This is a somewhat disingenous statement based on what that RTS is actually called.
Not really, as the original halo wars flopped.
This is a somewhat disingenous statement based on what that RTS is actually called.
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 carefullySo you just want sequels is what you're saying?
I'm glad we have Sony putting out games like Until Dawn and The Last Guardian, and Nintendo reinventing Zelda.
Awe did I hurt your plastic box ?
Mircosoft is a shit publisher this generation plain and simple. If you are a pub chasing nothing but pure profit/ next big franchise only then you're in the wrong fucking business.
With the exception of the greatest game ever made, Tetris.Every game you've ever enjoyed is a product of capitalism.
Then you get posts like this. A quote from last week attached to a canceled game from 3 years ago.
lol.
Would love to see EA/Activision/Ubisoft/T2 going "Yeah, fuck our investors".
is there any leaked footage of this game ?
Not really, as the original halo wars flopped.
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.
No it didn't. It wasn't a huge blockbuster like the mainline Halo games, but it still sold well over a million copies in it's first month and is still the fastest selling console RTS game of all time. It was also critically well received.Not really, as the original halo wars flopped.
Champion also translates to "someone with sufficient leadership/influence at the publisher side who are willing to put their neck on the line to carry a mismanaged/over-budget project they believe in to the finish line."
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.Serious question as the collective memory here is much better than my own. Did MS take more risks in the past? Have they just become more conservative due to their position vs. the PS4 these days?
Serious question as the collective memory here is much better than my own. Did MS take more risks in the past? Have they just become more conservative due to their position vs. the PS4 these days?
Anybody check MS financials? Software was up this quarter... Must be doing something right?
Champion also translates to "someone with sufficient leadership/influence at the publisher side who are willing to put their neck on the line to carry a mismanaged/over-budget project they believe in to the finish line."
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.
Some of the all time most successful games ever made were at one time in line to be cancelled. Sometimes taking a risk does pay off, fighting that the audience will enjoy the product even if the suits don't understand why.
It's never simple and decisions are never made lightly but things like "crap reveals" are things only the most intense fans get worked up over, not those who make business decisions.
Champion also translates to "someone with sufficient leadership/influence at the publisher side who are willing to put their neck on the line to carry a mismanaged/over-budget project they believe in to the finish line."
Serious question as the collective memory here is much better than my own. Did MS take more risks in the past? Have they just become more conservative due to their position vs. the PS4 these days?
Bethesda should have just bought Obsidian years ago. Fuck it, have them making off-year Elder Scrolls and Fallout games like Treyarch did with Call of Duty.
How did Tyranny end up turning out?
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?
Think all of them did take more "risks" back in the day. As games were alot cheaper to develop. The first Gears budget was 12 million 2 and 3 were already 5 times more then that and for example Gears 4 is over 100 million.
Xbox defense force activate
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.Between this and Scalebound, it seems Microsoft will only publish games that will be a guaranteed money maker.
It's almost as if they're running a business or something.
One game cancelled, the other get funded. It's not like MS studio sit on all the creative funding and do nothing about it.
No it didn't. It wasn't a huge blockbuster like the mainline Halo games, but it still sold well over a million copies in it's first month and is still the fastest selling console RTS game of all time. It was also critically well received.
Think all of them did take more "risks" back in the day. As games were alot cheaper to develop. The first Gears budget was 12 million 2 and 3 were already 5 times more then that and for example Gears 4 is over 100 million.
He can't.You can make a point without labeling or name calling, you know...
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.
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.Tell me a publisher that's taking a bigger risk than them this year?
A RTS game for console, Sea of Thieves, and Crackdown 3, a game which is banking on a entire new tech, and it's a sequel to the second game which was made in one year and bombed sales and critics wise.
And they had Scalebound, which was an open world action rpg with coop, something no one else have done yet.
Yeah, Scalebound was cancelled, but you can't say it wasn't risky to invest on that game, or others.
He acts the same way in all the threads I've seen him in. Got that snarky snark.You can make a point without labeling or name calling, you know...
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.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.
ehrm what about D4, Sunset Overdrive, Recore, Ori, among others?
This is what stopped me from snapping on MS. I realized they've taken chances but none of them have panned out really.
Maybe they're focusing on som secret projects for a true Scorpio unveil at E3?Well, I'm curious to know wath MS will show this year, because seems the exclusive lineup is increasingly poor.
Got to have that one sided "Fuck Microsoft" discussion. Might as well go to Twitter and live in the PlaySation Nation echo chamber.
Given the speed with which those who love to hate Microsoft swoop in on ANY Microsoft related thread, it's not completely unsurprising. You people are relentless in your pursuit to tear down this corporate identity that doesn't care for you in order to better the image of another corporate identity that doesn't care for you.
Coming from you of all people?
You can make a point without labeling or name calling, you know...
He can't.
lol.
Would love to see EA/Activision/Ubisoft/T2 going "Yeah, fuck our investors".
Maybe we should just trust MS to know better on this one? Seeing as how none of us have even seen this game? I mean even with Scalebound when all of us saw how crap the reveals were and MS's decision was still questioned, I guess I shouldn't expect that from people.