thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
I think it's pretty obvious what happened. Those who left thought they would have more say and control but didn't. I remember some wanting the game to be episodic and fuck no, that's not going to fly. Instead of there being so many cooks in the kitchen despite already having the chef, they left and Microsoft went and got Crystal Dynamics to develop the game. Gallagher also has a pretty damn good track record so im far more confident now than I was a year ago. I can see a short gameplay trailer at The Game Awards and if not, I would say June 2023 would be a safe bet. As for Embracer, they and CD have already stated that nothing changes. After the first game releases, who knows.
Well I'm just curious as to how the situation got out of hand at The Initiative to where they even went with an episodic approach to begin with, if Gallagher in fact had a different vision long-term. It's his project, essentially, and we know episodic isn't the way they wanted to go because otherwise things wouldn't have gotten to where they did. So was he just really loose in terms of keeping an orderly timeline or what?
I agree with 343 but Halo Infinite's core combat/gameplay is excellent. The base/foundation is there. They just need to get better organized and structured in order to release quality content in a timely fashion. Halo isn't what it once was and if anything, won't be the face of Xbox for much longer anyway if it still is.
Oh 100% agreed as far as being Xbox's marquee brand there's nothing to keep it that way for Halo with all the other IP MS will have access to. The issue is the sheer amount of potential they've squandered with Halo. The Season 2 update dropped and they barely got much of an explosion in active players going by Steam concurrent player counts. It's the highest the game's seen since the first month or two but in absolute terms it's pitiful compared to an average day for other steam games of middling popularity, and in terms of live-service FPS games is less than a third of what Destiny 2 regularly pulls in on a normal day.
So the question is, what if the Battle Royale mode doesn't do enough to rejuvenate the playerbase, what then? What if they just close out with Forge and decide the community carry the rest?
The ABK purchase was for King first and foremost. Everything else is just an amazing bonus. Can't say how any of it will play out as it's going to be a while before it gets completed.
I mean there's so much that comes with ABK that it's impossible to definitively say what can happen until things are complete. But I think just looking at it from a common-sense POV, we can take a strong guess on a few things:
1: New COD entries won't be Day 1 to GamePass. Needlessly cuts out a big revenue stream (direct sales) when sub numbers can be boosted by tying things like season passes, certain DLC content etc. to GP subs or discounts for said items via active GP subs, or getting that content first if through GP, etc.
2: Fans will absolutely NOT tolerate MS reviving Crash or Spyro with new big installments before doing so with Banjo-Kazooie. Would be a massive slap in the face to Rare fans around the world.
3: I think there'll be a higher-priced GP tier in the future and that one will probably include War of Warcraft and some other stuff.
4: MS will probably make a change to GP where online comes with base GP instead of only GPU, either around when the ABK deal is finalized or by June 2023, whichever comes first. That is probably when they finally get rid of XBL Gold altogether.
The reason why Microsoft should go after Ubisoft and/or WB is simple - it's to prevent other companies from getting them. I don't want to see companies like Apple, Amazon, NetEase, Tencent and Facebook to get them because I have no interest or confidence in any of them whatsoever. I wouldn't mind Sony acquiring either but they don't have the capital or the cash on hand to do so. And even if they pulled it off, the problem is that they wouldn't have the money to keep all the employees especially Ubisoft which is around 20,000. Thousands would lose their job where as with Microsoft, they don't prevent you from leaving if you so choose but they won't fire/layoff anyone.
But money isn't the only thing that matters here. Yes Sony has less money than Microsoft that's the case since at least the mid '90s, but they have excellent management of their internal teams. Also Ubisoft may have a lot of employees but their market cap is significantly less than ABK's so I'm guessing the majority of those employees have worst salaries than the average ABK employee. Plus, in any massive acquisition of these types there are going to be some staff who get cut, it's just the nature of the business. If they're of talent they'll land on their feet one way or another.
The ABK situation wasn't like ZeniMax which took two years to complete. It was simply one of those "too good of a deal to pass up" and business wise, I would have went after them too. As a gamer, ABK does nothing for me outside of Diablo IV but if I was a Microsoft executive, I would on them instantly. As for Crystal, I wouldn't be surprised if within the next decade, Microsoft acquires Embracer which to me, seems like Lars is adding as much value as possible and will then ride off into the sunset after a massive buyout. Could be someone else that acquires them but you can see their direction.
I don't know if MS acquiring Embracer is a good idea. Not just because it could present some significant antitrust issues (just look at the sheer amount of IP Embracer own and add MS's own alongside with it), but personally I wouldn't even want to entertain the idea until I can at least see some significant results and gains from them acquiring Zenimax and ABK in ways that are unquestionably net positives. I.e more content, better content and revivals of niche properties that neither publisher would've been able to do if left independent.
Also on the subject of Embracer it would suck if that is the only reason they are purchasing these other companies, to just sell them away like a pack of rare baseball cards. That would seem a lot like an overrated speculative market and could blow up in their faces if suddenly gaming isn't such a big investment for some of these massive companies to pour all this money into, at the rate they are. Just because these companies can do something like that, legally speaking, doesn't mean they should.
Plus if Lars is as much a supposed hardcore fan of gaming (also he got his start in collecting comics so he would know about terrible speculative markets causing massive crashes as that's what happened with comics in the '90s), I would hope he would consider it more valuable to be in it for the long haul and ensure he's there to make these investments better, rather than just looking to cash out to the highest bidder.
Microsoft should 100% get NetherRealm for three reasons. First, they own the MK IP which means it would be included. Second, they can't afford Sony to acquire NetherRealm or WB as a whole because it basically kills the fighting genre on Xbox. Add in the real possibility of Sony paying for SF 6 to be fully exclusive and yeah, Microsoft must acquire NetherRealm 100% if they want to retain any kind of fighting fan genre base that's on Xbox. Third, unlike all the other studios, fighting games is what they do plus expanding them to two teams to where Microsoft has MK and KI with an eventual MK vs KI game would be massive.
I mean, those are all valid points and if WB weren't looking to sell MS could just work out a deal for Neatherrealm to do a MK vs KI or what-have-you. That said, they still don't technically need to buy NetherRealm; they can also just hire NR talent (plus key talent, obviously), and build up from there.
Honestly though, even if they got NR it could be a situation of too little, too late for MS when it comes to having a big stake in the fighting genre. They REALLY neglected this hard with the XBO gen after KI. I personally would be more interested to see what a new fighting game IP from an internal studio could look like, but that's just me.
What a lot of people don't realize is that for generations, Sony has at times paid for full/timed exclusivity for top tier major games in certain genres which if you get every JRPG for example on PS, you don't need an Xbox so if MK was to go to Sony and you're a fighting fan, you don't need an Xbox for this particular reason. These types of deals kills the genre on the competition's platforms. This is one of the many reasons why Microsoft is going after studios and publishers. There's more important reasons but this is definitely one of them.
Again though, we can't pretend that this is all "Sony's fault" for spurring MS into this direction. Sony co-funded SFV's dev, they didn't just buy out exclusivity. MS could've co-funded SFV, but instead they wanted a Dead Rising 4 out of Capcom. There were a lot of such instances last gen across various games with Sony. I'd also like to think that with all the deals they have with SE, they have to in some way be co-funding those titles as well, at the very least.
If MS were more proactive in taking care of the internal studio problem in 2013-2015, they would've had at least a few more internal dev teams by now to cover some of these gaps we're talking about like with the fighting game genre. However, they really just neglected to do anything about it until 2018, and that's when they started buying up smaller dev teams like Ninja Theory and Double Fine. But in some ways it almost feels like they're too scared to lead them with certain project initiatives to resolve longstanding release gaps of the past.
I don't see Microsoft acquiring Platinum Games whatsoever nor should they. They failed to meet deadlines for Scalebound numerous times and rumors have always had it where Platinum took the money for Scalebound and put it towards their other projects including Nier Automata which was a licensed game from Square Enix who are notoriously cheap when it comes to studios they don't or didn't own. So I don't see this happening whatsoever and would be shocked if it did.
While Microsoft could use a Japanese development studio or publisher, I think they're more likely to just "be close" with Sega and just ensure that they get all their future games day one on Xbox and if possible, on Game Pass.
TBH, the issues between MS and PG in the past should be water under the bridge. That was with an Xbox division under a different guiding philosophy, and it's not like worst business deals haven't happened in the industry.
MS owns the Ori IP but im not 100% sure. It could be the publishing rights. Honestly, I forget which it is but doesn't matter, it's highly unlikely that Microsoft is going to work with Moon Studios again and wouldn't give the IP to someone else. What Microsoft wants is to get studios/publisher that solve a gap/weakness in which those studios/publishers have expertise in doing. I do think this gets somewhat solved after the ABK acquisition gets completed but to see anything come out of it, is at least a few years away. Microsoft bought ABK because it's one of those "once in a lifetime opportunities" that you simply don't pass up.
So if ABK, from your POV, was more a means of capitalizing on a once in a lifetime opportunity, what are Microsoft's answers to plugging some of the game genres gaps they have currently, that don't have to rely on more acquisitions? See, this is where IMO they could've already been a bit more resourceful with what they have. Did Bleeding Edge really need to be another hero shooter? Did MS lack for FPS or hero shooters on their platform? No. So why not work with Ninja Theory to make Bleeding Edge into a For Honor-style fighter instead? Could've given Xbox platform and their 1P a very unique game entry in a specific type of fighting space that doesn't have much competition.
Things like that are what are frustrating to consider as realizations to alternative approaches MS could've already implemented if they were just a bit more hands-on in guiding their teams. Another example: why take Halo, strip it of a formula which has generally worked to its advantage (in reality it was always either just the actual story narrative or game mechanic additions for MP that hampered previous 343i Halo games) and turn it into a F2P live-service? Why not use a new FPS IP for that, to iron out the kinks and then when you have something established there, THEN make Halo F2P?
...or don't. Because by that point they'd be making the ABK acquisition anyway and already be getting Warzone. There's your F2P live-service shooter right there; let Halo hone and improve in a template better suited for it because IMO if Infinite were a more traditional Halo but with an excellent story and a lot more content, alongside the great gunplay, it'd be performing a lot better than it is.
Yes, Microsoft wants IP ownership which is brilliant and exactly what they should be after if they're buying a development studio or publisher. Look at last generation and even Xbox 360. They were burned several times by not owning the IP. If you're the company funding and publishing the game, you should 100% own the IP because if you don't, high chance you inadvertantly get screwed over. As for WB, they passed due to not getting any IP's but also because they were going to acquire ZeniMax which was and is far more valuable than WB especially without the IP's. Too much risk in acquiring WB without IP's.
Wait you think Zenimax is more valuable than WB even if WB came with the IPs? I'm not following that one :/
I agree but look at the problems with not owning IP/studios. Titanfall 2/Respawn with EA, multi-platform. Microsoft wanted Ryse 2 but didn't own the IP or Crytek. While I do believe that Microsoft is going to rectify that based on the Crytek leak a while back, it hurt them. Same for Alan Wake, Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive and more.
TBF almost all of these share something else in common: lukewarm retail performance on XBO. That's why TitanFall 2 went multiplat, and MS had no leverage there since the first game didn't shift units or XBOs the way they hoped it would. Same goes with Quantum Break (a big reason why Control was multiplat), Sunset Overdrive (a big reason why Insomniac retained the IP rights), etc.
Xbox One was hamstrung by Mattrick at launch and then for about 4 years, Myerson. The real reasons why Microsoft lost ground with Xbox One was a shitty reveal of TV TV TV, an overpriced weaker console that had Kinect which no one wanted. After that, they literally only had 5 studios for the majority of the generation. 343/Turn 10/Coalition/Mojang all do up to now one franchise and that's it. Rare was a disaster for the most part but have a hit with Sea of Thieves.
They cut Rare's legs short and could've had them work with the Viva Pinata IP a bit more. Maybe even try a Viva Pinata platformer? I know Myerson took over after Mattrick but Phil headed XGS during that period. While Mattrick made a lot of mistakes in some ways he was just doing what his superiors were pushing for anyway, and he did get a lot of quality AAA exclusives for the platform's early years.
More than Phil Spencer did afterwards tbh, I think the one big notable example from Phil was Rise of the Tomb Raider, and then we already know what happened with Scalebound, etc. It was Mattrick who secured DR4, TitanFall, Cuphead, Quantum Break etc.
...damn it's late, I'll have to look at the rest tomorrow
Last edited: