Support NeoGAF

[FinaruDensetsu]

That's your opinion, and its certainly mine too. But the numbers don't lie, MCC generated far more interest than Scalebound.

Well it generated excitement, and excitement is hype. You asked for "one game at that stage presentation that even came near Scalebound as far as hype" and I delivered. A better question would be "one NEW IP that came near Scalebound"



Agreed.

I mean I guess your right, but I mean if you're going to go by that metric, there's no point for discussion really. At pretty much every show, MS shows something Halo related and every Halo related thing is going to get more hits than literally everything else.

 

[_machine]

Why else would you cancel a game this far into production?

Because:
-"this far into production" doesn't tell anything about how much it actually costs finish the game
-the final phase of production is the most expensive just from development perspective, and the hardest, especially if the project has a lot of technical debt.
-releasing a game is expensive, especially for a big scale publisher like MS
-release QA is expensive
-marketing is even more expensive if you want to have any reach
-the money to do all of that has an opportunity cost, and in this case its money away from their core vision and strategy (which of course has most likely shifted since the project was greenlit, but that's the nature of the market.

Now, I really don't want to comment on the matter much, but there really are tons of legitimate reasons why a publisher would like to cancel in production.

 

[benny_a]

Didn't Sony start their first party iniative during the PS3 era when they were behind MS install base wise?

Relevant to this observation:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-08-14-microsofts-chequebook-warfare-is-bound-to-fail
The success of Xbox 360 was built on great games and great services; so was the eventual resurgence of PS3. If Xbox One is to stage a comeback, it will need to do so on the same terms. There's no financial shortcut.

That was about the chequebook warfare with Tomb Raider and Phil Spencer's comments about you don't need good first party. I think they will use the chequebook again and lock up a multiplatform game. That seems like a go-to strategy in a pinch.

 

[Elandyll]

Yeah fuck this post. there's plenty of people in there excited for scalebound.

E3 showings are rarely representative of a game's final quality. It was still worth getting excited about as the first new Kamiya game since 2009, a dude with a track record consisting of only some of the most treasured games.

He didn't even need to do all that work.
Just peeking at Neogaf's "most anticipated of 2016" (when SB was supposed/ expected to come out ) we get:
Overall ranking : #19 (just under Xcom2, and above Firewatch, GR2, Ratchet& Clank or Dishonored2... or even Overwatch)
Xbox exclusive ranking: #2, right behind Quantun Break (#15)

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?p=191920518

There were plenty of people excited for Scalebound, even after E3 considering that a game can always get better with time

I just think that, after 2016, MS's priorities and budgets changed (and after relations between them and the devs, allegedly, soured over time probably too).
We're still in the middle of the FY, so budgets are already allocated anyways. #shrug

I do hope we can learn more about what happened in time, but probably not with NDA's and the likes.

Now as for Platinum, and in case Sony is reading this (0 chance, and my request also has 0 chance of happening), I'm just going to leave two words here, as a possible inspiration.



Heavenly.



Sword.

 

[Tigress]

For your first point, I addressed it briefly in the second half of my previous post. Business is not static and trends change. What worked in the past does not work now, what works for Sony will not work for Microsoft or Nintendo, there are too many factors that goes into growing a brand. Increased competition and dominance from major third parties, install base, the XONE online debacle, the MCC debacle clearly damaging the Halo brand; these played a part in the decreased sales of Halo 5 and Gears 4.

Regarding Diversity Microsoft can't blow money on a bunch of exclusive games no one will buy (which is what happened this generation for MS outside of their core franchises). Project Spark underperformed, D4 underperformed, Crimson Dragon underperformed, Happy Dungeons underperformed, Quantum Break unperformed, Sunset Overdrive underperformed, Scalebound would've likely underperformed and so forth. A vast majority of those titles are single player focused games, what good business sense would it make to keep investing in things that are costing you money? Especially as the cost of game development rises.

Now let's look at Valve, look at how successful their properties are, what's the common trait among them? Multiplayer, long term support, eSports, recurring revenue, etc. all built around a few key franchises. You can't build these initiatives around one-and-done single player products. Even further, let's look at Halo 5 and Gears 4, even if they don't sell the front end numbers their predecessors did, the post game support and microtransactions ensures more profit over the long term from a smaller but more dedicated base that knows your game(s) is a known quantity and will buy the next installment. I am not sure what you mean by MS games forcing the multiplayer service model, Halo and Gears are proven multiplayer commodities not new IPs which is why they are leveraging those brands for their new potential new direction.

Can diversity help their lineup? Yes, it absolutely can and did for Microsoft in the past. If in the future they announce a bunch of new games I certainly won't complain, however with changing market realities Xbox doesn't have the luxury of an unlimited budget to throw money at whatever they want, they have to maximize their ROI with what they do have.

I gotta agree with this post but I'm curious then what your thoughts on how Sony can get away with doing some SP games. Cause I agree it seems that the money these days is in MP games that have microtransactions (and trust me, I hate this and I've ranted about that before on this forum even, I hate MTs. But I think it's the reality of the market whether I like it or not. And I know that my demographic in gaming just simply can't compete for being as lucrative as that). Is Sony just losing out on making more money or is it simply they already built up a market that expects more SP experiences (and good ones) so they'd lose money by abandoning a base they already built up?

Though honestly I think you see some signs of Sony experimenting with MP and microtransactions too (but it seems less at the expense of SP experiences. But for example TLOU's MP had MTs if I remember right as well as Uncharted? And both had MP gameplay).

 

[cakely]

My pure speculation guess is:

1) Online was not a strong suit of Platinum games, but an absolute must sticking point for co-op for MS to be interested.

2) They wanted the game out in 17

3) It needed to run on Scorpio and look fucking amazing doing so.

I think all three of those probably ballooned the scope on Platinum.. Platinum probably agreed to all of them at various points in time and then they hit the squeeze, suggesting cutting all of some of the above and MS no longer thought the project aligned with their 2017 plans.

I'm sure there is lots of blame to go around, and I'm sure MS having a ton of high profile swings and misses hurt Platinum through no fault of their own. But, I also get that MS is a business and sometimes you gotta make unfun decisions.

Those look like three very plausible reasons for the cancellation.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I'm intrigued to see what they have cooking for announcements at E3. I think the ship has sailed on Japanese partners not named Square Enix, so they will have to go for a studio that can churn out a big game out of Europe or NA. Maybe they have some ideas that they can use to put Coalition back to work right away unless they are tied up on Gears DLC. Maybe source a project from Bioware? Or grab Ubisoft and fund an AC spinoff title? Lots of opportunities out there, but they don't seem to be interested... or maybe those studios aren't because the effort-profit ratio isn't there due to the smaller install base.

I just don't see the point in releasing a mid-gen console upgrade with no plan in place to support it, so something has to give.

I wonder how much Square Enix is beside them these days, either.

The Tomb Raider deal wasn't good for them, Mankind Divided getting exclusive Xbox/PC stuff in the companion app didn't help them, their Japanese games almost uniformly sell terribly there. When Nier Automata was announced for PC, it was announced for Steam, to the point where Taro Yoko wore a valve on his eye. It wasn't "Also Windows store!" Coming to PC before coming to Xbox One is pretty telling, as well.

At this point, I think the biggest games will come to Xbox One, but aside from that, Microsoft does not appear to be courting them in any significant way anymore.

 

[StoOgE]

I don't know that it would have helped, but I'm skeptical how much it would have hurt, especially this deep into development. Speculation that Spencer is on thin ice seems more likely to me than the game being completely unshippable. Microsoft has shown no reluctance to shipping unfinished games this generation, as recently as a few months ago. I don't know that they'd take any worse a hit from cutting it to $40 and just making back whatever on it than cancelling it, though maybe they would have and I'm wrong.

All that said, I agree with you they never recovered from the Xbox One reveal, but I am also of the mind that they have had multiple opportunities to do so and have failed. They have decided, seemingly on the back of the 360's success, that compelling exclusives do not really matter, and I can not for the life of me figure out why the numbers have not brought them back to reality. Maybe it was being burned on games like Quantum Break, but they keep punching the water and wondering why it hasn't relented yet.

The "2017 will be great!" refrain doesn't even elicit an eyebrow raise from me anymore, because I suspect they don't believe it, either. I don't know what Spencer's current plan is for the Xbox Division, but unless he is hiding Scorpio ammunition under his coat like the RE4 merchant, it is honestly hard to tell exactly what Microsoft is doing to rehabilitate their image.

Honestly,

I think MS might just kind of be fucked.

Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive, Gears 4, Halo 5 (story aside) and TR exclusive and their racing stable feel like they should have been enough to right the ship. Throw in great third party support across the board, there feels like plenty of reason for a console gamer to jump in.

It's not for lack of putting money in front of talent and getting good end results on very high profile games. I think MS got fat on the calf on 3rd party games, and frankly I think once Playstation got the install base everyone followed their friends for online play.

And unless Scorpio is a super disruptive power that gets people to decide they need Battlefield and Call of Duty on Scorpio and switch, it may be for naught.

I'm sure the calculation was "if none of the above moved the needle, there isn't a fucking prayer that Scalebound is the answer". I'm not sure their wrong. Same with Phantom Dust which was a niche release on the OG Xbox. Sea of Thieves and Crackdown are at least games as service eligible which will likely save them from the chopping block.

 

[Famassu]

Scalebound could have been Microsoft's Final Fantasy vs Xlll (XV) or Last Guardian. Years of development costs that will never be recouped

Based on all we know about the subject, I'd say we can say that neither Last Guardian nor FFXV have so massively, impossibly huge budgets that they'd be impossible to recoup development costs for. Both were "in development" for a long time, but by how big of a team at any given time and how much of that time were both games on hold/barely worked on is the more important question in this equation than just time gone by between announcement & release. Both games had times when their development was on hold and people who were a part of their development worked on other games that would earn the publishers money, only small teams working on them for large portions of their existence and even when they ramped up production their dev teams weren't necessarily anywhere near so massive that it would rack up development costs to such high numbers that it'd be impossible to recoup dev costs. I mean, it's not like both games were worked on continuously by a 1000+ person team for 10 or even 5 years.

 

[onemanasylum]

Based on all we know about the subject, I'd say we can say that neither Last Guardian nor FFXV have so massively, impossibly huge budgets that they'd be impossible to recoup development costs for. Both were "in development" for a long time, but by how big of a team at any given time and how much of that time were both games on hold/barely worked on is the more important question in this equation than just time gone by between announcement & release. Both games had times when their development was on hold and people who were a part of their development worked on other games that would earn the publishers money, only small teams working on them for large portions of their existence and even when they ramped up production their dev teams weren't necessarily anywhere near so massive that it would rack up development costs to such high numbers that it'd be impossible to recoup dev costs. I mean, it's not like both games were worked on continuously by a 1000+ person team for 10 or even 5 years.

Since when does TLG have an "Impossibly Large Budget"? This is totally false, TLG was a small team and it was not in active development all this time, it was stopped and redone for ps4 after a few years.

 

[hawk2025]

Also worth mentioning that there's a chance that making a Windows 10 version was something that was thrown on Platinum halfway through development with little to no planning.

 

[icespide]

Also worth mentioning that there's a chance that making a Windows 10 version was something that was thrown on Platinum halfway through development with little to no planning.

but UWP! It's just a checkbox export PC version

 

[benny_a]

Also worth mentioning that there's a chance that making a Windows 10 version was something that was thrown on Platinum halfway through development with little to no planning.

Sounds reasonable based on Phil Spencer saying they weren't planning on doing that:
http://www.pcgamer.com/why-scalebound-crackdown-3-and-quantum-break-arent-coming-to-pc/

"Going to those teams mid-cycle and saying: ‘Hey, by the way, I want to add a platform,' didn't really feel like necessarily the best way to end up with the best result for the game. They had a path that they were on. It's not to say those games could never come to Windows, but right now we're on the path to finish the great games that they've started, and I want that to be the case. These games are on a path, whereas with, like, Halo Wars 2 I had the opportunity from the beginning, when we're sitting down with the studio, to say, ‘Here's the target. Here's what we wanna go do.'

 

[StoOgE]

Also worth mentioning that there's a chance that making a Windows 10 version was something that was thrown on Platinum halfway through development with little to no planning.

Yeah, should have added the "Play anywhere" as a 4th bullet point.

Which, I'm sure Platinum was ok with right up until it was clear it was pushing up against deadlines.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Oh, something is rotten in the state of Denmark. MS has to be very afraid that their bread and butter franchises are not doing as well as they did, or even in the same ballpark.

But, I'm not sure a Kamiya prestige project was going to turn their fortunes around. Honestly, I'm not sure what will. I think they got killed by the initial Xbox One reveal and have never recovered. Scorpio may be the make or break moment for the division. It's a chance to regain a strong footing with core gamers and see if they start to see improving sales with Halo 6, etc over the next 18 months.

Gears and Halo not being as popular as they once were is going to drag MS further and further. I don't really see a plan B, and they don't have the stomach to trust a developer with bonafides and follow through with an exclusive new IP. What can they do, then?

 

[nekkid]

I am still baffled by the notion that no one cared about this game, or that everyone thought it looked like shit and now everyone just wants to shit on Microsoft.

I'm so tired of this persecution complex shit

lol, indeed.

 

[FinaruDensetsu]

For your first point, I addressed it briefly in the second half of my previous post. Business is not static and trends change. What worked in the past does not work now, what works for Sony will not work for Microsoft or Nintendo, there are too many factors that goes into growing a brand. Increased competition and dominance from major third parties, install base, the XONE online debacle, the MCC debacle clearly damaging the Halo brand; these played a part in the decreased sales of Halo 5 and Gears 4.

Regarding Diversity Microsoft can't blow money on a bunch of exclusive games no one will buy (which is what happened this generation for MS outside of their core franchises). Project Spark underperformed, D4 underperformed, Crimson Dragon underperformed, Happy Dungeons underperformed, Quantum Break unperformed, Sunset Overdrive underperformed, Scalebound would've likely underperformed and so forth. A vast majority of those titles are single player focused games, what good business sense would it make to keep investing in things that are costing you money? Especially as the cost of game development rises.

Now let's look at Valve, look at how successful their properties are, what's the common trait among them? Multiplayer, long term support, eSports, recurring revenue, etc. all built around a few key franchises. You can't build these initiatives around one-and-done single player products. Even further, let's look at Halo 5 and Gears 4, even if they don't sell the front end numbers their predecessors did, the post game support and microtransactions ensures more profit over the long term from a smaller but more dedicated base that knows your game(s) is a known quantity and will buy the next installment. I am not sure what you mean by MS games forcing the multiplayer service model, Halo and Gears are proven multiplayer commodities not new IPs which is why they are leveraging those brands for their new potential new direction.

Can diversity help their lineup? Yes, it absolutely can and did for Microsoft in the past. If in the future they announce a bunch of new games I certainly won't complain, however with changing market realities Xbox doesn't have the luxury of an unlimited budget to throw money at whatever they want, they have to maximize their ROI with what they do have.

Agree with almost everything here.

I'll add this. What MS did wrong happened over a decade ago. When game development costs were much lower back in the OG Xbox days and considerably lower than now, in the 360 days, they didn't work to build up a lot of titles and IP, instead focusing on a few major ones like they do now. Think about how cheap it would have been back then to foster some international studios compared to what it would cost now. That kind of strategy leads to the position they are in today.

It's kind of like that parable about the grasshopper who didn't work during spring through fall to gather food when it was easy, and suffers in the winter.

Also, what works for Valve won't necessarily work for Microsoft. Valve's online games can be played on PCs from a wide, wide spectrum from what GAF would call a "potato box" or something along those lines to the highest powered PCs, essentially something that nearly every owns.. For MS to get that kind of audience and to have the kind of profits they seek from microtransactions, they'll need people to buy into their box, and without a variety of games, that goal is made harder to reach.

 

[onemanasylum]

Gears and Halo not being as popular as they once were is going to drag MS further and further. I don't really see a plan B, and they don't have the stomach to trust a developer with bonafides and follow through with an exclusive new IP. What can they do, then?

What they are already doing....move away from hardware and eventually move everything to a service tied to Win 10.

 

[Uhyve]

Sea of Thieves and Crackdown are at least games as service eligible which will likely save them from the chopping block.

Heh, so was Fable Legends. I feel like Sea of Thieves is safe though... it's at least in closed public testing at the moment I think.

 

[Ridley327]

Yeah fuck this post. there's plenty of people in there excited for scalebound.

E3 showings are rarely representative of a game's final quality. It was still worth getting excited about as the first new Kamiya game since 2009, a dude with a track record consisting of only some of the most treasured games.

Umm, wasn't Scalebound the first Kamiya game since 2013? I know Wonderful 101 flopped and all that, but that was a to-the-bone Kamiya game.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I do think Microsoft pushing Platinum into failing milestones to break contracts is not, like, impossible or anything. It happens quite a bit in the industry. When Square-Enix wanted to stop working with a western developer, they made insane demands, like asking them to fax over the game code. Bethesda fucked with developers in an effort to force them to accept a buyout. There's numerous stories of Nintendo cutting ties with developers after putting unreasonable expectations on them.

I wonder why "It's just good business!" is an accepted reason but not the good business part of screwing them but benefiting Microsoft.

 

[Kaako]

Also worth mentioning that there's a chance that making a Windows 10 version was something that was thrown on Platinum halfway through development with little to no planning.

List of potential things that fucked this up:

-4 player co-op mandatory
-strong MP element mandatory
-2017 release date
-possible W10 version midway dev cycle
-4K native Scorpio version at launch
-Not enough potential ROI

Free free to add to the list.

 

[Famassu]

Since when does TLG have an "Impossibly Large Budget"? This is totally false, TLG was a small team and it was not in active development all this time, it was stopped and redone for ps4 after a few years.

Umm... It doesn't. That's what I'm saying. Read my post again. I'm saying the exact same thing you are. >_>;

 

[robotrock]

Umm, wasn't Scalebound the first Kamiya game since 2013? I know Wonderful 101 flopped and all that, but that was a to-the-bone Kamiya game.

Hey, you're right. I forgot when Scalebound actually got announced, and assumed it was announced before Wonderful 101 happened.

Wonderful 101 rocks.

 

[onemanasylum]

Umm... It doesn't. That's what I'm saying. Read my post again. I'm saying the exact same thing you are. >_>;

Damn..i'm sorry, I cannot read lol.

 

[yurinka]

My pure speculation guess is:

1) Online was not a strong suit of Platinum games, but an absolute must sticking point for co-op for MS to be interested.

2) They wanted the game out in 17

3) It needed to run on Scorpio and look fucking amazing doing so.

I think all three of those probably ballooned the scope on Platinum.. Platinum probably agreed to all of them at various points in time and then they hit the squeeze, suggesting cutting all of some of the above and MS no longer thought the project aligned with their 2017 plans.

I'm sure there is lots of blame to go around, and I'm sure MS having a ton of high profile swings and misses hurt Platinum through no fault of their own. But, I also get that MS is a business and sometimes you gotta make unfun decisions.

I'd add:

4) MS wanted a PC port on release with crossplay.

And like the other points, I think MS added after they agreed the initial deal and without providing extra time orther than the delay to 2017.

 

[michaelius]

That was about the chequebook warfare with Tomb Raider and Phil Spencer's comments about you don't need good first party. I think they will use the chequebook again and lock up a multiplatform game. That seems like a go-to strategy in a pinch.

They would have to find publisher stupid/desperate enough to do it after exclusivity deal nearly sunk Tomb Raider. Someone with a game in position of Titanfall 1 where game is dead if they don't sign a deal.

Tomb Raider was probably signed before console launch or very early after start of generation when sales were still open question.

 

[zoukka]

List of potential things that fucked this up:

-4 player co-op mandatory
-strong MP element mandatory
-2017 release date
-possible W10 version midway dev cycle
-4K native Scorpio version at launch
-Not enough potential ROI

Free free to add to the list.

-Microsoft being run by Sauron.

 

[Teletraan1]

Heh, so was Fable Legends. I feel like Sea of Thieves is safe though... it's at least in closed public testing at the moment I think.

So was Fable Legends when it got the axe.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

List of potential things that fucked this up:

-4 player co-op mandatory
-strong MP element mandatory
-2017 release date
-possible W10 version midway dev cycle
-4K native Scorpio version at launch
-Not enough potential ROI

Free free to add to the list.

Also Kamiya is hard to work with from a marketing perspective. He wants to do things his way, so you have a developer of a headlining game out there talking about how the publisher is fucking them over for bad art on the website or appearances, and maybe a decision-maker just no longer wanted to deal with it.

It didn't bother Nintendo when Kamiya complained about them fucking up the logo, but it's possible someone at Microsoft was more sensitive, or that there are cultural differences between American and Japanese producers about how acceptable that is.

 

[Jb]

I think all three of those probably ballooned the scope on Platinum.. Platinum probably agreed to all of them at various points in time and then they hit the squeeze, suggesting cutting all of some of the above and MS no longer thought the project aligned with their 2017 plans.

That's pretty much what happened with Fable Legends if I recall correctly. Lionhead was willing to implement every new tech innovation MS wanted to push until the project got way too big and expensive for what was supposed to be a simple F2P game action RPG.

 

[nekkid]

So was Fable Legends when it got the axe.

What if those two were the options Phil Spencer had - kill one, save one.

 

[JABEE]

Honestly,

I think MS might just kind of be fucked.

Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive, Gears 4, Halo 5 (story aside) and TR exclusive and their racing stable feel like they should have been enough to right the ship. Throw in great third party support across the board, there feels like plenty of reason for a console gamer to jump in.

It's not for lack of putting money in front of talent and getting good end results on very high profile games. I think MS got fat on the calf on 3rd party games, and frankly I think once Playstation got the install base everyone followed their friends for online play.

And unless Scorpio is a super disruptive power that gets people to decide they need Battlefield and Call of Duty on Scorpio and switch, it may be for naught.

I'm sure the calculation was "if none of the above moved the needle, there isn't a fucking prayer that Scalebound is the answer". I'm not sure their wrong. Same with Phantom Dust which was a niche release on the OG Xbox. Sea of Thieves and Crackdown are at least games as service eligible which will likely save them from the chopping block.

Correct. They need something to move the needle like Halo.

Halo and Gears are not the juggernauts they once were in terms of sales.

Forza is a driving game and one that is nowhere close to being the top-seller in its genre.

Microsoft needs a killer app, but I think their multi-platform PC strategy is going to limit the games they can make. They need a new Halo. In the same way that Sony has been able to turnover their stale or non-exclusive franchises. From Final Fantasy, Socom and Metal Gear to God of War, LittleBigPlaner, Last of Us, and Uncharted. They invested in internal development and found new ways to connect with the times.

It's something all companies should think about. You have to have a reason for someone to want to buy your box over just sticking with PC or PS4. It's why I didn't understand the Xbox Anywhere platform.

It devalues premium software titles, it hurts the consistency of experience console gamers expect for the titles they purchase, and it limits the scope of game titles designed to play on multiple platforms.

I feel this is something all console makers are going to run into even having two skus (Pro and Regular). A very important value of console gaming is simplicity and ease of use. It's why the NES and Wii were so popular.

 

[benny_a]

They would have to find publisher stupid/desperate enough to do it after exclusivity deal nearly sunk Tomb Raider. Someone with a game in position of Titanfall 1 where game is dead if they don't sign a deal.

Tomb Raider was probably signed before console launch or very early after start of generation when sales were still open question.

I don't think Tomb Raider was signed before November 2013, given the E3 announcement and press release. But that's an old hat, no need to talk about that specific deal yet again.

But sure, we don't know. However just paying money is something you can easily control, you don't have to deal with development setbacks, it's basically a lump sum. And you can get agreements that fit in your marketing cycle more easily as you can swoop in after you're happy with the work already done.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I don't think Tomb Raider was signed before November 2013, given the E3 announcement and press release. But that's an old hat.

But sure, we don't know. Just paying money is something you can easily control, you don't have to deal with setbacks, it's basically a lump sum.

Tomb Raider seemed like Square-Enix didn't believe they could effectively market it on their own, and exclusivity was an acceptable cost for Microsoft to handle it.

But then Microsoft seemed to lose interest in it by its release in favor of their own games and the marketing failed to do much at all.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

Relevant to this observation:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-08-14-microsofts-chequebook-warfare-is-bound-to-fail
The success of Xbox 360 was built on great games and great services; so was the eventual resurgence of PS3. If Xbox One is to stage a comeback, it will need to do so on the same terms. There's no financial shortcut.

That was about the chequebook warfare with Tomb Raider and Phil Spencer's comments about you don't need good first party. I think they will use the chequebook again and lock up a multiplatform game. That seems like a go-to strategy in a pinch.

6TF tho.

 

[Spinluck]

Platinum can finally begin development on Vanquished 2.

 

[ShadowSoldier89]

Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive, Gears 4, Halo 5 (story aside) and TR exclusive and their racing stable feel like they should have been enough to right the ship. Throw in great third party support across the board, there feels like plenty of reason for a console gamer to jump in.

I think they are really missing in quantity of exclusives. PS4 might not have hordes of million seller exclusives, but it does have hordes of exclusives that appeal to all different kinds of people

Sell your consoles with variety, and then the third parties can sell gangbusters. Having uncharted 4 selling near 10 million doesnt hurt of course

 

[Principate]

See, I look at that lineup and it's a lot of solid games but nothing undeniably exceptional.

MS needs, like, their own Overwatch and their own Bloodborne. Halo is flagging, Gears 4 didn't make a great case for bringing the franchise back even if it was a solid game overall, and stuff like Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive and ROTTR are games that most people will barely remember in 5 years.

I'm speaking in very abstract terms here, which is basically worthless, I know. There's just something missing. Xbox had Halo as the new phenomenon, and the first major impact for cRPGs on a console to support it. The 360 had Gears as the new phenomenon, and was the place for third-party games in no small part because of its superior online infrastructure.

XB1 is... some OK TPS games, more shooter sequels with diminishing returns... I'm at a loss to gather up what that lineup really communicates.

Scalebound wasn't going to turn anything around at this point, either way. MS probably needed their own Destiny or Overwatch type hit, in like 2015-16 at that.



I'm not sure how having Xbox games show up on a PC platform almost no one uses anyway contributes to the overall success and appeal of Xbox exclusives. Or how that limits "the types of games" they can make.

I mean, Scalebound was going to be one of those games. A Japanese Monster Hunter-esque character action game. You can't get more console-ish than that.

Bloodborne? Really? Bloodborne is niche as fuck in the grand scheme of things. A number of wii u first parties have outsold that game and likely MS as well.

It may not be Japanese otaku game level of niche but we're talking marginal success at best, nothing that remotely moved the needle.

 

[noobie]

I m thinking if the "Scalebound |OT|" would have gotten 160 pages thread...

 

[JABEE]

See, I look at that lineup and it's a lot of solid games but nothing undeniably exceptional.

MS needs, like, their own Overwatch and their own Bloodborne. Halo is flagging, Gears 4 didn't make a great case for bringing the franchise back even if it was a solid game overall, and stuff like Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive and ROTTR are games that most people will barely remember in 5 years.

I'm speaking in very abstract terms here, which is basically worthless, I know. There's just something missing. Xbox had Halo as the new phenomenon, and the first major impact for cRPGs on a console to support it. The 360 had Gears as the new phenomenon, and was the place for third-party games in no small part because of its superior online infrastructure.

XB1 is... some OK TPS games, more shooter sequels with diminishing returns... I'm at a loss to gather up what that lineup really communicates.

Scalebound wasn't going to turn anything around at this point, either way. MS probably needed their own Destiny or Overwatch type hit, in like 2015-16 at that.



I'm not sure how having Xbox games show up on a PC platform almost no one uses anyway contributes to the overall success and appeal of Xbox exclusives. Or how that limits "the types of games" they can make.

I mean, Scalebound was going to be one of those games. A Japanese Monster Hunter-esque character action game. You can't get more console-ish than that.

It muddies the water and damages the brand. It is a subconscious impact. The performance of these titles are associated with inferior experiences. A game not being exclusive to a single box where prices are more strict is damaging to their pricing. Also, the idea that you get two copies of a game and play it on multiple devices lowers blockbuster console titles to the same as small indie, handheld, and mobile games.

I think multiple sku titles for these games is a mistake for PS4 and Xbox. Play Anywhere that includes PC is even worse, because the control over the experience of playing your prized title is even less and reliant on the user as well as other software for loading the title.

 

[onemanasylum]

Bloodborne? Really? Bloodborne is niche as fuck in the grand scheme of things. A number of wii u first parties have outsold that game and likely MS as well.

?? It sold over 2 million before the DLC came out...An RPG that sales multiple millions is not "Niche as fuck". The rest of your comment is a nothing comment.. it also outsold numerous First party Nintendo and MS games. It's not a huge ip but not niche.

 

[Marvel]

Platinum can finally begin development on Vanquished 2.

Yes pls.

 

[hawk2025]

Bloodborne? Really? Bloodborne is niche as fuck in the grand scheme of things. A number of wii u first parties have outsold that game and likely MS as well.

That's always been their strategy, though -- cover dozens of niches with a multitude of games.

It's true, Bloodborne is a niche game with limited sales. But what is its elasticity in flipping hardware?

 

[icespide]

I m thinking if the "Scalebound |OT|" would have gotten 160 pages thread...

is that how we determine if a game is worth releasing now? How many potential pages an OT would be?

 

[badcrumble]

Now as for Platinum, and in case Sony is reading this (0 chance, and my request also has 0 chance of happening), I'm just going to leave two words here, as a possible inspiration.

Heavenly.



Sword.

sweet god no

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I m thinking if the "Scalebound |OT|" would have gotten 160 pages thread...

The conversation isn't strictly about Scalebound, but the cancellation of the game and the potential consequences, the causes, etc.

 

[FinaruDensetsu]

I m thinking if the "Scalebound |OT|" would have gotten 160 pages thread...

Yeah if it had released maybe. Now we'll never know.

 

[muzzymate]

Currently filling out a newly received Microsoft Xbox survey :-(

 

[Adaren]

That's always been their strategy, though -- cover dozens of niches with a multitude of games.

It's true, Bloodborne is a niche game with limited sales. But what is its elasticity in flipping hardware?

^

This is why a Platinum / From exclusive is so valuable. It's not because it'll sell a billion copies on its own; it's because it'll get a certain demographic to buy your console who otherwise wouldn't.