Spencer: Xbox Has to Mean Quality Games; We’ve Got Work to do There, Our First Party Output Hasn’t Been the Best

[RepedeYuriKarol]

These games all got support and funding from Sony as well as Sony Engineers and tech advisors checking in and helping. So relying on them wasn't an issue. That and they have already established a set of good games in the previous gen, so it's not like Sony hired a new group with a tarnished history. For Spiderman they literally went to them, asked them what they want to make, they said Spiderman and Sony not only helped fund the project, but let them have as much time as they needed, funded them and sent additional support where it was needed.

Click to shrink...

Yes..but Insomniac WANTED to make the game. If Insomniac had said no or they were working on another big game, then Sony would of had to have gone to someone else.

Last year Mike Ybarra was playing God of War on Mixer before E3 and he was asked about Sunset Overdrive 2, and he stated that Insomniac has to want to make a Sunset Overdrive 2

Sony can't always rely on Insomniac to make games for them, or Bluepoint, or From Software. It doesn't matter how much money, time, resources and support they offer them, they have no control over Insomniac wanting to make a Sony published game or not.

 

[RepedeYuriKarol]

Great post.

All of these goty stats are just making me realize how little I care about scores in general.

Click to shrink...

Thanks. There's certainly nothing wrong with having some third party studios make your games for you, but Nintendo has more than 2x as many games made by 3rd party than they do their own external studios.

I'd rather MS not take that approach, they have the studios, they just need to give them what they need to succeed in which I believe they will. Not just money and resources but time.

I know 343i and Playground have both been adamant on how bad crunch is and that it has no place in game development. They have so many games now that they can afford to give every studio an ample amount of time to polish the hell out of their games.

Halo Infinite is going to launch late next year, but if 343i had to delay it 6 months to a year I wouldn't have an issue with that.

 

[Tokyo_Funk]

Yes..but Insomniac WANTED to make the game.

Click to shrink...

Yes. I literally said that. Regardless, they got a choice. Unlike Rare who get told they have to pump out avatars.

You make it sound like a giant pool of negatively. So far Sony has chosen wisely, made great games regardless of studio, supported said studios and the output has been excellent. What more is there to say?

 

[Deleted member 43]

Thanks. There's certainly nothing wrong with having some third party studios make your games for you, but Nintendo has more than 2x as many games made by 3rd party than they do their own external studios.

I'd rather MS not take that approach, they have the studios, they just need to give them what they need to succeed in which I believe they will. Not just money and resources but time.

I know 343i and Playground have both been adamant on how bad crunch is and that it has no place in game development. They have so many games now that they can afford to give every studio an ample amount of time to polish the hell out of their games.

Halo Infinite is going to launch late next year, but if 343i had to delay it 6 months to a year I wouldn't have an issue with that.

Click to shrink...

MS is pretty Game Pass focused now, and these studios were largely bought so they can support GP with regular releases. While certainly MS will continue to make some blockbuster scale projects (Halo, Gears, Fable, etc.), otherwise the name of the game is to largely focus on relatively shorter dev cycles and lower budgets.

That's the way they get to at least 1 FP game a quarter, and it's exactly the right strategy for them.

 

[RepedeYuriKarol]

Yes. I literally said that. Regardless, they got a choice. Unlike Rare who get told they have to pump out avatars.

You make it sound like a giant pool of negatively. So far Sony has chosen wisely, made great games regardless of studio, supported said studios and the output has been excellent. What more is there to say?

Click to shrink...

That's the problem though, if Insomniac declined (even though it would of been a poor decision if they did) then Spider-man PS4 wouldn't have been made, at least as we know it.

Its the same thing that happened with Bioware. If Insomniac gets bought out, or if they wanted to make multiplats like Remedy, or even support Nintendo like Platinum. That's it, no more Sony games from your gun for hire.

 

[GING-SAMA]

Good article.

I hope that Xbox Game Studios will do like sony (Visual Arts Service Group) and create a technology group to help all First party studios on the technical part of their games to push the limits of the xbox platform.

Studios like Obsidian, Inxile, Compulsion games will need a technical boost for their next project.

 

[B.C.]

Why do you seem so stressed out? People are tired of the repeated sentiment from this guy about this particular topic and with nothing to actually show for it as of… today, especially when he sometimes even reports that he's proud of the work his teams are doing on games that end up being critical disappointments. That alone kinda gives off the impression that Phil isn't really in sync with what quality is as someone that used to actually head up Xbox's first-party studios. The people you are annoyed by are commenting on how they're fed up they are of not seeing results with what should have been the top priority for Phil, but you are acting like they shouldn't be complaining about something that Xbox should be delivering on already. Seems odd.

You mention new games, but Xbox already has had games outside Halo, Gears and Forza have show up this gen, and they simply weren't good enough outside of Ori. There's nothing to indicate that just because they've purchased a bunch of studios out of necessity that they will automatically make exceptional games that make people's heads turn. To get on the level Sony and Nintendo are on in delivering consistent quality games it takes years and a level of momentum that comes from that build up. It's not just that that needs work either, when both these companies will be focused on nurturing relationships with third-party publishers and studios when it comes to creative exclusive first-party content. After reading your hyperbolic thoughts in that other thread the other day about how MS is positioned going into next-gen, I'm honestly not surprised how confident you are about the future of Xbox first-party games, even if there are no proper data to base it off. The improvements made to their brand in the past 2-3 years have mainly related to content delivery services and not actual first-party games, and I'm not sure why it's been that and not the other way around.

Click to shrink...

You'd have a point if there werent a couple of factors you forgot to include:
1) There are now 10 new studios added to the XBG roster. How some of you pretend that this isnt that big of a deal is meta!
Wish I could say that I understood your plight when concerning the games coming from these studios, and how they can't have new IP's RIGHT. NOW. as soon as the ink on the contract was dry, but it makes me feel weird. Dunno why...

2) Every single studio that has been purchased has not been tampered with and allowed to keep the original DNA of that dev house, given the proper resources - not to mention time - and creative freedom to ensure nothing changes and everything changes simultaneously; the original teams stay, only with added financing and resources from not only Microsoft themselves, but all other XBG studios affiliates. Let's also include all of them are hiring new devs to increase the overall quality of the games they'll release.

Because Obisidian or Ninja Theory is now owned by Microsoft doesnt mean these guys have to go back to the drawing boards to learn how to create great games and work together as a cohesive team. The fact that Phil is hands-off with every team saves time in and of itself and increases the flow of creativity with every. single. one of them.

You and the others can pretend none of this is a big deal, but a few of us here know better. As I said before, the term 1st party Acquisitions, will hit a lot different once these guys get going and the vision is a reality. That's all Im gonna say on the topic.

 

[headspawn]

Yes..but Insomniac WANTED to make the game. If Insomniac had said no or they were working on another big game, then Sony would of had to have gone to someone else.

Last year Mike Ybarra was playing God of War on Mixer before E3 and he was asked about Sunset Overdrive 2, and he stated that Insomniac has to want to make a Sunset Overdrive 2

Sony can't always rely on Insomniac to make games for them, or Bluepoint, or From Software. It doesn't matter how much money, time, resources and support they offer them, they have no control over Insomniac wanting to make a Sony published game or not.

Click to shrink...

Not sure what Ybarra was going on about there but it doesn't reflect what Insomniac have said themselves, Insomniac would've loved to make a sequel to Sunset Overdrive, they're on the record saying as much more than once.

 

[GING-SAMA]

MS is pretty Game Pass focused now, and these studios were largely bought so they can support GP with regular releases. While certainly MS will continue to make some blockbuster scale projects (Halo, Gears, Fable, etc.), otherwise the name of the game is to largely focus on relatively shorter dev cycles and lower budgets.

That's the way they get to at least 1 FP game a quarter, and it's exactly the right strategy for them.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, after it will be necessary to see the ambition and the quality of the games, in 3-4 years some studios can make really ambitious and polish games (The witcher 3,God of War,Dishonored 2,Death stranding etc...).


Phil spencer was talking about giving them more time to make better games.


I don't think they make small games at 15M budget.

For example, it's safe to say that The outer world whatever it is excellent or average, people will say : "we want a more ambitious sequel" and Obsidian will also want to make a more ambitious sequel.

 

[Deleted member 43]

Yeah, after it will be necessary to see the ambition and the quality of the games, in 3-4 years some studios can make really ambitious and polish games (The witcher 3,God of War,Dishonored 2,Death stranding etc...).


Phil spencer was talking about giving them more time to make better games.


I don't think they make small games at 15M budget.

For example, it's safe to say that The outer world is excellent or average, people will say that we want a more ambitious sequel and Obsidian will also want to make a more ambitious sequel.

Click to shrink...

MS is all in on being "the Netflix for games," and to do that you need content, content, content. And, moreover, it makes strategic sense in general to build games that don't last too long, so users have reasons to keep going back to GP for new games. Not that they wouldn't be thrilled about a breakout hit and capitalize on it, but in terms of general development philosophy.

Think about Netflix. They spend a ton of money on a few marquee titles, but they make a lot smaller, cheaper projects to keep that steady supply of content coming in a sustainable way. MS will operate along those lines.

And, like I said, that's the exact right approach to be taking. I would be much more worried about their strategy if they had all their studios working on AAA games.

 

[Bjones]

They need to either make something new or bring back some old franchise. I don't think they understand that it doesn't matter how good a game is if they constantly pump one out right after the other.

 

[RepedeYuriKarol]

MS is pretty Game Pass focused now, and these studios were largely bought so they can support GP with regular releases. While certainly MS will continue to make some blockbuster scale projects (Halo, Gears, Fable, etc.), otherwise the name of the game is to largely focus on relatively shorter dev cycles and lower budgets.

That's the way they get to at least 1 FP game a quarter, and it's exactly the right strategy for them.

Click to shrink...

That's the strategy for nearly every big publisher except for Nintendo.; Most only release on average 2-4 full $60 games per year but release a ton of smaller games, content and support their ongoing games.

2019

Activision put out Sekiro and MW

EA put out Anthem, Star Wars Fallen Order

Ubi Division 2 and GR Breakpoint

Sony Days Gone and Death Stranding

BandaiNamco One Piece WS, Code Vein, Jump Force,

Sega Mario and Sonic Tokyo 2020, Total War 3 Kingdoms, Judgement

Square Enix Kingdom Hearts 3

THQ Nordic Biomutant

Take Two Interactive Borderlands 3, Outer Worlds

Some publishers like EA have annual sports games that inflate the number of big releases. Same with Sony and their MLB series.

Nintendo is the only big publisher that puts out a ton of full $60 games (I believe they have 8 this year alone) and most of the time its because they have by far the most third party support for making games for them.

Even if MS only put out 2-3 big $60 games a year, they would be up to speed with the nearly every other major publisher out there. The difference is they'd have more AA games than other publishers to support the bigger games. This year MS released Crackdown 3 (which wasn't very good but this isn't a quality argument as even Anthem and Fallout 76 are considered AAA games) and Gears 5. Even though they aren't publishing it, they do own Outer Worlds and the studio making it. Next year most likely Halo Infinite, Age of Empires 4 and Forza MS 8 to launch with Scarlet.

Right now MS has 8 studios that make full $60 retail games, that's not including any potential third party deals they might make. At the very least they're most likely going to keep pace with other big publishers.

 

[Deleted member 43]

That's the strategy for nearly every big publisher except for Nintendo.; Most only release on average 2-4 full $60 games per year but release a ton of smaller games, content and support their ongoing games.

2019

Activision put out Sekiro and MW

EA put out Anthem, Star Wars Fallen Order

Ubi Division 2 and GR Breakpoint

Sony Days Gone and Death Stranding

BandaiNamco One Piece WS, Code Vein, Jump Force,

Sega Mario and Sonic Tokyo 2020, Total War 3 Kingdoms, Judgement

Square Enix Kingdom Hearts 3

THQ Nordic Biomutant

Take Two Interactive Borderlands 3, Outer Worlds

Some publishers like EA have annual sports games that inflate the number of big releases. Same with Sony and their MLB series.

Nintendo is the only big publisher that puts out a ton of full $60 games (I believe they have 8 this year alone) and most of the time its because they have by far the most third party support for making games for them.

Even if MS only put out 2-3 big $60 games a year, they would be up to speed with the nearly every other major publisher out there. The difference is they'd have more AA games than other publishers to support the bigger games.

Right now MS has 8 studios that make full $60 retail games, that's not including any potential third party deals they might make. At the very least they're most likely going to keep pace with other big publishers.

Click to shrink...

The point is MS feels they need to put out significantly more and more regular content than the other publishers, again, to support Game Pass.

 

[RepedeYuriKarol]

The point is MS feels they need to put out significantly more and more regular content than the other publishers, again, to support Game Pass.

Click to shrink...

I agree but there is a misconception here, especially because people take Matt Booty's quote on wanting 50-100 people studios out of context, that MS is solely going to release AA games and that only Halo/Gears/Forza were going to be AAA games

In fact, there was a video by the Initiative a few months ago and one of the team members implied that they wanted to stay on the smaller side. He was clearly talking about the core team and that they weren't ready to hire a bunch of people yet and people put a massive spin and even flat out lied about how their game was going to be a smaller AA game.

MS isn't going to release an AAA game every month, but they don't have to either. 2-3 a year would be enough.

In fact they've already been doing 2-3 a year this entire gen but the quality wasn't up to snuff with what Nintendo and Sony were putting out.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

So, do you hope they keep up this wonderful track record for the past three years and don't improve anything? Because the was the claim that I replied to there. They absolutely needed to change, it's crazy to think otherwise.

I don't use metacritic either btw, not sure why thats directed at me or what it has to do with the topic at all.

Click to shrink...

I wasn't directing it at you. But obviously Metacritic is relevant because if all of Microsoft's games were in the 80s and above I assume this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

The funny part is, quite a decent chunk of exclusives on Xbox One this generation have been in the 80s this gen. I feel Sea of thieves, State of Decay and Crackdown 3 have been the impetus for all this hubbub the last few years.

Killer Instinct, the Forza, Gears, Halo, Ori, Dead Rising, Titanfall, Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive and a few others all reviewed just fine.

 

[GING-SAMA]

MS is all in on being "the Netflix for games," and to do that you need content, content, content. And, moreover, it makes strategic sense in general to build games that don't last too long, so users have reasons to keep going back to GP for new games. Not that they wouldn't be thrilled about a breakout hit and capitalize on it, but in terms of general development philosophy.

Think about Netflix. They spend a ton of money on a few marquee titles, but they make a lot smaller, cheaper projects to keep that steady supply of content coming in a sustainable way. MS will operate along those lines.

And, like I said, that's the exact right approach to be taking. I would be much more worried about their strategy if they had all their studios working on AAA games.

Click to shrink...

Totally agree, so to satisfy the most harcore it is missing 1 or 2 AAA studios to have the perfect balance. (this depends on whether Obsidian will do AAA or not)
.

So they need 1-2 big blockbuster and 2-3 AA games per years like netflix. Given that their goal is 1 first party game per semester.

 

[TheUnsungHero26]

And, like I said, that's the exact right approach to be taking. I would be much more worried about their strategy if they had all their studios working on AAA games.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, this makes a lot of sense. A studio like Double Fine is a perfect fit for Game Pass. If they were bought with the sole purpose of being turned into a AAA studio, I would be concerned as well.

 

[Deleted member 43]

I agree but there is a misconception here, especially because people take Matt Booty's quote on wanting 50-100 people studios out of context, that MS is solely going to release AA games and that only Halo/Gears/Forza were going to be AAA games

In fact, there was a video by the Initiative a few months ago and one of the team members implied that they wanted to stay on the smaller side. He was clearly talking about the core team and that they weren't ready to hire a bunch of people yet and people put a massive spin and even flat out lied about how their game was going to be a smaller AA game.

MS isn't going to release an AAA game every month, but they don't have to either. 2-3 a year would be enough.

In fact they've already been doing 2-3 a year this entire gen but the quality wasn't up to snuff with what Nintendo and Sony were putting out.

Click to shrink...

No, those won't be the only AAA games they make, but they won't be putting out 3 AAA, big-budget games a year. That's just not possible, sustainable, or repeatable, even with their growth, nor is it really that desirable strategically.

Expect more like 1 AAA game a year (or maybe alternating between 1 & 2 every other year), and 3-4 (or more) smaller projects.

Which would still be a very impressive output level.

 

[Papacheeks]

MS is all in on being "the Netflix for games," and to do that you need content, content, content. And, moreover, it makes strategic sense in general to build games that don't last too long, so users have reasons to keep going back to GP for new games. Not that they wouldn't be thrilled about a breakout hit and capitalize on it, but in terms of general development philosophy.

Think about Netflix. They spend a ton of money on a few marquee titles, but they make a lot smaller, cheaper projects to keep that steady supply of content coming in a sustainable way. MS will operate along those lines.

And, like I said, that's the exact right approach to be taking. I would be much more worried about their strategy if they had all their studios working on AAA games.

Click to shrink...

Too be netflix for games your brand has to be as good as netflix is. Netflix didn't start with the best content. It took years of just being a service you could rent physical disc's that rolled into digital streaming of said movies/tv shows. Then they introduced their own shows, followed by movies that now are synonymous with netflix as a brand.

Xbox has still got to prove itself as a brand after this gen. And the said approach laid out with these new studios is just like you said going towards gamepass. In my opinion it's a move that should come after you re-branded the xbox brand. Which they started doing with some of their moves with BC, PC initiative. But not on the software front.

I would have built the studios to make AA-AAA games and have them be high quality even if it took more than one try from a studio. But that seems to be not what they built studios for. Seems they built studios to just have more available software on a service. Maybe some of the AAA stuff by the new studios shakes out in terms of impact and positive on the brand.

But to think new studio who have never worked with each other like The initiative to hit a homerun on the first try is really reaching. It takes multiple projects, even multiple failed ones to sometimes hit a home run.

They still seem to be making moves that are controlled by the parent company, with throwing a bunch of shit at a wall and see what hits. And that may work for them I guess. But it has a bigger way of biting them bigger in the ass. IF THOSE games have high player numbers but lets say are panned critically. That has impact on the brand.

I would rather the studios just make games and take as long as they want without needing to fit a mold/checklist for a subscription service.

 

[RepedeYuriKarol]

but they won't be putting out 3 AAA, big-budget games a year.

Click to shrink...

3 is very feasible. Even Ubisoft has stated that they'll be putting out 3-4 AAA games between April 2019 and March 2020.

https://www.vg247.com/2019/02/15/ubisoft-launching-3-or-4-aaa-games-in-fy-2020/

And they're launching their day one sub service soon which is solely on PC and more expensive than Game Pass.

Between Gears 5, Outer Worlds, Age of Empires 4, Halo Infinite and most likely FMS8 that's already 5 full $60 games in the span of 16 months. They're already roughly at the 3 a year mark. Most likely scenario is that they'll fluctuate between 2-4, never going below 2 or above 4.

 

[GING-SAMA]

I agree but there is a misconception here, especially because people take Matt Booty's quote on wanting 50-100 people studios out of context, that MS is solely going to release AA games and that only Halo/Gears/Forza were going to be AAA games

In fact, there was a video by the Initiative a few months ago and one of the team members implied that they wanted to stay on the smaller side. He was clearly talking about the core team and that they weren't ready to hire a bunch of people yet and people put a massive spin and even flat out lied about how their game was going to be a smaller AA game.

MS isn't going to release an AAA game every month, but they don't have to either. 2-3 a year would be enough.

In fact they've already been doing 2-3 a year this entire gen but the quality wasn't up to snuff with what Nintendo and Sony were putting out.

Click to shrink...

I think MS studios that will do AAA games with +40-50M development budget is :

-343i
-Playground Games Action RPG Team
-The Initiative
-The Coalition
-Rare Ltd
-Maybe Obsidian i think it would be a mess to not compete with Bethesda & CdProjekt

Total : 5 or 6 AAA Teams

At sony worldwide studios :

-Naughty Dog
-Guerilla with 2 teams
-Santa Monica
-Bend Studio
-Sucker Punch Production
-New San diego Studio

Total : 7 AAA Teams

(Not to mention the racing studios)

 

[Deleted member 43]

3 is very feasible. Even Ubisoft has stated that they'll be putting out 3-4 AAA games between April 2019 and March 2020.

https://www.vg247.com/2019/02/15/ubisoft-launching-3-or-4-aaa-games-in-fy-2020/

And they're launching their day one sub service soon which is solely on PC and more expensive than Game Pass.

Between Gears 5, Outer Worlds, Age of Empires 4, Halo Infinite and most likely FMS8 that's already 5 full $60 games in the span of 16 months. They're already roughly at the 3 a year mark. Most likely scenario is that they'll fluctuate between 2-4, never going below 2 or above 4.

Click to shrink...

Even Ubisoft? Dude, Ubisoft is huge. It's around 14,000 employees, and they heavily use contractors as well. If any publisher could do what you're talking about, it would be Ubi.

And I never said "$60 games." Any game can be $60. Forza, AoE, and Outer Worlds are not the big budget, long time to develop games I'm talking about.

 

[RepedeYuriKarol]

I would rather the studios just make games and take as long as they want without needing to fit a mold/checklist for a subscription service.

Click to shrink...

I think MS studios that will do AAA games with +40-50M development budget is :

-343i
-Playground Games Action RPG Team
-The Initiative
-The Coalition
-Rare Ltd
-Maybe Obsidian i think it would be a mess to not compete with Bethesda & CdProjekt

Total : 5 or 6 AAA Teams

At sony worldwide studios :

-Naughty Dog
-Guerilla with 2 teams
-Santa Monica
-Bend Studio
-Sucker Punch Production
-New San diego Studio

Click to shrink...

...I'm pretty sure several of these studios will get well over $50 million budgets...Halo Infinite supposedly in the multi hundred million range.

Why is only Playground's RPG team getting that budget? Why isn't Forza Horizon?
Why would Guerrilla Games second studio get that budget? Based on what exactly?
What is the new San Diego studio making? Why are they getting a $50 million budget?

 

[jorgejjvr]

Thankfully, gamepass provides the best value in gaming.

But yes, gotta work on 1st party output, and good to know they are aware and working on it.

 

[RepedeYuriKarol]

Even Ubisoft? Dude, Ubisoft is huge. It's around 14,000 employees. If any publisher could do what you're talking about, it would be Ubi.

And I never said "$60 games." Any game can be $60. Forza, AoE, and Outer Worlds are not the big budget, long time to develop games I'm talking about.

Click to shrink...

A $60 game is an AAA game. That's literally the only objective measure of a game being AAA or not.

You can't argue quality (Anthem is an AAA game)

You can't argue budget (Fable Legends was a F2P game that cost over 70 mil before it got buried)

You can't argue development time (Kojima's game didn't have a very long development time, maybe 3 years and some change)

$60 is the only objective measure.

Ubi has a ton of employees but MS has 8 studios capable of delivering $60 games and they can do publishing deals with 3rd party like they did with Remedy and Insomniac. In fact, Age of Empires 4 is said deal since Relic is making it before their own internal studio takes it over.

They have enough developers to hit the 2-4 mark for AAA games per year. And this is assuming they don't buy another AAA studio like Obsidian or Playground.

 

[GING-SAMA]

The most important is the quality games and the good compromise between AA-AAA.

1/2 AAA + 2/3 AA per years signed Xbox Game Studios it's the perfect compromise and I think any gamers will end up in this offer.

For the AA i just need AAA quality polish. An AA can have a very good visual, better than AAA and better lifetime.

 

[GING-SAMA]

...I'm pretty sure several of these studios will get well over $50 million budgets...Halo Infinite supposedly in the multi hundred million range.

Why is only Playground's RPG team getting that budget? Why isn't Forza Horizon?
Why would Guerrilla Games second studio get that budget? Based on what exactly?
What is the new San Diego studio making? Why are they getting a $50 million budget?

Click to shrink...

Yes 40-50M budget is just the minimum for AAA games.

Halo infinite have big AAAA blockbuster budget like Destiny,RDR2 i know.

I said I did not count racing game studios

 

[AtomicShroom]

He could start by making the new Battletoads game not look so cheap and cartoony and plain and low-grade-Flash-game looking. Just sayin...

 

[Deleted member 43]

A $60 game is an AAA game. That's literally the only objective measure of a game being AAA or not.

You can't argue quality (Anthem is an AAA game)

You can't argue budget (Fable Legends was a F2P game that cost over 70 mil before it got buried)

You can't argue development time (Kojima's game didn't have a very long development time, maybe 3 years and some change)

$60 is the only objective measure.

Ubi has a ton of employees but MS has 8 studios capable of delivering $60 games and more importantly they can do publishing deals with 3rd party like they did with Remedy and Insomniac. In fact, Age of Empires 4 is said deal since Relic is making it before their own internal studio takes it over.

They have enough developers to hit the 2-4 mark for AAA games per year. And this is assuming they don't buy another AAA studio like Obsidian or Playground.

Click to shrink...

No, AAA games are pretty universally understood to be big budget, high profile games that need longer dev times to be made. The fact that you can find games that aren't AAA and we're expensive to make, or AAA games that are bad doesn't really change that. AAA is a measure of a games's scope.

Mario Tennis did not cost anything close to AC: Odyssey, probably had 1/20 of the staff, and took years less to develop. They are not both AAA games, no matter what the MSRP is.
If you still disagre, fine, change the term to whatever you think is more appropriate, but we both know the kind of titles I'm talking about. And those are not the games MS will be focusing the majority of their efforts on.

Which, again, is the right call for them.

 

[Guaraná]

At least he knows there's a probl, that's the first step to solving it. Better than what some fans do when they keep denying this issue.

 

[RepedeYuriKarol]

Yes 40-50M budget is just the minimum for AAA games.

Click to shrink...

Based on what? If a game has a $39 million budget is it not an AAA game?

 

[Derktron]

I feel like Phil has failed on his very own words. He keeps saying that but has yet to deliver on those words & the studio acquisitions likely won't pay off for Microsoft. You aren't going to fix an issue by throwing money at it.

 

[Derktron]

Thankfully, gamepass provides the best value in gaming.

Click to shrink...

Sure but that's a service, not something you can enjoy by playing. It has games but 90% of those games are from 3rd-party devs not first-party.

 

[RepedeYuriKarol]

No, AAA games are pretty universally understood to be big budget, high profile games that need longer dev times to be made. The fact that you can find games that aren't AAA and we're expensive to make, or AAA games that are bad doesn't really change that. AAA is a measure of a games's scope.

Click to shrink...

You say "big budget" which is vague. How much is a big budget? 10 million? 50 million? You need to actually give some defined parameters on what you think makes a game AAA or not.

AAA games that are bad doesn't really change that. AAA is a measure of a games's scope.

Click to shrink...

Again, "Scope" is another vague term that has no defined parameters. What defines scope?

If your argument is based on using terms like "high profile" and "scope" but you yourself can't explain what those terms actually mean. They're buzz words thrown around when they can't actually be quantified.

 

[Deleted member 43]

You say "big budget" which is vague. How much is a big budget? 10 million? 50 million? You need to actually give some defined parameters on what you think makes a game AAA or not.



Again, "Scope" is another vague term that has no defined parameters. What defines scope?

If your argument is based on using terms like "high profile" and "scope" but you yourself can't explain what those terms actually mean. They're buzz words thrown around when they can't actually be quantified.

Click to shrink...

You are the only one who seems to have a problem with a generally understood term. This is the first paragraph on Wikipedia:

AAA (pronounced and sometimes written Triple-A) is an informal classification used for video games produced and distributed by a mid-sized or major publisher, typically having higher development and marketing budgets. AAA is analogous to the film industry term "blockbuster".[1]

Click to shrink...

I don't need to create a new definition of the term. Much like porn, people know it when they see it.

And again, this discussion is silly, so replace AAA with whatever you want in your head, and then we can keep having the actual discussion.

 

[OneBadMutha]

Microsoft restructured in late 2017. Before that restructure, the head of Xbox was unofficially the head of the Windows division (Terry Myerson). Nothing got done without his approval. No money was spent without his approval. The lack of investment and further cuts to the Division we're not determined at Phil's former level.

Since Microsoft's official restructure and reimagining of Xbox in late 2017, they've gone from 6 to 15 studios and significantly grown existing studios (for example Rare going from less than 100 employees to 250).

Xbox is still a work in progress (and admittedly shopping) however it's disingenuous to say this is all talk when considerable progress has been made since late 2017.

 

[Rosebud]

That's the problem though, if Insomniac declined (even though it would of been a poor decision if they did) then Spider-man PS4 wouldn't have been made, at least as we know it.

Click to shrink...

Just a detail, internal studios can also "decline" stuff. That's why we have a rumored Uncharted studio/team, Naughty Dog is seemingly done with the series.

 

[rokkerkory]

In fact in his latest interview, Nadella said Microsoft will do the best job for Sony regarding their Azure partnership.

Basically and fundamentally the fact that we have a business model in the areas that they're partnering with us, where we're dependent on their success. So we will do the best job for them, whether it's in cloud or whether it's in A.I. or what have you, in order to make sure that Sony can succeed with their own IP creation.

https://fortune.com/2019/07/27/microsoft-satya-nadella-xbox-streaming-video-game-xcloud/

Click to shrink...

Exactly. Console warriors need to go home. Gaming is best when everyone succeeds. This is too big vision for them to understand.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I feel like they've been saying words to this effect since 2013

It's time to deliver results

 

[FIREKNIGHT2029]

you are ignoring the fact that MS had to start from scratch - acquiring studios to be able to develop games. Which they did. And a lot of them too.

it's not like MS had a bunch of studios sitting around waiting for Phil to call them up and tell them to start working on a game.

so yes, it hasnt been more than a couple of years since the active new game developments have started.

Click to shrink...

I see where you're coming from but it's not like MS haven't been in the industry since 2001 (18 years now). Phil scrapped ScaleBound, Fable, etc. knowing that it would affect the XB1's output going forward. MS may be newer to the industry than Sony or Nintendo but they aren't exactly newbies. Phil had to have known that cancelling games and closing down studios was going to affect XB1 negatively and he still did it. I refuse to accept that an industry veteran like MS are "starting from scratch" like you put it. Until I start seeing real results from Phil I will remain hopeful but skeptical.

 

[Governergrimm]

I would rather the studios just make games and take as long as they want without needing to fit a mold/checklist for a subscription service.

Click to shrink...

But according to devs that's what is happening. They are asked what they want to make then let them make it. How much time they are given? I don't know. They gave 343 a lot of time since Halo 5, Moon has delayed Ori WotW, and Crackdown 3 was a poster child for delays and troubled development. So they are in fact giving developers more time but sometimes extra development time doesn't fix the problem.

I have been wondering though about how they sustain 4 games a year. Assuming 15 studios currently. Each one releases a game in a quarter with no overlap and in no particular order

Y1 - Q1 - 343
Y1 - Q2 - Double Fine
Y1 - Q3 - Compulsion
Y1 - Q4 - Coalition
Y2 - Q1 - Undead labs
Y2 - Q2 - Inxile
Y2 - Q3 - Obsidian
Y2 - Q4 - Ninja Theory
Y3 - Q1 - Playground Games
Y3 - Q2 - Rare
Y3 - Q3 - Turn 10
Y3 - Q4 - Age of Empires studio
Y4 - Q1 - The Initiative
Y4 - Q2 - MSFlight sim studio
Y4 - Q3 - Mojang

That is almost 5 years per studio of dev time between games and still delivering 4 games a year. That schedule is of course ridiculous and no one would expect them to deliver games in that manner but it also doesn't account for studios with multiple teams or XGS Publishing that makes things like Sunset Overdrive (Their biggest blunder is not greenlighting a sequel!).

All I'm getting at is they finally have the studio count to deliver games without having to force developers to meet a stifling deadline. They have the ability to be creative and take their time because there are a huge number of teams working on their stuff.

 

[TheUnsungHero26]

All I'm getting at is they finally have the studio count to deliver games without having to force developers to meet a stifling deadline. They have the ability to be creative and take their time because there are a huge number of teams working on their stuff.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, this is one of the things Phil Spencer mentioned in an interview during E3. It might have been the Giant Bomb one, I'll have to check.

 

[RepedeYuriKarol]

I don't need to create a new definition of the term

And again, this discussion is silly, so replace AAA with whatever you want in your head, and then we can keep having the actual discussion.

Click to shrink...

You're using wikipedia in an argument tho...

So, according to your wikipedia post, an AAA game must

1. Must be distributed by a mid - major publisher

By this logic, Destiny 2 is no longer an AAA game because Bungie are self publishing it, and they're not a mid - major publisher

2. Have a higher development and marketing budget

The marketing budget already eliminates a good majority of $60 games. Many supposed AAA games don't get TV commercials, advertisements, not so much as being put on the back of a bus

Higher development cost...again ...how much? You can't argue big budget without providing a number. Once again it's a buzz word

Much like porn, people know it when they see it.

Click to shrink...

People know a game when they see it, the caliber of game is what's being disputed here.

 

[RepedeYuriKarol]

Crackdown 3 was a poster child for delays and troubled development. So they are in fact giving developers more time but sometimes extra development time doesn't fix the problem.

Click to shrink...

I think there's a clear difference between games like Halo Infinite/Ori and a game like Crackdown 3. Crackdown 3 I think many knew it was going to be a bust regardless of time. The game never looked impressive outside of the cloud demo from 2015, the game was tied to having 100% full destruction and graphically it wasn't impressive. They probably could of made a good Crackdown game in 3-4 years if they didn't have so many developers working on the game and didn't tie it to the destruction aspect.

 

[Phendrana]

I feel like I've heard him say some variation of this annually for the past 5-6 years.

 

[Deleted member 43]

You're using wikipedia in an argument tho...

So, according to your wikipedia post, an AAA game must

1. Must be distributed by a mid - major publisher

By this logic, Destiny 2 is no longer an AAA game because Bungie are self publishing it, and they're not a mid - major publisher

2. Have a higher development and marketing budget

The marketing budget already eliminates a good majority of $60 games. Many supposed AAA games don't get TV commercials, advertisements, not so much as being put on the back of a bus

Higher development cost...again ...how much? You can't argue big budget without providing a number. Once again it's a buzz word



People know a game when they see it, the caliber of game is what's being disputed here.

Click to shrink...

You do understand the concept of exceptions and abnormalities, correct?

And I don't understand why you keep asking for a specific budget, considering I'm pretty sure you will just subtract 1 from it and ask what makes those games not AAA, like you did here:

Yes 40-50M budget is just the minimum for AAA games.

Click to shrink...

Based on what? If a game has a $39 million budget is it not an AAA game?

Click to shrink...

Which tells me you're not really engaging in this conversation in good faith. So, I'm done.

 

[RepedeYuriKarol]

You do understand the concept of exceptions and abnormalities, correct?

Click to shrink...

I can come up with other examples if you want too but I'd wager you'd dismiss those as well

Point is there is no official, objective and undisputable terms on what makes a game an AAA game. Although given your posting history, I'd wager that for a game to be AAA in your eyes it'd had to be

Single player
Cinematic 3rd Person
Throwable Axe (optional)

I'd wager in your eyes a game like Xcom 2 wouldn't be an AAA game despite it being a $60 game, having more depth and content then 90% of games out there simply because it doesn't fit this narrow scope of games that you consider AAA. It sure as hell didn't receive a large marketing budget

I'm pretty sure you will just subtract 1 from it and ask what makes those games not AAA, like you did here:

Click to shrink...

Which is the entire point I've been making, that there is no set budget that makes a game AAA. If you define a game having a 40+ million budget as being an AAA game then why should a 39 million budget game be considered one by your own logic?

Which tells me you're not really engaging in this conversation in good faith. So, I'm done.

Click to shrink...

Neither are you, which is why you've resorted to using wikipedia in your arguments.

 

[noyram23]

I think heard this before and I doubt it will be better going forward due to GP model.

 

[Ushay]

They have well over 15 distinct teams now, and more to come.
There's absolutely nothing for them to worry about.

 

[Jawbreaker]

That's the strategy for nearly every big publisher except for Nintendo.; Most only release on average 2-4 full $60 games per year but release a ton of smaller games, content and support their ongoing games.

2019

Activision put out Sekiro and MW

EA put out Anthem, Star Wars Fallen Order

Ubi Division 2 and GR Breakpoint

Sony Days Gone and Death Stranding

BandaiNamco One Piece WS, Code Vein, Jump Force,

Sega Mario and Sonic Tokyo 2020, Total War 3 Kingdoms, Judgement

Square Enix Kingdom Hearts 3

THQ Nordic Biomutant

Take Two Interactive Borderlands 3, Outer Worlds

Some publishers like EA have annual sports games that inflate the number of big releases. Same with Sony and their MLB series.

Nintendo is the only big publisher that puts out a ton of full $60 games (I believe they have 8 this year alone) and most of the time its because they have by far the most third party support for making games for them.

Even if MS only put out 2-3 big $60 games a year, they would be up to speed with the nearly every other major publisher out there. The difference is they'd have more AA games than other publishers to support the bigger games. This year MS released Crackdown 3 (which wasn't very good but this isn't a quality argument as even Anthem and Fallout 76 are considered AAA games) and Gears 5. Even though they aren't publishing it, they do own Outer Worlds and the studio making it. Next year most likely Halo Infinite, Age of Empires 4 and Forza MS 8 to launch with Scarlet.

Right now MS has 8 studios that make full $60 retail games, that's not including any potential third party deals they might make. At the very least they're most likely going to keep pace with other big publishers.

Click to shrink...

Quite a few of those $60 Nintendo games would be budget releases for any other publisher.