The irony is that Sony had loads of great MP games during the PS3 era that they sort of just forgot about chasing the live service gold. The peak of online gaming was during the era of Uncharted 2/MGO2/Warhawk/KZ2/LBP2 days. Sony was ahead of the game decades ago and are today just fumbling around buying up shitty studios for billions and then dissolving said studio when their 400m dollar games flop.
Not really.We lost factions 2 for this shit
We will never know but it there is a chance it is true.
Playstation (Hulst) asked Bungie to supervise Factions 2... which eventually killed it. so yes Hulst killed Factions 2 because it probably didn't look like a Fairgames or a Concord or whatever Horizons MP is going to look like. A soulless clone of something they hope is going to earn them BILLION of dollars. Those woke managers should not run videogames companies, at all.
Not on Destiny, that's for sure.
I don't think looking at Marathon now the 2 projects would have much in common. Plus its well documented that ND killed it because they didn't want to be all in on GAAS. Looks to be a smart move if you as me because if this project fails then knowing Bungie they don't have a plan B.
Sony didn't forget about those games.
They didn't supervise anything. They advised based on their own experiences.
Like i said nobody knows for sure, we can only speculate, my guess is as good as yours and the final result doesn't change, we got this thing instead of factions 2, if it is bungie or helmet's fault doesn't change much for the final client.
All those games were deemed hits by all metrics though. It was their later installments that failed as Sony tried to water down their online experiences into CoD-like trash.
But it does change the narrative, because it wasn't Bungie that got Factions killed.
www.naughtydog.com
If you want to blame anything for Factions death then I'd be laying it at Intergalactic's feet.
Shush you, lets not take the actuals words of the developer get in the way of some good speculation.But it does change the narrative, because it wasn't Bungie that got Factions killed.
ND came out and literally stated that they couldn't support a live-service game due to them being a singleplayer-focused studio:
"In ramping up to full production, the massive scope of our ambition became clear. To release and support The Last of Us Online we'd have to put all our studio resources behind supporting post launch content for years to come, severely impacting development on future single-player games. So, we had two paths in front of us: become a solely live service games studio or continue to focus on single-player narrative games that have defined Naughty Dog's heritage."
An Update on The Last of Us Online || Naughty Dog
So, there is nothing to guess.
How do you develop a game for 3-4 years only to be hit by an epiphany mere months before release that online games require post-launch attention?But it does change the narrative, because it wasn't Bungie that got Factions killed.
ND came out and literally stated that they couldn't support a live-service game due to them being a singleplayer-focused studio:
"In ramping up to full production, the massive scope of our ambition became clear. To release and support The Last of Us Online we'd have to put all our studio resources behind supporting post launch content for years to come, severely impacting development on future single-player games. So, we had two paths in front of us: become a solely live service games studio or continue to focus on single-player narrative games that have defined Naughty Dog's heritage."
An Update on The Last of Us Online || Naughty Dog
So, there is nothing to guess.
Those weren't hits.
Hulst asked them to make a soulless GAAS clone, which they refused. Directly or indirectly Hulst killed Factions 2. It doesn't matter as Without Hulst's (or Ryan's not sure) involvement, we would had a Factions 2 mode just after TLOU2.But it does change the narrative, because it wasn't Bungie that got Factions killed.
ND came out and literally stated that they couldn't support a live-service game due to them being a singleplayer-focused studio:
"In ramping up to full production, the massive scope of our ambition became clear. To release and support The Last of Us Online we'd have to put all our studio resources behind supporting post launch content for years to come, severely impacting development on future single-player games. So, we had two paths in front of us: become a solely live service games studio or continue to focus on single-player narrative games that have defined Naughty Dog's heritage."
An Update on The Last of Us Online || Naughty Dog
So, there is nothing to guess.
Pr talks that you have no idea if sincere or forced by sony are hardly as bulletproof as you think.
You just made all this up?
Everything is possible.
I think that the reason the actual dev's gave is far more plausible than Bungie killed it because they thought it was better than their own game, or other fanciful explanations.
Where did you get this nonsense?
gamerant.com
So it doesn't sound strange to you that they realized all of that after years of working on f2 uh?
Maybe they just underestimated the scope and dedication required for long-term support?
You think Bungie, a newly acquired studio, suddenly has that much weight it could cancel a massive project at Sony's premier (and most well regarded) studio?
Reactions still seem rather split though.
I'm pretty sure word was that Bungie consulted and reviewed Sony's live service portfolio, and that they didn't like Factions in terms of its ability to retain players. It was also in development for 4 years with a team in the hundreds. Although it is a rumour, if you believe Jason Schreier, there might be some truth to it.
I quite like it for what i've seen but its clear this has been banged together in 18 month-2 years in true Bungie style.
Yeah they where consulted, we al know that although I didn't catch the part that Bungie outright said it wouldn't have the ability to retain players, must have missed that. I thought ND came to their own conclusions after consulting with Bungie.
People here are morons.
I think people here can like good multiplayer while also hating bad, shitty games.
I found the quote:
Article: "Sony has invested heavily in "games as a service," or video games designed to be monetized beyond their initial sales through ongoing purchases. As part of that push it asked another of its video-game studios, Seattle-based Bungie, to evaluate the games across its portfolio. Bungie raised questions about the The Last of Us multiplayer project's ability to keep players engaged for a long period of time, which led to the reassessment."
This is completely in line with ND's official statement of moving away from Factions due to them being a singleplayer-focused studio which is not able to offer the required long-term support.
Cheers for that, hearsay from good old jase but no doubt some truth to it. Although reading that article seems like development wasn't going exactly smoothly either.
Most likely the 4th map and approach to ranked mode, which won't be available until after launch
Impressions I'm reading in general on reddit and other places are not negative, many are really positive.
Its Tarkov lite. there isn't really anything like it on console, not that's successful anyway. I'll be playing, but I like MP titles.
Yeah the general sentiment from those folks who like MP games and who are actually playing it seem pretty positive.
Bungie are probably considered THE gaas experts so their words have more weight, maybe not enought to straight up erase a game but enought to put the thought in helmet's mind.
This is the likely scenario I think. Marathon will find a relatively small dedicated audience, possibly grow slightly over time. Then most of the studio gets on with life support for D2 and D3 in time for PS6.
