Isn't that kind of proving my point, they are referring to Next gen big budget games as AAAA
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Microsoft and Sony Overall Business Strategy and Outlook (acquisitions, subscriptions, streaming, next gen, entertainment, etc...)
- Thread starter DriftingSpirit
- Start date
Isn't that kind of proving my point, they are referring to Next gen big budget games as AAAA
Sounds to me that they are getting ready to acquire way more studios
At a $30 retail pricepoint they don't - regardless of what the developers themselves say (in June 2016).
Yup. If they want to release 4 AAA games a year, then they're probably going to need at least ~12 AAA studios. By current counts they're around ~7 (343i, Coalition, Rare, Playground 1, Playground 2, Turn10, The Initiative). Even if Obsidian, Inexile, and Undead Labs go AAA, they're still going to need a few more.
Last edited:
No? That just means when next gen is here it will go back to AAA as usual, AAAA is clearly used to demonstrate the large jump in budget we see every generation. AAA games for Xbox one had job postings for AAAA during the lead up to next gen, they went back to AAA in job postings after. Your post said MS considers AAA games to be AAAA and AA to be AAA, clearly they don't as Halo, Gears and Forza were all considered AAA by MS (job postings/MS themselves.) While MS priced SOD2 at $30.
Last edited:
This is very similar to Steve Ballmer, Blockbuster, Oracle etc, they downplay the growing market and when it comes they are desperate to catch up.
I highly doubt, we are seeing more indies on Game Pass, I think Microsoft is correct that Game Pass allows indies and small studios a chance to market their game. But the main difference between Music TV vs Games is that games provide more monetisation opportunities. I expect indie games transition to the route of GaaS.
Did they really? From their own studios they released God of War this year and Spiderman from a third party studio. If we count Detroit, that's another third party studio.
Even in 2017 it was Horizon, 2016 Uncharted 4. Sony's own studios haven't released more than one AAA game per year this gen
I think State of Decay 3 will go the service route tbh
The term used there is 'developer network'. That could mean headcount, first party + xdev publishing... Owned studio count is only one metric. Those comments might also predate Microsoft acquisitions.
Last edited:
Assume each dev they acquire takes 4-6 years to make a game.
To hit that target, they will need dozens of AAA devs working
It's like Disney, they map out years in advance which project each team is working on and the year it will come out
Just as a reminder: Whether something is AAA or not has nothing to do with its retail pricing. It's about budget and scope.
Still, SoD2 doesn't look like it had a large budget to be honest.
PSN as an all around entertainment service sounds good to me. But Sony needs to get Sony pictures involved if it's going to be attractive.
Them saying this before MS's acquisitions certainly makes more sense.
At $30? Not a chance. The devs may have but clearly Microsoft didn't see it as that.
I think MS will copy the Disney model and have both a Summer and Winter Blockbuster, say June and November.
Also they will launch something big in March and September
these statements were likely made before all the E3 acquisitions, going by some details in here.
One AAA game per quarter is what I want to see from Sony. And I think they'd be in a better position to deliver that with a couple more studios under their belt, alongside whatever partnerships they usually have going on. AAA games need like 4+ years so I'm not sure how Microsoft is going to do it considering they've only just now started expanding their first party base. Either way, I'm interested. More games means there's more of a chance of finding something I like.
they did last year, MLB, GoW, detroit and spiderman is 4 games a year, however i guess they are not spread into these quarters, but its still 4 AAA games a year, this year we will have MLB, Days gone, i also expect TLOU2 and either DS or Nioh 2 imo, so once again 4 AAA titles a year, if my guess is correct.
Seems they are pretty recent especially the MS one
I'm more talking across the entire generation. Sony first party didn't really start hitting it out of the park until 2016 onward. The first two years were weak, with only Bloodborne and Until Dawn being standouts. They had a few AAA games release in the first year too (Shadow Fall, Infamous, DriveClub), but they were decent at best. Good games need a lot of time, so I guess the built in but unsaid word behind my statement is, "one great AAA game per quarter". For that, studios will inevitably need more time, and I'm guessing the generation is going to bring in potentially longer development times.
Also, while it's not fair, I don't really count MLB. I'm talking single player games basically.
Don't forget:
Most company's AA Microsoft calls AAA and everyone else's AAA Microsoft calls their games AAAA for some weird reason. So a AA-AAAish type game of any kind each quarter isn't as hard as people think. They don't mean release a Gears/Halo type game every quarter. Microsoft called State of Decay and ReCore AAA
Most company's AA Microsoft calls AAA and everyone else's AAA Microsoft calls their games AAAA for some weird reason. So a AA-AAAish type game of any kind each quarter isn't as hard as people think. They don't mean release a Gears/Halo type game every quarter. Microsoft called State of Decay and ReCore AAA
Oh ofc. A free-2-play title can be AAA.
I just think that everything around State of Decay 2 points to MS recognising it as AA.
Source needed. I can't think of a single time where Microsoft themselves has done this, or where they've used AAAA indiscriminately. Games like Halo Infinite are undoubtedly AAAA with 400+ people working on it, and >5 years of development.
https://gamerant.com/microsoft-game-studios-aaaa-xbox-game/
7 years ago this was reported. Do you recall any sort of game released to reflect such description? I can't
That was for Black Tusk and it was Shangheist iirc. They use AAAA as the term for next-gen high-budget titles. They've only used it 3 times, and each was talking about a next-gen high budget game.
Lol. I mean, the proof is in the pudding here. Your source is from 7 years ago. The Kinect sold >20 million units that year.
But yes, Halo 5 for all its flaws is unquestionably AAAA. I recall Black Tusk's cancelled project being AAAA as well. And as others have said - Microsoft uses AAAA in relation to next generation system-defining titles. They used it for Black Tusk's title, the Initiative, and I believe Halo Infinite and Playground Team 2 (i.e. Fable) - titles which by all accounts warrant it.
Your suggestion that MS just plasters AAA labels indiscriminately is totally off-base.
They definitely are. Phil talked about this in a recent interview. He briefly mentioned trying to expand 1P beyond the usual Canada , USA and UK. So I'm guessing they have a couple more acquisitions planned and maybe brand new studios too.
Thanks for this post. I've been looking for this comment by Mike. Nextgen will be interesting indeed.
At the rate they are going, I wouldn't be surprised.. Also remember they got MSGP and the new Asian Dev partnership division.. I bet they will be working with much bigger budgets especially now we got the CEO and CFO are all in.
Last edited:
MS has been aiming for 4 AAA releases per quarter this gen to begin with. Delays and cancellation of projects has impacted it but it's always been their intent for it.
2015 had Halo5, ROTR, Forza. They planned to have QB that year too but delays happened.
2016 had Forza, Gears and QB. The original 2016 plan was Forza, Gears, CD3 and Scalebound but we know what happened to the last 2 games.
2017 was supposed to be Halo Wars 2,Forza , SOT, SOD2 but again delays impacted that plan.
The new studios are aimed to improve quality of games and have a better buffer against reality of delays that cause an even the best laid plans to go out of schedule
2015 had Halo5, ROTR, Forza. They planned to have QB that year too but delays happened.
2016 had Forza, Gears and QB. The original 2016 plan was Forza, Gears, CD3 and Scalebound but we know what happened to the last 2 games.
2017 was supposed to be Halo Wars 2,Forza , SOT, SOD2 but again delays impacted that plan.
The new studios are aimed to improve quality of games and have a better buffer against reality of delays that cause an even the best laid plans to go out of schedule
Straight up bullshit. They never did that. Microsoft sold them for half the usual AAA price. That's a clear indication these games are not AAA.
That's Greenberg who known for talking shit for marketing purposes.
I agree. All I'm saying is that as far as people like Greenberg goes ( still an Xbox exec ), he's said some things that a lot of people look back as a reference point.
Man, we need to read more closely. #1 - these are not quotes from Microsoft and Sony, these are interpreted secondhand (third) by an investor who was getting a partial presentation by the platforms. What does that mean? When the investor says AAA, that may have nothing to do with what Microsoft calls AAA. It might be that they're quoting MS, but that's unclear. Let's not assume things we don't know.
Similarly, #2 - 1 AAA game a quarter says nothing about WHO IS MAKING THOSE GAMES. In fact, it makes FAR more sense to make sure that Game Pass is hyping some really big name 3rd party games, rather than siloing off and thereby losing 3rd party relationships on what is a win-win.
You're also suggesting that devs don't need the money. They're making plenty of money!! Ignore the fact that studios are dropping off the face of the Earth as fast as they ever have because skyrocketing costs of development combined with the democratization of tools make it ironically increasingly difficult to eke out a survivable niche. Even big publishers can't find a winning monetization strategy. Gamers refuse to accept higher game prices. They refuse to accept loot boxes and other microtransactions. That's fine, but it doesn't pay employees. If you think the issue is just convenience, then Game Pass would never have taken off. Price matters. A lot.
Steam is not the Netflix of games. That's not the distribution model, it's not the business model, it's nothing alike. Unless you think of Netflix as just "my library", I don't understand why you think that works. It's such a weird inversion of reality that you think the current industry empowers studios in a way that subscription services don't.. How do you think the industry works now? Studios just decide they want to put out their game, and then it magically appears on the platform, and it sells gangbusters! Nah. Well-managed subscription services are allowing more studios to break free of publishing agreements and viably assert their own way. Does the platform exert influence on who gets on? YES! But they do that ALREADY. Curation is good for the platform and it's good for the consumer.
Similarly, #2 - 1 AAA game a quarter says nothing about WHO IS MAKING THOSE GAMES. In fact, it makes FAR more sense to make sure that Game Pass is hyping some really big name 3rd party games, rather than siloing off and thereby losing 3rd party relationships on what is a win-win.
This is so off. I get that people don't like subscriptions. There is NO evidence that game subscription services causes developers to make less money. When you stream a movie, you don't buy it. When you stream music, you don't buy it. But on Game Pass, those are rotating catalogs and there are incentives to buy the DLC or to pick up the game fully. Even more importantly, people who get to pay more games spend more money on games. Plus, game pass seems to pay devs much better than music streaming does (we don't know specifics). Either way, devs come out ahead when they have this as an option.
You're also suggesting that devs don't need the money. They're making plenty of money!! Ignore the fact that studios are dropping off the face of the Earth as fast as they ever have because skyrocketing costs of development combined with the democratization of tools make it ironically increasingly difficult to eke out a survivable niche. Even big publishers can't find a winning monetization strategy. Gamers refuse to accept higher game prices. They refuse to accept loot boxes and other microtransactions. That's fine, but it doesn't pay employees. If you think the issue is just convenience, then Game Pass would never have taken off. Price matters. A lot.
Steam is not the Netflix of games. That's not the distribution model, it's not the business model, it's nothing alike. Unless you think of Netflix as just "my library", I don't understand why you think that works. It's such a weird inversion of reality that you think the current industry empowers studios in a way that subscription services don't.. How do you think the industry works now? Studios just decide they want to put out their game, and then it magically appears on the platform, and it sells gangbusters! Nah. Well-managed subscription services are allowing more studios to break free of publishing agreements and viably assert their own way. Does the platform exert influence on who gets on? YES! But they do that ALREADY. Curation is good for the platform and it's good for the consumer.
Price point does dictate what space you're competing in. $60 dollar retail games are competing against Triple A games regardless of budget.
Doesn't work here. Sony acutally is ahead with streaming. May not be the best but it will only improve. So they all ready go their foot into the game they wont be catching up. If streaming ever blows up they will be there.
Last edited:
It says MS eventually wants to get to 1 AAA game is quarter and that it will take time. It's not going to happen next year or when year after that.
Yes they buying studios over studios and everyone will work on halo and gears you get everything of their business plans
Last edited:
In terms of tech perhaps, in terms of scale it will be hard against Microsoft and Google.
I never said it causes developers to make less money. I said it creates dependencies that are are unhealthy for a diverse market. It's a barrier to entry that doesn't need to exist.
Devs that get to publish their game on the platform get ahead, not "devs" in general.
This doesn't help with devs needing money, it makes it harder since anyone not invited now has to contest with the entire subscription catalog. If I want to see movie A but it costs $5 to rent then 75% of the time I'm going to watch movie B on netflix because it's "free". You need to be on the platform to benefit from it, and that's a problem when services are owned by corporations with their own agendas that, as history repeatedly has shown, almost never(steam being the one exception) align with things such as keeping an open market and consumer friendly practices. With a subscription service the financials simply aren't going to work out if it's a free for all market, instead we'll get even more money hatting and corporate curation.
It's the Netflix of games in the sense that it solved the early 2000's distribution and monetization problem and has become one of the most popular places for game "consumption". Netflix and Steam are indeed very different but so are gaming and video content.
All this does is to swap the publisher for the service provider. It's the same shit all over again. Curation is the job of reviewers, podcasts and discussion forums. Outside of scams and the most vile stuff It's actively harmful to have it as a barrier to enter the market. When I read things like this I start wondering if I'm on a games enthusiast forum or a corporate lobbyist club meeting.
Last edited:
They just need it to work properly, the exclusive content is the hardest part and they have it. Just look at Netflix.
With AAA games taking around 3-5 years to make, taking an average of 4 with a release per quarter would essentially require 15 (not 16 assuming 1 finished and released that quarter) titles in production at a given time. This is also assuming they can manage to prevent delays and maintain some level of quality. I guess by Nintendo's output they could have a bunch of repeats like Mario Kart/Party/etc and remasters to smooth it over.
Nevertheless, it is potentially riskier to launch a broken game than delaying today, so they can't maintain this schedule with any level of reliability. Who knows though, Sony is reaching that point now and even with Quantic Dream spinning off, they may be able to pull this off going forward. Especially with third party games they publish like spider-man to smooth over gaps
Nevertheless, it is potentially riskier to launch a broken game than delaying today, so they can't maintain this schedule with any level of reliability. Who knows though, Sony is reaching that point now and even with Quantic Dream spinning off, they may be able to pull this off going forward. Especially with third party games they publish like spider-man to smooth over gaps