Microsoft, but not Microsoft Studios. Unfortunately. Same for PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS. Microsoft Store states that Xbox One version is published by Microsoft as well.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Microsoft Studios |OT2| The Best Is Yet To Come
- Thread starter Figments
- Start date
- Status
First I heard he's been on vacation, but now its been too long.
I am usually positive, but this is still sort of weird and not like him.
And?
It's a Microsoft Sale. Not a "Microsoft Studios" Sale.
Independent from that did Microsoft Studios Global Publishing have a role in this. They are part of Microsoft Studios.
Good. Lionhead Fable never particularly impressed me. I thought Fable 3 was horrid honestly. I'd rather they make an entirely new IP, but if they want to make Fable I hope they massively shake up the formula like what's happening to Gears and Halo.
Talking about Fable: Played Fable 2 and Fable 3 and never felt it was something special. I know its a matter of taste but there are games in the MS IP portfolio that are giving me more hype. But maybe Playground can change that for me if it really is the game they are working on.
Changing topic ...
I am still very curios about what game Black Dusk (now The Coalition) had in the works. The footage and descriptions of the setup still was very interesting to me.
Changing topic ...
I am still very curios about what game Black Dusk (now The Coalition) had in the works. The footage and descriptions of the setup still was very interesting to me.
Accepting your opinion on this (of course! :) ), but I will never understand these type of comments in relation to the Black Tusk teaser. It was the most generic and uninspiring thing they could've shown. The footage was a blank showing of tech and that's it. Generic guy. Generic environment. Generic gun. Impressive tech. The last point which clearly transferred to Gears at least.
While I agree with the sentiment of your post, I also don't think it's unreasonable to say that The Coalition may have ambition outside of the Gears franchise (or, at the very least, outside of what we'd expect from a traditional Gears game, but in the same franchise). With how much respect Matt and Phil seem to have for Rod, I wonder if The Coalition might not be the first "major" Microsoft Studio we see have a second team/second project form (outside of Playground, which is essentially two different studios). I would love to see what that studio could do with a second team that wasn't focused on the core Gears of War franchise games.
I refer also to info swirling around the game about the setup, not just the video. To me it looked like a TPS espionage stealth game which obviously peeks my interest. And recently there was that behind the scenes video where it was talked about. I would love to see another studio continue the work on that project.
I agree. At the time, the game looked super fresh and really interesting. I do wonder if that void hasn't been filled by some of the stuff that R6: Siege and GTA V have done. I personally would still love to see it, especially if it had less of a focus on gun-play and more of a focus on tactical planning and stealth.
The interesting thing about Splinter Cell: Blacklist is some of those missions almost became puzzle-like in trying to figure out ways to get through the level without alerting guards. Your gun just sort of became another tool to solve the puzzle by doing things like silently shooting guards and taking out lights and cameras. Something like that on a bigger scale with co-op would be unbelievable.
You know what? Playground should develop a James Bond game, this just looks amazing. After all, Bizarre did a decent job with Blood Stone.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/49100377/ShadowComplex_Screen15.0.0.jpeg)
That seems unlikely with Perfect Dark almost guaranteed to make a comeback in the next five years. It could be super cool, though. I ultimately think that the licensing nightmare is just not worth it for Microsoft with Joanna Dark already under the company umbrella.
When I saw the trailer at first I thought they used Phil Spencer as the character model. Just look at your provided picture! And btw: Shadow Complex was a great game.When I saw that teaser I thought it was a new Shadow Complex.
How many people do they have there? Have they released any games yet?
With Capcom Vancouver officially dead, The Coalition should have a bit of a bigger talent pool to fill the seven open spots they had the last time I looked. I wonder if this a chance for the studio to look at a big expansion?
Yeah, or if they do stay in Vancouver, the coalition could hire them.
T10 has been hiring with this focus for over 2 years. Satya set the direction for the entire company. Gaming is falling inline. The entire company is focused on services thus MAU and GAAS have heavy importance and focus.
Taking over the studio would be a great thing to be fair. I mean the studio already worked closely alot of times with MS, its in a location MS likes, dev size its pretty good and the whole team is already set really.
I mean they can start right away and probably already have some pre production stuff. If it all makes sense cost wise for MS i dont know. But its a nice opportunity.
I mean they can start right away and probably already have some pre production stuff. If it all makes sense cost wise for MS i dont know. But its a nice opportunity.
Yep. It's almost safe to say The Coalition will try to get a few from these guys.
I wondered that too, but apparently a ton of talent has already fled to EA Vancouver. Hard to say what they have left at this point.
To be fair thats not a bad thing. I doubt MS would have liked a 250 studio to take over. It has been slimmed down abit now in the mid and low 100 wich is guess is more to MS their likening.
Don't want to sound too negative about Capcom Vancouver, but there are reasons why they shut them down. Usually this happens when your studio misses milestones all the time etc. So I'm not sure if it would've been a good studio for MS honestly.
Skybox Labs, Compulsion Games, 343i and The Coalition are all interested in picking up some of the devs.
I mean would they be better off than an example like Sumo and Crackdown 3 or recore with armature? I mean Dead rising games aren't the greatest but those 2 games I mentioned haven't seemed to be doing that great development wise.
While I don't think they would open a new studio with them, a pre built team ready to go is a good thing to come across.
I hope MS starts using Big Park (Didn't even know MS owned them) better.
the trailer said 2,5. Personally I love when Platforms use classical animation styles. Cuphead and the last raymans are pure joy to watch
Lol, I guess the company was that obscure that the Wiki entry hasn't been updated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BigPark
Oh yeah, it did, didn't it? I just remembered the 2d animated hoverbike crashing into the wall. There's nothing wrong with 2D and especially if it's executed well in animation and artstyles like Studio MDHR or Lab Zero. I guess we'll just have to see how well this is executed.
I'm glad Compulsion Games plans to expand too.
Also it seems pre-ordering the new Ace Combat game on Xbox One gets you the previous game for free as a bonus.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/Ace-Combat-7-Skies-Unknown-Deluxe-Pre-Order-Bundle/C3D89T74CFLK
Also it seems pre-ordering the new Ace Combat game on Xbox One gets you the previous game for free as a bonus.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/Ace-Combat-7-Skies-Unknown-Deluxe-Pre-Order-Bundle/C3D89T74CFLK
Why are some people so adamant on opposing micro-transactions when companies with GAAS need a good model to stay in business? You can't just make everything free and expect to stay in business for years.
I understand some micro-transaction complaints like if it ruins the balance of the game or similar, but that's not always the case. In many cases as a company, you can either choose to introduce micro-transactions to allow for free DLC, or you can make all DLCs paid (or most). Either way people will complain and I believe for community-based games, free DLC with optional micro-transactions is the best fit. Yet after going to sites like IGN with that Halo: Infinite MT Job posting you think that wouldn't be the case (because micro-transactions is a bad word and people won't even buy the game now because of it).
Of course, I do have an issue with the model I suggested with the prices for everything are skewed so you're practically required to buy something if you want to get anywhere (GTA: Online for example with Shark Cards).
As I said, it really just depends, if it's SP only then I have more of an issue with it, but if the game is community based with MP, then I don't find it as bad (because those types of games are supported for longer and have server costs).
I honestly don't have an issue with GAAS. It really depends on how they go about it if I have an issue. Some games I prefer to be supported for awhile. Heck, even last-gen I had games that I loved so much I wish they'd support them for years to come with new content. For micro-transactions, if the game's balanced isn't skewed for it (which some believe it always is even though I don't agree), and you can get everything in-game with in-game currency then I have no issue with it.
I don't know, maybe it's because I am in Computer Networking (so I know servers and people can be expensive) and know business (to a degree) that I know these things aren't sustainable. For some, yes, but you can't expect to support a game for years and years to come on game sales alone.
And yes, I know there are some games that are even less GAAS and have a revenue of millions that don't really need micro-transactions (certain EA and Ubisoft games) because they sell so much. I'm not arguing for those as I completely agree that's bad, but hey, that can be shareholders for you.
I understand some micro-transaction complaints like if it ruins the balance of the game or similar, but that's not always the case. In many cases as a company, you can either choose to introduce micro-transactions to allow for free DLC, or you can make all DLCs paid (or most). Either way people will complain and I believe for community-based games, free DLC with optional micro-transactions is the best fit. Yet after going to sites like IGN with that Halo: Infinite MT Job posting you think that wouldn't be the case (because micro-transactions is a bad word and people won't even buy the game now because of it).
Of course, I do have an issue with the model I suggested with the prices for everything are skewed so you're practically required to buy something if you want to get anywhere (GTA: Online for example with Shark Cards).
As I said, it really just depends, if it's SP only then I have more of an issue with it, but if the game is community based with MP, then I don't find it as bad (because those types of games are supported for longer and have server costs).
I honestly don't have an issue with GAAS. It really depends on how they go about it if I have an issue. Some games I prefer to be supported for awhile. Heck, even last-gen I had games that I loved so much I wish they'd support them for years to come with new content. For micro-transactions, if the game's balanced isn't skewed for it (which some believe it always is even though I don't agree), and you can get everything in-game with in-game currency then I have no issue with it.
I don't know, maybe it's because I am in Computer Networking (so I know servers and people can be expensive) and know business (to a degree) that I know these things aren't sustainable. For some, yes, but you can't expect to support a game for years and years to come on game sales alone.
And yes, I know there are some games that are even less GAAS and have a revenue of millions that don't really need micro-transactions (certain EA and Ubisoft games) because they sell so much. I'm not arguing for those as I completely agree that's bad, but hey, that can be shareholders for you.
My bad then. Since it was on PS4 too I assumed it was straight up Capcom who published it
People complain because of the trend that has been set and continues to be the case by some of the biggest third party publishers.
The Division launched as a half baked game full of glitches and lacking in content. Bungie has not done anything right with Destiny; they keep releasing feature deficient games and give small expansions at premium rates and the game economy is messed up to try and get players shelling money to try and gain a competitive advantage. Battlefront II was a mess at launch and it is still a mess because the whole game was built around loot boxes and microtransactions. Ultimate team which used to be part of the game where you could not buy anything for real world cash is now a pay to win mode and 2K is also busy messing their game economy to a similar degree.
A game like Overwatch strikes that balance well. Loot boxes can be earned in game and they only pertain to cosmetic items (although it would be great if they were not random). That balance is what most games lack, and it also becomes hard to justify paying $60 for a game that has as little content as some of these games are launching with.
There is also nothing that stops development of a game rich in content with DLC/Season pass that does not feel like a rip off.
I get that, but some say they won't buy a game based on a game having it alone. You can't blame every game that has it for some games that take it too far. We all know that the AAA business isn't completely sustainable unless your game can sell millions and be just fine.
Halo: Infinite is probably going to do what Halo 5 did, and I see people complaining about micro-transactions. I never once had to pay for anything because everything I wanted I got by playing. However, they did have the issue of not including everything the previous games had, and I get those complaints. Otherwise, I think it's fine.
Last edited:
I don't think microtransactions is a bad word either. It's too broad a term first off. There's good and bad value with any digital content. None of these studios are charities. They're businesses. If they offer crap content, people simply should avoid it.
What I'm opposed to is loot boxes because it usually impacts game design while preying on the gambling addicts. If I know what I'm getting with a microtransaction and it's implementation doesn't negatively impact the standard product, don't see how that's a terrible thing.
There's been good and bad value in gaming since the start of gaming. Poor content or game design is relative. Relatively speaking, today's games have more content and bang for the buck than at any point in gaming history. Destiny and The Division would've been considered as having tons of content back in the no-microtransaction era.
Yes during the PS2, OG Xbox and Game Cube era there were no incomplete games on release and every game was $50 with no strings attached. Problem was there were plenty of glitchy and buggy games that could never be fixed. There were a lot of niche games sold for $50 at retail that would be considered $20 Indies today. There wasn't DLC or microtransactions but you got full priced sequels that would come out a year later with remixed assets from the first game. Many games were 10 hour or less experiences with limited replay-ability if there was no multiplayer.
Single player gamers had to buy a $50 game a week to feed their habits. Today games are 4x in content for similar pricing and smaller games are priced cheaper. To create all this extra content, studios are bigger and projects take longer. Microtransactions and DLC are artificial ways of increasing the price...except they're optional.
My point is I struggle buying this notion that gamers are getting short changed today. There's still good and bad values relative to today's standards...but today's standards are higher than ever including the pre-microtransaction era.
Two popular channels on Youtube (among many others) that I tend to watch got it right on the money. You can develop a game that has good gameplay, a good amount of content, and a game that feel complete. When that is done, you think about expansions and let those expansions be worth the money that people are paying for them. This is what CD Projekt Red did with The Witcher 3 which is one of the best games out this generation.
Boogie2988 when replying to the loot box nonsense that was Battlefront II said that having a $60 game should be enough for any publisher not to mess their in game economy to force people onto microtransactions. That there was a need to balance things out so that you can earn content through playing without feeling the need to pay money because grinding does not seem to accomplish much.
Bungie first showed Destiny, and segments that were in the trailer were not in the launch game but in DLC. Content that was ready months prior to release was locked behind a pay wall so that people could buy it over time. Things that were available in previous titles/versions strangely found themselves behind a pay wall.
There is also a release it now, patch it later mindset that is common in these GAAS titles that leave a lot to be desired. When it comes to Microsoft, it was Forza Motorsport fans that complained about prize crates so much so that Turn 10 is committed to removing all of them. This was despite people not being able to buy anything with cash and the same has carried forward to Forza Horizon 4.
In conclusion, AAA games are not sustainable long term because publishers want to have 400 or 500 people making a game and consumers not putting down the game the moment they are done with it so that they can continue paying above the $60 price and season pass. Look at how many games EA is publishing today compared to a decade ago. The biggest problem with all of this is that it becomes difficult for anyone to play so many live service games and sustain interest. For this reason, wiser heads said that there needs to be a balance and that too many live service games will cannibalize each other.
Assassins Creed, Far Cry 5, Destiny 2, Overwatch, Rainbow Six: Siege, Warframe, Sea of Thieves and soon to come games like Anthem, Division 2, Battlefield V. It becomes hard to sustain. A lot of these games also launch with such little content that is populated over time and they still expect you to pay for expansions. It is greed.
If Microsoft can find some balance in their ecosystem, I would be fine. What I would find hard to stomach are games launching with little content like Sea of Thieves (although they have been adding free content) and being populated over time. Imagine if that was Halo, Forza or Gears.
Yeah, I agree. Loot Boxes are worse than micro-transactions (they aren't as bad if you can't buy them like in Horizon). There is that psychology, and with micro-transactions, you know what you're getting.
Issue with micro-transactions is that there are some that believe the game's balanced will be skewed no matter what. People also bring up that games were complete decades ago (people seem to forget that PC games offered expansions, and there were other gimmicks for consoles too), and that you shouldn't have to pay for an incomplete game. Issue with that is that not all micro-transactions are like that. I mentioned Halo Infinite already and someone even said how he hated that the game comes out with incomplete content you have to buy, and that wasn't true.
- The Coalition (and other first party studios) should definitely try to sign now ex-Capcom Vancouver employees. Must admit that im surprised that Capcom shut down Vancouver but they should have stayed with that cancelled new IP instead of jumping to Dead Rising 5 which to be honest, isn't that good and more importantly, when you have Resident Evil, why even have Dead Rising to begin with. Some may like it or miss it but not me. I'm happy that franchise and IP is dead.
- Predicting an 92 open critic for Forza Horizon 4.
- Regarding micro-transactions, I personally have no problem with them simply because I have never ever purchased one and never will so quite simply, this doesn't affect me. As for why publishers add them, the reason is simple - consumers aka gamers purchased them all last generation just like they purchased loot boxes, DLC, season/expansion passes, etc. so at the end of the day, gamers have no one to blame but themselves because if us gamers didn't buy any of that stuff, it wouldn't be shoved down our throats like it currently is.
- Predicting an 92 open critic for Forza Horizon 4.
- Regarding micro-transactions, I personally have no problem with them simply because I have never ever purchased one and never will so quite simply, this doesn't affect me. As for why publishers add them, the reason is simple - consumers aka gamers purchased them all last generation just like they purchased loot boxes, DLC, season/expansion passes, etc. so at the end of the day, gamers have no one to blame but themselves because if us gamers didn't buy any of that stuff, it wouldn't be shoved down our throats like it currently is.
I got Dead or Alive 4, Tekken 6 and never had to think about DLC. That was last generation: games launched complete and we got some balance changes.
Pre order DLC, legacy characters being post launch DLC over three or four seasons and that DLC being over priced is now the norm in fighting games. We are getting less bang for the buck than at any time before. Ultimate Team was part of EA games where no money changed hands, everything was achievable by playing the game and it not being too grindy as is today. Reduction in content.
When it comes to other genres, I was OK with 8 hour games as long as what I paid for felt like I was getting a complete story. Those have always been some of my best experiences. If you are going back to the OG Xbox, PS2, Game Cube era, the tech simply was not there to allow for patching. It was an era where you had to get the game right before releasing it. Tech improved, but with the improvement in tech, publishers could push games out and patch it later, or not. Day 1 patches or week one patches became normal and I could live with that, but games like Street Fighter V, Sea of Thieves, The Division, everything Bungie has released this generation (game and DLC), the increasingly disappointing CoD single player that is now dead.
We are seeing an industry that does what the industry has always done; they get something that makes money and they do not have the discipline to check themselves. People rarely complain about loot boxes that do not affect gameplay or non RNG microtransactions that are not influenced by game economy messing design.
GAAS is not something that the industry has done for the love of the consumer, it has been done to try and keep you playing a single game for as long as you possibly can as they continue to look for ways for you to spend real cash on in game currency/items. It also takes away the risk of investing in multiple games, new ideas and worlds that are risky.
There is a right way of going around it, and there the way they have mostly gone around it that has rubbed the very people that buy these games the wrong way to the point where it is being discussed by governments.
- Status