• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

IGN: It’s Not a Console War, It’s a Content War

CeeJay

Member
I would agree. But from all the acquisitions from Ms there's not a single game outselling any Nintendo or Sony exclusive. Minecraft is the only profitable thing so far and you can play it everywhere... Still a waiting game from where I'm standing.
It's not about selling the games though is it. If you are basing your ideas about who is really in the driving seat purely on game sales then you really are not paying attention to the shift that is taking place. Microsoft don't really want you to buy their games.
 

Ezquimacore

Member
It's not about selling the games though is it. If you are basing your ideas about who is really in the driving seat purely on game sales then you really are not paying attention to the shift that is taking place. Microsoft don't really want you to buy their games.
Trust me, Microsoft would love to have games that sell more than 20-30 million copies like Nintendo, gamepass or not.
 

CeeJay

Member
Trust me, Microsoft would love to have games that sell more than 20-30 million copies like Nintendo, gamepass or not.
In the UK the top 40 music charts switched a few years ago to include paid downloads and streaming because basing it purely on physical media sales became irrelevant. the changes in the other media sectors are a good indicator of what is happening in gaming and where things are going.

When the majority of games were sold physical this same comparison was made with music as digital sales began to pick up and it was dismissed.
When game streaming services began appearing this same comparison was made and again dismissed.
Now Gamepass is leading the way with the subscription model this same comparison to the music industry can be made.

The more time goes by the more the game sales charts become less relevant and we might even get to a point where streamed games and games played on a subscription service are combined along with actual sales to compile the monthly charts. Its less likely that will happen though as we don't really have a universal weekly/monthly game charts as it is.

You want me to trust you but I say that your understanding of what these big corporations want is flawed. A single $60 sale from a customer is not as desirable as a recurring monthly sale from them along with the engagement that goes with that.

If I said to you that you won a $10,000 dollar cash prize from a supermarket or you can get $100 a month for life (but you also have to collect the $100 in person from a counter at the back of the store) which one would you pick. Sure some would take the lump sum 10K but anyone who does the numbers will realise that if they collect the $100 for 100 months then they are pure profit for every month they live after that! The fact that you also have to go into the supermarket to collect your prize means there is a good chance that you will form habits in spending while you are there and a good proportion of that $100 could be put back into the store as well.

In other words a seemingly tiny but regular revenue stream that also encourages add-ons is better long term than one that involves single one-off and unpredictable larger payments.
 
This isn't a war anymore than there's a war between men and maggots.

 
And Sony has proven that they “get” how to make, curate, and grow content

Microsoft has proven they know how to “buy” content. Whether they can continue to curate that content is the big unknown. Their track record with organic growth leaves a lot to be desired. We still haven’t seen anything of substance yet from the initiative, as an example

Game development is difficult. Buying things when you have hundreds of billions is easy. But it’s not as simple as just buying things. You need staying power
 
Last edited:

Ezquimacore

Member
In the UK the top 40 music charts switched a few years ago to include paid downloads and streaming because basing it purely on physical media sales became irrelevant. the changes in the other media sectors are a good indicator of what is happening in gaming and where things are going.

When the majority of games were sold physical this same comparison was made with music as digital sales began to pick up and it was dismissed.
When game streaming services began appearing this same comparison was made and again dismissed.
Now Gamepass is leading the way with the subscription model this same comparison to the music industry can be made.

The more time goes by the more the game sales charts become less relevant and we might even get to a point where streamed games and games played on a subscription service are combined along with actual sales to compile the monthly charts. Its less likely that will happen though as we don't really have a universal weekly/monthly game charts as it is.

You want me to trust you but I say that your understanding of what these big corporations want is flawed. A single $60 sale from a customer is not as desirable as a recurring monthly sale from them along with the engagement that goes with that.

If I said to you that you won a $10,000 dollar cash prize from a supermarket or you can get $100 a month for life (but you also have to collect the $100 in person from a counter at the back of the store) which one would you pick. Sure some would take the lump sum 10K but anyone who does the numbers will realise that if they collect the $100 for 100 months then they are pure profit for every month they live after that! The fact that you also have to go into the supermarket to collect your prize means there is a good chance that you will form habits in spending while you are there and a good proportion of that $100 could be put back into the store as well.

In other words a seemingly tiny but regular revenue stream that also encourages add-ons is better long term than one that involves single one-off and unpredictable larger payments.
The thing is that you're making it like MS doesn't want to sell a shit ton of games just because they're pushing a subscription model that is successful, but if they could sell 20m copies of Halo and also have a successful subscription model they would gladly do it. They get like $35-$40 from each $60 copy. Obviously now they have powerful ips, but they don't have the brand loyalty anymore and that's the reason they need something like gamepass, It doesn't matter if you want the next xbox because you're going to be able to play their games everywhere. If gamepass was a xbox only service it would be a failure.
 

Clear

Member
Mobile I can understand but PC I am not sure....as a consumer you still have to invest a lot in it to get the most out of it.

True, but if you consider Amazon... New World has given them a taste of success in the PC space and they have back-end server capacity to spare with their AWS backbone.

If they chose to be a threat to MS plans, they certainly have the tech and wherewithal to do it.

The objective reality is that speccing around PC and using streaming to access the mobile/IP device space is one hell of a short-cut into the gaming big leagues if you have the resources that an Amazon or Google has. And in my opinion this is what is driving MS' decisive actions when big IP holders like a Zenimax or ABK start looking to transfer ownership.

Valuable as these entities are to Sony, they really don't offer anything that Playstation broadly-speaking lacks - its content and IP after all.


EDIT: LOL. While I was writing this the thread appeared about the potential Facebook/Meta acquisition... which I think kinda proves my point.
 
Last edited:

sainraja

Member
True, but if you consider Amazon... New World has given them a taste of success in the PC space and they have back-end server capacity to spare with their AWS backbone.

If they chose to be a threat to MS plans, they certainly have the tech and wherewithal to do it.

The objective reality is that speccing around PC and using streaming to access the mobile/IP device space is one hell of a short-cut into the gaming big leagues if you have the resources that an Amazon or Google has. And in my opinion this is what is driving MS' decisive actions when big IP holders like a Zenimax or ABK start looking to transfer ownership.

Valuable as these entities are to Sony, they really don't offer anything that Playstation broadly-speaking lacks - its content and IP after all.
Ah gotcha. Fair point....I can see that.
 

CeeJay

Member
The thing is that you're making it like MS doesn't want to sell a shit ton of games just because they're pushing a subscription model that is successful, but if they could sell 20m copies of Halo and also have a successful subscription model they would gladly do it. They get like $35-$40 from each $60 copy. Obviously now they have powerful ips, but they don't have the brand loyalty anymore and that's the reason they need something like gamepass, It doesn't matter if you want the next xbox because you're going to be able to play their games everywhere. If gamepass was a xbox only service it would be a failure.
You are just assuming that Gamepass was a direct knee jerk response to a failing business model based on individual game sales. Microsoft were previously just treading water and coasting along in gaming, not showing any signs of flexing those muscles and opening the fabled war chest. They could have at any time gone all-in and done this in the past but they didn't. What has changed now? Gaming isn't any more or less lucrative than it was during the last couple of generations. It has shown some modest growth and actually show that growth when analysts were predicting a shrinking market. But, this isn't a major shift that would bring the major investment we are seeing. Microsoft are not investing billions of dollars for the sake of getting 10s of millions of games sales they haven't been getting so far, they are investing on what the future landscape is going to look like and its way bigger. Do you really thing that the likes of Facebook, Google, Amazon, Tencent or Apple are trying to get into the games industry so they can sell a few million copies of a game they develop? No way... They want to get into the games industry because the future of it is going to give them a way to tap into the lifestyles of billions of people on the planet.
 

Mr Rawnch

Neo Member
And Sony has proven that they “get” how to make, curate, and grow content

Microsoft has proven they know how to “buy” content. Whether they can continue to curate that content is the big unknown. Their track record with organic growth leaves a lot to be desired. We still haven’t seen anything of substance yet from the initiative, as an example

Game development is difficult. Buying things when you have hundreds of billions is easy. But it’s not as simple as just buying things. You need staying power
This move is a disruption of brand loyalty. It's not that Microsoft never had any good IP's that were homegrown. They came out the gate swinging with the debut of the Xbox and some of those titles continued into the 360 life cycle. Everybody thought the mistake made by Sony in the PS3 era would all but ensure that Microsoft would take the crown. However, the majority of loyal Sony fans wouldn't budge and would endure for hopes of better days.

Microsoft was not granted the same courtesy despite Nintendo showing that you didn't have to have the most powerful console -- only a bit of luck, ingenuity, and gimmick. Ironically, we are in the center of all the things Xbox was trying to integrate with the One (digital, online dependant, cinema entertainment, and socially focused), only for them to take it on the chin to a PS4 console that was somewhat stripped down compared to the PS4. No fancy ports, memory readers, or backward compatibility, and yet because they were simpler, efficient, and more powerful they won the gen. The two companies passed each other like ships in the night but weathered totally different storms and outcomes. Despite Microsoft spending billions to revamp the brand and release a more powerful console by the end of the generation -- the damage was done. Most indie and third-party developers wouldn't touch the One S or X because it wasn't worth the time when the PS4 and Switch had a higher install base.

In my opinion -- yes, the PS4 first-party games were great but were they any different than the first-party games of the 360 era? Brand loyalty is powerful and shapes narratives. It's not solely based on the overall quality of games.
 
This move is a disruption of brand loyalty. It's not that Microsoft never had any good IP's that were homegrown. They came out the gate swinging with the debut of the Xbox and some of those titles continued into the 360 life cycle. Everybody thought the mistake made by Sony in the PS3 era would all but ensure that Microsoft would take the crown. However, the majority of loyal Sony fans wouldn't budge and would endure for hopes of better days.

Microsoft was not granted the same courtesy despite Nintendo showing that you didn't have to have the most powerful console -- only a bit of luck, ingenuity, and gimmick. Ironically, we are in the center of all the things Xbox was trying to integrate with the One (digital, online dependant, cinema entertainment, and socially focused), only for them to take it on the chin to a PS4 console that was somewhat stripped down compared to the PS4. No fancy ports, memory readers, or backward compatibility, and yet because they were simpler, efficient, and more powerful they won the gen. The two companies passed each other like ships in the night but weathered totally different storms and outcomes. Despite Microsoft spending billions to revamp the brand and release a more powerful console by the end of the generation -- the damage was done. Most indie and third-party developers wouldn't touch the One S or X because it wasn't worth the time when the PS4 and Switch had a higher install base.

In my opinion -- yes, the PS4 first-party games were great but were they any different than the first-party games of the 360 era? Brand loyalty is powerful and shapes narratives. It's not solely based on the overall quality of games.

Microsoft’s mistakes had nothing to really do with power, that’s a red herring

Their real mistake was doubling down on very safe franchises that just stagnated and weren’t compelling.

Sony has just slowly and steadily amassed their world class studios, taking their success from the PS3 era and keeping that momentum by growing it over time. It has nothing to do with brand loyalty and everything to do with being at the bleeding edge of video game production, providing both familiar experiences as well as new IP
 

Warnen

Can he swing from a thread? Take a look overhead / Hey, there, there goes the Spider-Man
And Sony has proven that they “get” how to make, curate, and grow content

Microsoft has proven they know how to “buy” content. Whether they can continue to curate that content is the big unknown. Their track record with organic growth leaves a lot to be desired. We still haven’t seen anything of substance yet from the initiative, as an example

Game development is difficult. Buying things when you have hundreds of billions is easy. But it’s not as simple as just buying things. You need staying power

it’s hard to read this without picturing a tear soaked keyboard…

keep at it!
 
Last edited:
I would agree. But from all the acquisitions from Ms there's not a single game outselling any Nintendo or Sony exclusive. Minecraft is the only profitable thing so far and you can play it everywhere... Still a waiting game from where I'm standing.
Which Sony exclusive outsells Call of Duty?
 

Ezquimacore

Member
Which Sony exclusive outsells Call of Duty?
MS doesn't even own COD until 2023. That's my point, they have all those studios before Activision and they literally had to buy Activision to own a franchise with that kind of sales. And at this moment you can play COD on every platform.
 
MS doesn't even own COD until 2023. That's my point, they have all those studios before Activision and they literally had to buy Activision to own a franchise with that kind of sales. And at this moment you can play COD on every platform.
Halo is one of the juggernaut franchises of the gaming industry and has sold more than 81 million copies since 2001. Microsoft is perfectly capable of building and nurturing successful IPs.
 

Warnen

Can he swing from a thread? Take a look overhead / Hey, there, there goes the Spider-Man
MS doesn't even own COD until 2023. That's my point, they have all those studios before Activision and they literally had to buy Activision to own a franchise with that kind of sales. And at this moment you can play COD on every platform.

jurassic park water GIF
 

Mr Rawnch

Neo Member
Microsoft’s mistakes had nothing to really do with power, that’s a red herring

Their real mistake was doubling down on very safe franchises that just stagnated and weren’t compelling.

Sony has just slowly and steadily amassed their world class studios, taking their success from the PS3 era and keeping that momentum by growing it over time. It has nothing to do with brand loyalty and everything to do with being at the bleeding edge of video game production, providing both familiar experiences as well as new IP
It's slowly amassed because the gaming competition landscape was mostly dead or unrivaled during the PS1 and PS2 eras. You can't tell me that a handful of Uncharted, GOW, Killzone, and Grand Tourismo titles haven't stagnated over the decades. The Sony brand to some millennials and young adults is all they know as far as games go. Some would even go as far as to say that some of the third-party companies are more tied to the Playstation brand than any other gaming company.

Others would say that Sony's arrival into gaming is questionable. The bridge between Nintendo and Sony is forever burned and they quietly snuck into a rivalry that was squarely between Nintendo and Sega -- seemingly overtaking the industry overnight. There was virtually no flag-waving or annual update announcing their arrival into the gaming industry.

What's going on today is simply the nature of the beast.
 
It's slowly amassed because the gaming competition landscape was mostly dead or unrivaled during the PS1 and PS2 eras. You can't tell me that a handful of Uncharted, GOW, Killzone, and Grand Tourismo titles haven't stagnated over the decades. The Sony brand to some millennials and young adults is all they know as far as games go. Some would even go as far as to say that some of the third-party companies are more tied to the Playstation brand than any other gaming company.

Others would say that Sony's arrival into gaming is questionable. The bridge between Nintendo and Sony is forever burned and they quietly snuck into a rivalry that was squarely between Nintendo and Sega -- seemingly overtaking the industry overnight. There was virtually no flag-waving or annual update announcing their arrival into the gaming industry.

What's going on today is simply the nature of the beast.

I really don’t follow you at all

Yea, Sony recognized Killzone was stagnating - that’s why they made Horizon

They recognized God of War was stagnating, so they reinvented the franchise

Naughty Dog broadened their IP to The Last of US

You just gave me great examples for why Sony succeeded enormously in the PS4 era

My point wasn’t that all sequels are bad, it’s that Sony realized how to grow series with sequels and also when it was time for a change.
 

Ezquimacore

Member
Halo is one of the juggernaut franchises of the gaming industry and has sold more than 81 million copies since 2001. Microsoft is perfectly capable of building and nurturing successful IPs.
Capable sure but so far all their biggest franchise except Forza went downhill and that's why they needed to revive Halo, because even Halo was in a coma. But doesn't matter anymore, they don't even have to create new franchises because now they own too many important franchises made by other people, so hopefully they have what it takes to manage them.
 

Warnen

Can he swing from a thread? Take a look overhead / Hey, there, there goes the Spider-Man
I really don’t follow you at all

Yea, Sony recognized Killzone was stagnating - that’s why they made Horizon

They recognized God of War was stagnating, so they reinvented the franchise

Naughty Dog broadened their IP to The Last of US

You just gave me great examples for why Sony succeeded enormously in the PS4 era

My point wasn’t that all sequels are bad, it’s that Sony realized how to grow series with sequels and also when it was time for a change.

maybe that time has come again

Sony can’t compete with Nintendo on IP and can’t compete with MS‘s money

Question is what can they do now? Hopes and dreams won’t cut it.
 
maybe that time has come again

Sony can’t compete with Nintendo on IP and can’t compete with MS‘s money

Question is what can they do now? Hopes and dreams won’t cut it.

They don’t need hopes and dreams when they are the industry leader

I’ll leave the FUD for when these doomsday prophecies look like anything more than the fantasy of fanboys
 

Warnen

Can he swing from a thread? Take a look overhead / Hey, there, there goes the Spider-Man
They don’t need hopes and dreams when they are the industry leader

I’ll leave the FUD for when these doomsday prophecies look like anything more than the fantasy of fanboys

But they aren’t Nintendo is.
 

Dr Bass

Gold Member
This is a dumb ass take. It's always been about content.

MS has never been the leader here because they always think it's about speeds and feeds, which is why they've lost historically and continue to lose. It's why they constantly trumpet the power of their devices when no one outside of a tiny market segment gives a crap. It's why Nintendo dominates with a much lower powered device. They have the games people want. Microsoft still does not have the games more people want or they would sell more. This is such a basic and obvious fact.

People buy hardware because it has the software they want or need. This is true in games, it's been true in computing for decades, and it will ALWAYS be true.

This idea that it is just now a content competition is so freaking asinine, it's like IGN finally woke up to reality if they are just now getting it.

It's always about content. For people who don't get it, watch this video and listen closely. Now think about what Sony and Nintendo focus on, and think about what Microsoft focuses on.

 

Mr Rawnch

Neo Member
This is a dumb ass take. It's always been about content.

MS has never been the leader here because they always think it's about speeds and feeds, which is why they've lost historically and continue to lose. It's why they constantly trumpet the power of their devices when no one outside of a tiny market segment gives a crap. It's why Nintendo dominates with a much lower powered device. They have the games people want. Microsoft still does not have the games more people want or they would sell more. This is such a basic and obvious fact.

People buy hardware because it has the software they want or need. This is true in games, it's been true in computing for decades, and it will ALWAYS be true.

This idea that it is just now a content competition is so freaking asinine, it's like IGN finally woke up to reality if they are just now getting it.

It's always about content. For people who don't get it, watch this video and listen closely. Now think about what Sony and Nintendo focus on, and think about what Microsoft focuses on.

Don't want -- or never gave a chance because of perception, marketing, or mouthy CEOs? If you check out the list of games post-2002, you will see that Microsoft has made some fantastic games that I'm willing to bet were overlooked by players who have no experience with the titles. Folks give MS flak for being an FPS console but the argument could be made that Sony has a lot of rebagged and reskinned third-person games. Where was the content narrative when the 360 put the boots to the PS3? Not only MS have more content but a fair number of multi-platform titles looked better on their platform. What saved Sony was brand recognition and perhaps its blu ray capability. I'm confused by people's perception of Nintendo. Do their fans love them because of nostalgia, content, or brand recognition? They've been making Mario, Zelda, and Metroid games since forever. I'm betting it has everything to do with their brand recognition.

List of MS exclusives and first-party titles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_Game_Studios_video_games
 

Boneless

Member
So obvious that you (and many others here) didnt get the point

It wasnt always only about content. "How many consoles sold" was the most important metric. Consoles were the only way to play some games. But not anymore, when games are also being released in other systems.

Even Nintendo is releasing games in other platforms (phones)

MS is releasing everything on anything that's able to support cloud gaming, and Sony is putting their games on PC.

Things have changed

Dont expect much from this topic tho, because of the usual "urr durr IGN sucks" monkeys


"Consoles were the only way to play some games", really? What universe do you live in? I am glad for you though that you can find deeper meaning in IGN articles.
 

Hugare

Member
"Consoles were the only way to play some games", really? What universe do you live in? I am glad for you though that you can find deeper meaning in IGN articles.
Where did you play the Uncharted series? God of War trilogy? Heavy Rain? And pretty much every other Sony exclusive from the past ?

Did you play Sonic on your SNES? Shenmue on your PS2?

Sometimes its better to admit that you are wrong than looking like a fool
 
Last edited:

zeorhymer

Member
IGN is trying to console war without saying console war. That's subverting expectations! How stunning and brave.
 

Boneless

Member
Where did you play the Uncharted series? God of War trilogy? Heavy Rain? And pretty much every other Sony exclusive from the past ?

Did you play Sonic on your SNES? Shenmue on your PS2?

Sometimes its better to admit that you are wrong than looking like a fool


Hey man, it seems that I've hurt your feelings, so I am sorry about that.

Industries have trends, and yes, the gaming industry has a trend towards cross platform. If IGN helps you become knowledgeable of these things, that's great for you.
 
Last edited:

DenchDeckard

Gold Member
Just like Disney bought everyone to boulster their Disney + service, MS is seeing the future early and setting themselves Up as early as possible.

game pass with x cloud will be the future and Ms knows this. They need strong content that they own to boulster it.

just how Disney films were on Netflix and Amazon for a short time this went out the window with Disney plus and they bought Fox and many more to get even more content on the service.

Yhis is why I think MS will easily get away with the purchase because Sony will launch their service this year, they simply have to and then there will be multiple places you can stream content.

gaming is changing and I’ll just have to go with it and decide what and how I play but there will be little of owning anything in the next 5 to 0 years I think. It will all be steaming and game pass etc with the odd purchase on a classic like I do with a 4k Blu ray disk etc.
 

yurinka

Member
IGN, always a good comedy website.

They're console platform holders, so they compete with other console platform holders and each generation one or the another gets better results or 'wins'.

Due to rising costs of AAA games, they all expanded beyond to find additional -mostly secondary for them- revenue sources, as happened with mobile gaming, which is the common one. But then each one took a different approach to grow to other places:
  • Sony tried with glowing dildos, streaming, VR and now some PC ports and cinema/tv stuff
  • Nintendo tried Skylander's-like toys with embedded DLC, DIY cardboard accesories or a theme park
  • MS tried moving slowly their focus to PC now releasing all their games there day one, buying tons of big 3rd party teams and IPs, and focusing on subs + streaming + multiplatform approach (even including other consoles) instead of in a single console approach
MS essentially realized they couldn't compete selling consoles or games, so tried if they were lucky with subscriptions making an all in move buying a lot of 3rd party content for it.

MS isn't competing with Google, Apple, Amazon, Netflix or Facebook. Because Google and Apple doesn't make games but have (unlike MS) a mobile platform instead, Amazon only has a few games and a streaming service that is on beta on a single country and regarding gaming FB only makes VR. Netflix has a movie streaming service and only had a few games everybody ignored.

MS competes mostly with Sony, Tencent, Nintendo, Valve. I mean, with their gaming division. In other divisions like PC OS, spreadsheets, datacenters and so on they compete with other people.

'Content' only has been one of the things that decided who 'won' each generation: sometimes other things like timing, pricing, innovations/gimmicks or other stuff to appeal more audience or even how difficult was for 3rd parties to work for them were key to had a better or worse result.
 
Last edited:

Zeroing

Member
You know who should be making a content war/ Making better articles? All the gaming websites!
Because they are 99% time posting garbage and most of the time just fuel console wars. Sorry content wars…

Nowadays there’s not even true journalism, there’s just people who write who have tons of opinions.
 
Everybody seems to be ignoring, And I've said this in other threads - At 2.14 Trillion... Analysts, Economics Experts and Masterful Financial Advisors agree across the board Across all the literature I've read on this Era.

When valued at 2 Trillion Dollars you are capable of making the offer other companies can not refuse.

Not only that, but at 2.14 Trillion As Microsoft Is - if you were to buy a 1.3-1.7 Trillion Dollar Company that purchase would be instantly returned as you are purchasing with the buying power of what the wealthiest companies were capable of merely a Decade ago. But Not only that, you are essentially purchasing another Company with enough cash flow to rival America's Economy in 2008. At That level of wealth, it is essentially the same as One Country... Purchasing another Country.

It is as if you have infinite funding if you are Valued at 2 Trillion and Are one of the Companies at the top of the stack with Masterful Financial Consultancy. And that buying power/purchasing power would be instantly returned when Governed by the Masterful Financial Advisors in Microsoft's Council.

So I Say Again, literally all companies under the 2 Trillion Dollar Valuation can be made an irrefusable offer by Big Microsoft that now very much has literally infinite cash flow (the size of a Wealthy Country Merely A Decade Before) and even if they made a purchase which left them with 4 billion in cash (Meaning nearly a 2 Trillion Dollar Purchase) - that money they invested would return instantly.

Instantly. Instantly!!

With that out of the way, every body thinks Call of Duty is the big purchase here but I certainly remember when WoW Launched and Dominated Gaming Culture for 7 years straight while Call Of Duty couldn't hold a candle to it financially. Or any other game for that matter.

Call of Duty now is no slouch, but the Warcraft Universe is such a killer IP List.

I could see a Single Player Warcraft Game Rise up to dethrone essentially each of their competitors First Party IP's Single Handidly.

Or Mix And Match, A Diablo Single Player Game to go after Horizon.

A Starcraft vs Zerg Masterpiece Single Player Game as an answer to the Last Of Us.

You could literally make 50 separate non connected Single Player 3rd Person Warcraft Games each with their own Hero Specific Focus in the vein of the competition, and as long as they seeked to match or exceed graphical gameplay parity with the competition (Zelda, Horizon, Last Of Us, Ect) those games would Sell for eternity.

The Warcraft IP List is the real Game of the show here.

The Warcraft franchise is such a massive franchise on it's own that if you were to produce Singular franchises based on it's character's piecemeal you could go on
producing games for centuries that would sell.

And Don't even get me started on Starcraft, they now have the Defacto High Science fiction IP to draw multiple Universe Exploring Franchises from there!!

And then Back to Diablo "Oh you liked when that game from the competition went to Over The Shoulder Adult Oriented Gameplay - Wait till you see our Next Single Player Diablo Game"

Such a Stellar IP list to pull from with the Blizzard Purchase and it really reaches infinite proportions, particularly with a game that previously dominated gaming culture so much I became sick of hearing the word Warcraft about a decade ago!! It was ridiculous!!
 

Beechos

Member
Movies are not games. They are short even tv shows.

And on tv streaming u have 5 relevant players(netflix, apple, amazon, hbo and disney)

I don't think we gonna have that on games.
The same can be said when netflix started off. They really had no competition and people said the same thing now theres a bunch. Games may not be equal to movies,music,tv shows but at the same time these categories have way more content avail as well. Netflix has 15,000 titles to stream you think xcloud/game streaming will have anything near that? Its the cycle of life things come and go and come again.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom