-
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.
Xbox Game Studios |OT6| I'M BACK (TO RISE)
- Thread starter Figments
- Start date
- Status
You are talking about output of games, I'm talking about them pursuing a new major Xbox franchise. Like I said, a game changing new game from Xbox. I doubt MS expects any of these new studios the bought to produce such a thing since they are largely operating at the smaller level before they were acquired.
But how many of their 15 studios are working on a new flagship AAA series? Just The Initiative maybe? You talk about Halo, Gears, and Forza as if they are the focus of the industry but I think more people would have picked up an Xbox this gen if that were the case. Let me break it down by the current major series of all three console makers
Xbox: Halo, Gears, Forza
PlayStation: God of War, The Last of Us, Horizon, Marvel's Spider-Man, Uncharted, Gran Turismo
Nintendo: Pokemon, Mario (2D & 3D), Zelda, Super Smash Bros., Mario Kart, Splatoon
Then if you look at the smaller franchises of all three, Xbox is even more drastically behind the competition as PlayStation and Nintendo hold quite a lot of them that are actively still used, highly regarded, and sell well. Looking at the lists above, how can you not see that Xbox sorely needs a new pillar franchise?
Fable is being revived, but even then it just brings Xbox back to the Xbox 360 2010-2013 era in terms of their big series. And that was exactly the era where the Xbox line-up started being criticized due to the over-reliance on those franchises with new installments, spin-offs, etc.
I acknowledge that they own a lot of studios now, but I'm not expecting to be amazed by any of the games given that they are smaller projects not meant to make a splash and lack the big budget to do so. I would like to see more new high profile games that strengthen Xbox as a brand, rather than feed it as it becomes a service with Game Pass.
Difference is the fatigue has been reflected in the sales for Xbox, not Nintendo. And I have yet to see anywhere near the criticism Xbox gets for their reliance on familiar franchises for either PlayStation or Nintendo.
Also, you are wrong about new IPs on every level while avoiding the fact that a billion dollar company like Microsoft can make more AAA franchises if Sony and Nintendo can.
Let's just say I don't agree with anything you just said. Not on why only AAA games count, not on only The Initiative will work on AAA games (hell, we literally just had info that they bring State of Decay to AAA budget as an example and why ignore Rare, Obsidian, PG#2, Undead Labs or Age of Empires team?) and not on why "Horizon" or "Spider-Man" count as series but "Sea of Thieves", "Ori" or "State of Decay 2" don't. And a theoretical Fable (or let's just say Playground Games AAA Action-RPG) somehow doesn't count already either, despite being in the exact same situation like God of War. Seems pretty selective if you ask me personally.
All that said - you are entitled to you opinion and that's totally fine.
Last edited:
Even if I really enjoy Sea of Thieves, you can't really compare those IP to Horizon: Zero Dawn or Marvel's Spider-Man. Horizon: Zero Dawn has probably more sales alone than Sea of Thieves, Ori and State of Decay combined.
(I don't say I agree with its post, but about this specific part, I can understand why it mentions those hugely successful IP, for which a sequel is already in development, and not Sea of Thieves, Ori or State of Decay. He didn't quote Days Gone, Detroit, The Order 1886 or Knack either.)
Not really comparing them (especially not with sales as these are not easily comparable given the Xbox games are available at no additional costs on Game Pass), I just find it odd where people draw a selective line. I mean Sea of Thieves reached 8.5 Million players, State of Decay 2 5 Million. For sure that counts as "success". I don't understand that constant black-and-white thinking - just because there is something that might've been even more successful doesn't translate to that other thing not being successful at all. Sea of Thieves in fact is one of Rare's biggest success stories ever, allowing them to grow to the biggest studio size they've ever been.
Last edited:
Yeah of course, same for Ori or Cuphead. But there is a difference between be a success and become one of the best selling game of the year and one of the best selling PlayStation exclusive ever. Marvel's Spider-Man is like Halo during the Xbox 360 era.
Otherwise, on a completely different subject, I saw people asking for proves of the Halo/Gears fatigue. Here it is (launch month of all mainline Halo/Gears games in the US): https://infogram.com/ventes-halogears-aux-etats-unis-1h9j6q5o9w0v6gz
FWIW, from someone who hasn't purchased a console since the PS2 release, has never purchased a non-Hotshots Sony or Nintendo first party game and hasn't purchased a Microsoft first party game since the first Viva Piñata, Microsoft's current trajectory is the first thing I've been even mildly excited for from the console players in an extremely long time. I really couldn't care less if they don't expand the AAA side too much because I'm way more interested in what a company with the resources of Microsoft can do by giving a lot of small/medium teams more resources than they'd normally have. I'd much rather Microsoft try to define themselves by being experimental and by shipping a lot of games across a variety of genres than trying to compete in the AAAA cinematic space.
You know I'm not so worried about Tim leaving 343 the more I look into it. He was responsible for the squad system in 5. Which if you ask me was one of the main reasons why the campaign was the worst in the entire series.
There are plenty of great leads at 343 who should be to handle Tim's departure in stride. 343 has too many veterans and too much experience(their 3rd full game) to be in a anthem like situation.
I'm certainly optimistic about the game and can't wait to see the king of console shooters come back on top.
I expect to see infinite at xo19 in full force, hopefully then it can stop the negative talk around the game.
There are plenty of great leads at 343 who should be to handle Tim's departure in stride. 343 has too many veterans and too much experience(their 3rd full game) to be in a anthem like situation.
I'm certainly optimistic about the game and can't wait to see the king of console shooters come back on top.
I expect to see infinite at xo19 in full force, hopefully then it can stop the negative talk around the game.
Nah. Halo 5 sold 5 million copies in its first 3 months which had been talked about a million times. Showing launch npd doesn't mean much when firstly it doesn't show digital and secondly the game came out with only 3 days left in October.
It sold 5 million copies in its first 3 months which might be down from halo 3,4, and reach but not by too much.
We don't know what's being worked on by all their new studios and at what scale besides The Initiative's AAA game and Playground's 2nd team's AAA RPG. Next year is when you should expect a glimpse of what they have to offer to entice people to buy their next gen console or into their ecosystem.
Squads themselves aren't bad. In fact they make the main game on legendary a simpler experience in theory. The AI was just subpar at every turn. The campaign was bad because no split screen, bad pacing, too much Locke, Cortana and the fucking Warden Eternal Asshole of the forever. Like that is literally the WORST boss fight I've ever played and even worse it seems geared and balanced around competent companions, which on solo you don't have.
All threads with certain keywords will always be bad on here. Since the creation of this site it has been proven daily.
Anyway, any news on studios? I took like a few weeks break.
Anyway, any news on studios? I took like a few weeks break.
How am I wrong on every level? Sequels tend to sell more and review better than when they were "new IP". The buzz for games like RDR2 and Fallout 4 and GTA V and Skyrim were much higher than pretty much every new IP in a long time. Gamers want franchises and only jump on new IPs when they review really well or have a substantial marketing budget.
Also when did I ever say Microsoft shouldn't or couldn't make new AAA franchises? They have 12 other studios who are capable of making new franchises. Microsoft should be investing in making new high quality games (whether new IP, rebooting old IP, etc.) I don't disagree with that, but the fact is they're already doing that. All I'm saying is stopping Halo or Gears would piss off a lot more people than would be excited for their new games, and it's not like those 3 are the only 3 studios Microsoft has, you don't need to stop making a great franchise to be able to make new great franchises, you can do both. You have The Initiative, Playground, Obsidian, Ninja Theory, Rare all of those studios are more than capable of making a "great new IP", and even the ones I didn't name definitely will have a shot with more resources.
Microsoft should be making as many great games as they can, getting rid of their best IPs for the sake of variety is not something they should be doing. Not to mention the teams at 343 Coalition and Turn 10 are teams solely dedicated to those 3 franchises, those are people who worked at those companies because they want to work on Halo/Gears/Forza
Your assumptions are taking such a narrow view of the industry. It does not take 300+ person teams to make incredible new IP. It takes huge studios with a lot of manpower to make games that stand out if you're following a formula that has been done numerous times and developing in the traditional method. Scrap that. Xbox is allowing creative leads to lead and come up with new stuff. The corporation possesses the firepower to support all these studios to punch at AAA production values with less formulaic gameplay. This is exciting. But to each their own.
Homework assignment....
Research the predictive impacts over the next 10 years of:
Technology is moving exponentially faster than it was when Amazon was starting out.
Research the predictive impacts over the next 10 years of:
- 5G
- Machine Learning and AI
- Remote work/collaborative work with people in different regions
Technology is moving exponentially faster than it was when Amazon was starting out.
This call to reboot or mix up things is something I will never understand, and going on to say that they probably should do it because others have done it.
Battlefield had some controversy, and then Soderberg essentially came out with comments that should not have been made by any executive regardless of whether he thought he was right or not. They also released a game that was not content rich, came up with roadmaps deep into this year, a game riddled with so many technical issues.
The last Tomb Raider launched at a time when there were going to be a lot of big hitting games coming. Some games always suffer, and that was it.
Street Fighter was just a worse of game than previous generation title. They made it much simpler to play in order to attract the casual crowd, and released it in fewer platforms. How did people not expect that it would not max its sales? Combine this with how it launched i.e. few modes, incomplete seeing that there were gameplay mechanics like V Trigger II that came in much later, story mode too.
Halo is still Halo. It moves copies, even with a smaller console base to work with. Same as Gears of War. If you have something like half the sales or slightly more than that from the previous generation, many games will see a decline in sales. That is a logical conclusion.
Developers should change things when they think that they have something worth changing and not because several other developers have changed things up.
Last year, battle royale was all the craze. Battlefield and Call of Duty wanted to mimic the success enjoyed by Fortnite and PUBG, and that craze seems to be dying down. BioWare and Bethesda wanted to get into the looter shooter stuff, so they went further away from that zone where they were really good and released two of the worst big name games in Fallout 76 and Anthem. Technically, both were a mess, both have these huge roadmaps to try and fix the games, and people are not bothered at all.
And that is not all, more and more games have been going the open world route, getting bloated without having much variation in tasks that add to the game loop or story. Give me a game that is really good at what it does, over something that tries to chase a trend, something that does not fully commit to what it is trying to be.
If we are going to see previous franchises from Microsoft changing things, then it has to be something that has been well thought out. Changes that lend themselves to gameplay in a way that makes sense. I for one cannot see how much a cover based shooter can evolve its gameplay loop or world design without having barriers conveniently placed to help aid gameplay......same thing happens with The Division.
I think some announcement relating to AOE4 Is a possibility. I tried to ask to AOE team on facebook:
Q:
Hi Age team, It seems Adam Is going to Relic offices. Gamescom Is coming, right?
A:
Tune in to Inside Xbox, Monday at 8am PT. You won't want to miss it!
I decided to play through Gears of War 2 and Gears of War 3 (I recently beat Gears of War 4) and I have to say these games with "X" enhancements are a sight to behold. The jump in quality in textures and detail from Gears 2 to Gears 3 in 4k is pretty amazing. Back in the day when they came out I always thought Gears 3 looked a bit better, but in 4k it really stands out even more with both games running in 4k on the Xbox One X.
I really am looking forward to Gears 5 even more now but looking forward a bit more on what Scarlet can bring in enhancing previous generations of games? I do wish there were more 360 "X" enhanced games, I wonder with the much more power of Scarlet will they have more of them?
I really am looking forward to Gears 5 even more now but looking forward a bit more on what Scarlet can bring in enhancing previous generations of games? I do wish there were more 360 "X" enhanced games, I wonder with the much more power of Scarlet will they have more of them?
I just finished Gears 4 again. It really is a great game overall. Got me very excited for 5. I even played through the whole thing as Kait and I'm excited to keep playing as her in 5.
With 4 mainline God of War titles before it, the franchise lent itself well to change it up with the 5th. I am not sure Halo/Gears are in a position where they follow suit, as that would fundamentally change what they are known for. Speaking for myself, I know I would stop playing Halo if it changed too much.
Of course they need to change or at least take breaks from time to time. There's no way around that and it's how someone like Nintendo keeps their franchises relevant for decades. Super Mario 3D World was radically different from Super Mario Odyssey. The Zelda games or Mario Kart series have many similarities between installments, but they only do a few of those with every piece of hardware. They strained things with the New Super Mario Bros series, even if it technically only was one 2D Mario per system and when they expand the universes too much (like Paper Mario, Mario Tennis etc), they need to be careful those are different enough to not hurt the franchises. They're certainly not perfect at it, but they mostly do a very good job with the mainline games.
Franchises need breaks or changes so big, that everyone can see them instantly from time to time, or they'll suffer creatively at some point, but I think Microsoft is starting to get that. Forza took the year off and Halo is taking a longer break this time and will probably change a lot (I predict it'll incorporate more grinding elements). These are very positive changes if you've been following Microsoft's first party over the years. And they have a smaller army of developers to support the ecosystem and take weight off the shoulders of the bigger franchises, so they don't have to carry everything on their own.
I think it's looking pretty good right now. Not perfect, mind, since there's still the question of how many new AAA games they'll have time for, when their biggest studios are tied to specific franchises, but one could leverage the same criticism at Nintendo. That doesn't mean it isn't valid, just that things are, what they are.
I think that's unfair criticism of at least the first three games. They work a lot like a modern Mario game, with constantly changing sections in order to mix things up, whether it's a bowl minecart section, carrying boxes while fending of enemies, dodging acid rain, having the cover be living worms or stuff you shoot down from the ceiling, chasing a light source to avoid being engulfed by darkness or many many other things. The developers seem to be working overtime to make encounters as unique as possible within the framework, leading to some of the most varied shooters of their kind. You're really underselling them here.
Judgment and 4 had a little of it, but not enough and it isn't helped when they repeat those defense sections several times throughout the campaigns, so if it was those games you're thinking about, I agree, even if I still like them.
Last edited:
Oh yeah sorry, I forgot that the second month is the most important one for AAA. This chart is more accurate:
Even with a digital ratio of 50% (it's a lot less), it's still a HUGE decline for the IP.
No way it's going to look this good on X. Hopefully it's a Scarlett launch title.
You don't know what the digital rate. Also looking at the physical sales of a games first 3 or 4 days kinda seams pointless when we know the games first 3 months sales as reported by Frankie don't you think? Or was he lying?Oh yeah sorry, I forgot that the second month is the most important one for AAA. This chart is more accurate:
Even with a digital ratio of 50% (it's a lot less), it's still a HUGE decline for the IP.
Your discussion With him is Pointless...and you won't reach any end with it
We worries too much about "new IP" while most of the gamers out there are still buying millions of new copies of minecraft and gta5 years after launch
I just see a lot of impatience here. If they announce great new games next E3, you'll all be quiet and in love. If it's not your personal taste, you'll not be happy about the direction Xbox Game Studios are heading to. We'll see plenty of new stuff, from AAA to AA, from new IP to reboots, but patience is a virtue not shared by many people. That being said, early titles of next gen are probably going to be more important than last gen. I do think teasers for Fable and Banjo or Perfect Dark alongside new IP would be a good idea that could drive sales of the next Xbox, but it's ultimately up to the studios what they want to create.
You and me both brother. Before this news I was very excited and looking forward to seeing it next E3 and the whole fact that we get a brand new Halo as launch game for the next gen Xbox was lovely. But I can't deny that this news has put that excitement somewhat to a halt. It's just not the kind of news you want to hear, whether it ends up not being all that big in the end or not.
It's crazy that Anthem is being mentioned in the other thread, because that thing was a disaster from the start, but still. Kinda hoping maybe 343 or Phil can shine some light on this sometime soon, maybe ease us down a little, the ones that worry a little.
#20by2020 baby
I use Sennheiser GSP500 open back design for a wider sound stage, they sound amazing but have to be plugged in to the controller. Was hoping the Steel series Pro Wireless would come to Xbox but that hasn't happened yet, not sure it will.
I feel like the new Playground Games title will be a total reboot of the Fable series. The Initiative is also poised to develop a potentially large scale game.
Not to mention studios like Obsidian and Undead Labs could easily make the next big series. XGS has a lot of scope.
First, the second graph I gave you include the second month of Halo 5, not only 3 or 4 days. Secondly, about digital, yeah, I don't know the ratio, but when physical sales are down by more than 70%, including digital won't change that. If you think the digital rate was something like 70/80%, I'm sorry, but you are wrong. For example, in 2017, digital rate of FIFA 18 was at 19.9%, 20.4% for Assassin's Creed Origins and 21.5% for Star Wars Battlefront 2. Destiny 2 was at 38.5%, but even if Halo 5 has a similar digital rate (spoiler : it doesn't), its sales are still massively down in comparison of previous Halo games.
Finally, it's hard to understand this 5M figure, because it's in contradiction with all sales data we have. But it isn't 5M sold throught, but 5M shipped to retailers (which is the same for Microsoft), so maybe the game was overshiped. And even 5M is a big decline. It's a good number overall, but not for a new mainline Halo.
While I appreciate that you took the time to write such a detailed response, I think that this discussion has gotten out of hand, so I will try to be as brief as possible.
There seems to be some confusion about what constitutes a GaaS release. Games designed in a way that incentivizes players to keep coming back to them are not necessarily GaaS. Otherwise all multiplayer games (including chess), all sim games in the vein of Sim City, all games with map editors or user-generated content of some sort, all strategy games with randomly generated maps, and many, many others would automatically be GaaS. They are not.
Games with microtransactions or similar monetization schemes are not necessarily GaaS either. Or to turn that around, microtransactions are not a necessary element of GaaS releases. Forza Horizon 4 is most certainly GaaS, but it's done away with tokens, and the only thing that you could perhaps consider a microtransaction is a single one-time Treasure Map purchase. Sea of Thieves, another prominent GaaS, has featured no microtransactions for over a year. They'll finally be adding them, but even if they chose not to, it would still remain a great example of GaaS.
GaaS is simply a game that's continually updated and thus treated as an ongoing service. I would find it a stretch to call even FH3 GaaS, although it had weekly Forzathon challenges, but FH2 was definitely not it. FH2 saw only a relatively small number of discrete updates, like most Forza games before it, and many of the features and characteristics that you mention were also present in earlier Forza games, including the first Forza Horizon. I'm not sure if you've actually played those games, but when you finish the story part of FH2, the credits roll, just like in the first game. Once that's done, you can continue playing if you so desire, to wrap up any of the remaining championships, do rivals events or whatever - which is, again, exactly the same in the first game.
Let's remember, this whole conversation started because you suggested that the Horizon series gave up the more rigid structure of the first game in order to pursue the GaaS ideal. I strongly disagree, and see nothing of substance supporting that claim. I could go on about why I think the structure was changed, but this has already become long-winded. The point is, the more rigid structure with more gating (armbands) and more narrative hooks (bosses) could easily be reintegrated into the series without damaging its current GaaS status, if Playground so desired.
Likewise, GaaS and story-focused games are not necessarily at the polar opposites. There are narrative structures and storytelling methods that can function just fine within the GaaS framework. In fact, some of the most prominent GaaS, like Destiny (2), The Division or Final Fantasy XIV, also integrate strong narrative elements within their campaigns.
There's nothing arbitrary about core design principles that make games what they are. Those aren't easy to change because they contain the DNA of what makes a Halo or a Gears, properties that have generated billions in revenue and garnered millions of fans. Spin off games can be any number of things, and historically have been (Halo Wars, Reach, ODST, Spartan Assault/Strike, Gears Tactics, Gears Pop!) but mainline titles cannot drastically alter these principles without making changes to gameplay staples, either by addition or subtraction, of features as you're suggesting Gears should, which would risk pissing off the fans that still care deeply about it, which is still a substantial number, albeit a depreciating one.
Gears still stands alone in its gameplay excellence in the third person shooter space. As much as I think the franchise has had its day, there's nothing that comes close in competitive gameplay (TLOU MP honestly could if Sony were serious about supporting it, but I digress) so why would Coalition make these huge changes you think they should? What would be the end goal here? The problem with Gears is not that the gameplay feels dated, because it doesn't, and even if it did, Arcade is a ton of fun so they seem to have already covered alternative multiplayer gameplay for players that want something new.
The trouble with Gears is that more and more people are apathetic toward the franchise. They're tired of the look and the story and subsequently the excitement and anticipation of Gears 5 is a far cry of what it used to be.
It's clear as day that this franchise's best days are behind it so I would rather they put Gears on a very long break or be done with it completely than betray its core design principles in some misguided attempting to increase its longevity. I want them to give the property a quality sendoff true to its core design instead of betraying what it's about.
Coalition is a world class studio that could be working on a new and exciting things and they should do that sooner than later.
They bought the majority of those studios to work on AA titles, which is great, but I was specifically speaking to new AAA tentpole titles. The only studio we know for a fact is working on a AAA title is Playground, who are heavily rumoured to be working on Fable, which is great, but not what I was talking about.
The future looks bright because Microsoft had to answer for their past.
Are you suggesting I have some issue with Microsoft's first party efforts improving across the board?
Gears campaign today is a reshash of what it was a decade ago. How much longer are they gonna push this Locust/Swarm story and keep it interesting? What's next for the franchise, the Flock? Pendulum Wars 2?
I've said nothing of copycat IPs.
Coalition are the best third person shooter studio in the business. They could continue to make new IP using that expertise. New IP that can excite an entire industry, not a diminishing fanbase.
Last edited:
I will go out on a limb and state that there will be more people playing Gears of War 4 because of its availability on Game Pass than there have been at any point in the history of the game. That combined with it coming out on Steam would possibly see it start to go up in sales. Same thing applies to Halo.
I agree. Currently on my third playthrough (co-op this time - doing a bit of an LP with a friend), and I think it's brilliant. I have appreciated it more and more with each playthrough (and I already thought it was excellent on the first run). It just feels so damn good in the hand.
It's weird, I've played Gears 2's campaign probably a dozen times, but when I went back to it recently (first time replaying it since 4 came out), it felt a little heavy and slow in comparison. Yet, I distinctly remember the first time I played 4, thinking, "yep, this feels like Gears, alright." They managed to capture the 'feel' while making everything feel more fluid and up the pace a touch.
I posted this in the other thread, but I thought it could be useful here too.
Anyone who wants to use Anthem as a comparison here is really abusing the comparing apples to oranges analogy in a rather laughable way. You do realize that Anthem was a brand new IP that was always trying to do some risky thing with a "shared world" buddy iron man suit flying adventure while trying to jam in some semblance of Bioware RPG story elements. This is still going to be a Halo game with Master Chief front and center, along with what will no doubt be some great MP. There is zero relevance to any Anthem crap here.
And more importantly and actually relevant here I had the chance to meet Frank O' Connor at Halo Outpost in Philadelphia in late July, and he got me even more hyped for Halo Infinite. I told him that the two pinnacle gaming moments for me were playing Super Mario 64 on a Nintendo 64 for the first time and then playing the first Halo on the original Xbox, as both were times where I was basically amazed at what video games can be. I asked him if Halo Infinite could give me that type of feeling. He said that obviously he can't promise how I will feel, but that the team's vision is the "spiritual reboot" of the series that has been mentioned publicly. He said that they want you to feel like you did again when starting the second campaign level on the original Halo after crashing in the Bumblebee and emerging into the open world for the first time, and he also mentioned the 1999 Macworld Halo prototype demo where people were asking whether it was real that you would be able to do all of the things such as driving a Warthog in a big open world.
So yeah, not worried about that one guy leaving when Chris Lee (who Frank mentioned to me also when talking) is still in charge of the overall creative vision for the game.
I think it's safe to say that a decent chunk of that thread want Longo's leaving to mean Infinite is in trouble. Some people are more interested in 'drama' than getting a good game.
EDIT Just to be clear (because this post as it is would be ripe for misunderstanding), I'm not saying there is no cause for concern. But equally, no one should have absolute confidence that it is a terrible event and Infinite will be trash. We just don't know enough to say more than, "oh..." and wonder what it means.
EDIT Just to be clear (because this post as it is would be ripe for misunderstanding), I'm not saying there is no cause for concern. But equally, no one should have absolute confidence that it is a terrible event and Infinite will be trash. We just don't know enough to say more than, "oh..." and wonder what it means.
That's great to hear. I just completed a coop play through with a friend of Gears Ultimate. 2 is next and I'm looking forward to what it looks like on the X, it's been a long time since I played it.
I would say you can compare, Sea of Thieves is a very successful new IP.
I would say more people are currently playing and continually playing Sea of Thieves now than they other games mentioned, and is only getting bigger and better.
I'd argue ninja theory is working on AAA games too. And I'd argue Hellblade is a AAA game at least in quality
- Status