Support NeoGAF

[Panajev2001a]

doesnt matter what Sony did they did it half assed with the pro and it wasn't as powerful as they promised,
as for the X its a stop gap till next gen and still the most powerful console and best place to play multiples.

Look, you can throw PR statements at this all night, but you are. It making a case at all.
Half assed? Based on what actual metric? Out of all we know it is a competent and modern design.

Not as powerful as they promised? Based on what promise or what data? Nobody said or promised 4K in all games, neither MS nor Sony deliver 4K in all games. Does MS deliver 4K in more games yes, does it put the other console to shame? No. Saying the opposite is the same as saying Xbox 360 is a shitty design because the PS4 outclasses it specs wise... once you refuse to acknowledge that raising the price and delaying the HW can get you better specs... well one extra year... two extra years what is a few more years ?

It is fine if you like the Xbox One X, it is the most powerful console out of the two. Not sure what you are trying to argue and with whom imaginary enemy wise.

 

[Dabaus]

Yeah, its all good when Sony buys up studios or gets timed exclusives.

I suggested sony buy studios that have a very long history with the and their games sell very well on. In kojimas case to the 90th percentile.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Look, you can throw PR statements at this all night, but you are. It making a case at all.
Half assed? Based on what actual metric? Out of all we know it is a competent and modern design.

Not as powerful as they promised? Based on what promise or what data? Nobody said or promised 4K in all games, neither MS nor Sony deliver 4K in all games. Does MS deliver 4K in more games yes, does it put the other console to shame? No. Saying the opposite is the same as saying Xbox 360 is a shitty design because the PS4 outclasses it specs wise... once you refuse to acknowledge that raising the price and delaying the HW can get you better specs... well one extra year... two extra years what is a few more years ?

It is fine if you like the Xbox One X, it is the most powerful console out of the two. Not sure what you are trying to argue and with whom imaginary enemy wise.

Sony promoted it as a 4k machine and it doesn't even have a 4k drive. Not only do most games not even hit native 4k (hardly any), the fact it can't even play 4k movies or UHD discs makes even odder.

And for core gamers who follow news, you had those times Mark Cerny blabbing about Pro's 4.2TF really being 8.4TF if you double it as half step calculations, which makes it higher number than X's straight up 6TF.

 

[Panajev2001a]

They also laid off a bunch of people from their Santa Monica Studio. So even the employees responsible for money banking God of War gets the axe.

https://www.giantbomb.com/sie-santa...nica-hit-with-layoffs-cancels-new-ip-1473356/

Sony Santa Monica hit with layoffs; cancels new IP.


They also stopped first party games for Vita after only a few years. By early 2015, it had already been stopped, but they didn't tell anyone until then. If they were pro-gamers, they would have told Vita gamers a year earlier (or more), they were ditching portable first party support and putting it all into PS4.

https://ca.ign.com/articles/2015/10/23/sony-confirms-its-stopped-first-party-vita-development

SONY CONFIRMS IT'S STOPPED FIRST-PARTY VITA DEVELOPMENT

Pro gamer does not mean sunsetting a platform earlier than it should and forking over third party developers that, at least in some territories, are still making money releasing games (to this day) by dooming and shaming the platform (which overall launched in a better state and was pushed for more years than Wii U was IMHO). I fail to see how PS Vita was done by a non pro gamer for-profit corporation... I do see people celebrating good news in threads without demonising or ridiculing the competition whether it is winnning by a landslide or not though... oh well sorry, this was off topic though.

Stig’s departure was unfortunate, but the project siphoned off a whole lot of resources for years

 

[Panajev2001a]

Sony promoted it as a 4k machine and it doesn't even have a 4k drive. Not only do most games not even hit native 4k (hardly any), the fact it can't even play 4k movies or UHD discs makes even odder.

I am with you mostly on this one, I would have wanted a 4K Blu-Ray drive with it as it made so much sense (it will likely be in PS5 though as most Blu-Ray drives manufactured will be 4K by then ), but the market they catered for (and that is buying the PS4 and PS4 Pro) did. It want a $499 console then or a year after that and the price and specs were intertwined.

Also, get mad at all the people voting with their wallet on Netflix 4K streams and claiming that it has just the same or even comparable quality as a UHD 4K Blu-Ray movie... it was not a business priority, customers would have not rewarded them for it, and it did display 4K movies (digital on demand ones) and 4K (and dynamic 4K ) games. Sony was very clear about dynamic resolution and checker-boarding in the presentation of the PS4 Pro itself and in all interviews. From the moment they announced it, they were clear about what it was designed for and what it could do.

And for core gamers who follow news, you had those times Mark Cerny blabbing about Pro's 4.2TF really being 8.4TF if you double it as half step calculations, which makes it higher number than X's straight up 6TF.

It was not blabbing, it was just talking about an AMD developed feature for the Vega line of GPU’s (talking about features beyond the new Polaris architecture they based PS4 Pro mostly on) that helps reduce bandwidth and increase computation speed in some cases and they said that in those cases it acts as a double rate unit (and thus the numbers quoted). It was not meant as to say they were actually faster than Xbox One X / Scorpio.

The article you are probably remembering:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/283611/Inside_the_PlayStation_4_Pro_with_Mark_Cerny.php#tophead

This is one of the cases where the delivered architectural improvements to let the console punch above its weight a bit and it allowed their first party developers to get some advanced titles to a considerably higher level: check the DF review of Horizon’s PS4 Pro patch for example.
In some cases it is not working as well as they hoped because they bet developers would take more advantage of cross generational consoles without simply relying on brute raw performance improvements alone, but that is what a new generation allows... more and more frequent mod step consoles released will make this problem worse and worse.

Both machines are well designed given their constraints, but are timed and positioned differently. Waiting one more year would have not gotten them s lot more sales than they are getting now (gamers are happy), it would have meant delaying PS5 one more year, and it would have been an extra investment with little to no extra return.

 

[Takuan]

I really like the last Hitman and hear the latest one is great, but does this franchise actually move units? I swear I read the studio was in danger of closing after the episodic release strategy, so I guess the physical (read: complete) release did well?

Brilliant games, but I don't really see increased moneybags translating into a proportional increase in sales.

 

[quest]

I really like the last Hitman and hear the latest one is great, but does this franchise actually move units? I swear I read the studio was in danger of closing after the episodic release strategy, so I guess the physical (read: complete) release did well?

Brilliant games, but I don't really see increased moneybags translating into a proportional increase in sales.

Your thinking old fashion it wont be about sales at retail or digital if ms makes this purchase. It be buying a studio who can produce some episodic content for gamepass on regular basis. This is all about trying to build up enough small teams to produce lots of AA content for gamepass. This would be a perfect purchase for MS if they get the chance. Basically 2 teams one works on base game and other on episodic content. Release game then bi monthly episodes for 18 months.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Sony has bought nearly every 1st party studio they own, I'm really trying to think of one they created. Polyphony maybe? Santa Monica?

Microsoft has created 343, Turn10, Initiative & Coalition.



If it's logical when Sony does it what isn't logical about shutting down Lionhead?


Still want to see them throw some mojang sized money around and pick up Sega gaming division.

Some are still under the impression Sony leads because of their exclusives. Sony entered this business and stategized perfectly by having great relations with third party and offering next gen hardware. Nintendo has proven it takes more than exclusives to sell. They have some of the best and well known IP's out there but failed harder than anyone in two separate generations.

If these studios don't produce the total domination victory Microsoft is gunning for since they are throwing a ton of cash into their gaming sector, you can bet the higher ups will cut losses, write off, and blow up studios. Microsoft always does.

Just take the Kin as an example. Two months after their 1 billion dollar project released, it sold so poorly that they canned the whole thing and wrote it off.

Your focus should be on how good these new studios future titles are instead of your persistent pettiness with Microsoft. You're not even a gamer, you're just somebody vying for attention by constantly hating on Microsoft or downplaying every move they make.

 

[Takuan]

Your thinking old fashion it wont be about sales at retail or digital if ms makes this purchase. It be buying a studio who can produce some episodic content for gamepass on regular basis. This is all about trying to build up enough small teams to produce lots of AA content for gamepass. This would be a perfect purchase for MS if they get the chance. Basically 2 teams one works on base game and other on episodic content. Release game then bi monthly episodes for 18 months.

I hadn't considered that at all. That's actually an interesting move, albeit a risky one.

 

[12Dannu123]

I hadn't considered that at all. That's actually an interesting move, albeit a risky one.

Why would it be risky?

 

[Afro Republican]

What has IO even done in third history outside Hitman that's even relevant? The best selling game iirc is still Hitman 2, a game with many issues and they have been dropping in quality for years now.

It doesn't exactly have a stellar output and a lot of the old talent left before the square acquisition of eifos. They've not put out even a decent hit in a long while let alone a big one.

 

[Takuan]

Why would it be risky?

Because - and correct me if I'm mistaken - it's adopting a Netflix model for video games. Something like that would be revolutionary, but MS would have to ensure a steady supply of worthwhile content to grow and maintain a subscriber base. That is a challenge in any creative industry, and is certainly no less true for video games. If anything, gamers are even more difficult to please.

 

[phil_t98]

I am with you mostly on this one, I would have wanted a 4K Blu-Ray drive with it as it made so much sense (it will likely be in PS5 though as most Blu-Ray drives manufactured will be 4K by then ), but the market they catered for (and that is buying the PS4 and PS4 Pro) did. It want a $499 console then or a year after that and the price and specs were intertwined.

Also, get mad at all the people voting with their wallet on Netflix 4K streams and claiming that it has just the same or even comparable quality as a UHD 4K Blu-Ray movie... it was not a business priority, customers would have not rewarded them for it, and it did display 4K movies (digital on demand ones) and 4K (and dynamic 4K ) games. Sony was very clear about dynamic resolution and checker-boarding in the presentation of the PS4 Pro itself and in all interviews. From the moment they announced it, they were clear about what it was designed for and what it could do.



It was not blabbing, it was just talking about an AMD developed feature for the Vega line of GPU’s (talking about features beyond the new Polaris architecture they based PS4 Pro mostly on) that helps reduce bandwidth and increase computation speed in some cases and they said that in those cases it acts as a double rate unit (and thus the numbers quoted). It was not meant as to say they were actually faster than Xbox One X / Scorpio.

The article you are probably remembering:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/283611/Inside_the_PlayStation_4_Pro_with_Mark_Cerny.php#tophead

This is one of the cases where the delivered architectural improvements to let the console punch above its weight a bit and it allowed their first party developers to get some advanced titles to a considerably higher level: check the DF review of Horizon’s PS4 Pro patch for example.
In some cases it is not working as well as they hoped because they bet developers would take more advantage of cross generational consoles without simply relying on brute raw performance improvements alone, but that is what a new generation allows... more and more frequent mod step consoles released will make this problem worse and worse.

Both machines are well designed given their constraints, but are timed and positioned differently. Waiting one more year would have not gotten them s lot more sales than they are getting now (gamers are happy), it would have meant delaying PS5 one more year, and it would have been an extra investment with little to no extra return.

So half assed as i said was not including more memory to have upgraded textures, also not including a 4k blu ray to.
Microsoft waited a year because they wanted to add those types of things to their machine and make it a worthy upgrade

The pro is a great machine but interms of upgrade it isnt massive over the ps4 standard. But yes its a better console

 

[Panajev2001a]

So half assed as i said was not including more memory to have upgraded textures, also not including a 4k blu ray to.
Microsoft waited a year because they wanted to add those types of things to their machine and make it a worthy upgrade

The pro is a great machine but interms of upgrade it isnt massive over the ps4 standard. But yes its a better console

Fair, but somehow I am not sure anymore that many many games are taking a large advantage of the extra memory although I think it was nice for MS to add more RAM although the bet by Sony architects that it would not be massively overused by developers for a mid generation upgrade kind of hinges on that.

I do not think it was because it had to be a worthy update vs PS4 Pro not being one... it was about to make a point against the competition and for their original core fanbase which chose the “No power greater than X” console and because they want consumers to want more and more frequent mid generation upgrades to lead and the first step has to be a showstopper. PS4 Pro was updating what was the fastest console at the time with a brand new architecture (with features from unreleased new AMD GPU’s) that has many new advanced features and a refresh of pretty much everything else in the console as well as doubling raw GPU performance. Still, it was meant for more cost conscious people perhaps and it was meant to still allow PS5 to push their new generation forward and justify exclusive software.

All in all, decent use of the new features added considered, they delivered over 2x of the effective performance of PS4 Pro and a year after the performance bar was raised by 43% and it took a year and an extra $100.
PS4 launched the same time as Xbox One and at a lower price and it was almost 40% faster.

 

[12Dannu123]

What has IO even done in third history outside Hitman that's even relevant? The best selling game iirc is still Hitman 2, a game with many issues and they have been dropping in quality for years now.

It doesn't exactly have a stellar output and a lot of the old talent left before the square acquisition of eifos. They've not put out even a decent hit in a long while let alone a big one.

What? Hitman 2 has over 80 on metacrtic, apparently according to you, a game that has 80 is considered a drop in quality. Quality is NOT the problem, they are a talented studio, the problem is financial. IO going back to the episodic model for Hitman on Game Pass will do very well for the game.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Yeah this purchase would be smart. The studio could use the funding and would give MS a pretty damn good icon character to the roster.

 

[Afro Republican]

What? Hitman 2 has over 80 on metacrtic, apparently according to you, a game that has 80 is considered a drop in quality. Quality is NOT the problem, they are a talented studio, the problem is financial. IO going back to the episodic model for Hitman on Game Pass will do very well for the game.

You might want to re-read your quote, I was talking recent years.

 

[12Dannu123]

You might want to re-read your quote, I was talking recent years.

Hitman 2 is recent. I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

You might want to re-read your quote, I was talking recent years.

Hitman was introduced again and it's latest game is Hitman 2.

The last one was great, not sure what you're going on about.

 

[Silent Viper]

Nimj

They can buy everything they want. It doesn't automatically translates into quality. I don't believe Microsoft with studios when i see it. Playground is the only capable atm inhouse and that's not much.

Ninja theory not capable? Obsidian not capable,?


These studios all have proven track record

 

[Silent Viper]

Don't do it IOI!

Hitman is a fantastic but very niche game. Making it console exclusive will it's doom!

It's already doomed. Let them join MS and work on something new to have better future

 

[Barakov]

Would probably be good for MS and Xbox but bad for IO and Hitman. I'd prefer MS corporate meddling not have its' hands on Hitman. I feel like one slip up and that would be the end of both the development house and the Hitman series.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Nimj
Ninja theory not capable? Obsidian not capable,?
These studios all have proven track record

What they are really saying is I don't want to have to buy an Xbox to play those games or support the Windows Store.

All I can say is well too bad, this is how this industry works because we are never going to have one format or one storefront to buy or play all the games.

I'm not upset now that Bayonetta has gone Nintendo only. I'm not immature and going around suggesting the franchise is now turning to crap or hope the studio goes under. Yet this is the maturity we ecpect when Microsoft is involved.

 

[Afro Republican]

Hitman defense force getting their Hitman 2's mixed up. Then again some of you might be younger gamers.

 

[Silent Viper]

What they are really saying is I don't want to have to buy an Xbox to play those games or support the Windows Store.

All I can say is well too bad, this is how this industry works because we are never going to have one format or one storefront to buy or play all the games.

I'm not upset now that Bayonetta has gone Nintendo only. I'm not immature and going around suggesting the franchise is now turning to crap or hope the studio goes under. Yet this is the maturity we ecpect when Microsoft is involved.

MS don't give a shit where you play their games.

 

[Last Prime]

MS needs to buy Crytek already.

 

[EDMIX]

The insider Klobrille, hints at Microsoft "considering" the opportunity to acquire the Copenhagen-located studio. IO Interactive.

"Consideration = a fact or a motive taken into account in deciding something.". That's what it is. A consideration, It's a start,"

MS aren't done with new first party studios. Source is Klobrille from Resetera, I think he also has a reddit account.

He is the one who first leaked Playground games and Obsidian acquisitions.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/mi...-sold-off-by-now.75600/page-198#post-15205433


Well, what do you think ? Hitman 2016 almost killed the company and Hitman 2 isn't goin well and it's already discounted.

I felt MS should have bought IO as soon as Square let them go with the Hitman IP. Before MS even started talking about buying teams, it was something I felt needed to be done as......well MS legit was barely making lots of big AAA titles and IO is out here looking for a publisher and has a popular IP.

I think it would be a good buy.

 

[HeresJohnny]

You misunderstand the point of the X. The original Xbox One's focus on multimedia and its large size convinced many that MS simply could not handle the hardware side of this business. Resolutiongate was a flag for all of those concerns and it was undermining consumer confidence at a rapid rate. MS understood this and made clear that they intended to end that narrative.

And that is precisely what the X achieved. Following its release, the same media that told that gaming world that it was critical to report the resolution differences of every major release, suddenly changed their position once PS4 no longer had the power advantage. With just one console release, MS ended resolutiongate and forced an industry of so-called gaming journalists to change topics.

The X also demonstrated the immense talent of MS's engineers as the console proved to not only be more powerful than Pro but also proved to run quieter and cooler. Consumer confidence in MS hardware is suddenly back as even MS's harshest critics have been forced to concede that MS's engineers can go toe to toe with Sony's any day of the week and have clearly outclassed Sony's engineers so far.

Now those intangible benefits will not drastically increase Xbox console sales in the short term but when you're an 800bil company like MS you have the luxury of planning for the long term. MS's gaming revenues are growing each and every quarter and they do not rely on gaming to keep the lights on in the same fashion as Sony does. I get that the X gets under the skin of certain Sony loyalists on this forum but its success is beyond debate. Its not often that a single piece of hardware can so drastically change a narrative.

The X didn't make a statement to anyone outside of those who follow the industry closely, and that's not who Microsoft has a problem with currently. No one was ever convinced Microsoft couldn't handle hardware, they just fucked up with the release of the Xbone. So if your argument is that the X was an answer to the already devoted, then yeah you have a great point. The rest of the world saw a $500 pricetag and didn't give a shit, that's what I'm saying. No perception was changed to anyone who mattered.

 

[EDMIX]

MS needs to buy Crytek already.

I don't know about that. Crytek is nothing like it once was and maybe 6 years ago I'd say yea, now.......just no. They haven't really made a good game in almost 10 years., lots of maybes, but you start to realize something is really wrong when its like every release is bad or in trouble.

I think IO is a better buy right now tbh

 

[HeresJohnny]

Firstly, Microsoft had publicly floated the idea of a mid-gen upgraded console before the Pro was even rumoured to exist. The Pro camer out earlier because it was a PS4 with a second GPU strapped onto it. Mucriosoft went with an actual upgrade.

Second, what the hell do you want them to do?

People complain about their lack of first party output, so they're bolstering their first party studios.

You realise it's not a coincidence that all thsi spending is coming not very long after Phil was promoted right under Nadella right? It's no real secret Myerson didn't take Gaming seriously and basically had a tight leash on Xbox spending.

Microsoft has spent more on gamign in the last year and a half than they had the entire first half or more of this generation.

Lack of studios isn't necessarily their problem. Cultivating their existing franchises from their existing studios is. How was that awesome Halo 5 this generation? And where is Halo 6? Where is Rare outside of an overly-simplistic pirate game and a Killer Instinct revamp 4 years ago?
Again, it's not about spending the money, it's about spending it smart. Spending money can be great, but as you say -- they've been spending it for 18 months, where are the results?

 

[EDMIX]

Lack of studios isn't necessarily their problem. Cultivating their existing franchises from their existing studios is. How was that awesome Halo 5 this generation? And where is Halo 6? Where is Rare outside of an overly-simplistic pirate game and a Killer Instinct revamp 4 years ago?
Again, it's not about spending the money, it's about spending it smart. Spending money can be great, but as you say -- they've been spending it for 18 months, where are the results?

Agreed. I feel lack of studios wasn't that much of their issue. Their biggest might legit just be not having their existing teams making new AAA IP or not doing much with the IPs they already own.

Conker 2 should have been on the 360. That is a no brainer. Some moves they don't do is just out right puzzling. So I only want them buying teams, if they can keep the bottomline of really letting the teams freely create. I'm ok with both new and existing IPs, simply that if they are going to focus soooooo much on just existing, they need to be doing legit Zelda and Mario numbers.

Halo and Gears are just not doing well enough to have so much focus put on them, let those teams rest and get back to the drawing board.

 

[EDMIX]

Should I post list of studios killed by Sony. ?

Also you talking about old MS which is different compared to new MS. This New MS sees gaming as core part of MS now

Sony making so many new AAA IP makes those closed down studios not as much as a big deal.

MS closing down teams that basically just made 1 IP becomes a problem after a while in gen where we are seeing Gears, Halo, Forza like clockwork.

Its not that both closed down teams, its how MS was running the gaming division in the first place. I'm sure MOST wouldn't even be talking about this the way they are if MS wasn't just doing the massive focus of their generation 3 established IP

We don't even know if this is the "new" MS until they actually keep doing what they promise. Didn't they at the start of this gen also promise fans they had sooooo many things going on?

So we just can't take their word for it , we'll need to revisit end of next gen to really see if MS legit keeps up with what they are promising. I seriously doesn't need to take an entire generation for a publisher to realize its fans might need new AAA IP.

When EA is making a big new AAA IP before MS, thats how you know something needs to change lol Sorry but we really can't just accept their word for it as they stated similar things the start of this gen, only to have it 99% focused on Gears, Halo, Forza over and over. So I hope they learned their lesson and have new AAA IP in store for us and keep allowing those teams to keep making new stuff as they have my money day 1 if they can deliver on some cool new AAA concepts.

 

[HeresJohnny]

They are rumored to be buying more studios, why does Xbox threads have people in them that think they always know better?

Why do you have a hard time focusing on what is, not what's been. You act like Microsoft is done for, that they should just pack up and go. The WiiU was a colossal disappointment they sold less than half of what the Xbox One has done so far on more exoensive hardware and less studios. The WiiU got curbstomped and was gone in 4 years. Where is your outcry then and what did you suggest Nintendo to do?

Here you are now telling everyone this is a mistake. Seems like no matter what they do you guys are right there crapping on every move. The X was designed to take away the inferior hardware image. Now look around, all the fanboys want to talk about is exclusives. Meanwhile every month third party consumes the list so let's not act like that support and the hardware to push it doesn't matter. The WiiU lived and died by that. Same with the Gamecube.

You also ignored my comment on OnLive which goes to show you're not here to debate anything.

Because that's the nature of a discussion/debate -- you have some who feel it isn't in their best interest and others who do. I don't believe IO brings anything to the table for them that they couldn't get elsewhere cheaper. IO doesn't have any viable franchises besides Hitman and while I'm sure they're a great company with talented people, there are talented people graduating from design schools all over the world every day that needs jobs. Buying a company isn't just buying up their talent, but the IPs that come with it. Let's look at Halo. Remember when Microsoft bought Halo and people started to flee Bungie? I'm sure Microsoft would've like to retain those people but they didn't really give a shit because they were buying the name "Halo" when they bought that company and had seen the game was going to be HUGE and it was. They bought smart. They aren't getting anywhere near that kind of brand with IO.

And using Nintendo is rich. I have been an outspoken critic of Nintendo for pretty much the last two decades. In fact, I've gone so far as to say they almost killed the industry with the Wii. I think Microsoft is and has acted stupidly this generation, but Nintendo is the only company I feel has been dangerous to this hobby. That is for another discussion, though.

And you guys need to cut the fanboy shit out every time someone criticizes something your favored company did or does. I own an S, I owned 3 360s, and I own 2 original Xbox systems. I've paid for the right to bitch about them if they aren't giving me my money's worth. That doesn't make anyone a fanboy. You would be far better served to continue a lively debate (and I would have replied yesterday but had family to tend to) than to get sand in your vag and start throwing out aspersions when you don't know shit about who you're talking to. Not everyone who is unhappy with the Xbox right now is a fanboy for another system -- some just don't like the way shit has been going as hard as that may be for guys like you to believe. Last generation I had the Sony fans hurling the same insult because I thought the PS3 was a stupid move. I call 'em like I see them. It pisses off some who for some unknown reason decide to pledge allegiance to these giant corporations who see you and I as nothing more than a life support system for a wallet.

As for Onlive and streaming and becoming the next Netflix, that argument seems like a bit of a Red Herring. I don't know enough about the public response to those services to really form an opinion yet. I guess you could just buy up every company and it would be the best move in the world, but we both know that isn't viable. So where is the line? I mentioned George Steinbrenner before, do you know who that is? Steinbrenner often paid in penalties what other teams paid for their entire salary. Steinbrenner would buy talent whenever and wherever he could, and he usually produced a pretty good team. However, looking at the results that money bought isn't so impressive -- they've only gone to the world series 4 times since 2000, and only won two titles. In 2003, they lost the world series to the Marlins, a team again whose entire salary was less then Steinbrenner paid in penalties. You see where I'm going with this I'm sure. Now, I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bey a paycheck old Georgie had a bunch of sycophants telling him the same things being said in this thread: buy everything for as cheap as you can, which would have been great if it worked. Buying up everything because you can doesn't guarantee success, smart decisions do. Every player looked good to the Yankees on paper or they wouldn't have paid for them, but were they operating smart? Maybe game streaming really IS the next big thing and Microsoft will be poised to win that. The service is in its infancy so it's hard to say. Hiring talented design school graduates and putting them to work at 343 or Rare or any of the other dozen or so houses they already own might be a better option than buying struggling companies with few IPs who may have already started to lose their best staff due to lack of funding. Does that seem like such a big stretch to you?

 

[CeeJay]

Because that's the nature of a discussion/debate -- you have some who feel it isn't in their best interest and others who do. I don't believe IO brings anything to the table for them that they couldn't get elsewhere cheaper. IO doesn't have any viable franchises besides Hitman and while I'm sure they're a great company with talented people, there are talented people graduating from design schools all over the world every day that needs jobs. Buying a company isn't just buying up their talent, but the IPs that come with it. Let's look at Halo. Remember when Microsoft bought Halo and people started to flee Bungie? I'm sure Microsoft would've like to retain those people but they didn't really give a shit because they were buying the name "Halo" when they bought that company. They aren't getting that kind of brand with IO.

And using Nintendo is rich. I have been an outspoken critic of Nintendo for pretty much the last two decades. In fact, I've gone so far as to say they almost killed the industry with the Wii. I think Microsoft is and has acted stupidly this generation, but Nintendo is the only company I feel has been dangerous to this hobby. That is for another discussion, though.

And you guys need to cut the fanboy shit out every time someone criticizes something your favored company did or does. I own an S, I owned 3 360s, and I own 2 original Xbox systems. I've paid for the right to bitch about them if they aren't giving me my money's worth. That doesn't make anyone a fanboy. You would be far better served to continue a lively debate (and I would have replied yesterday but had family to tend to) than to get sand in your vag and start throwing out aspersions when you don't know shit about who you're talking to. Not everyone who is unhappy with the Xbox right now is a fanboy for another system -- some just don't like the way shit has been going as hard as that may be for guys like you to believe. Last generation I had the Sony fans hurling the same insult because I thought the PS3 was a stupid move. I call 'em like I see them. It pisses off some who for some unknown reason decide to pledge allegiance to these giant corporations who see you and I as nothing more than a life support system for a wallet.

As for Onlive and streaming and becoming the next Netflix, that argument seems like a bit of a Red Herring. I don't know enough about the public response to those services to really form an opinion yet. I guess you could just buy up every company and it would be the best move in the world, but we both know that isn't viable. So where is the line? I mentioned George Steinbrenner before, do you know who that is? Steinbrenner often paid in penalties what other teams paid for their entire salary. Steinbrenner would buy talent whenever and wherever he could, and he usually produced a pretty good team. However, looking at the results that money bought isn't so impressive -- they've only gone to the world series 4 times since 2000, and only won two titles. In 2003, they lost the world series to the Marlins, a team again whose entire salary was less then Steinbrenner paid in penalties. You see where I'm going with this I'm sure. Buying up everything because you can doesn't guarantee success, smart decisions do. Every player looked good to the Yankees on paper or they wouldn't have paid for them, but were they operating smart? Maybe game streaming really IS the next big thing and Microsoft will be poised to win that. The service is in its infancy so it's hard to say. Hiring talented design school graduates and putting them to work at 343 or Rare or any of the other dozen or so houses they already own might be a better option than buying struggling companies with few IPs who may have already started to lose their best staff due to lack of funding. Does that seem like such a big stretch to you?

There is a huge difference between growing one studio to say 500 employees as opposed to having 5 smaller studios each with 100 employees. Even if you split that big studio into 5 teams creating 5 different games there is still going to be a lot of similarities in the way that those 5 games are made, all employees will be experiencing the same culture and chances are they will all be working in the same area (if not the same building). With 5 different studios spread around the globe they will each have a unique working culture and each be gaining staff from different pools of talent, the end result is 5 totally different feeling games. This is why Japanese games are always totally different to American games which are totally different to games made in the UK which are different to European games. What Microsoft really needs is variety and the best way of getting that outcome is by having lots of variety in their studios. 343 and Turn10 are both based in Redmond and are right at the centre of Microsoft and games from both of these feel very polished and high quality but also a bit safe and corporate, then they have The Coalition who are in Canada and have a different feel to their games. It's no coincidence that the studios that MS have been acquiring are in various other areas across America, Canada and Europe where there are strong existing pools of talent for them to expand from. I would expect to see MS acquiring Tokyo based developers (Sega?) at some point along with maybe some more in Europe such as Arkane Studios (Lyon and Austin). Until the recent acquisitions Microsoft had too many of their eggs in one basket which they are now in the process of fixing.

 

[HeresJohnny]

There is a huge difference between growing one studio to say 500 employees as opposed to having 5 smaller studios each with 100 employees. Even if you split that big studio into 5 teams creating 5 different games there is still going to be a lot of similarities in the way that those 5 games are made, all employees will be experiencing the same culture and chances are they will all be working in the same area (if not the same building). With 5 different studios spread around the globe they will each have a unique working culture and each be gaining staff from different pools of talent, the end result is 5 totally different feeling games. This is why Japanese games are always totally different to American games which are totally different to games made in the UK which are different to European games. What Microsoft really needs is variety and the best way of getting that outcome is by having lots of variety in their studios. 343 and Turn10 are both based in Redmond and are right at the centre of Microsoft and games from both of these feel very polished and high quality but also a bit safe and corporate, then they have The Coalition who are in Canada and have a different feel to their games. It's no coincidence that the studios that MS have been acquiring are in various other areas across America, Canada and Europe where there are strong existing pools of talent for them to expand from. I would expect to see MS acquiring Tokyo based developers (Sega?) at some point along with maybe some more in Europe such as Arkane Studios (Lyon and Austin). Until the recent acquisitions Microsoft had too many of their eggs in one basket which they are now in the process of fixing.

Open up Microsoft Studios Japan, Microsoft Studios UK, and so on. Then fill those satellite branches with the best designers and artists coming out of those respective markets. Problem solved.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Lack of studios isn't necessarily their problem. Cultivating their existing franchises from their existing studios is. How was that awesome Halo 5 this generation? And where is Halo 6? Where is Rare outside of an overly-simplistic pirate game and a Killer Instinct revamp 4 years ago?
Again, it's not about spending the money, it's about spending it smart. Spending money can be great, but as you say -- they've been spending it for 18 months, where are the results?

18 months? Tell me again how many months ago we first heard about Kojima signing with Sony and how many more months before he actually releases anything?

It's admirable how they can get so much support for those types of deals but when Microsoft announces these new studios you guys are right there every day downplaying it.

 

[HeresJohnny]

18 months? Tell me again how many months ago we first heard about Kojima signing with Sony and how many more months before he actually releases anything?

It's admirable how they can get so much support for those types of deals but when Microsoft announces these new studios you guys are right there every day downplaying it.

Dude, you are showing you don't know anything about me. I think Kojima's earlier works were true genius, but in recent years, he's become a bloviating quack who likes to talk more than make games. You don't know me. At all.

EDIT: And Death Stranding looks stupid.

EDIT EDIT: Wouldn't it be wiser to actually know something about the people you are disparaging before, you know, disparaging them?

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Because that's the nature of a discussion/debate -- you have some who feel it isn't in their best interest and others who do. I don't believe IO brings anything to the table for them that they couldn't get elsewhere cheaper. IO doesn't have any viable franchises besides Hitman and while I'm sure they're a great company with talented people, there are talented people graduating from design schools all over the world every day that needs jobs. Buying a company isn't just buying up their talent, but the IPs that come with it. Let's look at Halo. Remember when Microsoft bought Halo and people started to flee Bungie? I'm sure Microsoft would've like to retain those people but they didn't really give a shit because they were buying the name "Halo" when they bought that company and had seen the game was going to be HUGE and it was. They bought smart. They aren't getting anywhere near that kind of brand with IO.

And using Nintendo is rich. I have been an outspoken critic of Nintendo for pretty much the last two decades. In fact, I've gone so far as to say they almost killed the industry with the Wii. I think Microsoft is and has acted stupidly this generation, but Nintendo is the only company I feel has been dangerous to this hobby. That is for another discussion, though.

And you guys need to cut the fanboy shit out every time someone criticizes something your favored company did or does. I own an S, I owned 3 360s, and I own 2 original Xbox systems. I've paid for the right to bitch about them if they aren't giving me my money's worth. That doesn't make anyone a fanboy. You would be far better served to continue a lively debate (and I would have replied yesterday but had family to tend to) than to get sand in your vag and start throwing out aspersions when you don't know shit about who you're talking to. Not everyone who is unhappy with the Xbox right now is a fanboy for another system -- some just don't like the way shit has been going as hard as that may be for guys like you to believe. Last generation I had the Sony fans hurling the same insult because I thought the PS3 was a stupid move. I call 'em like I see them. It pisses off some who for some unknown reason decide to pledge allegiance to these giant corporations who see you and I as nothing more than a life support system for a wallet.

As for Onlive and streaming and becoming the next Netflix, that argument seems like a bit of a Red Herring. I don't know enough about the public response to those services to really form an opinion yet. I guess you could just buy up every company and it would be the best move in the world, but we both know that isn't viable. So where is the line? I mentioned George Steinbrenner before, do you know who that is? Steinbrenner often paid in penalties what other teams paid for their entire salary. Steinbrenner would buy talent whenever and wherever he could, and he usually produced a pretty good team. However, looking at the results that money bought isn't so impressive -- they've only gone to the world series 4 times since 2000, and only won two titles. In 2003, they lost the world series to the Marlins, a team again whose entire salary was less then Steinbrenner paid in penalties. You see where I'm going with this I'm sure. Now, I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bey a paycheck old Georgie had a bunch of sycophants telling him the same things being said in this thread: buy everything for as cheap as you can, which would have been great if it worked. Buying up everything because you can doesn't guarantee success, smart decisions do. Every player looked good to the Yankees on paper or they wouldn't have paid for them, but were they operating smart? Maybe game streaming really IS the next big thing and Microsoft will be poised to win that. The service is in its infancy so it's hard to say. Hiring talented design school graduates and putting them to work at 343 or Rare or any of the other dozen or so houses they already own might be a better option than buying struggling companies with few IPs who may have already started to lose their best staff due to lack of funding. Does that seem like such a big stretch to you?

Microsoft had terrible leadership at the time. All of what you say does make partial sense. Your analogy of the Yankees is summed up by a rich person who thinks he can buy penants. Sports teams are different and do yourself a favor and watch Moneybsll. That in essence is what you're getting at.

Yes that analogy can be applied to the old Microsoft throwing money around. These new moves don't display that. Microsoft of today is looking for AA developers not AAA one's. The old Microsoft made moves like the Tomb Raider deal and the Mass Effect one , that was not Phil Spencer moves.

I see these new studios as more calculating ones. Diversity and developers that also fit the PC demographic which they also want to push.

It took a lot to get the big ship moving back in the right direction. The whole Kinect direction was too heavily invested. There has been many changes at Microsoft but I think there is a common goal now. The guy who was making the PC and Xbox transition clunky is now gone. Phil is taking more of a leadership role there. He got the hardware problem fixed. The whole debate of old seeing Xbox titles of the past like Call of Duty getting 720p to 1080p on the PS4 was quite bad for a more expensive system at the time.

The big void of course is 1st party output. That takes time and with the PS4 leading with such momentum it makes sense to focus on the future. The Xbox One has still manged to hang in there which is quite a feat when going against another system that is poised to hit 100 million soon.

There's new vision at Microsoft, the CEO is also fully supportive. They are eager. That's why there's renewed optimism. Seeing the decline of the Xbox 360 the last couple of years compared to now is night and day. What hasn't changed is the trolling and it likely never will. Microsoft more than anyone has collected its fair of critics.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Microsoft had terrible leadership at the time. All of what you say does make partial sense. Your analogy of the Yankees is summed up by a rich person who thinks he can buy penants. Sports teams are different and do yourself a favor and watch Moneybsll. That in essence is what you're getting at.

Yes that analogy can be applied to the old Microsoft throwing money around. These new moves don't display that. Microsoft of today is looking for AA developers not AAA one's. The old Microsoft made moves like the Tomb Raider deal and the Mass Effect one , that was not Phil Spencer moves.

I see these new studios as more calculating ones. Diversity and developers that also fit the PC demographic which they also want to push.

It took a lot to get the big ship moving back in the right direction. The whole Kinect direction was too heavily invested. There has been many changes at Microsoft but I think there is a common goal now. The guy who was making the PC and Xbox transition clunky is now gone. Phil is taking more of a leadership role there. He got the hardware problem fixed. The whole debate of old seeing Xbox titles of the past like Call of Duty getting 720p to 1080p on the PS4 was quite bad for a more expensive system at the time.

The big void of course is 1st party output. That takes time and with the PS4 leading with such momentum it makes sense to focus on the future. The Xbox One has still manged to hang in there which is quite a feat when going against another system that is poised to hit 100 million soon.

There's new vision at Microsoft, the CEO is also fully supportive. They are eager. That's why there's renewed optimism. Seeing the decline of the Xbox 360 the last couple of years compared to now is night and day. What hasn't changed is the trolling and it likely never will. Microsoft more than anyone has collected its fair of critics.

Sure, it is nice to see Xbox finding its direction and investing more in its future. Some people, and they may have a point too, doubt the core of the company has changed while some others see Phil Spencer as a white knight saviour that is perfection incarnate (or at least it reads like a personality cult issue). Phil was GM of the first party studios at the time you as well are referring to as a time of decline of quality, vision, and also divesting resources. Still, we will see. The HW problem btw was not fixed, they just sold you a new product to fix a problem in the one they sold you before, but from the corporate positioning point of view yes, if you take the corporate angle then yeah.

As an Xbox fan bring yourself back to the Xbox 360 days and imagine people constantly shitting on Xbox 360 having WiFi as an expensive add on, HDDnon standard and not user replaceable, and PS3 dropping in price, launching tons of games, and having all those built in features, and the improvements in the OS, and launch BC, and free online, etc... etc... the underdog improving from rags to riches journey is also worth of praise but it can go overboard and result as slightly unfair to those who started doing the right things and had less space to improve and less need to improve.

 

[Gavon West]

They are playing the dirty game.

What Sony did is first, letting a studio release a game for them, and if its quality and sales were great, then Sony acquires it, with an obvious benefit for both parties.

MS is in a trainwreck of buying studios just for cutting out third party games for Sony.
They dont even care about the quality of their titles, or how they did in sales.
The more studios they have, the less Sony have.

MS went full desperate in order to 'win' next gen.

It may be as legit as you want, but for me it's clearly crossing the line of sane competition, and for that, MS already lost even before starting the new gen.

Not trying to convince anyone of this, tho. It's just my stance on the matter.

At what cost though? Being patently wrong? Well, bravo! You just won the best timing award.

 

[Gavon West]

They have all ready given IO an acquisition letter of intent

Link?

 

[HeresJohnny]

Microsoft had terrible leadership at the time. All of what you say does make partial sense. Your analogy of the Yankees is summed up by a rich person who thinks he can buy penants. Sports teams are different and do yourself a favor and watch Moneybsll. That in essence is what you're getting at.

Yes that analogy can be applied to the old Microsoft throwing money around. These new moves don't display that. Microsoft of today is looking for AA developers not AAA one's. The old Microsoft made moves like the Tomb Raider deal and the Mass Effect one , that was not Phil Spencer moves.

I see these new studios as more calculating ones. Diversity and developers that also fit the PC demographic which they also want to push.

It took a lot to get the big ship moving back in the right direction. The whole Kinect direction was too heavily invested. There has been many changes at Microsoft but I think there is a common goal now. The guy who was making the PC and Xbox transition clunky is now gone. Phil is taking more of a leadership role there. He got the hardware problem fixed. The whole debate of old seeing Xbox titles of the past like Call of Duty getting 720p to 1080p on the PS4 was quite bad for a more expensive system at the time.

The big void of course is 1st party output. That takes time and with the PS4 leading with such momentum it makes sense to focus on the future. The Xbox One has still manged to hang in there which is quite a feat when going against another system that is poised to hit 100 million soon.

There's new vision at Microsoft, the CEO is also fully supportive. They are eager. That's why there's renewed optimism. Seeing the decline of the Xbox 360 the last couple of years compared to now is night and day. What hasn't changed is the trolling and it likely never will. Microsoft more than anyone has collected its fair of critics.

But buying up studios and releasing niche expensive hardware just because IS throwing money around. That's what I'm getting at.

In a way, I'm the audience Microsoft is losing. I own an S, not an X and I won't buy an X because it'll be dead too soon to justify the cost (although the backwards compatibility stuff looks awesome). I'm not happy with where the S is, and as an S owner, which is what makes up the vast majority of Xbox owners wordwide, how did the X do anything except further alienate someone who already dedicated hundreds of dollars on hardware? In fact, for some, they'd already replaced one Xbox console this generation with the S, and now Microsoft release another system. It's very bad optics. The message it sends is that they wanted to speak to the hardcore, 4k owning crowd, but that crowd is small compared to who actually buys most of the consoles that get sold. Some in this thread have posited that Microsoft (to go back to my baseball analogy) isn't even interested in winning the world series, but that's horse shit. All companies are in it to win. You don't buy software houses and release expensive hardware revisions just because. The S has been struggling and Microsoft's answer was to release an expensive 4k option and a "the games are coming" message? That doesn't cut it. To most of the world, the Xbox is still represented by the experience one gets from the S -- that's the experience the vast majority of the people are having with the Xbox name. On this forum, it seems people view the X as a symbol to the world that Microsoft is righting the ship, but to me, all it did was make me more indifferent. The X doesn't hurt or help my circumstance with the Xbox. It doesn't make me play it less, but it doesn't make me play it more, either. I've played with a lot of analogies, but Microsoft focusing on the X so heavily has been like someone stitching a cut on their thumb while ignoring that their leg has been lopped off by a hay sickle.

Being critical of the Xbox is well-earned and deserved in my opinion, and while some of it is trolling, most isn't. A lot of it is grounded in how disgruntled people are with the direction of the company and to us S owners, the X didn't change that. In fact, the message it sent me, loud and clear, was NOT to buy an Xbox at launch, because they'll be releasing a more powerful revision a few years in and they'll focus on that.

 

[Gavon West]

There isn't a big enough market for Hitman games unfortunately.

I'm not sure why Microsoft would want to bring in a studio that, while very talented, can't seem to reach commercial success.

As someone else stated IO is in need of marketing for their games. Microsoft can provide this. And you're missing the bigger picture as far as games go. Hitman by itself doesn't instill much confidence (I'm not a fan of series) but, as as a collective, viable series for the Xbox brand overall it substantially increases the strength of the entire software portfolio when you talk about Xbox and builds more confidence in the brand if nothing else.

Even though I can't get down with Hitman, I can see why it would be good business move to pick up the development house.

 

[Gavon West]

X1X restored consumer confidence in MS hardware? I think you over estimate how many people care enough about consoles to follow this stuff. & MS has put out good hardware for yonks, including their phones. You really need to go back to 2006 to find a hardware issue.

X1X was buit to stop erosion of marketshare by offering a quality product at a reasonable price for enthusiasts in response to the pro. While it is a flagship product for xbox, it is not for MS as a whole.

He never said as a whole if you read his post. He's talking about as far as hardware goes, and he's 100% correct. The X single handidly changed the entire narrative of Microsoft as a hardware developer, and it negated all rhetoric concerning power. That is now no longer an issue and its irrefutable.

 

[Gavon West]

Open up Microsoft Studios Japan, Microsoft Studios UK, and so on. Then fill those satellite branches with the best designers and artists coming out of those respective markets. Problem solved.

That's coming I believe. Microsoft is establishing a headquarters in Asia to close deals with developers. I wouldn't doubt a couple of Japanese studios comes out of it. Im almost certain that is why they're making this move to begin with. If you can't get Japanese developers to put their games on your platform, build or acquire studios out there who make games for it as first party.

 

[Afro Republican]

Lack of studios isn't necessarily their problem. Cultivating their existing franchises from their existing studios is. How was that awesome Halo 5 this generation? And where is Halo 6? Where is Rare outside of an overly-simplistic pirate game and a Killer Instinct revamp 4 years ago?
Again, it's not about spending the money, it's about spending it smart. Spending money can be great, but as you say -- they've been spending it for 18 months, where are the results?

The result of them spending money was the 360. MS hasn't spend half as much money this gen. Primarily because they had to cut back on the original vision of the console which also resulted in cancelled contracts that pissed some devs off and the closure of studios.

Some forget MS actually had more studios than Sony at some years ago.

 

[Panajev2001a]

He never said as a whole if you read his post. He's talking about as far as hardware goes, and he's 100% correct. The X single handidly changed the entire narrative of Microsoft as a hardware developer, and it negated all rhetoric concerning power. That is now no longer an issue and its irrefutable.

The narrative was about raw power ever since the OG console launched as Xbox has always been about performance über alles (“No power greater than X”), Xbox One tried to PR their way into not making people think they did not make a misstep: “We invented DirectX... do you think we would let them be 40% faster?”, “In the end it is still 1080p on screen, right?!”, as well as what was picked up by astroturfers “you would need to sit so very close to the TV to notice the difference” (apparently those people have changed their seating habits when thinking about how much true 4K is better than 4Kpr ).

Still, yes... they have the fastest console, nobody disputes that. It was just funny for a while to see early on the generation the “the fastest HW never wins” mantra repeated over and over again... .

 

[Gavon West]

18 months? Tell me again how many months ago we first heard about Kojima signing with Sony and how many more months before he actually releases anything?

It's admirable how they can get so much support for those types of deals but when Microsoft announces these new studios you guys are right there every day downplaying it.

Damn! #Truestory

 

[Fox Mulder]

I still think MS scooping up a studio is better than them going under or struggling to stay afloat. It will be interesting to see the games that come out 3+ years from now.

Sony and Nintendo frequently put out goty quality titles. Just buying a bunch of ok studios and giving them money still doesn't guarantee that for MS.

 

[Afro Republican]

I still think MS scooping up a studio is better than them going under or struggling to stay afloat. It will be interesting to see the games that come out 3+ years from now.



Sony and Nintendo frequently put out goty quality titles. Just buying a bunch of ok studios and giving them money still doesn't guarantee that for MS.

Define frequently? Because before Spider-man it's been awhile since the PS4 put out an award winning universal GOTY.

Also MS buying developers is perfectly fine, it's just in this case they are buying a dev that hasn't really had much hype or sales success since Hitman 2 and that was almost 2 decades ago. The last time they did something not Hitman was Kane and Lynch 2 back in 2010. 2010, 8 years ago. Before that,

Actually 2007-2010, are the only years they didn't do ONLY Hitman. They had kane and Lynch 1, 2, and mini ninjas. Everything before and after that is ONLY Hitman (outside Freedom Fighters in 03). Which Hitman has degraded in quality over time and important staff left. There's really nothing to buy.