With The Initiative, it just seems like those that were hired were all going to have their say with the game and long story short, my guess would be that Gallagher simply said no and most people left which resulted in what it is now. All I know for sure is that im much more confident with Gallagher in charge with CD as opposed to what it was.
But that was a known risk they took when they hired a bunch of people who usually act as leads on their own projects. There was always going to be a clash of egos and I don't see how Gallagher or Booty didn't see that coming. They wanted an all-star team of developers on the project but did not once consider about team synergy until it development had long begun.
This all remains to be seen because truthfully, we don't know how it will all play out. If the Battle Royale is good, I do think most will overlook the other MP aspects because they'll mostly be playing Battle Royale anyway. The roadmap/content is bad/non-existent but I say wait until the Battle Royale releases and go from there. It's either going to rejuvenate it or if it's bad/doesn't exist, then it will be close to killing it off. Of course, I see the entire 343/Halo Infinite as a clusterfuck.
Did you see the news about Overwatch 2 numbers after the first week? Yeah, not good at all. And then if you look at the games most of those players and viewers went back to, they were the usuals: Valorant, Apex Legends, Destiny 2 etc. I'm convinced more than ever now that there is a peak market size for F2P live-service shooters and the only way a game like Overwatch 2 or Halo Infinite can break into that league is if one of the established games dies off.
Probably shouldn't be too surprising; all genre markets kind of have a saturation point in terms of amount of games with the biggest player bases, viewers, etc. But the amount of unique games in the F2P live-service battle royale/hero shooter style market is probably lower due to the fact in all of those games you have to buy a lot of shit. So player spending money for the average gamer who isn't a whale, is being spread thin among them. That makes it harder for yet another game to pop into that space which is what we're seeing now with Overwatch 2 and Halo Infinite.
New management/leadership is needed. Last generation version should have been cancelled.
Definitely agreed on these two. Especially the latter; I know a lot of these kind of games are meant to run on almost anything, but that could also be a detriment and hold back noticeable advances. Honestly think this is what's hurting Overwatch 2; if it weren't for the UI changes I could see a gameplay shot of it and Overwatch 1 side-by-side and think they're from the exact same game.
If they are serious about supporting Halo Infinite for another 10 years, that means they'll have to support base XBO for 10 more years as well. Just imagine all of the cool gameplay ideas that'll have to be sacrificed to ensure this game can run on pre-2013 archaic gaming hardware...in 2031. That was a terrible call and I think they will have to jettison XBO support very soon or limit it to cloud-only.
They should probably switch game engines if Slipspace is as bad as some have said and even if it's good, they should have went with Unreal Engine for one simple reason - you can hire people with experience.
I thought Slipspace was just more a rebranding of their other engine? That's what I've seen go around.
1. COD will definitely be on Game Pass day one. Microsoft's entire company strategy, structure and focus is on subscriptions. Microsoft doesn't care about sales as much as getting and retaining subscribers because that gives them more recurring revenue every month.
MS may be gung-ho on subscriptions but not at the expense of ensuring maximum revenue. New COD releases on GP Day 1 are counter-productive to that, plain and simple. It would also affect sales of COD on other platforms, without the guarantee that anyone on said other platforms now accessing through GP, do so paying for a year's worth or even two month's worth, or don't use a free trail, etc. to basically get it for free.
Which would increase GP sub #s, but not so much GP revenue figures. That's why I think them tying MTX content, DLC etc. to GP subscriptions either as exclusive to GP or first in GP works much better in the long run to retain subs while not hemorrhaging sales numbers (and therefore sales revenue & profit) on Xbox & other consoles.
2. Disagree completely. Banjo was never huge, definitely not on the level of Crash in it's prime. And im pretty sure Spyro was also bigger. The main issue is that with ABK, they have studios that have worked on Crash/Spyro. Rare has no interest in revisiting their old IP's and 98% of people are long gone anyway. Simply, they don't have a team to do Banjo. They should have acquired Playtonic years ago because I think they would be a perfect fit for Banjo since that's where majority of old Rare developers are who made those games in the first place.
The Banjo games each sold at least 3 million worldwide, the first one selling a bit more. They were huge by N64 standards; you have to keep in mind the install base difference between N64 and PS1 that generation. By comparison the first Spyro "only" sold around 5 million worldwide, and was on a much bigger platform install base-wise. But it isn't even about sales; just out simple respect it would be sacrilege of Microsoft to push Crash or Spyro ahead of Banjo, considering how long they've had the Banjo IP and how much could still be done with it.
Whether Rare has no interest or not is irrelevant; out of the 35 teams MS is about to have (once the ABK deal closes), at least ONE of them has to be interested in revisiting BK. And if not? Make them. Sometimes you do need upper management to step in and guide the direction of certain teams, because it could make for better products and better things for the fanbase. Some guys like Matt Booty are a bit too hands-off, in that respect, imagine what being more hands-on could've done to help shape up Perfect Dark reboot better than where it was at until very recently.
But say none of those teams are interested...can't MS still just work with Playtonic without acquiring them, to do a new Banjo-Kazooie? They are still independent, and maybe they want to remain that way. Maybe MS should establish some longer-term relationship with them before considering buying, and letting them have access to the BK IP would be a great point to start that.
3. I see Game Pass being $5 for Cloud only, $10 base Game Pass, $20 for Ultimate in time and then, probably $40 or $50 for a Family Plan which will probably happen later this year. I don't think they need a third tier at all. Two tiers is perfect with a cheap tier for only Cloud streaming and a Family Plan which makes it four in total.
Why would Ultimate jump up to $20? What value would they be adding to that tier to justify the price increase? IMO while a tier for just xCloud is a good idea and mandatory, none of this fixes the issue that they still have XBL Gold out there on its own floating around as the only option for online play for those who want a cheaper entry point without a Family Plan, no desire for GP as it currently is, and without needing to pay month-to-month. MS have to do something to address that because it's not a very good value proposition for those people in particular.
Windows Store feels like a dead end so I agree they should probably just drop it for something like Blizzard.net, and I won't be surprised if they integrate GP into Battle.net as you suggest. No WOW on Xbox seems like a bafflingly dumb decision on their part tho if they do it, and just makes the GP value proposition on Xbox that much worst WRT Xbox 1P because you can already argue PC gets better treatment as-is (games like Flight Sim and AoE4 coming to PC a full year before Xbox console, PC gamers not needing to pay for online play vs. Xbox players who still do, etc.). Not bothering to bring WOW to Xbox would just exacerbate that problem, and that game needs as much of a boost as it can get.
4. I believe that Microsoft will take all Gold subscribers and roll them into Game Pass Ultimate for the duration of their current subscription while making online co-op/multi-player completely free. When this happens? Who knows? If I was Microsoft, I would announce this at their showcase in June and make it effective in July which starts their new fiscal year.
Better late than never, and something they should've done a while ago IMO. But it is for the best; Gold is redundant and while I suspect a majority of Gold subs have already moved to GP using the conversion/stacking stuff, there's still a decent number who haven't moved over and this would be a good way to do it.
That's one thing (of a few) I like about Sony's approach; they're doing a rollover process right off the bat for their revamped service. Always best to figure out those type of logistics at the start to keep the process of transition smooth.
I'm not saying they should or that they will. Just that Embracer seems to be buying up everything they can and that tells me that Lars will eventually want to sell. I just see Microsoft as the front runner because they can easily afford it.
And I'm just saying, if MS in that situation do happen to make that buy, without showing me some results (significant results) from the acquisitions they've already made first, then they'll lose me as a customer for good. I'm still most likely going to pick up a Series S (either that or get GP for PC, it depends on which way I go between console & PC in the future for MS stuff), but I'm already at most "tolerant" of the reality of acquisitions; not a fan of them personally, though.
But in MS's case I just see so many options for them where they don't actually NEED any other big sweep of gaming acquisitions anytime soon if ever, to maximize their presence in gaming in the way that ultimately matters: consistent releases of fresh, quality games. They'll have enough teams and IP for that especially once the ABK deal closes, and it'll already be pretty difficult for them to maximize usage of the IP they will own by that point (including not just the current IP but also new IP from those teams AND classic IP that came with the purchases). It could take a decade if not more, for example, for us to maybe get a new Leisure Suit Larry (Leisure Skirt Laura?) or Gabriel Knight game, let alone a new Jet Force Gemini or Jade Empire.
Even a company the size of Microsoft, realistically speaking cannot maximize the usage of hundreds of IP within a reasonable span of time, which is the situation they'd have if they also bought Embracer Group. OTOH, if some other company happened to buy Embracer, we could have enough of a pseudo-open market still where at least we'd have two big companies having a wealth of those IP between them where we as gamers are more likely to get better maximal usage of the IP they own in a reasonable amount of time, than if only one of those companies owned ALL of those IP. See what I mean?
While I agree with the second part, MK has overtaken SF as the main fighting franchise. SF isn't what it once was. MK is far more successful and more mainstream and popular. Microsoft getting NetherRealm which would include the MK IP would be huge for them and keeps the genre alive on Xbox. Hiring talent doesn't mean much if you don't own the IP which is why owning the IP is so vital.
Dunno, think it depends on how you look at it. I know SFV ultimately didn't sell as many copies as SFIV but that's not so much because it was exclusive console-was so much as it was due to Capcom dropping the ball with a pathetic launch. Ultimately SFV's done maybe half a million less than all versions of SFIV combined, while being on way less platforms (PS4 & PC, vs. 360, PS3, 3DS & PC), and has earned a lot more in actual revenue due to strong DLC and MTX sales of costumes, characters, stages and more.
Plus, if we're just talking within the competitive scene, SFV seems to retain players and viewers a lot better than the Neatherrealm fighters. Part of that might be due to how quickly NR replace some of their fighters, but I also think it's partly due to the nature of their games. Just objectively speaking, SFV just "feels" like a smoother and more technical game than something like MK or Injustice, let alone when it comes to animations. It's also not as violent which helps with appealing to a larger audience by default.
That said, one thing NR destroy Capcom at is with single player-centric content. The way MK and Injustice do their story modes, and have a ton of extra content in them, the only other fighters that regularly do stuff at that level are Tekken and Smash. SFV had a good idea with the Cinematic Story Mode but never followed up like they promised, and a lot of staple mini-games were missing early on. Plus the netcode was garbage and still isn't perfect (or as good as it could've been). Hopefully for SF6 Capcom avoids those mistakes.
I never said it was all Sony's fault but if you research what they have done since the original PlayStation, they could either be seen as equal or worse than Nintendo was back in the 80's/90's.
Dude no, Nintendo in the '80s was actually VERY draconian. It was so bad they are still the only platform holder who have been found guilty by the U.S government of antitrust violations, and had to pay back $50 rebates to NES owners because of it. No one else, not Sega, not Sony, not SNK, not NEC, not Microsoft...have been found guilty of this type of thing. Only '80s Nintendo.
And that doesn't even get into the other things they stipulated like 3P not being allowed to make games for competitor platforms (this is why companies like Sega had to license out so many 3P games during Master System and early MegaDrive years, and publish those games themselves), and on top of that, limiting how many games 3P publishers could release per year (this is why some like Namco made spin-off labels like Namcot, so that they could publish more than Nintendo's limit. Konami did something similar IIRC). Nintendo's licensing fees were also very restrictive, they even screwed Square over at least a couple of times with cart amounts (I think Chrono Trigger and FF VI were affected because Nintendo needed to ensure enough DKC carts were made one time).
Compared to that, companies like Sony practically look like saints. I'm not saying Sony didn't do some suspect stuff back then; they DEFINITELY did and usually Sega were the ones that lost out (losing Tomb Raider as an exclusive, not being able to call RE Code: Veronica RE3 because of a preexisting Sony/Capcom PS1 contract, etc.), but they simply aren't comparable to the worst corporate policies of Nintendo during the NES and early SNES period.
They don't buy you out because well, they can't due to lack of funds but they will try to kill off the competition. That's why they go after timed exclusivity. It's not to help their eco-system or fan base. It's to hurt the competition.
No Dead Rising 4 was a XBO launch title, so 2013. That was around when Capcom was in dire straits, just trying to survive after several commercial failures.
But on the topic of timed exclusivity...I agree to some extent that one of the purposes is to hurt their competition. Especially when the period of timed exclusives ranges for like a whole year or two; by that point most people will have played it on the platform it first came out for. However, timed exclusives generally come to other platforms eventually, and ultimately it's up to the publisher to agree to the terms or not. They also tend to be far cheaper than buying a studio or publisher, to the point where if Microsoft wanted, they could've easily competed with Sony in securing a decent bit of timed exclusives for Xbox beyond RotTR.
One of the reasons why I think MS going for timed exclusives later in that gen was met with so many questions was because they already announced they were doing all 1P games Day 1 on PC. So for some people, what would be the point of them locking 3P games exclusive to their console for a period of time, when they were already eschewing the concept of exclusives as traditionally viewed by bringing their own 1P games to PC Day 1? There was a contradiction of logic in there which I think is part of how people looked at it.
At the end of the day, though, timed exclusivity is a means of being competitive with other consoles; Sony didn't start that trend, I'd say Nintendo did back with SF2 on SNES, but it might've began even earlier in some form or another. It's also not like MS didn't push a ton of timed exclusives with the 360 gen, either, so really Sony were taking a page from MS's playbook there. And in all of those cases, timed exclusivity had its intended effect: influenced gamers to buy that platform to play those games on those consoles as soon as possible. If the practice did not add value to the ecosystem, then we would've seen it fizzle out decades ago.
Also I don't think we can try claiming that timed exclusives don't add value, while acquiring studios and publishers do add value, when those can then have their content leveraged for either timed or full exclusives. And to the average gamer, they don't think about a timed exclusive in a way where it's "timed"; they just see it as another exclusive because for the time they intend to buy and play that game, it is exclusive to that particular platform. If that gamer sees value in exclusive content for a platform, then that timed exclusive will therefore create more value.
Microsoft wasn't proactive because the people running Xbox didn't give a shit about gaming. So while I agree with you, all that is in the past and nothing can change any of it. If it wasn't for Spencer and his vision, long term plan and roadmap winning over Nadella, Xbox would be dead right now and we wouldn't be having this conversation. But thankfully, Spencer saw the way Microsoft is going as a company and instead of trying to do the opposite, he thought of a plan that fits in with what the company is doing as a whole which is why they've been massively successful this generation and outside of Halo Infinite and Forza Horizon 5, they haven't really had any top tier exclusives released yet. Imagine when they start all just clicking.
Well I'm hoping for the best. Ultimately though it's the gameplay that will do the talking, especially for some of the games that might have had tumultous developments so far (PD Reboot, Everwild, etc.).
Sony is simply staying with their old school mentality which in all honesty, is becoming old, outdated and obsolete. This only works for Nintendo because their tech is cheap, their games are cheap to make and they have the history and nostalgia that only Disney surpasses.
I disagree with this. If what you're saying was factually true, then market numbers would reflect it. Sony annual revenue would be declining, not increasing (of course having enough consoles to go around helps, something they are hopefully addressing). Their 1P sales and revenue would be shrinking, not growing. Services like GamePass would be able to demonstrate revenue numbers clearly, not obfuscate them. The numbers simply don't show anything about Sony's model being outdated or that it's a model which only works for Nintendo (because while no one arguably has IP as iconic as Mario and Zelda, there is a lot of nostalgia for several of Sony's IP including GoW, Jak & Daxter, Sly Cooper, Uncharted, Twisted Metal, Ico, Parappa, Syphon Filter, Gran Turismo etc.).
To the rest, I'm glad MS are taking gaming seriously again, but like I've said before I'm a point where I feel they've purchased enough in terms of studios & publishers, and it's time to start churning out some consistent, high-quality results with projects fostered under the new ownership. Show me what being a Microsoft internal studio really means, and show me you can be creative with all of these IP.
I don't need them to show me how much money they can spend, anymore, because they've already proven they can spend more than pretty much anyone else. But that ultimately will never win most people over; it's what that money can do over time, and games are the only result that matter to me as a gamer.
I disagree for one simple reason. It's a matter of trust. If im Phil and Nadella, how can I trust Platinum if the rumors are in fact true? I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them. In my opinion, Microsoft should stay away from them and I believe that they will but at the same time, never say never. lol.
If things could have changed with Xbox management over a period of time, why not with Platinum? I say at least give them a chance; if MS feel they can clean up the absolute trainwreck that is ABK, they can certainly help tidy up Platinum's objectively lesser issues. And in terms of game style, Platinum bring something none of their other teams currently do.
Additionally, they could probably pick up Platinum for very cheap with the way things are right now. They can show by example what they're capable of in helping reform and grow a Japanese developer which would also earn the trust of not only gamers but also other Japanese developers and publishers in wanting to work closer with Microsoft in the future. I say it's worth considering.
Bleeding Edge was all Ninja theory. Had nothing to do with Microsoft. Microsoft simply said do what you want to do and we'll release it. If it succeeds, great but if not, it's gone. Game was in development since 2014 or some shit. In all honesty, it wasn't worth the money, time and resources to change the game. Also, only 15 or so people worked on it which is why it took so long and it was a passion project. Nothing more, nothing less. I for one am happy that it's dead because it's not what Ninja Theory are great at.
Even so, MS could've at least helped salvage that game. The earlier beta testing went over pretty well, but the final release changed so much of it and was worst for doing so. This is what I mean when I say that MS still need to show much better initiative in guiding and leading their internal teams from a creative POV, so that they are more than the sum of their parts. Bleeding Edge didn't have to die pitifully, but they let it anyway.
Warzone isn't going to be exclusive. Warzone 2 will be multi-platform due to whatever contracts Sony still has with ABK. Microsoft isn't going to break them or go to court to fight them as it's not worth the hassle. Warzone is also as I said free to play. A $60 Halo Infinite MP only would have been dead on arrival.
Maybe, or maybe not. A $60 Halo Infinite as I think of it would've had SP campaign and MP rolled into one, just a very robust campaign and all the usual MP modes Day 1. Then maybe also include some MTX Battle Royale perks while making Battle Royale the F2P mode.
I think that scenario Halo Infinite does a lot better than it is currently doing, would've seen much stronger sustained sales and a healthy BR pulling in big numbers even on daily averages let alone peaks.
The campaign for Halo Infinite is excellent in my opinion. I loved it and yeah, a few minor complaints but it won me over. Granted, HI was the first Halo game I ever played so I have no history or connection to any of it. While the visuals were at times beautiful, they were also underwhelming especially if you're flying around, but the core combat/grapple hook and shooting mechanics felt great and are top notch. There was also plenty of content for the campaign. If anything, it could have been stripped down a little more because the open world Ubisoft type stuff wasn't really needed outside of the bases in my opinion. But still, the core is there which is the most important aspect. Having content wouldn't mean anything if the game didn't play great like it does.
From what I've seen the campaign lacks any notable setpieces, like big singular moments that would define the experience for the average player. But that's just me as an outsider looking in.
Of course, Halo isn't going to be the face of Xbox for much longer anyway so in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. Also, they're trying to make Halo fans happy while also trying to make new comers happy which is very difficult to do. My opinion is that they should do what they need to do for the new players and get more new players into the game. I wouldn't worry about the past simply because they'll never be satisfied anyway and sticking with the past stifles any potential growth that the MP and game/franchise could have. Simply, it's not 2001. Shit changes and you either need to adapt or get left behind. 343/Microsoft needs to adapt for HI and think more future/long term and trying to get new players as opposed to catering to those who bitch about everything anyway. At least, that's what I would do.
Yes but was going F2P live-service the best approach? That's the big question and right now, the answer seems to be "No".
ZeniMax is more valuable than WB with OR without the IP's. Look at Skyrim excluding remasters and Fallout 4 which I think is the most successful game in that series. They completely outdo anything WB has released. Starfield if going to be massive while The Elder Scrolls VI will crush everything in it's path and be the new face of Xbox replacing Halo in my opinion. I love WB and DC games because they're more for me personally but business wise, ZeniMax is far more valuable. Also, they have a streaming service tech and game engines. There's more to them than just IP's. WB Games doesn't have all that extra stuff.
Are we talking about sales or quality? Revenue? Cultural impact? Because on some of those metrics Zenimax would win out but on others, depending on tastes, WB wins out. Someone who really loves Batman and Batman games, but not high fantasy, probably won't give a crap about Skyrim or Elder Scrolls regardless of how much critics and fans love them.
Also while I'm sure ESVI will be a big release, again claiming it'll crush everything else in its path is a very subjective take. What if something even better releases around the same time? What if ESVI is lukewarm? And again, for people who don't like high fantasy as much, it won't be the biggest release for them.
Agreed but if Microsoft owned the IP, things would be different because they would have had more control.
This feels a bit contradictory; so they'll have more control by owning the IP, but have a very hands-off approach in guiding game development of those IP once acquired anyway so...what big benefit does owning them bring outside of retaining more of the profits?
Phil headed XGS but he literally had no power until Fall 2017 when he took over and Myerson was gone. And this only happened because Phil had a long term vision, plan and roadmap that fit in with what Microsoft as a company was and still is doing which is why Nadella agreed. If Phil doesn't convince Nadella in Fall 2017, Xbox is basically dead.
Again I don't really have much to contest on this particular point, it's just more me speaking from my POV, I feel MS have enough studios and teams at this point to where they don't need to buy any others. I want to see results from the current stable and let the games earn them the goodwill with gaming communities and industry to maybe look into another major acquisition in the more distant future.
Wait.........................I typed more???? lmao
Hell yeah man, it was a lot
And that might be saying something considering a lot say that about what I type
. I still need to find time to respond to those other points btw.
, thanks!
