Support NeoGAF

[Mr Moose]

You still think Blade coming to Playstation?

Yes.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Xbox / PS console wars bs aside, Is anyone really that enthused about this given its an Indiana Jones game?

A new game in the franchise that inspired Tomb Raider and Uncharted, with a far better protagonist?

The one saving grace is that there’s no movie tie in. This can be a young Indiana Jones doing what he does best.

The potential is there. It’s a matter of whether Machinegun games can deliver.

 

[MarkMe2525]

Obviously, this is the work of Daddy Phil. No other man could put such a mega corp at ease. "Let's play together" he said softly.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

Disney says Indiana Jones Xbox exclusivity deal ‘made financial and strategic sense’ | VGC

The company’s head of gaming thinks omitting PlayStation didn’t feel “overly exclusionary”…

www.videogameschronicle.com

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-gaming-9a183e82-b70d-4a29-afe6-7e089f58c49e.html

Yeah, because MS is paying the bill... next..

 

[Godot25]

Partly.... because nobody trusts Microsoft/Xbox to make a good game. Whereas, Sony has the trust to make a good for the most part.

So if game was multiplat people would not be worried about game bring good? It's only because it's exclusive?

I'm confused.

 

[Clear]

Well, let's be realistic: Are Sony likely to cut them a cheque for exclusivity when they have Uncharted already?

No they are not.

 

[PaintTinJr]

So if game was multiplat people would not be worried about game bring good? It's only because it's exclusive?

I'm confused.

Pretty much since the XB1 and the tomb raider deal we've seen that xbox doesn't have the market share to negotiate good AAA exclusives and make money back. And this was the real reason Microsoft started buying publishers like Zenimax and Activision Blizzard King. Unless they control the IP at a publisher ownership level to make the losses strategic against windows, gamepass and xbox the losses for cutting out PlayStation, as was the case with Starfield, that was projected to get 10m more sales at a value of maybe between 1/4 and 1/2 a billion dollars, there's no situation where Xbox can pay a publisher even the $250m and make money back off of an optimistic 5m sales on xbox even if they are getting 100% of those sales, and then becomes a clear anti-competitive move to lose money to damage a competitor.

Against that backdrop, it is logical to assume Disney sold the exclusivity to get out of a development cost hole, and/or rate the game's chances of selling more than 5million across PlayStation,Xbox, and PC as low, so made a tidy return, rather than cancel a potential stinker IMHO

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

"Leaving out PlayStation didn’t feel “overly exclusionary”​

Leaving a market much bigger than Xbox doesn't feel "overly exclusionary" ?
Sorry Disney, can't take you seriously.

Can you share with us what you smoke please ?

 

[Gavon West]

So if game was multiplat people would not be worried about game bring good? It's only because it's exclusive?

I'm confused.

No need for confusion. That's EXACTLY why.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Disney says Indiana Jones Xbox exclusivity deal ‘made financial​

It just needed to end there, really.

 

[Tams]

I mean, they could make an amazing game that saves the franchise.

They won't.

 

[Godot25]

No need for confusion. That's EXACTLY why.

So let me get this straight.
If Bethesda was under Microsoft and Indiana Jones would remain multiplatform people would trust Machine Games that Indiana Jones would be a good game
But when Indiana Jones is supposed to be exclusive it's somehow worrying that game would be bad?

I don't understand how reducing number of targeted platforms would negatively impact development of the game.

I think A aliadiere25 should provide some kind of clarification because his statement really sounds stupid as hell.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

Xbox / PS console wars bs aside, Is anyone really that enthused about this given its an Indiana Jones game?

Well the last Indie game on Xbox was pretty damn good.

 

[PaintTinJr]

So let me get this straight.
If Bethesda was under Microsoft and Indiana Jones would remain multiplatform people would trust Machine Games that Indiana Jones would be a good game
But when Indiana Jones is supposed to be exclusive it's somehow worrying that game would be bad?

I don't understand how reducing number of targeted platforms would negatively impact development of the game.

I think A aliadiere25 should provide some kind of clarification because his statement really sounds stupid as hell.

Yes, because it would demonstrate that Disney believe the game will make more for them with their 70% of units sold, rather than the relatively small amount Xbox can justify for exclusivity to deny 10-20m potential sales on the console platform of choice where people primarily buy full priced games, and don't expect brand new high quality AAA £70 games for a few pounds day 1 on a rental per month service.

The risk of Disney losing money or profit increases massively unless they got a good amount in the $100m mark and believe the game will sell badly on PlayStation because it isn't a quality levels or enjoyment that the PlayStation audience would pay for.

You keep downplaying this aspect, but making games is very risky. Sony first party games are risk to hundreds of millions of dollars, and typically need at least two games from the 5-7years of development to cover the first game's dev costs and turn a great profit

 

[VulcanRaven]

I'm still sad this game got cancelled:

 

[Truespeed]

The movie bombed and so will the game.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Folks weren't really enthused for a new Wolfenstein before Machine Games kinda knocked it out of the park with that one.

Give them a chance.

Unfortunately, the only good Wolfenstein game they made ended up being The New Order. After that they went hyper-woke and the gameplay went to shit at the same time. The New Colossus and Youngblood were not good at all.

 

[recursive]

Disney continuing to make great decisions. They really know what will resonate with the consumers and draw in new fans.

 

[Salty Popsicle]

So let me get this straight.
If Bethesda was under Microsoft and Indiana Jones would remain multiplatform people would trust Machine Games that Indiana Jones would be a good game
But when Indiana Jones is supposed to be exclusive it's somehow worrying that game would be bad?

I don't understand how reducing number of targeted platforms would negatively impact development of the game.

I think A aliadiere25 should provide some kind of clarification because his statement really sounds stupid as hell.

Don't make it harder than it has to be. People on this forum are just up in arms because their Sony box is most likely not going to get the Indiana Jones and Blade games, so now they cope by creating a whirlwind of concern surrounding the projects.

 

[Salty Popsicle]

The movie bombed and so will the game.

"The game won't release on my favorite console, so I really hope the game bombs like the last movie that released"

*fixed for you

 

[adamsapple]

Unfortunately, the only good Wolfenstein game they made ended up being The New Order. After that they went hyper-woke and the gameplay went to shit at the same time. The New Colossus and Youngblood were not good at all.

Hard disagree, New Colossus was the better game in pretty much all aspects. Young Blood played good too but the forced co-op and 'survival' nature of the game brought it down.

 

[StereoVsn]

Good job with killing the franchise with that last movie.....now,after all these years is the right time to cash in on a big AAA game on the least popular gaming platform of the big three.....Disney is run by utter buffoons.

Well, not like Sony will pay for exclusivity. They got Indiana Jones at home.

 

[Stooky]

A new game in the franchise that inspired Tomb Raider and Uncharted, with a far better protagonist?

The one saving grace is that there’s no movie tie in. This can be a young Indiana Jones doing what he does best.

The potential is there. It’s a matter of whether Machinegun games can deliver.

Let me fix this for you.
"A new game in the franchise the inspired Tomb Raider and Uncharted, with a far better protagonist with gameplay inspired by Uncharted and Tomb Raider"

 

[StereoVsn]

Being 1st Person means I dont give a Shit.

Wait, what? This is a 1st person Indiana Jones’s game!? I mean half the point is to see Indy’s outfit, use the whip, do some platforming, etc….

This isn’t a freaking shooter or immersive sim.

 

[StereoVsn]

Cloud gaming will never be successful. It's hilarous to me that anyone with a functioning brain thinks people will pay $17 a month to stream games. Cloud is fine as a backup gaming option, but as the main....no way.

Especially considering reception on mobile in many spots.

I work a few miles from border of Washington DC in an area so the bunch if office buildings. This isn’t the boondocks but cell reception kind of sucks.

And this isn’t something unusual. This is again, in the freaking center of US. And people think folks will use cloud gaming as their main on mobile?

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Especially considering reception on mobile in many spots.

I work a few miles from border of Washington DC in an area so the bunch if office buildings. This isn’t the boondocks but cell reception kind of sucks.

And this isn’t something unusual. This is again, in the freaking center of US. And people think folks will use cloud gaming as their main on mobile?

Cloud is fine as an option in a pinch, but I don’t understand why so many seem to think it’s an inevitable and will be the only way to game. I don’t buy it.

 

[StereoVsn]

Cloud is fine as an option in a pinch, but I don’t understand why so many seem to think it’s an inevitable and will be the only way to game. I don’t buy it.

Yeah, it’s fine at home with a great connection to stream stuff on a handheld.

It is terrible when traveling in my experience (at least in US) as Hotel WiFi is inevitably shit even in nicer hotels in larger towns. I travelled to NYC, Boston, Seattle, Atlanta, Reilly, Nashville and couple other places this year and have yet had to have good cloud gaming experience.

 

[radewagon]

Hard disagree, New Colossus was the better game in pretty much all aspects. Young Blood played good too but the forced co-op and 'survival' nature of the game brought it down.

Agreed on both counts. I will say that I still enjoyed the first one better, but New Colossus was pretty great. Even liked the DLC stuff. Also, why does everyone forget Old Blood? Old Blood is great.

 

[Mooreberg]

As mentioned in the Blade thread, if Spider-Man (and Wolverine) can be grabbed as an exclusive, there is no reason a property like this wouldn't be.

I am a little more interested in how this could work out for Machine Games. Wolf II and Youngblood were not massive success stories sales wise, and the most recent Indy movie was a flop of Epic proportions. We are coming up on a decade since The New Order. I hope this isn't a case of the property hindering sales of what could end being a great game. I know being owned by Microsoft must buy some breathing room, but imagine this needs to be a hit

 

[njean777]

If it wasn’t exclusive, then there’s something wrong inside the Xbox division.
How else are you supposed to attract potential new gamers to your ecosystem.

I have an easy solution for exclusives that I figured out decades ago.
Your just gonna have to purchase all the hardware to run them….yeah, It’s an expensive hobby.

You really only need 3, the third depends on the person. Ps5,pc, and switch. No reason to buy an Xbox if you have all those.

 

[Sushi_Combo]

Unfortunately, the only good Wolfenstein game they made ended up being The New Order. After that they went hyper-woke and the gameplay went to shit at the same time. The New Colossus and Youngblood were not good at all.

Was disappointed with the recent games in general. I was addicted with Return to Castle Wolfenstein in both SP and MP.

 

[SimTourist]

Ultimately no one gives a shit about Indiana Jones these days if we're being serious. The game is a bomb before even the first trailer is out. Should've stuck with wolfenstein.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

Throw me the idol and I'll throw you the Playstation port!

 

[Dolomite]

Sure sure…

Another bomba awaits. How did it go for Tomb raider? I rest my case…

Tomb raider did numbers then released on PS yes later and did more numbers

 

[Darkness_Arises]

Well the last Indie game on Xbox was pretty damn good.

That was a different era, if any dev wanted to add things like the night club in Starfield or that bar tender in Hogwarts, they would be laughed out off the room. I trust neither Sony nor MS to deliver an irreverent action game like the classic Indiana Jones movies. I am morbidly curious as to what kind of pandering will exist in this game.

 

[Godot25]

Yes, because it would demonstrate that Disney believe the game will make more for them with their 70% of units sold, rather than the relatively small amount Xbox can justify for exclusivity to deny 10-20m potential sales on the console platform of choice where people primarily buy full priced games, and don't expect brand new high quality AAA £70 games for a few pounds day 1 on a rental per month service.

The risk of Disney losing money or profit increases massively unless they got a good amount in the $100m mark and believe the game will sell badly on PlayStation because it isn't a quality levels or enjoyment that the PlayStation audience would pay for.

You keep downplaying this aspect, but making games is very risky. Sony first party games are risk to hundreds of millions of dollars, and typically need at least two games from the 5-7years of development to cover the first game's dev costs and turn a great profit

What?

Man. You really sound like those people who likes to talk too much without substance.

If game was multiplatform: Game would have XYZ budget and MachineGames is working on it with XYZ amount of staff
Game is exclusive: Game has same budget and same number of people are working on it.

So what the hell is changing? Number of targeted platforms. Nothing more, nothing less. So somehow being worried about game's quality BECAUSE contract was amended to make game exclusive is just in category "fanboys are fanboying" and have no merits in reality. Hell, I would say that targeting less platforms at the release is beneficial to the technical qualities of the game because of less SKU, less optimisation and less variables.

Disney has no clue how successful game would be. Nor does Microsoft. They can have target numbers, but as you can see with games like Marvel's Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy, you can clearly have popular license and game can bomb hardly. And in case of GotG it was also great game. And IF Disney is worried about quality of the game, they could have just amended contract with Microsoft in a way that will increase upfront payment and decrease "X dollars per copy sold." Which they probably did anyway because of Game Pass.

 

[sigrad]

xbox a bigger market for games?
what is he smoking

Xbox, gamepass, and PC.

 

[Mister Wolf]

Xbox, gamepass, and PC.

They fail to forget Xbox is PC as well.

 

[mansoor1980]

Xbox, gamepass, and PC.

whoa , three different platforms

 

[Kerotan]

I'm sure they're delighted now watching Xbox sales collapse compared to playstation and that's with Xbox having much bigger sales prices.

Indiana Jones is struggling for relevance these days and if you think omitting playstation is going to help I've got news for you.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

Especially considering reception on mobile in many spots.

I work a few miles from border of Washington DC in an area so the bunch if office buildings. This isn’t the boondocks but cell reception kind of sucks.

And this isn’t something unusual. This is again, in the freaking center of US. And people think folks will use cloud gaming as their main on mobile?

I remember when Diablo 3 launched the servers couldn't handle it and everyone got an error code. I'm not convinced that cloud gaming can scale.

 

[SmokedMeat]

You keep downplaying this aspect, but making games is very risky. Sony first party games are risk to hundreds of millions of dollars, and typically need at least two games from the 5-7years of development to cover the first game's dev costs and turn a great profit

As it is theres no risk because Microsoft is footing the bill.
But you should start pushing for Wolverine to be multiplatform. It’s best for the ip if it can sell on the most platforms, instead of just one. There’s just too much financial risk for Sony to not spread it out to PC and Xbox.

 

[Gavon West]

Yes, because it would demonstrate that Disney believe the game will make more for them with their 70% of units sold, rather than the relatively small amount Xbox can justify for exclusivity to deny 10-20m potential sales on the console platform of choice where people primarily buy full priced games, and don't expect brand new high quality AAA £70 games for a few pounds day 1 on a rental per month service.

The risk of Disney losing money or profit increases massively unless they got a good amount in the $100m mark and believe the game will sell badly on PlayStation because it isn't a quality levels or enjoyment that the PlayStation audience would pay for.

You keep downplaying this aspect, but making games is very risky. Sony first party games are risk to hundreds of millions of dollars, and typically need at least two games from the 5-7years of development to cover the first game's dev costs and turn a great profit

Microsoft ain't Sony. And Xbox is PC, Console and Cloud. That's way more potential buyers than Sony could ever offer.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Hard disagree, New Colossus was the better game in pretty much all aspects. Young Blood played good too but the forced co-op and 'survival' nature of the game brought it down.

I liked NEw Order better as it felt much more like a Wolfenstein game than New Colossus did, but I felt that New Colossus was a better overall game.

Old Blood was actually my favorite though.

 

[poppabk]

Yep, Microsoft can’t win on any meaningful metrics so they invent their own that nobody but them can actually check.

These companies aren't competing for 'wins' they are competing for money. Any publicized 'win' outside of company financial statements is just advertising.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Microsoft ain't Sony. And Xbox is PC, Console and Cloud. That's way more potential buyers than Sony could ever offer.

So ya'll keep saying. The why hasn't this advantage come remotely to helping Xbox? All it could muster was Starfield being the 10 best selling game compared to Spiderman 2 which....as you say....is being offered to way less buyers. How does that work?

I will tell you why:
1. Xbox has a store on the PC, but almost nobody is playing their Xbox games on. PC gamers interested in Xbox games will mostly purchase their game on Steam. If you want to count Steam for Xbox, you also have to count it for Playstation. No advantage for Xbox here.
2. Cloud gaming...now this one cracks me up. I'd wager that the amount of people purchasing games/subscribing to Gamepass and having cloud gaming as their only option is probably in the 1000s, maybe low 10s of thousands. Cloud gaming is, at best a supplemental option. Most people who use Cloud gaming also have a PC/Xbox. You are more than welcome to provide data to the contrary, but I will be unreservedly surprised if you are successful at doing so.

You guys sit there and talk about this HUGE platform advantage that Xbox....it has had this advantage for a long while (Gears 5 came to PC and Xbox at the same time)....yet it has not once moved the needle in any meaningful way. Sales for consoles continue to be down. Xbox hasn't provided any indication that Gamepass subscriptions have meaningfully increased, aside from a comment somewhere that I can't find saying that "Starfield resulted in the most new subscribers" No numbers. No press release. This isn't the stuff you hide. You shout through the rooftops if you want people to invest in your platform.

 

[SmokedMeat]

I liked NEw Order better as it felt much more like a Wolfenstein game than New Colossus did, but I felt that New Colossus was a better overall game.

Old Blood was actually my favorite though.

Same. Old Blood was excellent, and I’d say NWO was second. I didn’t like anything about New Colossus. I didn’t like the bloated hub area, and the stages weren’t very interesting.

I think Machinegun games is more than competent as a developer, and I trust them to deliver with the Indiana Jones ip. Of course as we’ve seen with Arkane, you never know.

 

[Thirty7ven]

A new game in the franchise that inspired Tomb Raider and Uncharted, with a far better protagonist?

How is he a far better protagonist lol? Because he wears a hat? Because of the time period?

Over the course of these franchises Nathan Drake ended up a much better character than Indiana Jones.

 

[StealthGoblin]

Given the whisperings I've heard I doubt it'll be only on Xbox and PC in the end. No smoke without fire for me. Feels like when we all knew Insomniac were making an Xbox game.

Same with Blade and even Xbox Studios titles (to an extent). Xbox hardware isn't going anywhere by all accounts, but the publishing side is gonna be a lot more platform agnostic.

 

[SmokedMeat]

How is he a far better protagonist lol? Because he wears a hat? Because of the time period?

Over the course of these franchises Nathan Drake ended up a much better character than Indiana Jones.

Indiana Jones is one of the greatest Action heroes of all time. Raiders of the Lost Ark and Last Crusade blows away anything the Uncharted series has ever done or ever will.

You’ve got to be kidding me. You should lose your Man Card over this.