-
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.
Xbox Game Studios |OT6| I'M BACK (TO RISE)
- Thread starter Figments
- Start date
- Status
Despite working together Mistwalker isn't really what MS has typically looked to pick up, either, as it doesn't have the bandwidth to make anything beyond a mobile game. It's a tiny, tiny studio, and their big games were all co-developed by a larger company. So Lost Odyssey was actually developed by feelplus; Mistwalker was like the creative control agency that shaped the direction of the game, but didn't actually make it. the three Blue Dragon games were the same but with artoon, while The Last Story was AQ Interactive, etc etc.
Like, Mistwalker is a good get in that you get Sakaguchi, but unless MS is willing to put together the time, funding and effort to essentially build a proper team from scratch for them - at which point you might as well set up a studio from scratch - Mistwalker ain't the one. Their headcount is only like 15-20. A lot of Mistwalker, including Sakaguchi, is based out of Hawaiii too, which isn't as useful if you want to develop an actual Japanese-based powerhouse.
Do you guys think Xbox has to be cautious with that 'good boy Microsoft, all games are being ported to Switch' narrative?
I think it's actually a decent strategy to get all of the remaining titles from the purchased studios out for all platforms. They could theoretically have limited accessibility of titles like Bard's Tale IV to backers but it's good they haven't. But those Hellblade and The Outer Worlds ports... I'm not so sure about those. If the idea is to create fans for these franchises only to have the sequels console exclusive, then this could be a genius move. Exclusive content for Game Pass on console and PC is still important for Xbox even if you are all for removing barriers, why buy so many studios if this wasn't the plan? Cuphead is maybe a different beast because they just saw an opportunity to make some money.
I think it's actually a decent strategy to get all of the remaining titles from the purchased studios out for all platforms. They could theoretically have limited accessibility of titles like Bard's Tale IV to backers but it's good they haven't. But those Hellblade and The Outer Worlds ports... I'm not so sure about those. If the idea is to create fans for these franchises only to have the sequels console exclusive, then this could be a genius move. Exclusive content for Game Pass on console and PC is still important for Xbox even if you are all for removing barriers, why buy so many studios if this wasn't the plan? Cuphead is maybe a different beast because they just saw an opportunity to make some money.
Almost all of the ports come from publisher decisions and deals made prior to the acquisitions. It's still too early to tell what Xbox' Switch strategy entails.
I do think that it could hurt Xbox if they don't properly explain why those games are coming to PS4 and/or Switch. Some people seem think that these ports are spearheaded by MS, so you've got to wonder how they're going to react if the follow-ups to The Outer Worlds and Hellblade are Xbox/Windows exclusive.
I mean the question is are MS migrating towards being a publisher of games who also has hardware? I'd argue they might be. If for example Sony and Nintendo would have all MS first party games on their platforms would Spencer and Nadella say no? I don't think they would.
They will be a publisher that also has hardware. I just don't think they see themselves as worrying too much how much hardware they sell or where people use their games or services anymore. And I'm not really sure why any of that is a bad thing. More games, more choice and greater flexibility.
Mick Gordon needs to be doing the OST for basically any action-based game.
His Doom work shares a lot of DNA with KI, but his Prey soundtrack reinforces that he can do great atmospheric, less in-your-face stuff too.
I do think they'll become far more aggressive regarding exclusivity once Scarlett and xCloud launch. Right now they are simply trying to maximise their gaming revenue in a challenging period of limbo. They'll no doubt be hugely relieved once E3 2020 hits and they can finally start talking about their next-gen first party games and strategy. This has been a long generation for them, filled with endless negativity following a terrible console reveal they could never shake off. That said, I expect they'll be very nervous next year too, not to make the same mistakes.
What is strange is that Ori still hasn't been announced for the Switch despite the rumours earlier this year swearing blind that it was imminent. Indeed, it remains at this point that aside from Minecraft, no game developed from the ground up for first party has been released on Switch.
And regarding Minecraft; if Scarlett and xCloud are a big success, then I can totally see the platform getting an exclusive Minecraft game or content. But as of today, Minecraft itself is actually bigger than the Xbox platform, hence why it has to remain multi-platform to ensure they continue to receive their return on investment and maximise the brand exposure and revenue.
It's criminal that we never got a non-Kinect jetski spin-off from Kinect Sports Rivals.
Last edited:
It's a pretty big update.
Patch notes: https://support.stateofdecay.com/hc/en-us/articles/360031447271-CU-10-The-Bounty-Broker-Update
They are doing a great job supporting the game. Some really significant things listed in patch notes.
Last edited:
They'll just need to add in the « new » avatars (because they've been out for quite some time) because as of now they haven't been really used and they already have cosmetic mtx
Indeed. I'm still a fence sitter when it comes to the Switch rumours. I don't want to dismiss them completely, but there's not enough proof for me to believe in them yet.
On a side note, I'm not convinced by the "MS likes money therefore their games should come to Switch" reasoning. If they bring their games to the Switch they need to make sure that their ports require and have XBL support at launch. Growing their ecosystem should be their main reason for bringing their games to more platforms. Post-launch patches like for Cuphead doesn't cut it.
(XPA support would be preferable, but that's never going to happen on a Nintendo platform.)
So, with Ryse probably not coming back (hope dies last!), do you think Microsoft could give us a spiritual successor in the form of an Age of Empires spin-off? After all, Ryse was initially known as Codename Kingdoms. Age of Empires has a whole dedicated team now, although I suspect it will be focused on strategy games, so someone else should handle that hypothetical project (Ninja Theory, if they would be interested?).
I personally think Ryse should get a second chance. It was really only because of the initial Kinect stuff that the combat turned out so weird. In the right hands, it could be an amazing series. Graphically amazing, great set pieces, and visceral combat.
I may be crazy but Ryse could be the start of the MS God Of War style game. It has all the early hallmarks.
MS supposedly wanted to give it a second chance. Doesn't seem likely to happen now.
In a more distant future, it will likely be the case that you just open an Xbox/Playstation/Ubisoft/EA app and play their games, but we're quite far from this point. I'd be all for a joint console by Sony and MS, but it's just not going to happen.
I think the MS approach with console and PC is great, and allowing to take my games with me when travelling is also in your 'more choice and flexibility' category.
Still, Game Pass should be something within the ecosystem Microsoft can control, as a surplus that you can only get from their own products (Xbox and Xbox app on PC). And I do think good quality first-party content will be necessary to achieve this. Otherwise there is no point in calling it first-party, right?
That's the reason why I think they should be very cautious with this 'good boy Microsoft' image that I see on reddit and here quite often. They shouldn't cannibalize their own products even if software sales are important.
Also, hardware sales will continue to be important to justify that all relevant third-party games are continued to be developed for the Xbox platform, and again, Game Pass is a surplus you'd get only there. I don't think games would be adapted to the Xbox PC app specifically and rather just hit Steam. The physical Xbox is still important, even if more money is made elsewhere.
Last edited:
At a recent event I remember Halo 5, Ori, Forza being on the test unit. They said something about a September test if I remember rightly. Tbh, the more testing the better it will be.
Looks like xCloud is closer and closer.
About 35 staff working there.
If they want to be a third party publisher, they will drop the hardware. It makes no sense to invest millions and even billions in hardware r&d, marketing, and support if it's going to be a console with super limited appeal. They'd be sabotaging their own product, most people would just get another console because of its exclusives, and play Microsoft games on it. PC is different, the audience is simply different, although there exists some overlap. Besides, they have to support their own platform.
It especially makes no sense for them to go multiplatform now, with streaming around the corner. With streaming they don't have to bother with developing all of their games for multiple platforms, they develop once (well, twice), deploy on a single hardware platform in their datacenters, and deliver everywhere through a streaming client. It remains to be seen how wide a net they'll be casting with their streaming services, but at this point it makes far more sense than any extensive multi-console development effort.
Great that they are still providing postlaunch support for the game. Ill check this out :)
I'm just not sure MS are constrained by the old style model anymore...they might see hardware as a way to hook in their core crowd even though its not going to sell lots - and see some initial upfront cost of making that hardware worth it. I think they market on a streaming model and this would fit with that. Let everyone play your games on any platform that will have it, try and hook in enough hardcore to your hardware to spread the word - hope something big catches on....
I mean hardware costs can be reduced - and also like in other sectors you can choose to make the hardware compelling rather than relying on software. People buy a surface for what it is and the console space is not necessarily different if MS can have a point of difference in there.
Whether they are right or wrong I see them moving this way. I think their goal is just to make games and capture audiences and get them into their services models. Whether their hardware sells is likely secondary to them. It isn't like an instant flip - they're going through hybrid stages - but I suspect by mid way into next gen that is where they'd like to be.
Once again, that makes very little sense to me, and I don't see how it would make sense for Microsoft if they want to remain in control of their own platform. Everything that they've been saying lately seems to reafirm that. I believe it was in the recent Giant Bomb interview that Spencer was asked about the possibility of Game Pass on the Switch, i.e. more extensive native software support. He said that they have no plans for something like that anytime soon.
Right now we have seen only high quality material from the game, at gamescom she will be back, why so nervous?
It was announced early to justify the definitive editions of the entire AoE trilogy
I'm not sure about this, 2k only ported the nba titles and civ6 on switch, it sound so strange
Right now msft is only behind paradox and ubisoft for the post launch support quality
I think you are right in that they don't care if they move hardware, they want people on their service. However, porting their games to every console possible is not getting people on their service. If PS and Switch don't have gamepass or an MS service how does it serve MS's goals?
With the exception of Cuphead all of the games being ported out we're already in development and are largely not published by MS. I think people are going to be dissappointed when this doesn't continue after the initial games already in development don't come to switch or PS.
Last edited:
Looks like xCloud is closer and closer.
My body is ready to whore achievements wherever I am.
Also, creating, manufacturing and maintaining a console is really-really expensive (even to a company as big as MS) just to "not care" about how many they'll sell. Not to mention the cost of porting and anything added to that. It's just doesn't seem financially feasible to invest into something without plans to make profit from it.
This message makes me think we'll not only see AOE2de
what store is this? Console or PC?
Looks like xCloud is closer and closer.
There is no different store. There's only one Microsoft Store.
Exactly. And if the reason behind this hypothetical expansion is for their games to reach more people, why would they throw away obscene amounts of money (in addition to everything already mentioned, it would add an additional platform for their devs to support with every game, making every game more expensive) on something that's only going to appeal to a comparatively miniscule userbase? It's either third party with no console or first party with (console) exclusives and a console, any other scenario is clearly inferior for the business, even before we consider their long term strategic goals. The only other possibility that could maybe work is a scenario in which Sony and Nintendo also decide to put their games on other consoles, so they're all competing on a more equal footing, and that's not happening (with native software, streaming is a possibility).
In the distant future it will make even less sense, since streaming will be commonplace. Unless some catastrophe cripples the global internet infrastructure, but in that case we'll have more pressing issues to worry about.
Ooh, so Anya was previously First Minister. And it makes sense that Jinn would have been Minister of Procreation, given her role as a (very!) strict and overprotective parent.
I suppose I should have been more careful with my wording. I don't think console sales are their primary metric for the Xbox division. It is important in as much as it serves as an access point to their services but I don't think they care if PC or mobile surpass their console sales. Like I said it's just an access point.
Thanks for the interesting info. I'm curious about that development process since it seemed successful. Is this not a sustainable way to make games? Like could you take any small studio with a strong creative core and contract out the heavy lifting for a AAA game?
Hardware isn't directly profitable. It has really low margins. It's a means to get people into their ecosystem...where software and services can generate really high margin revenue.
Saying Microsoft doesn't care about hardware sales is not the right way to frame the mindset. Microsoft wants people in their ecosystem. For a large segment gaming consumers, console is still the only way they'll consider the ecosystem. For the PC gamer who only buys consoles for the exclusives, Microsoft doesn't care if they forego the plastic if they can get them into their ecosystem on PC. If they did care, they wouldn't be putting their games on Steam. Yes there's more margin selling the same product on a closed console however there's more volume potential increasing mindshare on PC.
The Xcloud gamer is actually renting Microsoft hardware...since the same tech that's powering the consoles will be powering Xcloud from Azure servers.
So yes, we need to think about those console sales differently. No, consumer sales of plastic dropping doesn't make investing in new APUs bad business of that same tech is used in the cloud.
I'm pretty sure Mike Ybarra was a big Ryse fan, though not sure if that amounts to much. I'd love a sequel, and would be excited to play one if they ever did it, though it seems unlikely that will happen.
This happens more often in Japan than the West, but it totally is viable... but I think it makes more sense with the Mistwalker style of setup where you are a creative agency of sorts with big names attached, then pitch your idea to find a publisher, then you and the publisher together go and find an appropriate co-developer. There's advantages and disadvantages to it, as with anything. Square Enix had CyberConnect2 working on FF7 Remake in this sort of manner and it wasn't working, which is when that game got quietly bought in-house and partially rebooted... so it can fail, but it can also totally go great.
In truth it's not dissimilar to what you see in movies: so, say, Adam Sandler's production company coming up with another terrible comedy idea, shopping it around to studios, eventually Sony or whoever picks it up... so then it's a Sony Pictures movie, but by [production company] that the big name is attached to. See also, like, Bad Robot & JJ Abrams. Bad Robot doesn't have the bandwidth to make a Star Wars movie, but LucasFilm hires them to be a co-producer, and then JJ and the creative minds at Bad Robot work with LucasFilm to shape the creative direction of the project - same for Paramount and Star Trek, etc etc.
The issue is with it being a first party situation, I think. The creative agency sort of set up works better when you're going from project to project with less consistency, but I'd imagine Microsoft wants in-house studios that can contribute to the greater internal game studio scene (IE by contributing assistance to other studios where needed, or sharing tech) and a studio that can be enclosed and develop sequels and ideas without a third party being involved. Internal studios should be an investment for hardware creators... and having it done this way is probably less efficient in that sense. But that is just a read, supposition, on my part.
- Status