Not really, as the original halo wars flopped.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Obsidian on why their Microsoft published XB1 RPG Stormlands got cancelled
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Not really, as the original halo wars flopped.
Trogdor1123
Member
No, you are putting words into my mouth to make argument for yourself. I just said I would expect companies to make games where they make money to ensure that they remain in the market. The level of risk they assume is their choice. This may mean super risky games have lower budgets and safer ones have larger. This puts every game in at a chance to make money. Then iterations come from that in whatever way makes sense. Risk shouldn't be discarded, it should be managed carefully
lol.
Would love to see EA/Activision/Ubisoft/T2 going "Yeah, fuck our investors".
With the exception of the greatest game ever made, Tetris.
I feel like the quote is relevant, even if the game in discussion pre-dates it.
yellow submarine
Member
Just the increasing amount of business ignorance on GAF makes me sigh every year. These are multi-million dollar budgets we're talking about, not some kickstarter $500 funded stuff that's getting gutted by an evil man behind a screen or something.
No, all we know is that the concept basically turned into Tyranny.
Sony stubbornly backs titles like The Last Guardian which cannot possibly ever recoup its budget, and they're handing a black check to Kojima for a game that they also will probably never turn a profit on. Gravity Rush also seems financially suspect.
Nintendo funds games like Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2, Codename STEAM, the whole Xenoblade series, and really countless niche titles that are all probably big money losers.
Microsoft does not do this. You can debate the merits of that, but I think they are objectively more cautious and conservative than the other first parties and quicker to give up on anything that doesn't seem like a sure thing.
Nintendo funds games like Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2, Codename STEAM, the whole Xenoblade series, and really countless niche titles that are all probably big money losers.
Microsoft does not do this. You can debate the merits of that, but I think they are objectively more cautious and conservative than the other first parties and quicker to give up on anything that doesn't seem like a sure thing.
Considering I don't really know the majority of this story (and one side is completely unspoken for) all I can say is "interesting". MS needs to strengthen it's exclusive stable for sure but I don't know which games were pulled for a good reason and which ones would have been a hit. I wouldn't be surprised if this would have turned out good considering the dev.
They paid for Sunset Overdrive.
Outrun
Member
That sounds like it also...
Yup, Microsoft invested alot in various IP's, developers, and Japanese games with the original Xbox and Xbox 360. Most of them flopped and even with various high profile Japanese developers creating new IP's with Microsoft they were unable to crack the Japanese market. I do agree that Microsoft is wasting some opportunities by sitting on IP's that could turn a profit if done right (Perfect Dark/Conker/other Rare IP's). But understandably Microsoft doesn't want to throw around blank cheques to every developer due to past flops.
Outrun
Member
MS is doomed though...
malboroking
Banned
More like someone who understands the realities of the cost of hiring some of the most intelligent people to produce games in some of the moSt expensive parts of the world to live in. Everyone loves to blame it on mismanagement when they don't understand high level video game development has shitty pay for an extremely high level of technical ability in parts of the world that are expensive ad shot to live in. I'm talking people making 70-80k a year when they could be working at Amazon for 150k+ a year because they are passionate about their job.
Then you get 80 percent of the public complaining that 60 dollars is just too much to pay for a game in 2016 when a game released on 1993 adjusted for inflation would cost 160 dollars plus. Why people even bother to work in the video game industry us a fucking riddle to me.
This is lost on so many people its not funny.
FinaruDensetsu
Member
I definitely get that. By definition, if it's considered a risk obviously the ones that end up being successful are the minority, or else we wouldn't call it a "risk". Businesses sometimes take risks, but again more often than not, they'll choose the safe choice.
Scalebound never looked good in any of it's reveals which is very problematic given that reveals usually show off the very best parts of the game, and often hides some of the weaker parts. What was shown looked like the "bad" parts of a game, namely the repetitive and boring nature of the combat, which for a game like that was basically everything. Cancelling that made sense from a business perspective. You can never say never, but I think that's about as close as it could get to a straight out stinker.
As for the Obsidian game, nobody saw hair nor hide of that game. We literally have no idea about the quality. To second guess people who had probably seen the game from concept art to whatever they had 7 months in, is kind of ridiculous in my opinion. I'm not saying the game was good or bad, but it's likely the people at MS who were in charge of this knew better than us, wouldn't you agree?
Exactly any good project needs this.
Absolutely disgusting.jpg
Anyway, at least we got Pillars and Tyranny out of this whole fiasco :\
Overall I'd say it's great. It has some flaws, but it gets some things amazingly right. I'd heartly recommend it to anyone who liked Pillars or CRPGs in general.
LordRaptor
Member
Some Nobody
Junior Member
Eh. Not the last game MS would cancel. They definitely take risks tho---MS has had quite a few first-party titles this gen, they've just had the unfortunate luck of canceling so many high-profile games. I think Sea of Thieves is safe, though.
I think that the quoted budget for the first Gears was manipulated by splitting off all of the Unreal 3 engine costs. So basically, it was $12M after they got their engine (and probably a lot of assets) working. Epic gets to show off an amazing looking game for the time and quote a really reasonable price to those looking to license their game engine.
Gears 2 and 3 were probably more honest price tags for a game of that level.
gaming_noob
Member
You can make a point without labeling or name calling, you know...
Nightmare452
Member
If this is the case, and much as I dislike the cancellation of Scalebound, it seems it was indeed never gonna be profitable, so as a business decision, MS is in the right.
joecanada
Member
although this is quite true and possibly even smart I can almost guarantee that Sony didn't want to make TLG, maybe Shenmue.... that particular e3 looked very much like a company trying to win consumers over not just looking at bottom dollar.
p.s. - it appears to have worked.
Except the games they funded for launch were mostly trash.
It is MS's money so they can do whatever they want with them.
However, sometimes it is best to lose some on order to win something else. Having a prominent RPG developer make an exclusive RPG for your gaming environment might not make money but it would definitely gain some prestige.
It is not like if their Obsidian funding would have made the XB department go broke or something.
MS should have dared.
However, sometimes it is best to lose some on order to win something else. Having a prominent RPG developer make an exclusive RPG for your gaming environment might not make money but it would definitely gain some prestige.
It is not like if their Obsidian funding would have made the XB department go broke or something.
MS should have dared.
It's not a question of how it was positioned or what the quality of the game was, don't take this as a criticism. I've still got my day one ruber armpatch from the LE.
1 million copies of a game in a whole year of sales is probably coming close to only just breaking even.
If Halo Wars had have been considered a great financial success, then we woudn't have had to wait 8 years for a sequel.
That makes sense. So the risks are just higher these days. Coupled with the Xbox division being a bit back on their heels.
He can't.
intheinbetween
Member
ehrm what about D4, Sunset Overdrive, Recore, Ori, among others?
Good points, and calling out Crackdown here, is it not the biggest technical advancement of this gen? If they could pull it off I mean. I hope they do. I always wanted to see a Battlefield game with deeper destruction. Not that it will if this works out, but you know.
He acts the same way in all the threads I've seen him in. Got that snarky snark.
Had nothing to do with it's sales. You have to look at how Microsoft's focus changed to Kinect and with Ensemble being shutdown after the game was completed they had no internal studios to handle a sequel. 343 Industries was just starting up and beginning work on Halo 4 in 2009 aswell which meant nobody to oversee development. So yeah, of course a Halo Wars sequel was never top priority 8 years ago.
Some Nobody
Junior Member
This is what stopped me from snapping on MS. I realized they've taken chances but none of them have panned out really.
Ori is a real success tho. Critic and sales wise.
Fredrik
Member
Maybe they're focusing on som secret projects for a true Scorpio unveil at E3?
Thebeardofknowledge
Banned
truth hurt ?
how many games did they cancel this gen ?
From what we know they are also interfering in the process a lot and they are forcing things that the developers didn't intend thus driving the cost up only to tell them it is too expensive after demanding things they want.