2012 Microsoft is just 2011-now Valve, really
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Eurogamer feature on Lionhead
- Thread starter Sun Bather
- Start date
2012 Microsoft is just 2011-now Valve, really
You took a franchise that
A) Added diversity to the Xbox portifolio
B) Was profitable
C) Fairly popular (multi-million seller)
..and utterly destroyed it by horribly mismanaging it and the studio that was working on it.
Good job, MS. Good job.
It's crazy really. Just read the article fully last night. If they wanted a Fable f2p game they could have just had some other studio do it and have Lionhead working on a more traditional experience that they know to do.
Just like that."It's a business decision," one source says. "They wanted to save money. It's nothing personal to Lionhead. They shut Press Play at the same time. Someone somewhere looked at a balance sheet and wanted to save some money."
So what confuses me about all of this is how Lionhead got shafted with making the least appealing game they could in an effort to throw the studio behind games as a service ... but Remedy is allowed to sink 5 years into a short hyper linear one and done single player experience with massive budget bloat due to unnecessary TV segments.
Someone at Remedy must be the son of a high up MS exec, I swear.
Someone at Remedy must be the son of a high up MS exec, I swear.
"At E3 2003, Peter Molyneux did a press interview about Fable. In it he announced multiplayer for the game. Developers back at Guildford watched in horror. No-one had heard anything about multiplayer. One engineer, we were told, was close to tears. When Molyneux returned, he faced the full wrath of a stressed and exhausted development team. The Carters raised their flame shields. Don't worry, they said. We'll work it out."
What a giant asshole, this guy has been lying for a living
Sun Bather
Member
Lionhead was super small in 96 when it was funded (like 8 people if I recall), and it didn't grow to 25 until 98.
Yeah sorry, I for whatever reason had read that as being about the black and white 2 development.
Unaha-Closp
Member
After Fable 2 I was all Fabled out and didn't play any other things called Fable but damn Fable 4 sounded good. I would have liked to see that.
potatohead
Member
Every time I think of Molyneux nowadays, I go back to that awful RPS interview (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/02/13/peter-molyneux-interview-godus-reputation-kickstarter/) he did last year. It really encapsulates him. I almost felt bad for the guy, but he kind of deserved it.
He did deserve it.
After the way he acted, those questions were "earned."
Many even on RPS criticized that the interview was too harsh and "mean."
It would've been rude and mean had Molyneux not done the things he did. For anyone else it would've been rude and mean, but not for this guy.
Dash Kappei
Not actually that important
I know this post will probably backfire on me but, op, I think it's really disrespectful when you post a huge chunk of an investigative/opinion piece and don't even bother to credit who's written it. No, linking to the source it's not enough when you copy/paste so much content and many won't feel obliged to go check said source.
Wesley Yin-Poole must have worked his ass off to put all of that together, let's show some appreciation by recognizing that it's his work or don't bother posting anything but a link and a small snippet of the article.
I notice this more and more around here and it's bad, shows a lack of respect towards work and diligence and I wish this would change in the future so I'm just trying to do my part.
Wesley Yin-Poole must have worked his ass off to put all of that together, let's show some appreciation by recognizing that it's his work or don't bother posting anything but a link and a small snippet of the article.
I notice this more and more around here and it's bad, shows a lack of respect towards work and diligence and I wish this would change in the future so I'm just trying to do my part.
dragonflys545
Member
So what confuses me about all of this is how Lionhead got shafted with making the least appealing game they could in an effort to throw the studio behind games as a service ... but Remedy is allowed to sink 5 years into a short hyper linear one and done single player experience with massive budget bloat due to unnecessary TV segments.
Someone at Remedy must be the son of a high up MS exec, I swear.
I think Quantum Break will be the last game MS going to fund Remedy... We'll find out at E3 lol.
I know this post will probably backfire on me but, op, I think it's really disrespectful when you post a huge chunk of an investigative/opinion piece and don't even bother to credit who's written it. No, linking to the source it's not enough when you copy/paste so much content and many won't feel obliged to go check said source.
Wesley Yin-Poole must have worked his ass off to put all of that together, let's show some appreciation by recognizing that it's his work or don't bother posting anything but a link and a small snippet of the article.
I notice this more and more around here and it's bad, shows a lack of respect towards work and diligence and I wish this would change in the future so I'm just trying to do my part.
OP links to the article right at the beginning, which has the author's name right at the top for everyone to see. Sure, it would be cool to see more author recognition, but OP's post was fine for a forum.
I think your tag applies nicely in this situation.
Dash Kappei
Not actually that important
OP links to the article right at the beginning, which has the author's name right at the top for everyone to see. Sure, it would be cool to see more author recognition, but OP's post was fine for a forum.
I think your tag applies nicely in this situation.
Nah, not really.
If you post so much content of an article then have the courtesy of crediting the author since by nature of quoting so much of it not that many are going to check on the source.
Boggles my mind that even something so simple is up for debate but I knew GAFers would find a way and there you have it, your reply pops up. I mean, why wouldn't you agree that if you post a huge chunk of my work please by all means do it but also take the author's name with it? But nope, let's copy/paste so much and then purposely leave out the mention of who's done said work, I mean "it's fine for a forum"... geez thanks? let's keep the old habits because reasons.
By the way, the discussion shifted in a general direction, I'm not specifically pointing fingers at the op, so op don't feel attacked because it was something I meant to post a bunch of times and this thread just happened to fit the purpose, since we all do it and this one was an especially great article.
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
OP links to the article right at the beginning, which has the author's name right at the top for everyone to see. Sure, it would be cool to see more author recognition, but OP's post was fine for a forum.
I think your tag applies nicely in this situation.
I disagree, the name should be in the OP.
Nah, not really.
If you post so much content of an article then have the courtesy of crediting the author since by nature of quoting so much of it not that many are going to check on the source.
Boggles my mind that even something so simple is up for debate but I knew GAFers would find a way and there you have it, your reply pops up. I mean, why wouldn't you agree that if you post a huge chunk of my work please by all means do it but also take the author's name with it? But nope, let's copy/paste so much and then purposely leave out the mention of who's done said work, I mean "it's fine for a forum"... geez thanks? let's keep the old habits because reasons.
By the way, the discussion shifted in a general direction, I'm not specifically pointing fingers at the op, so op don't feel attacked because it was something I meant to post a bunch of times and this thread just happened to fit the purpose, since we all do it and this one was an especially great article.
I mean, the article is really long, so the OP quotes is far from "so much" of it, and I doubt anyone "purposely left out" the author name. The OP cited the publication, which is totally fine. Following the link tells you who wrote it.
I'm also not saying including the author isn't ever necessary, but it just seems like a weird one to blow up on. OP quotes maybe 5% of the article, hardly egregious.
I think Quantum Break will be the last game MS going to fund Remedy... We'll find out at E3 lol.
Well, not this E3 anyway, since there's no way they'll have a new game to advertise.
CecilRousso
Member
Great article, and it's good to see an article showing both sides of Molyneux and the companies he created, instead of taking the easy route as other articles often do, and just try and crucify the man.
As many flaws as he might have, what Lionhead was as it's peak was very impressive, and while it's easy to just talk about broken "promises" and delayed games, it was a company that gave hundreds of people work, created games that were well reviewed and sold well, and also spawned many other great developers.
The quotes from the Carter's, and their admission that they were in over their head with Project Ego before it became Molyneux's game are interesting.
Fable 3 and the streamlining in that was an awful mistake, but it's still a shame that the money and effort put into Fable Legends should have been spent making a proper Fable 4.
As many flaws as he might have, what Lionhead was as it's peak was very impressive, and while it's easy to just talk about broken "promises" and delayed games, it was a company that gave hundreds of people work, created games that were well reviewed and sold well, and also spawned many other great developers.
The quotes from the Carter's, and their admission that they were in over their head with Project Ego before it became Molyneux's game are interesting.
Fable 3 and the streamlining in that was an awful mistake, but it's still a shame that the money and effort put into Fable Legends should have been spent making a proper Fable 4.
So what confuses me about all of this is how Lionhead got shafted with making the least appealing game they could in an effort to throw the studio behind games as a service ... but Remedy is allowed to sink 5 years into a short hyper linear one and done single player experience with massive budget bloat due to unnecessary TV segments.
Someone at Remedy must be the son of a high up MS exec, I swear.
Well Microsoft was really focused on TV for the early part of the Xbox One's life, I'm guessing the TV show integration is what got Quantum Break a greenlight.
Darryl M R
Member
With this article I really feel like just trading in my Xbox One. I just don't think MS has a good team leading and connecting with their teams. I might wait until after E3 but nothing seems promising.
darkinstinct
...lacks reading comprehension.
Sad story. I am tempted to be mad at Microsoft for forcing Lionhead to work on the game and then shutting them down without giving them a shot at Fable 4 again - but then again at that point all the creative minds behind Fable had left the company. So do you trust those guys to make that game? After 75 million spent and no result? Fable 4 would take another 75 million plus 50 million in marketing, it's not a good deal for the limited Xbox One user base. I take from the article that the deal for Legends fell through because ultimately Microsoft did not want to sell the Fable IP. I take it they have plans for that game, just not with Lionhead. It's pretty much their Shenmue 3, I hope we will see it for Xbox Next.
I wonder who came up with the idea of games as a service. Was it Ballmer? Mattrick? Maybe even then boss of Microsoft studios Spencer? Abandoning what works and is profitable because you're chasing some billion dollar pipedream feels so wrong. I don't think that part of Microsoft is dead. With the end of Project Spark they continue to do stupid decisions. They will save a couple hundred thousand of server costs a year. Their own servers. Who cares if only 5000 people are using it, just keep it running. Goodwill is worth something, closing studios left and right and abandoning released products is just stupid. You can afford to do it as the market leader, but they are far from it. This E3 will show where Microsoft is going. A second party push would be wonderful. Start with Fable 4 and PGR 5.
I wonder who came up with the idea of games as a service. Was it Ballmer? Mattrick? Maybe even then boss of Microsoft studios Spencer? Abandoning what works and is profitable because you're chasing some billion dollar pipedream feels so wrong. I don't think that part of Microsoft is dead. With the end of Project Spark they continue to do stupid decisions. They will save a couple hundred thousand of server costs a year. Their own servers. Who cares if only 5000 people are using it, just keep it running. Goodwill is worth something, closing studios left and right and abandoning released products is just stupid. You can afford to do it as the market leader, but they are far from it. This E3 will show where Microsoft is going. A second party push would be wonderful. Start with Fable 4 and PGR 5.