Support NeoGAF

[Stare-Bear]

Sony also made the PS3 an absolute nightmare to programme for, and pretty much spat in the face of every third party developer with their demands for how PS3 games should be made. Countless PS3 games still run like ass compared to their 360 releases.

Let's not act as if Sony did no wrong last generation. They started it by flipping the bird at both consumer and developer, then desperately trying to make up for it over the years.

And still the PS3 outsold the Xbox 360 worldwide. Just not in the UK and the US.

 

[JaggedSac]

If thats their look on things then they are very short sighted. How long do they think they can keep moneyhatting timed exclusives or exclusives from third parties? Do they honestly think thats a sustainable business model? If so they are in for a nasty surprise this gen.

As long as devs need to pitch their ideas to publishers.

 

[Furyous]

Would the collective rage on these boards reach Jesus Yamato power levels if Microsoft took their moneyhat and funded all the exclusive AAA games? I'm turning into Setsuna and getting so mad my eyes turn blue and I start teleporting.

Can we leave Microsoft alone for a few days? <---- That's a half serious reply.

Devs love money and need it to make games. Microsoft's contributes to devs' ability to bring rich, valuable experiences to all consoles by tossing their money around. Their practices forced Sony to try something to remain competitive.

Think of it like baseball. The Yankees had a stretch where their payroll and luxury tax payments exceeded the value of spending of multiple teams. Almost every year they lost in the playoffs to teams with far less payroll. Their spending brought excitement to the league and ratings increased.

I'd love to see what first party devs could do with free reign on an Xbone. Imagine a first party Uncharted (SHOTS FIRED) or first party Beyond. Mictosoft has to reevaluate their stance long-term and move in the first party direction. Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously, correct me please) but it's cheaper to fund first party studios than spend billions securing exclusives. First party studios don't gimp games to reach platform parity so the product looks better.

 

[Two Words]

How is it better?

The only difference isn't MS is hiring these people directly and in turn, isn't responsible for potentially downsizing.

Because it makes both companies grow in staff. Growing and eventually downsizing is better than staying downsized as far as labor goes.

This is better:
MS uses money to hire staff to make games. SE hires staff to make multiple versions of Tomb Raider. More games for everybody.


than this:
MS uses money to pay for exclusives on games. MS doesn't hire people. Other company doesn't hire more people since they are building for one player. Money goes to the top of the company. Fewer games for everybody.

In TR's case it's only a times exclusive.

 

[Black Mantis]

I got an original Xbox around when they came out along with halo and azurik. I loved it, didn't get a ps2 or GC until later on.

I got an Xbox 360 when I graduated high school along with oblivion, and didn't get a ps3 until the slim came out. I loved my 360, it was by far my main console.

I did not and most likely will not by an X1 because, in an age where basically all non first party games are multiplatform, I wanted to choose a console that would get a better variety of first party games. On one hand, Sony's first party has RPG's, shooters, platformers, action games, adventure games, and so on. On the other hand, Microsoft first party has.... Shooters and racing games. That's it.


As it stands currently, MS needs to diversify their first party offerings. Sure shooters are big now, but the market WILL hit a point of over saturation of shooters and stagnate, and when that happens Microsoft will be stuck standing there with a thumb up their ass.


One of my coworkers was trying to explain why he thought X1 was going to be better than PS4, and he said titanfall and halo. I told him that the genre diversity wasn't there on x1, and that he would regret buying it. He bought a Ps4 for destiny and infamous, and last week he told me he sold his X1...

Guess I was right afterall.

Ryse, Crimson Dragon, Powerstar Golf, Zoo Tycoon, DR3, LocoCycle, Max, Killer Instinct, Titanfall. Looks quite diverse to me, or do all these games play the same to you?

I think it's weird that people don't like Microsoft working with third parties over building their own studios. If the project doesn't sell well, Microsoft would probably be forced to fire all or some of the individuals involved. By working with outside developers, that team may still survive and pick up future projects, or in some cases may be able to continue that IP elsewhere and potentially find better success with a sequel or smaller project.

Quoted for truth. Different ways to about putting out games.

 

[TitusGroan]

If thats their look on things then they are very short sighted. How long do they think they can keep moneyhatting timed exclusives or exclusives from third parties? Do they honestly think thats a sustainable business model? If so they are in for a nasty surprise this gen.

As long as developers need lots of money to make AAA games (which they will) and Microsoft has money to throw (which they will), they'll be able to keep getting exclusives from third parties.

I don't understand: Nintendo gets third party exclusives from Tecmo-Koei, no-one bats an eyelid. Microsoft gets a third party exclusive from EA, and all of a sudden it's the worst thing in the world. If third party exclusives are bad, then they're bad for everyone, not just the company you dislike the most.

Spoiler

Third party exclusives are not bad.

 

[Exploratory]

Because it doesn't fit with the narrative that they are trying to portray.

I've said this time and time again but people will create whatever narrative they want and they'll ignore all the evidence (in this case the games) to whatever agenda they want to push.

 

[dancmc]

It's always better to hire new people to build new games, even if they may eventually be let go, than to simply give another company a boatload of money so the other company makes fewer versions and has fewer people working in both companies.

definitely not always better

 

[Morfeo]

Oh your tears. Your beautiful, delicious, tears.

Microsoft has been in the games business for decades. If you want to get real about it, they've been involved in gaming for longer than Sony have. Sony got into the games market to spite Nintendo over a hardware deal that went south. Microsoft were involved in PC gaming for years before the Xbox came out. Age Of Empires. Flight Simulator. Heck, before Flight Simulator there was Microsoft Space Simulator, released in 1994. Fighter Ace. Hellbender. Midtown Madness. Urban Assault. Microsoft were publishing games back when Sony was still nothing more than a TV and Walkman company.

This idea that Microsoft is some pretender in the gaming arena is nothing but rustled jimmies. The original Xbox was a treasure trove of incredible games published by Microsoft or made possible with their money: Ninja Gaiden, Halo, Mechassault, Crimson Skies: High Road To Revenge, Jade Empire.

Remember when the PS3 came out, and developers everywhere were struggling with the nightmare that was its architecture? Which company was the one who provided a console with easy to use hardware for developers to make games on? Microsoft. Yes, they were such a bad company then, providing third party developers with a console they could actually work with.

Which company started the process of using PC parts to make console development easier? Microsoft.

Which company nailed how to do online mulitplayer with consoles? Microsoft.

Which company was the first to include a hard-drive in its console, thereby making downloadable games and content possible? Microsoft.

Which company got the indie development ball rolling on consoles? Take a wild guess...

Microsoft have been in the gaming arena for decades, and they've been doing awesome things with the Xbox since day bloody one. I'm not planning on buying an Xbone any time soon, but I happily still have my OG Xbox plugged in, and have no problem with saying that Microsoft have earned their fucking place in the console business. They're putting out exclusives now, they're bulking up and expanding their development studios, they're turning around the shitfest that was the original Xbone into a console that is actually pretty damn nifty. The only reason they don't have more first party exclusives is because, shock horror, they made an effort to reach out and work with third parties for games instead. The same process people are now clamouring for Nintendo to step out of their ivory tower and engage in.

This is just embarrasing. Microsoft make one announcement, and now everyone's acting as if they never even deserved a place at the table in the first place.

Yep this sums up this thread. Its also incredibly stupid how everybody now acts like Sony never does this, when they were much more aggressive than MS ever has been with this back in the PS1 days to take marketshare from Nintendo and Sega.

 

[Iorv3th]

There are so many more that could be added to that list. They did a lot of new IP's for the original xbox and while some of them bombed others where great.

Just thinking off the top of my head

NFL Fever
Amped
Links
Azurik
Nightcaster
Blinx
Voodoo Vince
Kung Fu Chaos
Midtown Madness
Airforce Delta
Blood Wake
Brute Force
Crimson Skies
Fuzion Frenzy
CockToe Chojin
Mech Assault


Im sure several more, but they used to pump out quite a lot of new ips and games in general. When they announced the kinect everything changed and they started focusing on kinect and it seemed like they just forgot about traditional games.

 

[benny_a]

I've said this time and time again but people will create whatever narrative they want and they'll ignore all the evidence (in this case the games) to whatever agenda they want to push.

I think moneyhatting multiplatform publishers to not release or release later their games on other platforms than the publisher would do on its own by judging the platform using the free market statistics of potential sales is garbage.

Now bring on your evidence for why that is a created narrative or whatever.

 

[Oppo]

Much in the same way that Microsoft seems to be very adroit at updating system software, as is their forte institutionally, Sony also seems to have a strength in managing creative portfolios.

Even though the film and record label arms around practically as separate companies, there does appear to be some cross pollenization between these areas in how it reflects on PlayStation (and of course the age/experience of that division itself). When you think about it, there is definitely some overlap, in terms of spotting, developing, and marketing new talent. That's an area that Microsoft really had no experience with prior to the Xbox.

 

[Two Words]

As long as developers need lots of money to make AAA games (which they will) and Microsoft has money to throw (which they will), they'll be able to keep getting exclusives from third parties.

I don't understand: Nintendo gets third party exclusives from Tecmo-Koei, no-one bats an eyelid. Microsoft gets a third party exclusive from EA, and all of a sudden it's the worst thing in the world. If third party exclusives are bad, then they're bad for everyone, not just the company you dislike the most.

Spoiler

Third party exclusives are not bad.

Uhh people got pissed at the Bayonetta 2 exclusive, what are you talking about?

If you like being sold on "HEY WE PAID SO THOSE OTHER GUYS CANT PLAY THIS GAME" as a benefit to you, good for you. Most people here have figured out it's not a benefit to anybody but top execs looking to make a quick marketing boost.

 

[twobear]

Yep this sums up this thread. Its also incredibly stupid how everybody now acts like Sony never does this, when they were much more aggressive than MS ever has been with this back in the PS1 days to take marketshare from Nintendo and Sega.

So because Sony were much more aggressive about this twenty years ago we should't think that it's crappy that MS do it now?

What kind of bizarre, crappy argument.

 

[Solidsoul]

I'm not saying there isn't truth in the OP, but I do get a sense of bias hate towards the brand. While most of what you said is not inaccurate, why is it that my favorite gaming experiences have largely happened on the Xbox platform? From Halo campaigns and online multiplayer, to gears of war and even the fable trilogy (I liked them all) good online, great controller and many other smaller but enjoyable experiences such as XBLA titles.

Microsoft was on stuff like serious online gaming and features like party chat way before the competitors. I think Microsoft has done well, and I'm happy they are a part of the industry.

They have made ALOT of mistakes, with the always online-only and tomb raider money-hatting as recent examples but the competitors have made mistakes as well.

Sony has a lot more IP but for me personally less that I actually care about. Big fan of both Sony and MS. I think they both contribute greatly in both negative and positive ways to our industry.

 

[Two Words]

So because Sony were much more aggressive about this twenty years ago we should't think that it's crappy that MS do it now?

What kind of bizarre, crappy argument.

Yeah I was 6 when that was happening. What did you expect me to say then?

 

[KingJ2002]

It's because of Microsoft first party efforts that I decided to look to Sony / Nintendo for console gaming. I've been gaming on Xbox since it launched back in 2001 and I remember the criticisms of why Microsoft was entering the console business... and at the time when Microsoft was cranking out fan favorites and trying out titles like azurik, sudeki, brute force they appeared to be unfounded.

but it was clear as time went on and microsoft didnt bother to invest into their studios to build a stable of first party games... those naysayers were starting to sound right.

If you look at what their competition is doing... it's night and day.

Sony and Nintendo don't have a choice! The PlayStation consoles are keeping sony afloat and Nintendo is 100 percent a video game maker. Sony / Nintendo first party divisions are cranking out new titles and building on their existing franchises.

If these companies can not get gaming right... they fall. Microsoft has the luxury of not having to be attached to this industry and they are using it to their advantage.

Microsoft is no longer investing in first party gaming but rather investing in the platform, buying exclusive licenses to third party games and essentially use gaming as a trojan horse into the living room to sell you their other services and place your data on ad networks for retargeting campaigns.

Last year with the Xbox One announcement it was clear that Microsoft was trying to be Apple before Apple became Microsoft in the gaming space.

Apple does not make games. They provide the platform and everyone does the rest. There is no rental or anything close to it.. You pay, you download the game and updates are provided. Through iTunes you get personalized content based on your buying habits. Also with the 1 year upgrade cycle that Apple uses for their hardware... mobile gaming is inching closer to console gaming in visuals and hardware... and soon many people wont be able to tell the difference.

Microsoft wants this... and will use Halo, Gears, Forza, Fable + Third Party Exclusives as a trojan horse to get there. These are the things Apple doesn't have... it may seem as if Microsoft is doing an about face now because they back peddled on kinect and all those rules they wanted to enact last year... but it will come around again because Microsoft is no longer investing on pushing gaming forward but rather... push the xbox brand and prove to their investors that it can make it's home and entertainment divisions profitable.

 

[markedbravado]

The only company that gave a massive F U was Nintendo with forced motion controls. Kinect is an amazing piece of technology but it being used by Microsoft for games is why it sucks as much as it does.

But aside from that, why is this is a massive F U when it's an optional device for the 360? By your own (lack of)logic, I'm going to assume the Sony Move controller is also a massive F U you to Sony player base(?).

How do you defend Sony and their mandatory online passes or exclusive Watch_Dogs content that cut the PC and XBox crowd out? Or the pre-order bonus for Beyond: Two Souls which had additional content which meant Sony were competing with themselves. This thread, man.

*Optional device* that took up resources which could have been geared for continued unique ip development. The kinect 360 years were great right? While Sony continued pumping out exclusive games geared towards the audience that bought their console for $600. MS abandoned ship. They seem to be privy to continue some 360 support with Titanfall and TR, but only because they had to include this as a requirement to moneyhat.

And as far as DLC, what is there to complain about? It does not cut into the original games single player/multiplayer. that is "optional" and not optimal for u to enjoy the game.

 

[BumblebeeCody]

As long as developers need lots of money to make AAA games (which they will) and Microsoft has money to throw (which they will), they'll be able to keep getting exclusives from third parties.

I don't understand: Nintendo gets third party exclusives from Tecmo-Koei, no-one bats an eyelid. Microsoft gets a third party exclusive from EA, and all of a sudden it's the worst thing in the world. If third party exclusives are bad, then they're bad for everyone, not just the company you dislike the most.

Spoiler

Third party exclusives are not bad.

Completely. Nintendo did this Bayonetta 2 and look how that ended up. Now it's just Microsofts turn. I remember back when Final Fantasy XIII was announced for 360, people(Sony fans) were booing.

Third party exclusives aren't bad but having them available to as wide as audience as possible is always a positive. I love Killer Instinct (Xbox One), Wonderful 101 (Wii U) and Resogun (PS4) which are all third/second party games that could easily be on other consoles. They deserve the money and attention.

We saw this last generation. Dead Rising was an Xbox exclusive that then made it's way to PS3 and even the Wii. Lost Planet and Bioshock 1 were Xbox exclusives that made their way to the PS3 with more content at times. Dead Space: Extraction and House of the Dead: Overkill were a Wii exclusives that eventually came to PS3. No More Heroes was a Wii exclusive that made it's way to Xbox And PS3. Demons Souls had a spiritual sequel Dark Souls, and that series started on PC and Xbox. Muramasa: The Demon Blade got ported to the Vita just recently.
This Tomb Raider stunt is just another one of those deals.
What the heck would I know though right?

*Optional device* that took up resources which could have been geared for continued unique ip development.

Do you have a quote that the money going into Kinect could've been used on games or this is just wishful speculation that you're using to further push your point of view? Also, you never addressed my point about how Sony gave us the Move Controller which is the exact same deal. Don't avoid that obvious statement.

The kinect 360 years were great right?

Yeah the Kinect years were terrible. It was horrible playing games like: Shadow of the Damned, Bulletstorm, Gears of War 3, RE4 HD, Dead Space 2, Catherine and so much more.

While Sony continued pumping out exclusive games geared towards the audience that bought their console for $600. MS abandoned ship. They seem to be privy to continue some 360 support with Titanfall and TR, but only because they had to include this as a requirement to moneyhat.

And as far as DLC, what is there to complain about? It does not cut into the original games single player/multiplayer. that is "optional" and not optimal for u to enjoy the game.

 

[Exploratory]

I think moneyhatting multiplatform publishers to not release or release later their games on other platforms than the publisher would do on its own by judging the platform using the free market statistics of potential sales is garbage.

Now bring on your evidence for why that is a created narrative or whatever.

What? My post was talking about people ignoring games MS has brought to its console in favor of "Halo/Gears/Forza" is all they got.

 

[Morfeo]

So because Sony were much more aggressive about this twenty years ago we should't think that it's crappy that MS do it now?

What kind of bizarre, crappy argument.

No, but they should be held to the same standards, which they are not. Both Sony, MS and Nintendo pays outside developers to make games for them. Tomb Raider is such a game, as is Bloodborne and the Wonderful101, but for some reason, when Sony does this its always counted as a "great move" and when the other two does it its "booo they steal our games".

 

[Barzul]

And still the PS3 outsold the Xbox 360 worldwide. Just not in the UK and the US.

It did?

 

[DEADEVIL]

Oh your tears. Your beautiful, delicious, tears.

Microsoft has been in the games business for decades. If you want to get real about it, they've been involved in gaming for longer than Sony have. Sony got into the games market to spite Nintendo over a hardware deal that went south. Microsoft were involved in PC gaming for years before the Xbox came out. Age Of Empires. Flight Simulator. Heck, before Flight Simulator there was Microsoft Space Simulator, released in 1994. Fighter Ace. Hellbender. Midtown Madness. Urban Assault. Microsoft were publishing games back when Sony was still nothing more than a TV and Walkman company.

This idea that Microsoft is some pretender in the gaming arena is nothing but rustled jimmies. The original Xbox was a treasure trove of incredible games published by Microsoft or made possible with their money: Ninja Gaiden, Halo, Mechassault, Crimson Skies: High Road To Revenge, Jade Empire.

Remember when the PS3 came out, and developers everywhere were struggling with the nightmare that was its architecture? Which company was the one who provided a console with easy to use hardware for developers to make games on? Microsoft. Yes, they were such a bad company then, providing third party developers with a console they could actually work with.

Which company started the process of using PC parts to make console development easier? Microsoft.

Which company nailed how to do online mulitplayer with consoles? Microsoft.

Which company was the first to include a hard-drive in its console, thereby making downloadable games and content possible? Microsoft.

Which company got the indie development ball rolling on consoles? Take a wild guess...

Microsoft have been in the gaming arena for decades, and they've been doing awesome things with the Xbox since day bloody one. I'm not planning on buying an Xbone any time soon, but I happily still have my OG Xbox plugged in, and have no problem with saying that Microsoft have earned their fucking place in the console business. They're putting out exclusives now, they're bulking up and expanding their development studios, they're turning around the shitfest that was the original Xbone into a console that is actually pretty damn nifty. The only reason they don't have more first party exclusives is because, shock horror, they made an effort to reach out and work with third parties for games instead. The same process people are now clamouring for Nintendo to step out of their ivory tower and engage in.

This is just embarrasing. Microsoft make one announcement, and now everyone's acting as if they never even deserved a place at the table in the first place.

Different business strategies are not inherently bad.

I can see why the overly aggressive tone of the poster makes it sound so much more convincing than it actually is.

I have a problem when the OP can't even define "IP" properly and put his own twist on it.



Fable, Gears of War, Crackdown are all successful franchises from Microsoft, created by Microsoft.
Or, by your definition, let's do Sony's :

Gran Turismo and God of War are the only two successful franchises Sony did from 'ground-up' wholly owned studios.

Naughty Dog were independent and Sony bought them, Guerrilla were independent and Sony bought them, Quantic Dreams were independent and Sony bought them. Sucker Punch, Media Molecule, Evolution Studios...


Are you sure it's not a case of cherry-picking? Because it sure looks like it.

BAM! Some spot on counterpoints in both posts.

 

[twobear]

No, but they should be held to the same standards, which they are not. Both Sony, MS and Nintendo pays outside developers to make games for them. Tomb Raider is such a game, as is Bloodborne and the Wonderful101, but for some reason, when Sony does this its always counted as a "great move" and when the other two does it its "booo they steal our games".

Oh, so now you're just going to hold up false equivalences? Bloodborne and The Wonderful 101 are not the same as Tomb Raider. If they were people would be up in arms about that too.

I'm not saying there isn't truth in the OP, but I do get a sense of bias hate towards the brand. While most of what you said is not inaccurate, why is it that my favorite gaming experiences have largely happened on the Xbox platform? From Halo campaigns and online multiplayer, to gears of war and even the fable trilogy (I liked them all) good online, great controller and many other smaller but enjoyable experiences such as XBLA titles.

Microsoft was on stuff like serious online gaming and features like party chat way before the competitors. I think Microsoft has done well, and I'm happy they are a part of the industry.

They have made ALOT of mistakes, with the always online-only and tomb raider money-hatting as recent examples but the competitors have made mistakes as well.

Sony has a lot more IP but for me personally less that I actually care about. Big fan of both Sony and MS. I think they both contribute greatly in both negative and positive ways to our industry.

Again, though, a lot of people (myself included) think MS have done important and good things for gaming. There are a lot of ridiculous claims that get repeated about MS. But the fact of the matter is that MS's strategy since around 2010 has alienated and angered a lot of people. Pointing to the prior things they did well is not a response.

 

[Spades]

Oh good, another MS bashing thread. Not enough of these on GAF.

 

[benny_a]

What? My post was talking about people ignoring games MS has brought to its console in favor of "Halo/Gears/Forza" is all they got.

You just said:

"[...] people will create whatever narrative they want and they'll ignore all the evidence [...] to whatever agenda they want to push."

I just pushed an agenda, did I just create it and ignore evidence? Or is there maybe some specific agenda you have objection to that you rather want to address instead of making this generalized statements that are just dumb?

 

[Klocker]

Everyone is so bitter toward MS these past couple days. I feel like I'm drowning in a sea of tears every time I come here.

Seriously

Fucking weird lately. So much anger toward a company that has done a lot for gaming.

 

[twobear]

Seriously

Fucking weird lately. So much anger.

Maybe if you spent 30 seconds reading the OP you might get some understanding of why people are getting so angry at MS recently.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

It's because of Microsoft first party efforts that I decided to look to Sony / Nintendo for console gaming. I've been gaming on Xbox since it launched back in 2001 and I remember the criticisms of why Microsoft was entering the console business... and at the time when Microsoft was cranking out fan favorites and trying out titles like azurik, sudeki, brute force they appeared to be unfounded.

but it was clear as time went on and microsoft didnt bother to invest into their studios to build a stable of first party games... those naysayers were starting to sound right.

If you look at what their competition is doing... it's night and day.

Sony and Nintendo don't have a choice! The PlayStation consoles are keeping sony afloat and Nintendo is 100 percent a video game maker. Sony / Nintendo first party divisions are cranking out new titles and building on their existing franchises.

If these companies can not get gaming right... they fall. Microsoft has the luxury of not having to be attached to this industry and they are using it to their advantage.

Microsoft is no longer investing in first party gaming but rather investing in the platform, buying exclusive licenses to third party games and essentially use gaming as a trojan horse into the living room to sell you their other services and place your data on networks for retargeting campaigns.

Last year with the Xbox One announcement it was clear that Microsoft was trying to be Apple before Apple became Microsoft in the gaming space.

Apple does not make games. They provide the platform and everyone does the rest. There is no rental or anything close to it.. You pay, you download the game and updates are provided. Through iTunes you get personalized content based on your buying habits. Also with the 1 year upgrade cycle that Apple uses for their hardware... mobile gaming is inching closer to console gaming in visuals and hardware... and soon many people wont be able to tell the difference.

Microsoft wants this... and will use Halo, Gears, Forza, Fable + Third Party Exclusives as a trojan horse to get there. These are the things Apple doesn't have... it may seem as if Microsoft is doing an about face now because they back peddled on kinect and all those rules they wanted to enact last year... but it will come around again because Microsoft is no longer investing on pushing gaming forward but rather... push the xbox brand and prove to their investors that it can make it's home and entertainment divisions profitable.

Pretty good summary.

If you look at the future exclusive software line-up for the PS4 and Xbone, it's night and day in terms of quantity, diversity and I'd Sony has better quality too.

MS NEEDS to invest in this for the long term. I bet the amount they paid to make Tomb Raider exclusive is more than the budget of Rime and No Man's Sky combined, yet those two games are way more compelling for me.

 

[block tower]

MS not letting Bungie do Destiny still gives me a chuckle. as much as i don't care for Destiny, why MS would deny Bungie the freedom to do as they please is bizarre. although to be fair, from what we've seen at MS e3'14 conference, X1 is getting some damn good first party games in 2015 and beyond. granted not all of those exclusive games are first party, mny are contracted third party exclusives, but who cares, they look dope.

 

[Oppo]

Oh good, another MS bashing thread. Not enough of these on GAF.

never ascribe to malice that which can more easily be ascribed to just a bunch of guys talking shit.

 

[KissVibes]

Because it makes both companies grow in staff. Growing and eventually downsizing is better than staying downsized as far as labor goes.

This is better:
MS uses money to hire staff to make games. SE hires staff to make multiple versions of Tomb Raider. More games for everybody.


than this:
MS uses money to pay for exclusives on games. MS doesn't hire people. Other company doesn't hire more people since they are building for one player. Money goes to the top of the company. Fewer games for everybody.

In TR's case it's only a times exclusive.

Who said I was talking about Square Enix?

I'm talking generally. Why should Microsoft staff up for say, a PGR5 sequel, when they could work with Lucid Games? Or lets say they wanted to make a new Hydro Thunder. Why not make a deal with Iron Galaxy studios?

In both cases, you have two development teams already established and working looking for projects. If both are successful, they'll get future contracts. If they aren't, there's the possibility they may close down but still have the ability to find other projects. On the other hand, MS starts a new studio and that'll take time just from staffing and getting office space + equipment. If the game does poorly financially, MS would likely fire many of those people or everyone.

Microsoft working with 3rd parties this way, or how they're working with Insomniac and Remedy, is much more developer friendly and probably way more financially smart too.


--

And on the topic of Tomb Raider 2. How can you really get mad at Microsoft here?

They did what they thought was best for their business of selling consoles and keeping people in their ecosystem. It's Square Enix that should draw the ire of gamers here, if they're truly delaying at least three other SKUs for a little bit of money, that's 100% on them. They didn't have to make that deal. Perhaps Square even approached them with the offer.

 

[Klocker]

Maybe if you spent 30 seconds reading the OP you might get some understanding of why people are getting so angry at MS recently.

Yea, like this.

Big waste of energy blowing anger around like it's moving something real.

 

[Morfeo]

Oh, so now you're just going to hold up false equivalences? Bloodborne and The Wonderful 101 are not the same as Tomb Raider. If they were people would be up in arms about that too.

It is the same in the way that the development of the games are are paid for by a firstparty that requires them to be exclusive. For the consumer the end result is also completely the same. I have to get a PS4 to play Bloodborne which is what this is about.

 

[G0523]

You know, I was thinking about how the gaming industry would be different if Microsoft hadn't entered it. Would all of those developers they bought still be in business (or at least relevant/successful)? Would the gaming industry be as cold-hearted as they are now with the online passes and digital downloads with prices that are usually way more than they should cost?

This list in the OP doesn't even mention the collaborations that Microsoft had like with Bizarre Creations and PGR (but those don't exist anymore since Microsoft didn't want to buy Bizarre) or with Oddworld Inhabitants and what happened with Munch's Odyssey and Stranger's Wrath. Microsoft just loves moneyhatting because it's what they do best. Sure, sometimes they pump out great games that they funded but their track record is anything but encouraging.

 

[Usobuko]

No, but they should be held to the same standards, which they are not. Both Sony, MS and Nintendo pays outside developers to make games for them. Tomb Raider is such a game, as is Bloodborne and the Wonderful101, but for some reason, when Sony does this its always counted as a "great move" and when the other two does it its "booo they steal our games".

Isn't the ongoing joke of Bloodborne being 'Is this really an exclusive?' because that was said quite a few times its reveal thread?

Personally, I don't think fans of any platforms are immune to being over zealous. I also think that plenty of anti fans exist too on GAF. ( Anti-Nintendo, Anti-sony, Anti-microsoft, Anti-PC, Anti-Mobile etc. )

 

[benny_a]

It is the same in the way that the development of the games are are paid for by a firstparty that requires them to be exclusive. For the consumer the end result is also completely the same. I have to get a PS4 to play Bloodborne which is what this is about.

I don't know if you're intentionally obtuse or what the deal is with you specifically but it's not really that hard to understand the current complaint.

Funding games and using subsidiaries or independent developers to make games = GOOD
Paying off big multiplatform publishers to not release their games on competing platform = Less GOOD

How the fuck is this so hard to understand? One is additive to the world of games by creating games that otherwise would not be and the other is not not changing the total amount of games, just the total amount of players that can play a game.

If you want to make the argument that for example Journey, Uncharted, The Last of Us & Super Mario Galaxy all would have been made anyway then do that - but this fucking retardation of false equivalence is annoying to read.

 

[TitusGroan]

Uhh people got pissed at the Bayonetta 2 exclusive, what are you talking about?

Well I sure as heck aren't talking about Bayonetta 2, am I? Check out Fatal Frame, guy. Used to be released on a variety of platforms. Next one is Wii U exclusive. Just like the last Sonic game, which previously had alternated between being multiplat and being Nintendo exclusive.

If you like being sold on "HEY WE PAID SO THOSE OTHER GUYS CANT PLAY THIS GAME" as a benefit to you, good for you. Most people here have figured out it's not a benefit to anybody but top execs looking to make a quick marketing boost.

So I guess Sonic Colours should have been available on all consoles, and Fatal Frame U should be the same?

 

[Harp]

Come on guys we are talking about a company that was ran by a guy that just bought a basketball team for 3 times more then the record breaking price that was set just months prior. From a guy that was being forced to sell. If the people in power are that stupid with there own money. What do you think they would do with someone else's?

 

[Bananajama]

For me it all comes down to end of generation support.

360 felt like it was thrown to the wolves so I was pretty happy jumping in with Sony again.

Did have a 360 for a while to play through the Fables, Lost Odyssey etc and a bunch of multi plats.

I do still want an X1 - and surprisingly the NFL deal is a big part of the reason for that (sorry?).

I need convincing it'll work fine in Europe though

 

[Exploratory]

You just said:

"[...] people will create whatever narrative they want and they'll ignore all the evidence [...] to whatever agenda they want to push."

I just pushed an agenda, did I just create it and ignore evidence? Or is there maybe some specific agenda you have objection to that you rather want to address instead of making this generalized statements that are just dumb?

You didn't push an ongoing narrative. But I'll try to state I'm talking about narratives wrapped in console wars going forward.

 

[Percy]

Guess thread whining isn't bannable anymore then? lol

 

[dancmc]

It is the same in the way that the development of the games are are paid for by a firstparty that requires them to be exclusive. For the consumer the end result is also completely the same. I have to get a PS4 to play Bloodborne which is what this is about.

Agree 100%....I find no distinction between the ROTTR exclusive relationship and other types of exclusives like Michel Ancel's WILD, etc. It's money exchanging hands in return for some type of special exclusive relationship

 

[TitusGroan]

Maybe if you spent 30 seconds reading the OP you might get some understanding of why people are getting so angry at MS recently.

And maybe if you spent 30 seconds reading some of the responses, rather than trying to sound snarky as hell, you might get some understanding of why the OP is a load of bunk.

Microsoft has been publishing games longer than Sony has. They've been pushing back into the direction of 'proper game' development ever since Mattrick got the boot. There is nothing wrong with what they are doing now. They're developing, publishing and selling games to people who want to buy them. Lots of games, in a variety of genres. Why is that so objectionable to you?

 

[twobear]

Yea, like this.

Big waste of energy blowing anger around like it's moving something real.

Yeah, the 10 minutes I took out of my day to voice disapproval of MS's business practices is clearly me getting really really angry.

What.

It is the same in the way that the development of the games are are paid for by a firstparty that requires them to be exclusive. For the consumer the end result is also completely the same. I have to get a PS4 to play Bloodborne which is what this is about.

Development of Tomb Raider is not funded by MS. They are merely paying for CD to delay the release of the PS4 version by an undisclosed number of months. Whereas Bloodbourne and TW101 would not exist if Sony and Nintendo weren't footing the bill for them.

And maybe if you spent 30 seconds reading some of the responses, rather than trying to sound snarky as hell, you might get some understanding of why the OP is a load of bunk.

Microsoft has been publishing games longer than Sony has. They've been pushing back into the direction of 'proper game' development ever since Mattrick got the boot. There is nothing wrong with what they are doing now. They're developing, publishing and selling games to people who want to buy them. Lots of games, in a variety of genres. Why is that so objectionable to you?

I saw your post and I replied to it. I don't see why I should be happy and impressed with MS's current activities just because they used to be good, because some people spread a lot of bunk about them, or because 20 years ago Sony were like really bad as well.

I'm talking about their actions now, not a decade ago.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

It is the same in the way that the development of the games are are paid for by a firstparty that requires them to be exclusive. For the consumer the end result is also completely the same. I have to get a PS4 to play Bloodborne which is what this is about.

No, it's really not. Stop being deliberatedly obtuse.

Rise of the Tomb Raider is a sequel to a game that was on every platform bar Wii U. It's sequel should have been released similarly but MS paid god knows how much to keep gamers on other systems from playing it for an undisclosed amount of time. MS is also not helping with TR development. It's not similar to Bloodborne at all.

 

[Two Words]

Well I sure as heck aren't talking about Bayonetta 2, am I? Check out Fatal Frame, guy. Used to be released on a variety of platforms. Next one is Wii U exclusive. Just like the last Sonic game, which previously had alternated between being multiplat and being Nintendo exclusive.



So I guess Sonic Colours should have been available on all consoles, and Fatal Frame U should be the same?

You said people only react to this happening with Mocrosoft. Maybe not many people here care about Sonic games or Fatal Frame games? I see a lot of people upset over the Nintendo/Monster Hunter deals.

 

[PureXbox]

Ryse, Crimson Dragon, Powerstar Golf, Zoo Tycoon, DR3, LocoCycle, Max, Killer Instinct, Titanfall. Looks quite diverse to me, or do all these games play the same to you?

But they're all shooting and racing games. There isn't any variety there at all. I don't know what you THINK you see in that list, but I can assure you that you're wrong because those games are for a Microsoft platform and back in the day they created Windows and made a lot of money that we didn't make, so we should universally hate them and keep referring to them as "M$" at every turn.

Like adults.

 

[MoGamesXNA]

.

 

[AdventureRacing]

No doubt MS have done a poor job developing their 1st party, they have had plenty of time now and they have poured so much money into the xbox division with so little to show. Then again halo is one of my all time favorite franchises and one of the few games i still play (and the sole reason i plan on buying an xbone with no intention of getting a PS4).