Microsoft Studios (& Partners) Current and Future Landscape

Salty Hippo

Member
Apr 26, 2014
2,405
1
0
Brazil
What I loved about Ed Fries is how diversity focused he was in their portfolio. Watching the IGN Unfiltered really showed how he didn't want to double down on a core, the dude just wanted to fund a boatload of games. The OG Xbox really shows that passion.
Yep. He understood what it takes to build a massive brand in this industry. Because of the PS2 hegemony with third-parties it was impossible to compete with Sony on the same level playing field in that generation, but the 360 changed that. And instead of continuing to build upon that momentum, they made the cancer that was Kinect and forgot about everything else. The castle would eventually crumble no matter what. Microsoft would most certainly be in a very similar situation as they are right now even if they didn't have to face any DRM debacles at the reveal. Their focus has been off since 2009. Right after Mattrick took over and Spencer was put in charge of, would you look at that, their entire games development team.

Sure sure, Mattrick was the bad guy. Right now, some higher up is the bad guy tying Phil's hands together. There's always a bad guy controlling his every action. Phil plays Destiny and replies to Tim Dog on Twitter, he can't possibly be one of the culprits.
 

Steverulez

Member
Dec 13, 2006
16,951
0
1,150
England
steverulez.co.uk
Yep. He understood what it takes to build a massive brand in this industry. Because of the PS2 hegemony with third-parties it was impossible to compete with Sony on the same level playing field in that generation, but the 360 changed that. And instead of continuing to build upon that momentum, they made the cancer that was Kinect and forgot about everything else. The castle would eventually crumble no matter what. Microsoft would most certainly be in a very similar situation as they are right now even if they didn't have to face any DRM debacles at the reveal. Their focus has been off since 2009. Right after Mattrick took over and Spencer was put in charge of, would you look at that, their entire games development team.

Sure sure, Mattrick was the bad guy. Right now, some higher up is the bad guy tying Phil's hands together. There's always a bad guy controlling his every action. Phil plays Destiny and replies to Tim Dog on Twitter, he can't possibly be one of the culprits.
I think when he is not running the entire show some consideration should be given for that but I think enough time has been had to see what sort of plan is forming, some of it is coming together nicely but the games part is the problem which is supposed to be his main area…
What concerns me is he said he wanted to rework first party and whilst I understand things go down before they go up again we've had a lot of down and not anything going up on the other side.

I would consider the "reworking first party" plan so far to consist of:

1) Take an axe to studios
2) ???
3) Ok step one was all we've got so far

The somewhat concerning situation over independent studios they can partner with and what happens to the ones they do work with is a concern too. I'm not sure they're getting enough from these partnerships and the only common denominator I see if that they all working with MS.
 

JlNX

Member
Aug 14, 2016
714
0
215
Yep. He understood what it takes to build a massive brand in this industry. Because of the PS2 hegemony with third-parties it was impossible to compete with Sony on the same level playing field in that generation, but the 360 changed that. And instead of continuing to build upon that momentum, they made the cancer that was Kinect and forgot about everything else. The castle would eventually crumble no matter what. Microsoft would most certainly be in a very similar situation as they are right now even if they didn't have to face any DRM debacles at the reveal. Their focus has been off since 2009. Right after Mattrick took over and Spencer was put in charge of, would you look at that, their entire games development team.

Sure sure, Mattrick was the bad guy. Right now, some higher up is the bad guy tying Phil's hands together. There's always a bad guy controlling his every action. Phil plays Destiny and replies to Tim Dog on Twitter, he can't possibly be one of the culprits.
Sure except the head of EMEA Microsoft studios didn't report to Phil, both Phil and EMEA Head reported to Mattrick. Mattrick had sign of on all projects, with Mattricks first party budget focused on Kinect and being re-budgeted into third party deals.

You call the Kinect cancer, but it was very successful for Microsoft and boosted the last few years of sales of the 360. They built upon the 360's momentum by putting the majority of their budget into third party deals and later Kinect, the two things that built on their momentum successfully. We both know that Xbox would not be in the position it is in today if it had just released the 360 2 with third party marketing out the wazoo and a separate Kinect.

You don't bring up the difference between the market and game development when Ed Fries was around and the market now. There is obvious reasons why the market has changed, or your happy to idolise Ed Fries as what the market needs today. Where's Ed Fries now? his last role of consequence was a advisor for OUYA.

You look at the start of this generation were Mattrick wasn't stupid enough to launch a console without a lineup, you see Phil get a large budget for launch even tho it was still hampered by Kinect and multiple studios being set up for it. The lineup Phil pulls together, RYSE, KI, Sunset Overdrive, Forza 5, Quantum Break, D4, Project Spark, Crimson Dragon, Dead Rising 3, creation of Black Tusk, Halo 5, Titanfall, Forza Horizon 2, Fable Legends, Ori, MCC, ROTTR, Phantom Dust, Scalebound, Crackdown 3 and SOD2 were all put into development before the console launched and a year later with Recore, SOT, Gears, DR4 and Halo Wars. No matter how they reviewed or what became of them, you can see he very much saw first party as a focus and important. Especially when he would have been the only head championing it at the time. He's repeating that again for Scorpio, he wouldn't say that unless he believed that because otherwise it will come back quite heavily to bite him in the ass.

Xbox one is unveiled, it's a failure out the gate. He's promoted to head of Xbox tasked with cleaning up the mess, with more than likely a hampered budget. He builds upon hardware, platform, OS and services, the things you have in other threads said their doing great now but your pissed of they are getting one thing wrong the most important thing games, you said it's frustrating. Look at the timeline of each of those progresses on OS, Hardware, service and platform, realise that games are the longest part of that timeline. I agree that if this E3 doesn't bear fruit for the future even if he has said he doesn't want to show projects far out from release which will only hurt them further, then concern is very much warranted. His restructuring of first party didn't help either even tho I agree with the decisions behind it. But never will I agree with mockery of someone's leadership because in my eyes it's not what I want, even when they are being successful in every other regard, a difference in opinion or focus shouldn't lead to mockery. It should lead to criticism, feedback or opinion.

No one would have a issue with your opinion or the way you go about it in threads as it's valid and very much great discussion, but the way you go about and present that opinion and this "witch hunt" of Phil while focusing solely on the negative instead of being able to realise subjective opinion and not ignore it. I have very much a personal opinion that focuses on games first and foremost like yours, but I don't tunnel vision and disregard everything else or try not to. I look forward to having a great discussion with you after E3, this year is the most interesting E3 for Xbox in a long while.
 

Salty Hippo

Member
Apr 26, 2014
2,405
1
0
Brazil
Sure except the head of EMEA Microsoft studios didn't report to Phil, both Phil and EMEA Head reported to Mattrick. Mattrick had sign of on all projects, with Mattricks first party budget focused on Kinect and being re-budgeted into third party deals.

You call the Kinect cancer, but it was very successful for Microsoft and boosted the last few years of sales of the 360. They built upon the 360's momentum by putting the majority of their budget into third party deals and later Kinect, the two things that built on their momentum successfully. We both know that Xbox would not be in the position it is in today if it had just released the 360 2 with third party marketing out the wazoo and a separate Kinect.

You don't bring up the difference between the market and game development when Ed Fries was around and the market now. There is obvious reasons why the market has changed, or your happy to idolise Ed Fries as what the market needs today. Where's Ed Fries now? his last role of consequence was a advisor for OUYA.

You look at the start of this generation were Mattrick wasn't stupid enough to launch a console without a lineup, you see Phil get a large budget for launch even tho it was still hampered by Kinect and multiple studios being set up for it. The lineup Phil pulls together, RYSE, KI, Sunset Overdrive, Forza 5, Quantum Break, D4, Project Spark, Crimson Dragon, Dead Rising 3, creation of Black Tusk, Halo 5, Titanfall, Forza Horizon 2, Fable Legends, Ori, MCC, ROTTR, Phantom Dust, Scalebound, Crackdown 3 and SOD2 were all put into development before the console launched and a year later with Recore, SOT, Gears, DR4 and Halo Wars. No matter how they reviewed or what became of them, you can see he very much saw first party as a focus and important. Especially when he would have been the only head championing it at the time. He's repeating that again for Scorpio, he wouldn't say that unless he believed that because otherwise it will come back quite heavily to bite him in the ass.

Xbox one is unveiled, it's a failure out the gate. He's promoted to head of Xbox tasked with cleaning up the mess, with more than likely a hampered budget. He builds upon hardware, platform, OS and services, the things you have in other threads said their doing great now but your pissed of they are getting one thing wrong the most important thing games, you said it's frustrating. Look at the timeline of each of those progresses on OS, Hardware, service and platform, realise that games are the longest part of that timeline. I agree that if this E3 doesn't bear fruit for the future even if he has said he doesn't want to show projects far out from release which will only hurt them further, then concern is very much warranted. His restructuring of first party didn't help either even tho I agree with the decisions behind it. But never will I agree with mockery of someone's leadership because in my eyes it's not what I want, even when they are being successful in every other regard, a difference in opinion or focus shouldn't lead to mockery. It should lead to criticism, feedback or opinion.

No one would have a issue with your opinion or the way you go about it in threads as it's valid and very much great discussion, but the way you go about and present that opinion and this "witch hunt" of Phil while focusing solely on the negative instead of being able to realise subjective opinion and not ignore it. I have very much a personal opinion that focuses on games first and foremost like yours, but I don't tunnel vision and disregard everything else or try not to. I look forward to having a great discussion with you after E3, this year is the most interesting E3 for Xbox in a long while.
Much of my "witch hunting" is jest, don't take it so literally. My name is Salty for a reason. My avatar is an angry hippo for a reason. I get more enjoyment out of discussing things in this passionate, overblown way. But I also guess it's my way of responding to people who have been white knighting Phil Spencer since he took over, blaming everything on Mattrick and others. Something I've always disagreed with and have been speaking against for years, while being mocked in the process. I'm not gonna lie, I find some vindication in being maybe right up until this point, but this E3 will paint a more definitive picture. I honestly hope I'm completely, 100% wrong. But don't count on it.

Quick thing about Kinect that I want to get out of the way. It was successful, but it was pure cancer to their following project. Motion was a fad and is, with very few exceptions, completely dead and buried today. The Kinect's success was not worth the ruin of their following console.

About Fries, what does it matter what he does today? I'm just comparing different mentalities. What does even the market matter? Look at Sony. They compete in the exact same market and have been building their brand around diversity during the entire lifespan of the Xbox brand. That's what they did when they were at the top with PS1 and 2 and also what they did when they were struggling with the PS3. Seems to be working pretty well for them today. So don't give me this market excuse. It has changed, but if your brand is strong and people trust you to deliver a bunch of traditional games, they will be there for you and you won't be too affected. If you rely on a cardboard house of 3 declining franchises with little investment outside of that, though... of course you will have some worrying to do.

What's really funny about your market point is that it's Microsoft who has been "adaptating to new market tendencies" for YEARS now. And how has that been working out? First Kinect which killed XB1's launch and message, then the start of an obsession with online multiplayer that still stands today, then a string of things like HEY ASYNCHRONOUS MULTIPLAYER IS A THING NOW WE GOTTA HAVE THAT, so they shove it on the new Fable. Then OH WOW F2P IS ALSO HUGE, so they decide to make that game F2P as well. Then they look at their newly built studio and go SHANGHEIST? CANCEL IT, NEW IP DOESN'T SELL, LET'S BUY THE GEARS IP AND PUT THEM ON THAT INSTEAD AND TURN GEARS INTO A SUCCESSFUL E-SPORTZZZZZZZZZ. Then they look at Scalebound and go HEY MONSTER HUNTER IS HUGE RIGHT LET'S INTERFERE AND FORCE A SHODDY CO-OP DOWN PEOPLE'S THROATS, CALL KAMIYA RIGHT NOW.

I could keep going forever. Rare's new game is heavily influenced by Destiny. Phantom Dust was brought back to life because of its online component, e-sport and microtransaction potential. Crackdown is also having an online focus, to the point that they originally intended to release only the multiplayer first. State of Decay 2 was announced because zombie/survival games are still popular, especially with streamers. Same reason Dead Rising 3 was greenlit, and DR4 was moneyhatted. And speaking of streamers, Microsoft has acquired its own streaming platform to compete with Twitch. They are always reacting, always late to the party, and always failing. But sure, if Ed Fries was overwhelming you with traditional and diverse games today, HE would be the one running the brand into the ground. Okay.

They did do a few great stuff outside of that spectrum. Sunset is awesome, Quantum Break deserves praise for at least trying to do something new in terms of narrative. There has been some good small-budget games like KI and Ori. But these are far more the exception rather than the rule.
 

Sydle

Member
Oct 13, 2006
11,662
0
0
Sea of Thieves heavily influenced by Destiny?

You've officially lost it, Salty. That's the most nonsensical thing I've read on this forum this year.
 

Salty Hippo

Member
Apr 26, 2014
2,405
1
0
Brazil
Sea of Thieves heavily influenced by Destiny?

You've officially lost it, Salty. That's the most nonsensical thing I've read on this forum this year.
Do you honestly believe Sea of Thieves would exist in its current direction if Destiny never released first to lay the groundwork on this MMO variation that they like to call "Shared-World Game"? Don't be so gullible, you're better than that.
 

CalamityPixel

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,809
0
0
Sea of Thieves heavily influenced by Destiny?

You've officially lost it, Salty. That's the most nonsensical thing I've read on this forum this year.
From a game dev perspective, I guarentee you someone from Rare said to MS when pitching or discussing the game

"Like Destiny but with Pirates"

I bet my left pinky finger that is written on a document somewhere. As soon as they announced it as a shared world game I instantly knew that it would be influenced by Destiny at least on a basic level, not that its a bad thing cause Sea of Thieves looks fantastic. At least Destiny has been mentioned somewhere throughout development to make Spencer excited about it.
 

Poodlestrike

Banned
May 28, 2014
30,358
1
0
Do you honestly believe Sea of Thieves would exist in its current direction if Destiny never released first to lay the groundwork on this MMO variation that they like to call "Shared-World Game"? Don't be so gullible, you're better than that.
This is ridiculous, and part of what I meant when I called you out for over-the-top vitriol.

Sea of Thieves is supposed to be the pirate game, the thing Greg Mayles and the other pirate-heads at Rare have wanted to make since forever. Everything else about it feels like a really natural extension from that first premise.

I would also point out that the game's planned lack of RPG stats and other grinding-friendly features is a point against your comparison.
 

Nightengale

Member
Jun 12, 2013
21,443
0
440
Context is everything, but Destiny has been put in the same breath as Sea of Thieves by Rare themselves.

Granted, any shared-space MMO functionally exist in similar spaces so whether or not there's major influences is a different story.

Google "Destiny" "Sea of Thieves" and you can find several articles on it.

Again... context. It's natural for devs to name titles that immediately draw mental association with.
 

OrbitalBeard

Member
Jun 2, 2013
24,901
4
0
This is ridiculous, and part of what I meant when I called you out for over-the-top vitriol.

Sea of Thieves is supposed to be the pirate game, the thing Greg Mayles and the other pirate-heads at Rare have wanted to make since forever. Everything else about it feels like a really natural extension from that first premise.

I would also point out that the game's planned lack of RPG stats and other grinding-friendly features is a point against your comparison.
I don't doubt what you're saying at all, especially from Rare's perspective,,but I do think it's fair to say that this project wouldn't have been greenlit by MS if games like Destiny weren't a thing. MS desperately wants service games in a similar vein.
 

blakep267

Member
Dec 9, 2013
6,321
2
0
From a game dev perspective, I guarentee you someone from Rare said to MS when pitching or discussing the game

"Like Destiny but with Pirates"

I bet my left pinky finger that is written on a document somewhere. As soon as they announced it as a shared world game I instantly knew that it would be influenced by Destiny at least on a basic level, not that its a bad thing cause Sea of Thieves looks fantastic. At least Destiny has been mentioned somewhere throughout development to make Spencer excited about it.
its closer to games like Ark and other MMO survival type games.
 

Poodlestrike

Banned
May 28, 2014
30,358
1
0
Context is everything, but Destiny has been put in the same breath as Sea of Thieves by Rare themselves.

Granted, any shared-space MMO functionally exist in similar spaces so whether or not there's major influences is a different story.

Google "Destiny" "Sea of Thieves" and you can find several articles on it.

Again... context. It's natural for devs to name titles that immediately draw mental association with.
There's a difference between using a popular title as a point of reference in a description and saying that the game wouldn't exist/would be an entirely different game without the first title.

I don't doubt what you're saying at all,but I do think it's fair to see this project wouldn't have been greenlit if Destiny wasn't a thing. MS desperately wants service games in a similar vein.
I don't doubt that it helped, sure. Again, not what Salty was saying.
 

Nightengale

Member
Jun 12, 2013
21,443
0
440
Even before Destiny, Borderlands 1/2 already proved there is a huge audience for games of that ilk.

What Destiny and The Division proves are that, if successful; these games are golden ticket games for extremely high and long-tail engagement with groups of players.

And that it's still a ripe genre for anyone to go in at the moment.

Even with highly successful games in this space, we haven't yet seen a tipping point like in the MOBA space where the top-two completely eats up all attention and no one else can own a profitable chunk of the genre.

There's a difference between using a popular title as a point of reference in a description and saying that the game wouldn't exist/would be an entirely different game without the first title.
Agree.
 

Poodlestrike

Banned
May 28, 2014
30,358
1
0
Even before Destiny, Borderlands 1/2 already proved there is a huge audience for games of that ilk.

What Destiny and The Division proves are that, if successful; these games are golden ticket games for extremely high and long-tail engagement with groups of players.

And that it's still a ripe genre for anyone to go in at the moment.

Even with highly successful games in this space, we haven't yet seen a tipping point like in the MOBA space where the top-two completely eats up all attention and no one else can own a profitable chunk of the genre.
Those are all games primarily characterized by the loot treadmill, though. If I remember correctly, Sea of Thieves won't even have randomized loot.
 

Salty Hippo

Member
Apr 26, 2014
2,405
1
0
Brazil
I have no idea why we're having this discussion. My point was that SoT follows a highly successful model and that's the reason it got greenlit. It doesn't matter if it's Destiny, Ark or Borderlands. I was talking about Microsoft following market tendencies for many of their games, both released and announced. Which there is no law against btw, and if you read my entire discussion with JINX you will understand why I brought this up.
 

Sydle

Member
Oct 13, 2006
11,662
0
0
Do you honestly believe Sea of Thieves would exist in its current direction if Destiny never released first to lay the groundwork on this MMO variation that they like to call "Shared-World Game"? Don't be so gullible, you're better than that.
Considering that Rare started early prototyping on Sea of Thieves with their game jam in April 2014, months before Destiny released that fall, and the fact that the two games share nothing in common beyond being online multiplayer games, I'd say you're full of shit.

As for it being online and games as a service based, Phil Harrison was appointed over EMEA studios back in early 2012 and his directive was that all his EMEA studios would create games as a service.
 

blakep267

Member
Dec 9, 2013
6,321
2
0
Considering that Rare started early prototyping on Sea of Thieves with their game jam in April 2014, months before Destiny released that fall, and the fact that the two games share nothing in common beyond being online multiplayer games, I'd say you're full of shit.

As for it being online and games as a service based, Phil Harrison was appointed over EMEA studios back in early 2012 and his directive was that all his EMEA studios would create games as a service.
Pretty much. Even something like Fable Legends which shared some similarities with Destiny , began development on 2012. I guess they must've also somehow copied off Destiny with a time machine or something
 

Salty Hippo

Member
Apr 26, 2014
2,405
1
0
Brazil
Considering that Rare started early prototyping on Sea of Thieves in early 2014, months before Destiny released that fall, and the fact that the two games share nothing in common beyond being online multiplayer games, I'd say you're full of shit.

As for it being online and games as a service based, Phil Harrison was appointed over EMEA studios back in early 2012 and his directive was that all his EMEA studios would create games as a service.
How the fuck do you even know that Rare had the same vision they have today right when they STARTED prototyping? And since we're talking about things that don't matter, the Jam happened after KSR was released, as part of their Game Jam. April is Q2, so not really "early 2014". Also, the game was greenlit in November of 2014 after Phil Spencer visited the studio for the pitch meeting, 2 months after Destiny was out.

I mean, fuck. I posted a huge fucking wall of text with a bunch of points and you decided to take one single phrase with one single example and ignore everything else, then completely misinterpret my point, then call me crazy, and even after I clarified (which I didn't even need to do as it was already clear) you're still here insisting on this pointless debate.
 

Sydle

Member
Oct 13, 2006
11,662
0
0
How the fuck do you even know that Rare had the same vision they have today right when they STARTED prototyping? And since we're talking about things that don't matter, the Jam happened in April, after KSR was released, as part of their Game Jam. April is Q2, so not really "early 2014". The game was greenlit in November of 2014 after Phil Spencer visited the studio for the pitch meeting, 2 months after Destiny was out.

I mean, fuck. I posted a huge fucking wall of text with a bunch of points and you decided to take one single phrase with one single example and ignore everything else, then completely misinterpret my point, and even after I clarified (which I didn't even need to do as it was already clear) you're still here insisting on this pointless debate.
Because, no matter how you spin it or try to justify it, what you said is the most ridiculous shit I've ever read in a long time. I get that ranting is your thing, but you could at least keep it grounded.
 

wapplew

Member
Mar 1, 2012
13,776
3
450
I mean, you could describe 99% of the games as chasing trend if you want, even SO and QB fit the bill. Don't see the problem.
 

Salty Hippo

Member
Apr 26, 2014
2,405
1
0
Brazil
Because, no matter how you spin it or try to justify it, what you said is the most ridiculous shit I've ever read in a long time. I get that ranting is your thing, but you could at least keep it grounded.
Saying it borrows heavily from Destiny's model is the most ridiculous shit you've "ever" read in a long time despite articles and gaffers agreeing with the influence, not to mention countless comparisons I've heard over the past 2 years in podcasts and video game coverage in general.

Yeah, it does sound like I'm the one who needs to be more grounded and you're not being hyperbolical at all.
 

Steverulez

Member
Dec 13, 2006
16,951
0
1,150
England
steverulez.co.uk
I mean, you could describe 99% of the games as chasing trend if you want, even SO and QB fit the bill. Don't see the problem.
Back in the late OG Xbox era and early 360 gen I would have said Microsoft, the games they published were big innovators and were leading the pack in a lot of ways, now they seem like they are constantly playing catch up and are missing the mark
 

Bits N Pieces

Member
Jun 9, 2015
6,446
0
0
Sea of Thieves - nothing like it in the marketplace.

Crackdown 3 - innovative cloud tech, not seen done in a game before.

State of Decay 2 - building on an already successful formula this looks to push the genre in new and exciting ways.


Damn MS, always playing it safe with their games, never innovating and always too reliant on Halo, Gears and Forza.

Maybe 2018 they'll actually try.....
 

JlNX

Member
Aug 14, 2016
714
0
215
Much of my "witch hunting" is jest, don't take it so literally. My name is Salty for a reason. My avatar is an angry hippo for a reason. I get more enjoyment out of discussing things in this passionate, overblown way. But I also guess it's my way of responding to people who have been white knighting Phil Spencer since he took over, blaming everything on Mattrick and others. Something I've always disagreed with and have been speaking against for years, while being mocked in the process. I'm not gonna lie, I find some vindication in being maybe right up until this point, but this E3 will paint a more definitive picture. I honestly hope I'm completely, 100% wrong. But don't count on it.

Quick thing about Kinect that I want to get out of the way. It was successful, but it was pure cancer to their following project. Motion was a fad and is, with very few exceptions, completely dead and buried today. The Kinect's success was not worth the ruin of their following console.

About Fries, what does it matter what he does today? I'm just comparing different mentalities. What does even the market matter? Look at Sony. They compete in the exact same market and have been building their brand around diversity during the entire lifespan of the Xbox brand. That's what they did when they were at the top with PS1 and 2 and also what they did when they were struggling with the PS3. Seems to be working pretty well for them today. So don't give me this market excuse. It has changed, but if your brand is strong and people trust you to deliver a bunch of traditional games, they will be there for you and you won't be too affected. If you rely on a cardboard house of 3 declining franchises with little investment outside of that, though... of course you will have some worrying to do.

What's really funny about your market point is that it's Microsoft who has been "adaptating to new market tendencies" for YEARS now. And how has that been working out? First Kinect which killed XB1's launch and message, then the start of an obsession with online multiplayer that still stands today, then a string of things like HEY ASYNCHRONOUS MULTIPLAYER IS A THING NOW WE GOTTA HAVE THAT, so they shove it on the new Fable. Then OH WOW F2P IS ALSO HUGE, so they decide to make that game F2P as well. Then they look at their newly built studio and go SHANGHEIST? CANCEL IT, NEW IP DOESN'T SELL, LET'S BUY THE GEARS IP AND PUT THEM ON THAT INSTEAD AND TURN GEARS INTO A SUCCESSFUL E-SPORTZZZZZZZZZ. Then they look at Scalebound and go HEY MONSTER HUNTER IS HUGE RIGHT LET'S INTERFERE AND FORCE A SHODDY CO-OP DOWN PEOPLE'S THROATS, CALL KAMIYA RIGHT NOW.

I could keep going forever. Rare's new game is heavily influenced by Destiny. Phantom Dust was brought back to life because of its online component, e-sport and microtransaction potential. Crackdown is also having an online focus, to the point that they originally intended to release only the multiplayer first. State of Decay 2 was announced because zombie/survival games are still popular, especially with streamers. Same reason Dead Rising 3 was greenlit, and DR4 was moneyhatted. And speaking of streamers, Microsoft has acquired its own streaming platform to compete with Twitch. They are always reacting, always late to the party, and always failing. But sure, if Ed Fries was overwhelming you with traditional and diverse games today, HE would be the one running the brand into the ground. Okay.

They did do a few great stuff outside of that spectrum. Sunset is awesome, Quantum Break deserves praise for at least trying to do something new in terms of narrative. There has been some good small-budget games like KI and Ori. But these are far more the exception rather than the rule.
I agree about Kinect, you don't need to tell me that. Motion I still think has a space in VR. Kinect's success shouldn't have defined their next project at all, but nor should it have ever existed because of it. It was a smart idea, it's just people at Xbox were stupid enough to force it rather than make it optional. Optional Kinect would not have been a issue.

My point about Ed Fries position was his mentality only found a position in OUYA in the later generations, because it only really works in that android and android based gaming market today. Were triple AAA budgets are lower, create a vast diverse portfolio within a budget is easily achievable. A company were the investment isn't so large per project that a committee is needed to vote on each, only the budget. Compare Sony's portfolio of PS3 exclusives to the PS4, look at the first couple of years of the ps4, look at the numbers of studio's and partnerships around during the PS3 and compare it to now and see it has shrunk because of the market. Sony closing all internal indie development and focusing on a few very large triple AAA games, that have a very long development cycle and budgets due to the market.

The trinity reason for why they don't focus on first party has never worked for me, by the way Forza isn't in decline. Reason it doesn't work is, when you look at the fact they tried to set up new franchises for this generation Sunset, Ryse, Recore, scalebound, Ori and KI with sea of thieves to come. Sunset was a sale failure, as much as people want to say they should have stuck with it, any publisher won't touch a tainted project (project with no marketability, base community or growth.) People will obviously bring up Assassains creed and uncharted 1, two examples set early in the generation with a low install base. Two franchises that were entering a market with a lower amount of people to sell to which would have been account for, an the biggest difference when development costs would have been far far lower.

Ryse was a success at launch in fact MS wanted to buy the IP to continue the franchise. It seems like Armature are still working with MS and Phil has often defended's and sees a lot of promise in it, I think a sequel is very much in the works. Why is that different to Sunset, well far lower budget development time and reviews across the board talked about how much promise it had. The majority of the problems were technical, they can be fixed. Scalebound cancelled, they can't see into the future, every project's a bet and Scalebound should have been a very save one at that. Ori and KI are following the same path as SOD, humble origins only to prove itself and become at AAA sequel. Which I think we will see both of those at E3 this year in the form of bigger sequels. Sea of Thieves has a lot of promise.

Actively right now Microsoft is not relying on the trinity this fall, and has hopes of forming a new trinity in SOD2 to confirm a triple a sequel and it's future as a franchise, Crackdown a IP that can be a massive IP for Microsoft (I think it will overtake Gears) and sea of thieves that they are giving a lot of time and money to allow it to be a franchise. Does Sea of Thieves come out this year I think no but that's another question. But they are getting having Gears/Forza/Halo thrown at them at a time when they are actively pushing back against that stigma.

A obsession with online multiplayer? your trying to lump that in as a adapting to new market strategies, late to the party and always failing. A market Xbox created, a strategy that has been very successful and is the main core image of Xbox and their biggest strength. You add in asynchronous compute to add length to your argument but it makes no point, considering it is not a negative in fact it's only additive. Your denying F2P is a viable market and strategy? don't get me wrong I don't like it being in a Fable game but ironically a head Sony exec being the one to push the focus for that market across all of EMEA MS studios. They look at Black Tusk and see no new franchise, a studio struggling and IP that is part of it's core platform that is on the brink of being third party. They buy the IP ask Black Tusk if they want the oppurtunity to work on a massive IP and to have Rod Fergusson come in and head the studio, two things that answer their problems and avoid them being closed as a failure. Now the coalition is a really accomplished studio under Rod, has the talent to become more as a studio are you saying that was a bad decision? also how is esports a negative? it's not it's additive and a useless part of your argument.

In that Gears point you state "New IP doesn't sell" mimicking what you think MS is saying, yet everything they have done and are doing points against that. The new IP they launched this generation, Ryse, Sunset, Quantum break, Titanfall and Scalebound were not cheap, and in fact they are working probably on their most expensive title right now which they have a lot of believe in which is a new IP. Scalebound had CO-OP since it's very first unveiling and Kamiya has talked about as part of his vision and the design decisions behind it, if your seriously trying to say monster hunter had an affect on Scalebound a series who's success is in Japan. Scalebound was Platinum trying to push back against every label put on it, a new open world RPG with CO-OP far more ambitious and distinct than anything Platinum had made before. You paint CO-OP in a negative light but yet again it's only additive.

While I think everyone coming down on you like a ton of bricks for the Destiny comment is over the top, Sea of thieves was in development before Sea of Thieves released. The idea of Sea of Thieves had been around for a while, destiny is inspired by MMO'S and Sea of thieves is far closer to a living player populated world like WOW than destiny. Especially when you consider that Destiny's key premise is a looter shooter and Sea of Thieves isn't. I absolutely agree that they have looked at Destiny after launch to see what can go wrong in that content structure on console, that is not unique to destiny but MMO's. But they would be stupid not to. Phantom Dust was brought back to life because there was a fanbase, it was a IP with a ton of potential that is unique something that's very rare. Phantom Dusts love doesn't come from it's campaign but it's multiplayer, and yet again esports is additive.
Micro-transaction are constant now due to triple AAA budgets so I don't see that as a reason but rather a necessity to be market viable for any number of reason's. I think Matt Piscella and his collegue did a very good NPD article on it.

Crackdowns online component is because Dave Jones came back on the project and the way he wanted to push the project forward was by using cloud which goes hand in hand with multiplayer, unless you want a online only game to piss people off. The multiplayer was set to come out before hand because people in Xbox probably wanted it out early to prove the cloud and therefore sell console's. Luckily the first party teams have pushed back and have it as a single core release which will help the product in the long term. State of Decay 2 was announced because State of Decay 1 was very successful, reviewed very well and had potential to become the next AAA franchise for Microsoft. In the Zombie survival concept the clear seller is not the zombies but the survival aspect, but the survival aspect that is popular with streamers has evolved past Zombies and is competitive multiplayer not single player. So obviously not because of streamers.

Dead Rising 3 was green lit because it was a successful franchise that was synonyms with Xbox and they had the opportunity to steal it back again as a exclusive with Dead rising 4 very likely being a part of that contract. Do you really think Microsoft money hatted DR4 at the start of development from Capcom, a company that was struggling to fund it's own projects? it feels like a lot of this post is buzzwords with no real reason. Microsoft acquired a streaming platform because one of it's new objectives under Phil is to build the platform the services and the OS and beam lines up with that. They aren't stupid enough to buy beam as a reason to compete with twitch, but a way add value and community to their platform with community being a key focus for them they have talked about.

E3 2016 was the first year since the Xbox one launched were they stopped reacting and made their own path, in the 360 generation everyone was reacting to them so I don't know were you got that from. Your three string of "always reacting, always late to the party and always failing" is the highest level of hyperbole you have put in a post. He wouldn't be overwhelming me with games he would constrained by the market, he also wouldn't have ever be working in the market today has his management style doesn't work on any platform but mobile in todays market. I never said he would run the company into the ground just that he wouldn't fit, he would very likely be in the same position Phil is in today if he was tasked with clearing up Xbox ones mess. What I find weird is that you agree with Ed on every point but his opinion on Phil, that's what I call selective reading.

I'm well aware of your persona, it's hard to tell when a persona is being hyper negative for that persona. It's always great to have passion in your discussion or else what's the point in making it. I think trying to pin anything on Phil when he hasn't even gotten into a full sprint to be able to fall flat on his face, if he ever does hopefully, is far to soon. With Mattrick people can see him jog, run and fall flat on his face while getting back up only to fall on his face again. There is a reason to put blame on Mattrick, theres evidence. I don't know what my avatar says about me, probably Forgotten by Nintendo.

(Saying Quantum break was different is probably the nicest thing that can be said of it unfortunately.)
 

Papacheeks

Junior Member
Jan 30, 2013
5,354
2
385
Watertown, NY
Sea of Thieves - nothing like it in the marketplace.

Crackdown 3 - innovative cloud tech, not seen done in a game before.

State of Decay 2 - building on an already successful formula this looks to push the genre in new and exciting ways.


Damn MS, always playing it safe with their games, never innovating and always too reliant on Halo, Gears and Forza.

Maybe 2018 they'll actually try.....
It's a social game, there are quit a few of those. Hopefully there is more content than just shooting at other ships, repairing your ship, loot.
 

Chris1

Member
Jun 3, 2014
7,706
1
0
It's a social game, there are quit a few of those.
Kind of a silly way to simplify it don't you think?

A game doesn't need to invent a new genre for it to be unique lol

Sea of Thieves - nothing like it in the marketplace.

Crackdown 3 - innovative cloud tech, not seen done in a game before.

State of Decay 2 - building on an already successful formula this looks to push the genre in new and exciting ways.


Damn MS, always playing it safe with their games, never innovating and always too reliant on Halo, Gears and Forza.

Maybe 2018 they'll actually try.....

Agree, QB was also quite innovative aswell with the TV show even though it kinda fell flat on its face and hurt it.

MS is pushing gaming forward this year in innovative ways, saying MS is playing it safe when they have Crackdown 3 coming out in a few month is just strange


I guess I can somewhat agree with saying SOT is a little safe, I mean it's a shared world game aimed at the twitch audience, that's just playing to where the current market is these days so from that perspective it is safe. Dunno, if you came to me and told me to pick a genre that has the chance of selling the most, "shared world twitch bait" would be my response. I wouldn't call the whole pirate theme safe exactly though, but I guess you gotta do something to stand out like Ark did.
 

JlNX

Member
Aug 14, 2016
714
0
215
It's a social game, there are quit a few of those. Hopefully there is more content than just shooting at other ships, repairing your ship, loot.
He means because unlike other games on the market the world is populated by people, even the NPC's are populate by people. Like if you were to take GTA 5 and have all the NPC's be played by players, they went about their roles in a fun way. You can play as a merchant with quests and content design towards that play style even specific ships. There others roles like bounty hunters that would say go after people who kill merchants, there is a lot of other roles and depth to that. There is if you want to know what goings on sign up as a a insider.
 

jryi

Senior Analyst, Fanboy Drivel Research Partners LLC
Jun 11, 2013
710
0
0
Helsinki, Finland
Sea of Thieves - nothing like it in the marketplace.

Crackdown 3 - innovative cloud tech, not seen done in a game before.

State of Decay 2 - building on an already successful formula this looks to push the genre in new and exciting ways.


Damn MS, always playing it safe with their games, never innovating and always too reliant on Halo, Gears and Forza.

Maybe 2018 they'll actually try.....
Well, actually it still has not been seen in a game. Too early to say how innovative it is in reality.
 

JlNX

Member
Aug 14, 2016
714
0
215
Well, actually it still has not been seen in a game. Too early to say how innovative it is in reality.
You don't find a giant jump in physics innovative, especially in the case of crackdown were you can pick up every piece of ruble and use it. The gameplay innovations alone from having a 100% destructible environment and in multiplayer which would be even more challenging. It's very obtuse to use the fact a game that hasn't come out yet hasn't come out yet, and that the demo we saw is some how invalidated when it's clearly part of the game and the cloud part of the game has been finished since E3 last year.
 

MarveI

Member
Apr 8, 2016
520
0
0
Isn't it a bit out of the norm that SOT, CD3, SOD are about to release in less than a couple months and we still know nothing about CD3, SOD and barely seen much from SOT ? I hope the reason is that they're so good they want to surprise people at E3 but it does make me worry.
 
Sep 4, 2015
13,402
1
0
Isn't it a bit out of the norm that SOT, CD3, SOD are about to release in less than a couple months and we still know nothing about CD3, SOD and barely seen much from SOT ? I hope the reason is that they're so good they want to surprise people at E3 but it does make me worry.
Not really. This is how MS usually handles their releases. Gears, Forza, Dead Rising 4, etc..
 

JlNX

Member
Aug 14, 2016
714
0
215
Isn't it a bit out of the norm that SOT, CD3, SOD are about to release in less than a couple months and we still know nothing about CD3, SOD and barely seen much from SOT ? I hope the reason is that they're so good they want to surprise people at E3 but it does make me worry.
I think CD3 and SOD are following their new strategy of unveil and launching quickly after unveil to release. They will probably in the months between E3 and release do a large amount of unveils, ign first and game informer. Their quote about wanting to give their games the time to tell their story at E3 implies to me that they want to do a fallout 4 deep dive unveil for each game. Sea of thieves is probably because it's coming out in Q1 Q2 2018. Drifting Spirit also brings up a great point.
 

Papacheeks

Junior Member
Jan 30, 2013
5,354
2
385
Watertown, NY
Kind of a silly way to simplify it don't you think?

A game doesn't need to invent a new genre for it to be unique lol




Agree, QB was also quite innovative aswell with the TV show even though it kinda fell flat on its face and hurt it.

MS is pushing gaming forward this year in innovative ways, saying MS is playing it safe when they have Crackdown 3 coming out in a few month is just strange


I guess I can somewhat agree with saying SOT is a little safe, I mean it's a shared world game aimed at the twitch audience, that's just playing to where the current market is these days so from that perspective it is safe. Dunno, if you came to me and told me to pick a genre that has the chance of selling the most, "shared world twitch bait" would be my response. I wouldn't call the whole pirate theme safe exactly though, but I guess you gotta do something to stand out like Ark did.
Go look at a gameplay video for me. It's a giant empty nice looking sea, with only you and your crew populating it. Fighting,looting other people.

That's about it. I'v watched enough to see that the game is something of a social experiment and only people who are into those like minecraft and the likes or who like streaming them will be interested for the long haul with this game.

I will await and see how Rare handles content as looting chest's and shooting ships will get old in an empty sea.
 

blakep267

Member
Dec 9, 2013
6,321
2
0
Isn't it a bit out of the norm that SOT, CD3, SOD are about to release in less than a couple months and we still know nothing about CD3, SOD and barely seen much from SOT ? I hope the reason is that they're so good they want to surprise people at E3 but it does make me worry.
Not really. Red dead, Battlefront, CODWW2 haven't really had in depth reveals and they are all releasing this fall. We already know what kind of games Crackdown and state of decay are. They aren't new ips
 
Feb 18, 2013
10,735
4
460
Sea of Thieves - nothing like it in the marketplace.

Crackdown 3 - innovative cloud tech, not seen done in a game before.

State of Decay 2 - building on an already successful formula this looks to push the genre in new and exciting ways.


Damn MS, always playing it safe with their games, never innovating and always too reliant on Halo, Gears and Forza.

Maybe 2018 they'll actually try.....
Why not let one of the halo, gears and Forza guys do something fresh or is that totally out of the question indefinitely as it sure feels like it at times and quite frankly I have never known a base like it where maybe wanting something different is frowned upon.

Let's see Crackdown 3 then, there was supposed to be a beta last summer, it was cancelled and we haven't heard a peep since. Don't get me wrong, I would love you to be right in what you say but they have been far too quiet on the most important aspect of any platform and considering how vocal they have been about backwards compatibility games, controllers and now Scorpio, I have seen other platforms slaughtered for less by gamers and the media.
 

m23

Member
Dec 19, 2011
6,381
0
0
Toronto
Isn't it a bit out of the norm that SOT, CD3, SOD are about to release in less than a couple months and we still know nothing about CD3, SOD and barely seen much from SOT ? I hope the reason is that they're so good they want to surprise people at E3 but it does make me worry.
I don't even think SoT is this year.
 

JlNX

Member
Aug 14, 2016
714
0
215
Go look at a gameplay video for me. It's a giant empty nice looking sea, with only you and your crew populating it. Fighting,looting other people.

That's about it. I'v watched enough to see that the game is something of a social experiment and only people who are into those like minecraft and the likes or who like streaming them will be interested for the long haul with this game.

I will await and see how Rare handles content as looting chest's and shooting ships will get old in an empty sea.
You mean gameplay that's under NDA, or you haven't watched any recent gameplay videos at all. Your knowledge of the game is clearly lacking.

"it's a giant empty nice looking sea" sure just like the Witcher 3 is a giant empty field. Both are maps with quests, loot, areas and enemies.

"with only you and your crew populating it." wrong again, in fact you wouldn't need to be under NDA to no that. You could have watched one of their other videos from a view months ago to know that. In fact if you had watched the E3 video you would see that.

"looting other people" you steal their gold that's about it there is no traditional looting like division or other online world games.

It's nothing like Minecraft, in fact in that case any game with CO-OP is like Minecraft (just as large of a oversimplification as yours.) If your reasons for it being a social experiment is it takes a community driven approach to design, then I guess Blizzard is a group of psychologists. Sure except SOT has brought in a group of people who normally don't like online games just like destiny did, but sure only the streaming and Minecraft community.

Well you don't have to wait it's been more than that since E3 2016, but sure you watched some gameplay. You only have to look to my other reply to you above to see another large aspect of the game. I don't think you could have written a more ill informed post about the game, like I said signing up to be a insider would help.

Sorry if I couldn't give anymore information NDA's are fun.
 

Poodlestrike

Banned
May 28, 2014
30,358
1
0
If y'all check that Sea of Thieves closed beta thread there's more impressions and also a link to a gamer tag exchange on discord (under email tags, look for my post). Of course I assume that only insiders will participate in the discussion side of such an exchange, gaffers being notably obsessed with honor and shame.
 

Bits N Pieces

Member
Jun 9, 2015
6,446
0
0
Never heard of this before and though it does look interesting it seems to have a focus on naval gunplay, not exactly what SoT is trying to do.

Blackwake is match-based, playing out in simple faction vs faction and/or objectives in a variety of game modes.
I'll still plant my flag and say that SoT is doing its own unique thing even if there are a handful of games out there that share similar hooks or mechanics.
 

Papacheeks

Junior Member
Jan 30, 2013
5,354
2
385
Watertown, NY
You mean gameplay that's under NDA, or you haven't watched any recent gameplay videos at all. Your knowledge of the game is clearly lacking.

"it's a giant empty nice looking sea" sure just like the Witcher 3 is a giant empty field. Both are maps with quests, loot, areas and enemies.

"with only you and your crew populating it." wrong again, in fact you wouldn't need to be under NDA to no that. You could have watched one of their other videos from a view months ago to know that. In fact if you had watched the E3 video you would see that.

"looting other people" you steal their gold that's about it there is no traditional looting like division or other online world games.

It's nothing like Minecraft, in fact in that case any game with CO-OP is like Minecraft (just as large of a oversimplification as yours.) If your reasons for it being a social experiment is it takes a community driven approach to design, then I guess Blizzard is a group of psychologists. Sure except SOT has brought in a group of people who normally don't like online games just like destiny did, but sure only the streaming and Minecraft community.

Well you don't have to wait it's been more than that since E3 2016, but sure you watched some gameplay. You only have to look to my other reply to you above to see another large aspect of the game. I don't think you could have written a more ill informed post about the game, like I said signing up to be a insider would help.

Sorry if I couldn't give anymore information NDA's are fun.
So this is not how the game plays?

Or this?


Or this which is the latest dev diary of the game that shows me nothing new I haven't already seen.

Unless there's way more to the game they haven't shown. And if so then it's not good to have any footage of it for a game releasing this year.

All I'v seen for NPC's are skeletons you shoot on certain islands when your looking for specific treasure that might be a quest. And things like mermaids which are mainly used as warp points to get you back to land if your ship sinks.

If they are holding a bunch back then they have done a shit job showing this game.
 

Salty Hippo

Member
Apr 26, 2014
2,405
1
0
Brazil
I agree about Kinect, you don't need to tell me that. Motion I still think has a space in VR. Kinect's success shouldn't have defined their next project at all, but nor should it have ever existed because of it. It was a smart idea, it's just people at Xbox were stupid enough to force it rather than make it optional. Optional Kinect would not have been a issue.

My point about Ed Fries position was his mentality only found a position in OUYA in the later generations, because it only really works in that android and android based gaming market today. Were triple AAA budgets are lower, create a vast diverse portfolio within a budget is easily achievable. A company were the investment isn't so large per project that a committee is needed to vote on each, only the budget. Compare Sony's portfolio of PS3 exclusives to the PS4, look at the first couple of years of the ps4, look at the numbers of studio's and partnerships around during the PS3 and compare it to now and see it has shrunk because of the market. Sony closing all internal indie development and focusing on a few very large triple AAA games, that have a very long development cycle and budgets due to the market.

The trinity reason for why they don't focus on first party has never worked for me, by the way Forza isn't in decline. Reason it doesn't work is, when you look at the fact they tried to set up new franchises for this generation Sunset, Ryse, Recore, scalebound, Ori and KI with sea of thieves to come. Sunset was a sale failure, as much as people want to say they should have stuck with it, any publisher won't touch a tainted project (project with no marketability, base community or growth.) People will obviously bring up Assassains creed and uncharted 1, two examples set early in the generation with a low install base. Two franchises that were entering a market with a lower amount of people to sell to which would have been account for, an the biggest difference when development costs would have been far far lower.

Ryse was a success at launch in fact MS wanted to buy the IP to continue the franchise. It seems like Armature are still working with MS and Phil has often defended's and sees a lot of promise in it, I think a sequel is very much in the works. Why is that different to Sunset, well far lower budget development time and reviews across the board talked about how much promise it had. The majority of the problems were technical, they can be fixed. Scalebound cancelled, they can't see into the future, every project's a bet and Scalebound should have been a very save one at that. Ori and KI are following the same path as SOD, humble origins only to prove itself and become at AAA sequel. Which I think we will see both of those at E3 this year in the form of bigger sequels. Sea of Thieves has a lot of promise.

Actively right now Microsoft is not relying on the trinity this fall, and has hopes of forming a new trinity in SOD2 to confirm a triple a sequel and it's future as a franchise, Crackdown a IP that can be a massive IP for Microsoft (I think it will overtake Gears) and sea of thieves that they are giving a lot of time and money to allow it to be a franchise. Does Sea of Thieves come out this year I think no but that's another question. But they are getting having Gears/Forza/Halo thrown at them at a time when they are actively pushing back against that stigma.

A obsession with online multiplayer? your trying to lump that in as a adapting to new market strategies, late to the party and always failing. A market Xbox created, a strategy that has been very successful and is the main core image of Xbox and their biggest strength. You add in asynchronous compute to add length to your argument but it makes no point, considering it is not a negative in fact it's only additive. Your denying F2P is a viable market and strategy? don't get me wrong I don't like it being in a Fable game but ironically a head Sony exec being the one to push the focus for that market across all of EMEA MS studios. They look at Black Tusk and see no new franchise, a studio struggling and IP that is part of it's core platform that is on the brink of being third party. They buy the IP ask Black Tusk if they want the oppurtunity to work on a massive IP and to have Rod Fergusson come in and head the studio, two things that answer their problems and avoid them being closed as a failure. Now the coalition is a really accomplished studio under Rod, has the talent to become more as a studio are you saying that was a bad decision? also how is esports a negative? it's not it's additive and a useless part of your argument.

In that Gears point you state "New IP doesn't sell" mimicking what you think MS is saying, yet everything they have done and are doing points against that. The new IP they launched this generation, Ryse, Sunset, Quantum break, Titanfall and Scalebound were not cheap, and in fact they are working probably on their most expensive title right now which they have a lot of believe in which is a new IP. Scalebound had CO-OP since it's very first unveiling and Kamiya has talked about as part of his vision and the design decisions behind it, if your seriously trying to say monster hunter had an affect on Scalebound a series who's success is in Japan. Scalebound was Platinum trying to push back against every label put on it, a new open world RPG with CO-OP far more ambitious and distinct than anything Platinum had made before. You paint CO-OP in a negative light but yet again it's only additive.

While I think everyone coming down on you like a ton of bricks for the Destiny comment is over the top, Sea of thieves was in development before Sea of Thieves released. The idea of Sea of Thieves had been around for a while, destiny is inspired by MMO'S and Sea of thieves is far closer to a living player populated world like WOW than destiny. Especially when you consider that Destiny's key premise is a looter shooter and Sea of Thieves isn't. I absolutely agree that they have looked at Destiny after launch to see what can go wrong in that content structure on console, that is not unique to destiny but MMO's. But they would be stupid not to. Phantom Dust was brought back to life because there was a fanbase, it was a IP with a ton of potential that is unique something that's very rare. Phantom Dusts love doesn't come from it's campaign but it's multiplayer, and yet again esports is additive.
Micro-transaction are constant now due to triple AAA budgets so I don't see that as a reason but rather a necessity to be market viable for any number of reason's. I think Matt Piscella and his collegue did a very good NPD article on it.

Crackdowns online component is because Dave Jones came back on the project and the way he wanted to push the project forward was by using cloud which goes hand in hand with multiplayer, unless you want a online only game to piss people off. The multiplayer was set to come out before hand because people in Xbox probably wanted it out early to prove the cloud and therefore sell console's. Luckily the first party teams have pushed back and have it as a single core release which will help the product in the long term. State of Decay 2 was announced because State of Decay 1 was very successful, reviewed very well and had potential to become the next AAA franchise for Microsoft. In the Zombie survival concept the clear seller is not the zombies but the survival aspect, but the survival aspect that is popular with streamers has evolved past Zombies and is competitive multiplayer not single player. So obviously not because of streamers.

Dead Rising 3 was green lit because it was a successful franchise that was synonyms with Xbox and they had the opportunity to steal it back again as a exclusive with Dead rising 4 very likely being a part of that contract. Do you really think Microsoft money hatted DR4 at the start of development from Capcom, a company that was struggling to fund it's own projects? it feels like a lot of this post is buzzwords with no real reason. Microsoft acquired a streaming platform because one of it's new objectives under Phil is to build the platform the services and the OS and beam lines up with that. They aren't stupid enough to buy beam as a reason to compete with twitch, but a way add value and community to their platform with community being a key focus for them they have talked about.

E3 2016 was the first year since the Xbox one launched were they stopped reacting and made their own path, in the 360 generation everyone was reacting to them so I don't know were you got that from. Your three string of "always reacting, always late to the party and always failing" is the highest level of hyperbole you have put in a post. He wouldn't be overwhelming me with games he would constrained by the market, he also wouldn't have ever be working in the market today has his management style doesn't work on any platform but mobile in todays market. I never said he would run the company into the ground just that he wouldn't fit, he would very likely be in the same position Phil is in today if he was tasked with clearing up Xbox ones mess. What I find weird is that you agree with Ed on every point but his opinion on Phil, that's what I call selective reading.

I'm well aware of your persona, it's hard to tell when a persona is being hyper negative for that persona. It's always great to have passion in your discussion or else what's the point in making it. I think trying to pin anything on Phil when he hasn't even gotten into a full sprint to be able to fall flat on his face, if he ever does hopefully, is far to soon. With Mattrick people can see him jog, run and fall flat on his face while getting back up only to fall on his face again. There is a reason to put blame on Mattrick, theres evidence. I don't know what my avatar says about me, probably Forgotten by Nintendo.

(Saying Quantum break was different is probably the nicest thing that can be said of it unfortunately.)
I actually agree with much of what you said here. We're on the same page about several things. There are some points I made that I think you didn't understand completely (maybe I worded it poorly), a few things I feel you didn't defend very well, and other things you did defend very well. I'm not gonna go over every little point again, but this has been a good discussion. All we can now is wait for E3.
 

JlNX

Member
Aug 14, 2016
714
0
215
I actually agree with much of what you said here. We're on the same page about several things. There are some points I made that I think you didn't understand completely (maybe I worded it poorly), a few things I feel you didn't defend very well, and other things you did defend very well. I'm not gonna go over every little point again, but this has been a good discussion. All we can now is wait for E3.
I look forward to E3 hopefully it's positive rather than negative, probably middling. They are probably going to fuck up in ways we thought they would do well in and do well in things we thought they would fuck up and then our conversation would be invalidated. Oh predictions aren't they fun :)
 

PanicFreak

Member
May 10, 2013
5,561
1
0
In the embrace of a wind hug.
The trinity reason for why they don't focus on first party has never worked for me, by the way Forza isn't in decline. Reason it doesn't work is, when you look at the fact they tried to set up new franchises for this generation Sunset, Ryse, Recore, scalebound, Ori and KI with sea of thieves to come. Sunset was a sale failure, as much as people want to say they should have stuck with it, any publisher won't touch a tainted project (project with no marketability, base community or growth.) People will obviously bring up Assassains creed and uncharted 1, two examples set early in the generation with a low install base. Two franchises that were entering a market with a lower amount of people to sell to which would have been account for, an the biggest difference when development costs would have been far far lower.
Those games both went on to sell 5 million copies or more. Assassin's Creed sold more than 7 million copies. If Sunset Overdrive sold 5 million copies, a sequel would have already been announced.
 

MarveI

Member
Apr 8, 2016
520
0
0
I think CD3 and SOD are following their new strategy of unveil and launching quickly after unveil to release. They will probably in the months between E3 and release do a large amount of unveils, ign first and game informer. Their quote about wanting to give their games the time to tell their story at E3 implies to me that they want to do a fallout 4 deep dive unveil for each game. Sea of thieves is probably because it's coming out in Q1 Q2 2018. Drifting Spirit also brings up a great point.
Honestly that's the best way to go about it. Up until a year ago they kept showing their games YEARS in advance and imo has done more harm than good as opposed to releasing first footage months prior to release. Forza Horizon 3 is the best example. Probably my fav MS E3 game announcement for the past couple years. The best experiences are usually when you least expect them.

I don't even think SoT is this year.
I might be totally wrong here but wasn't SoT supposed to release first quarter of 2017 ? Or am I confusing it with another game.
 

Chris1

Member
Jun 3, 2014
7,706
1
0
Honestly that's the best way to go about it. Up until a year ago they kept showing their games YEARS in advance and imo has done more harm than good as opposed to releasing first footage months prior to release. Forza Horizon 3 is the best example. Probably my fav MS E3 game announcement for the past couple years. The best experiences are usually when you least expect them.



I might be totally wrong here but wasn't SoT supposed to release first quarter of 2017 ? Or am I confusing it with another game.
Was supposed to release holiday 2016
 

JlNX

Member
Aug 14, 2016
714
0
215
Those games both went on to sell 5 million copies or more. Assassin's Creed sold more than 7 million copies. If Sunset Overdrive sold 5 million copies, a sequel would have already been announced.
Oh definitely, I meant more that at the start of a generation budgets are lower than at the end. I bring up uncharted 1 and assassins creed 1 because they are the most common ones brought up to say why a franchise has potential wether I agree with the point of them being used or not. I believe uncharted drake fortune sold 2.6 million copies 2-3 years after release don't know about assassins creed.
 

Papo Swing

Member
Apr 3, 2017
630
0
0
Sea of Thieves - nothing like it in the marketplace.

Crackdown 3 - innovative cloud tech, not seen done in a game before.

State of Decay 2 - building on an already successful formula this looks to push the genre in new and exciting ways.


Damn MS, always playing it safe with their games, never innovating and always too reliant on Halo, Gears and Forza.

Maybe 2018 they'll actually try.....
Come on man in the beginning of 2017 we've received a lot more from the competitors, Sony and Nintedo.

I am going to eventually buy all 3 games you mention, along with the Scorpio and Forza, but come one those games are not in the same league as what we've seen on PS4 and even Switch. None of those are GOTY content, maybe Sea of Thieves if it revolutionizes gaming in some way, if not they are all going to be solid fun, but nothing amazing.

BOTW is a GOTY material game as is Horizon and Persona( for some). Other than that there has been Gravity Rush, Ni-oh, Mario KArt 8 re-releasing soon.

My X1 has not been turned on at all this year and that is sad since IMO the MS hardware is the best. If it only had the games to back it up.

MS is playing safe or just doesn't have the games yet. I truly hope this changes in E3 this year and we get new and soon to come games other than these 3 and Forza/Halo/GoW

edit: whoops totally forgot about some of the indie or other games I am happily waiting for like Cuphead, but When is that or the other releasing?