was horribly expensive to manufacture, sold poorly, and involved a lot of sunk costs to buy studios and exclusives. 360 had the RROD. xbox one had the disastrous rollout and subsequent about-face with rapid price drops following launch, which cost an absolute shitload of money in terms of reengineering most of the software platform not to mention lost goodwill and sales. they're in a distant second place (thanks to large discounts on hardware that's probably selling below cost) in a market that's only grown more and more expensive over time and i sincerely doubt they're at the break even point, much less turning a profit.

 

[Papacheeks]

every iteration of their product has had some enormous cost associated with it. OG xbox was horribly expensive to manufacture, sold poorly, and involved a lot of sunk costs to buy studios and exclusives. 360 had the RROD. xbox one had the disastrous rollout and subsequent about-face with rapid price drops following launch, which cost an absolute shitload of money in terms of reengineering most of the software platform not to mention lost goodwill and sales. they're in a distant second place (thanks to large discounts on hardware that's probably selling below cost) in a market that's only grown more and more expensive over time and i sincerely doubt they're at the break even point, much less turning a profit.

Yup!

 

[harSon]

This is nonsense tbh. Sony was doing poorly during PS3 financially and yet out of the games you named there, a bunch of those were brand new IPs last gen. Not to mention Infamous, Demon's Souls, a couple of unique games from Quantic Dream, etc.

Sony is absolutely better at taking risks. Even when the fresh ideas bomb or underperform, they go again. Beyond underperformed, but that doesn't stop them from trying a new game in Detroit and doing female led games like Horizon and The Last of Us 2. Knack bombed critically and is getting a sequel.

Microsoft had new IPs as well: Ryse, Crimson Dragon, Project Spark, Sunset Overdrive, Recore, Quantum Break and Killer Instinct if you want to count something that hasn't been a thing since the 90s. Scalebound (RIP) and Sea of Thieves this year. You can certainly question the quality of those titles, but they were new IPs. But they were sales disasters for the most part, and of questionable quality, and there isn't a platform holder out there that's going to go out of their way to make a franchise out of mediocre titles that don't sell well.

Yea 2.9 Million in almost 2 years.

Last of us did those numbers in half the time. I mean hell fucking knack did like 2 million in the same amount of time and that game is somewhat mediocre even though i enjoyed it.

And? A well rated new IP that probably sold 3+ million, regardless of the duration, is a no brainer to make a sequel for. That's something you can build off of. What's an example of Sony developed Playstation 3 era title that sold terribly, or sub par, but was allowed a sequel?

 

[Papacheeks]

Microsoft had new IPs as well: Ryse, Crimson Dragon, Project Spark, Sunset Overdrive, Recore, Quantum Break and Killer Instinct if you want to count something that hasn't been a thing since the 90s. Scalebound (RIP) and Sea of Thieves this year. You can certainly question the quality of those titles, but they were new IPs. But they were sales disasters for the most part, and of questionable quality, and there isn't a platform holder out there that's going to go out of their way to make a franchise out of mediocre titles that don't sell well.

So was knack of questionable quality and it got a sequel. IT SOLD decent, so did Ryse but Crytek didnt wan to make another game for some other reason, which I think had to do with owning the IP or bad blood with that game changing mid development from a kinect game to regular third person action game.

 

[onemanasylum]

Sony announced that Uncharted sold 2.9 million worldwide. That's fantastic for a new IP, especially given the Playstation 3's install base at that time. That's something you can build off of, and is a no brianer to greenlight a sequel for. The overwhelming majority of the new IPs that Sony crafted franchises out of from last generation were titles that proved to have some form of sales potential. I can't think of many (any?) new IPs they transformed into franchises that sold horribly with their first iteration.

How long after "Launch" did they announce it? initially it sold poorly it got to 2.9 million after a couple years because sony lept pushing the title regardless of it's low sales early on. That's also just 1 example, Sony were putting out a lot of new ip early on , many failed (MAG for example) but they keep pushing new ip regardless. Warhawk got a sequel and never exactly lit up the charts. You're telling me GRavity Rush sold very well?

Another side of this is after making uncharted a huge success they allow ND to make a new ip very late in the gen, would MS do this?

Microsoft had new IPs as well: Ryse, Crimson Dragon, Project Spark, Sunset Overdrive, Recore, Quantum Break and Killer Instinct if you want to count something that hasn't been a thing since the 90s. Scalebound (RIP) and Sea of Thieves this year. You can certainly question the quality of those titles, but they were new IPs. But they were sales disasters for the most part, and of questionable quality, and there isn't a platform holder out there that's going to go out of their way to make a franchise out of mediocre titles that don't sell well.



And? A well rated new IP that probably sold 3+ million, regardless of the duration, is a no brainer to make a sequel for. That's something you can build off of. What's an example of Sony developed Playstation 3 era title that sold terribly, or sub par, but was allowed a sequel?

Many of those are third party exclusives (Insomniac, Crytek), which is another issue. Sony makes most of their in house, thus making a sequel if sales are not strong a better possibility.

 

[intheinbetween]

they're in a distant second place (thanks to large discounts on hardware that's probably selling below cost) in a market that's only grown more and more expensive over time and i sincerely doubt they're at the break even point, much less turning a profit.

they're in a distant second place because there's virtually no third place, Nintendo gave up long time ago. But to say "thanks to large discounts and probably selling below cost" it's not appropiate, because they're not the only ones applying discounts, or selling below cost.

 

[dakilla13]

No it isn't, early days of ps3 are testament to this. Uncharted for instance sold poorly at first, but sony stuck with it, that's how you build a franchise.

They had this incredibly successful console, the PS2, which allowed them some leeway in taking risks in the next gen.

 

[Toki767]

Microsoft had new IPs as well: Ryse, Crimson Dragon, Project Spark, Sunset Overdrive, Recore, Quantum Break and Killer Instinct if you want to count something that hasn't been a thing since the 90s. Scalebound (RIP) and Sea of Thieves this year. You can certainly question the quality of those titles, but they were new IPs. But they were sales disasters for the most part, and of questionable quality, and there isn't a platform holder out there that's going to go out of their way to make a franchise out of mediocre titles that don't sell well.



And? A well rated new IP that probably sold 3+ million, regardless of the duration, is a no brainer to make a sequel for. That's something you can build off of. What's an example of Sony developed Playstation 3 era title that sold terribly, or sub par, but was allowed a sequel?

I don't know about that. I'm fairly sure Gravity Rush didn't even sell 1 million copies.

 

[onemanasylum]

They had this incredibly successful console, the PS2, which allowed them some leeway in taking risks in the next gen.

This makes zero sense...the ps3 was bleeding money, by this point ps2 had nothing to do with anything, the market had moved on awhile ago.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

What are we defining as a "risk"? To me, any time you put millions into an unproven property that's a risk. Quantum Break doesn't go in the books as a "safe" underperformer because it had good graphics, guns, and a cover system.

 

[Papacheeks]

I don't know about that. I'm fairly sure Gravity Rush didn't even sell 1 million copies.

Yup i think warhawk didnt sell that well either and it got a sequel in the form of starhawk.

 

[Armaros]

They had this incredibly successful console, the PS2, which allowed them some leeway in taking risks in the next gen.

the disastrous ps3 launch ate the PS2 money...

 

[michaelius]

Microsoft had new IPs as well: Ryse, Crimson Dragon, Project Spark, Sunset Overdrive, Recore, Quantum Break and Killer Instinct if you want to count something that hasn't been a thing since the 90s. Scalebound (RIP) and Sea of Thieves this year. You can certainly question the quality of those titles, but they were new IPs. But they were sales disasters for the most part, and of questionable quality, and there isn't a platform holder out there that's going to go out of their way to make a franchise out of mediocre titles that don't sell well.

Well that sounds like publisher mismanagment to me - not being able to find good ideas and then taking care of them to grow them into potential franchises.

 

[Papacheeks]

What are we defining as a "risk"? To me, any time you put millions into an unproven property that's a risk. Quantum Break doesn't go in the books as a "safe" underperformer because it had good graphics, guns, and a cover system.

Oh I agree QB was defintley a risk especially with Remedy's slow development speed. But again that game had problems where they changed a lot, and the tv show stuff was very low budget.

Game just took too long, and didn't deliver anything meaningful. But there is sequel material in there but remedy I think doesn't want to make one.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Community: "Don't release broken, shitty games."
Microsoft: *Cancels Scalebound

What if Scalebound was a broken, shitty game? Both financially and reputation, could they have afforded to release it? How many million in, and how many more would it have taken to ship?

Imagine if it landed at 23 on Metacritic.
The chaos, ruckus and discord it would have caused.

Maybe they had no choice to cancel it.
They took a risk and green lit it and things didn't pan out.

It could have also been muddled by pressure to add coop. Who knows, likely both sides are to be blamed. Professionally, we may never know directly.

I'm sure The Last Guardian was a broken shitty game for a long time during its development. They still doubled down and released a well-received title many years later. They had made a promise to players by showing it at their conference, and they made sure to deliver on their promise. That's how you build trust with your user base. Not by giving up at the first signs of trouble like a fucking quitter.

Also Microsoft have cancelled a lot of games the last few years from different developers. Maybe they were all broken shitty games. But what did they all have in common? Microsoft as a publisher. If they were all canceled for being broken shitty games, there seems to be a systematic issue with Microsoft's current IP development process that leads to a high probability of their games being broken shitty messes. Maybe they should address that?

 

[Plague Doctor]

I have said this in the past and worth repeating here.

Xbox as a company only needs to do two things to win me back as a former 360 only owner last gen:

1. Stop with the platitude marketing/pr speak and show me a diverse line up of games. I just wanted another mainline and single player Fable. Really, that's all it would have taken for me to put the 2013 reveal behind. And then show they are willing to try to explore other genre. Things like Ori was a great step, but it was a step. Keep on doing that. Despite popular opinion, they don't need to be AAA or whatever arbitrary level of budget some people give. A good game is a good game.

2. Stop. Breathe. And see the rest of this generation as rebuilding something great for the future. A hardware arms race isn't it. Hardware can and will change and touting that claim is an immediate accolade that will be trumped soon after. Forging new studios and relationships with outside studios is the real long term success strategy. Instead of Scorpio, I would have rather seen that money going into investment into games themselves. If I see a steady signs of them taking 'risks' with varied and smaller ips, I will give them a good look again.

It's not bleak, but I just feel like the company's priorities aren't there. Scalebound, regardless of what people say of the quality in previews, was something different from MS usual faire. People took notice and seen this as a sign that MS was expanding past their comfort zone, and were willing to forgive not so polished visuals for it.

 

[Outrun]

...Y'know, isn't he in the position where he should've known that already? Seriously, this statement makes him look plain amateurish.

Or he simply felt confident that MS and Platinum would deliver.

 

[Zeta Oni]

I feel like the bottom line is that even if you are personally excited for the current line up of Xbox games, the variety leaves a lot to be desired.

The biggest thing to me, as a consumer, is the games. Right now, MS has canceled a game that was the only game of its kind on the platform, regardless of it being Japanese. There is not even a Fable around anymore to show instead, they have nothing on the RPG front.

And to make it worse, right now there's a game made by the same devs, in the same genre, and its sitting on the competitors platform.

I love Gears and Halo but at the very least, you have to admit that if E3 this year isn't some second coming of Xbox in terms of software announcements outside that usual 3, things are looking slim.

 

[LARDSHOCKER]

D4: Season 2 let's go!

 

[uncledonnie]

Repeating what I said in another thread, but why does MS need to take risks again? If you look at the recently published UK 2016 software marketshare for Sony and Microsoft here (7% for Sony vs. 6% for MS), it really seems like taking risks on new IP won't make much difference at all. You have to assume the overwhelming majority of Microsoft's share is Forza/Gears/Halo so it seems like they'd be just fine to continue that with the additional new IP here and there like Ori. If the Scorpio becomes the best place to play third party games that seems a hell of a lot more important than taking risks on new IPs.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

I have said this in the past and worth repeating here.

Xbox as a company only needs to do two things to win me back as a former 360 only owner last gen:

1. Stop with the platitude marketing/pr speak and show me a diverse line up of games. I just wanted another mainline and single player Fable. Really, that's all it would have taken for me to put the 2013 reveal behind. And then show they are willing to try to explore other genre. Things like Ori was a great step, but it was a step. Keep on doing that. Despite popular opinion, they don't need to be AAA or whatever arbitrary level of budget some people give. A good game is a good game.

2. Stop. Breathe. And see the rest of this generation as rebuilding something great for the future. A hardware arms race isn't it. Hardware can and will change and touting that claim is an immediate accolade that will be trumped soon after. Forging new studios and relationships with outside studios is the real long term success strategy. Instead of Scorpio, I would have rather seen that money going into investment into games themselves. If I see a steady signs of them taking 'risks' with varied and smaller ips, I will give them a good look again.

It's not bleak, but I just feel like the company's priorities aren't there. Scalebound, regardless of what people say of the quality in previews, was something different from MS usual faire. People took notice and seen this as a sign that MS was expanding past their comfort zone, and were willing to forgive not so polished visuals for it.

If MS thinks that the Scorpio is going to magically turn around their fortunes I think they're in a for a rude awakening. I really hope the dearth of games isn't due to most money going towards R&D of that thing.

 

[Papacheeks]

If MS thinks that the Scorpio is going to magically turn around their fortunes I think they're in a for a rude awakening. I really hope the dearth of games isn't due to most money going towards R&D of that thing.

This has been my worry.

 

[dakilla13]

This makes zero sense...the ps3 was bleeding money, by this point ps2 had nothing to do with anything, the market had moved on awhile ago.

Sony funded development of those new franchises before the PS3 even launched correct? Assuming games take ~2 to 3 years to make.

 

[Zeuanimals]

A thousand times this. There is a lot of talent at 343 and Coalition. MS should let them branch out and work on new IP.

Naughty Dog learned a lot from TLOU. I'm sure 343i, The Coalition, and Turn 10 could learn from making a new game as well that could benefit their old ones.

 

[GabeTheGrouch76]

Uncle Phil relaxed after a hard day tweetin' and riskin'...

OK, I'm really glad I got this joke.

 

[Toki767]

Repeating what I said in another thread, but why does MS need to take risks again? If you look at the recently published UK 2016 software marketshare for Sony and Microsoft here (7% for Sony vs. 6% for MS), it really seems like taking risks on new IP won't make much difference at all. You have to assume the overwhelming majority of Microsoft's share is Forza/Gears/Halo so it seems like they'd be just fine to continue that with the additional new IP here and there like Ori. If the Scorpio becomes the best place to play third party games that seems a hell of a lot more important than taking risks on new IPs.

They don't need to take risks. But at the same time, they also have to be willing to be happy with their current place on the market when they aren't willing to diversify their portfolio.

I agree that exclusives don't really sell consoles as much as they used to (unless you're Nintendo), but when you're struggling to sell hardware, every little bit to distinguish yourself from the competition helps.

 

[Apathy]

Sony funded development of those new franchises before the PS3 even launched correct? Assuming games take ~2 to 3 years to make.

Correct, according to wikipedia,

After completing Jak 3, Naughty Dog assembled their most technically talented staff members and began development of Uncharted: Drake's Fortune under the codename Big

Jak 3 released in 2004, PS3 released in 2006. Hell, ND showed off uncharted at e3 2006

 

[faridmon]

Fuck you Microsoft

Whoa, calm down buddy

Its just a game that have been cancelled.

 

[uncledonnie]

They don't need to take risks. But at the same time, they also have to be willing to be happy with their current place on the market when they aren't willing to diversify their portfolio.

I agree that exclusives don't really sell consoles as much as they used to (unless you're Nintendo), but when you're struggling to sell hardware, every little bit to distinguish yourself from the competition helps.

I don't disagree, I just don't think distinguishing via new IP is going to do much unless they catch lightning in a bottle. They'd be better off focusing on being the best place to play multiplats which includes hardware superiority, network quality/features, ecosystem, etc. Someone else commented that they hoped the dearth of new games wasn't due to investment of R&D into Scorpio, but I think they're far better off putting money there and things like backward compatibility, etc.

Putting money into smaller new IPs like Recore, Ori, etc. along with the Halo/Forza/Gears heavy hitters seems to make the most financial sense. It's hard not to look at the big investments in things like Quantum Break and obviously Scalebound as mistakes.

 

[Plague Doctor]

If MS thinks that the Scorpio is going to magically turn around their fortunes I think they're in a for a rude awakening. I really hope the dearth of games isn't due to most money going towards R&D of that thing.

That would explain the tighter budgets and these difficult decisions. But here's the thing, presumably the cycle of R&D would start anew in late 2018/2019 for whatever comes out as the next true generation be it 2020/2021/2022.

I still think if the Scorpio didn't happen, they conceded they aren't the fastest car on the block this time around, and hunkered down into a new IP factory, things would be better across the board.

And yes, make these new IPs not so ambitious in budget and accept many won't be blockbusters. Just make sure they are quality and offers gamers a variety of games genres.

 

[Tecnniqe]

Whoa, calm down buddy

Its just a game that have been cancelled.

A game seem to bring out more anger than a studio.

 

[Sephiroth_VII]

Repeating what I said in another thread, but why does MS need to take risks again? If you look at the recently published UK 2016 software marketshare for Sony and Microsoft here (7% for Sony vs. 6% for MS), it really seems like taking risks on new IP won't make much difference at all. You have to assume the overwhelming majority of Microsoft's share is Forza/Gears/Halo so it seems like they'd be just fine to continue that with the additional new IP here and there like Ori. If the Scorpio becomes the best place to play third party games that seems a hell of a lot more important than taking risks on new IPs.

In the UK, sure. What about the rest of the world?

 

[onemanasylum]

Sony funded development of those new franchises before the PS3 even launched correct? Assuming games take ~2 to 3 years to make.

Sony took risks and made new ip all throughout the ps3 generation, and even sequels to games that never lit the charts on fire...not sure what you are trying to get at.

 

[Norse]

Not really feasible. How can you predict delays?

You can't, but you know by then that the game is far enough in development that it has green light to completion. Showing stuff that's 2+ yrs away is silly. Rockstar and blizzard are good examples of how to do things.

 

[uncledonnie]

In the UK, sure. What about the rest of the world?

The fact that the UK is a stronger market for them seems to enforce my point. For the weaker markets they should be focusing on price, infrastructure, etc.

 

[benny_a]

You can't, but you know by then that the game is far enough in development that it has green light to completion. Showing stuff that's 2+ yrs away is silly. Rockstar and blizzard are good examples of how to do things.

Those don't seem like super good examples, unless you cherry pick individual titles.

 

[Zeuanimals]

Sony announced that Uncharted sold 2.9 million worldwide. That's fantastic for a new IP, especially given the Playstation 3's install base at that time. That's something you can build off of, and is a no brianer to greenlight a sequel for. The overwhelming majority of the new IPs that Sony crafted franchises out of from last generation were titles that proved to have some form of sales potential. I can't think of many (any?) new IPs they transformed into franchises that sold horribly with their first iteration.

If it took 2 years for it to make 2 million and 2 years to make Uncharted 2, when do you think Uncharted 2 was greenlit?