Support NeoGAF

[Pelta88]

I hear you, perhaps I read your op wrongly lol. But this point specifically...

I might even say that MS has the advantage at this point (again, subjectively), since a number of their exclusives are unknown quantities (e.g., Avowed, Fable), whereas Sony's future layout seems rather predictable. I admit the advantage is hypothetical, since the games aren't out yet, and MS's track record isn't exactly encouraging, lol. But you never know. All those studio acquisitions have to amount to something ... some day ...

It's been a decade of decline. And by decline I mean the introduction of ip that has moved the needle. "The needle" in this instance being mindshare and / or momentum that translates to the broader market and helps the brand.

 

[Humdinger]

I hear you, perhaps I read your op wrongly lol. But this point specifically...

It's been a decade of decline. And by decline I mean the introduction of ip that has moved the needle. "The needle" in this instance being mindshare and / or momentum that translates to the broader market and helps the brand.

I don't disagree with you.

 

[Astray]

Microsoft simply doesn't know what quality things look like, so it's impossible for them to have a consistently top-notch release run that builds up award cachet. A game of the year rarely just pops out of nowhere, it's almost always the result of a build up of good will and interest that happened previously, look at how a Tarantino movie always, ALWAYS has anticipation on its side to be an award winner, he didn't just stumble into this status, it took him years of delivering award winning material to land this status.

You look at something like Alan Wake 2 being a nominations blockbuster (and based on my current impressions of it, deservedly so), and you wonder what could have been if Microsoft actually managed their Remedy relationship better than they did. Not only that, you wonder even more whether them separating from Microsoft is a factor in them attaining awards cachet.

 

[Phase]

Microsoft simply doesn't know what quality things look like, so it's impossible for them to have a consistently top-notch release run that builds up award cachet. A game of the year rarely just pops out of nowhere, it's almost always the result of a build up of good will and interest that happened previously, look at how a Tarantino movie always, ALWAYS has anticipation on its side to be an award winner, he didn't just stumble into this status, it took him years of delivering award winning material to land this status.

You look at something like Alan Wake 2 being a nominations blockbuster (and based on my current impressions of it, deservedly so), and you wonder what could have been if Microsoft actually managed their Remedy relationship better than they did. Not only that, you wonder even more whether them separating from Microsoft is a factor in them attaining awards cachet.

I think when a company gets too big they lose a lot the "soul" and "hype" of the developers. They aren't interacting and learning from each other in the same way as a 10-20 person team. It becomes more about completing your workload instead of seeing the progress and discussing it with your team. I keep using team because if you've ever been with a small company it really feels that way. Successes and failures are felt together. At these massive studios it just can't happen and I think many who work at them probably feel disconnected from the product they are helping create.

I think one solution is to have smaller teams working on smaller projects alongside the flagship ones. You might see the team passion come back and maybe see some great innovative experiences as a result. They've really got to do something. The vibe I get from a lot of AAA studios today is one of ineptitude and apathy, and devs who are aware of it as well as embodying it. Something has got to change to bring the life back to the developers so the excitement on a project can be felt within and projected outward to potential fans.

 

[Astray]

I think when a company gets too big they lose a lot the "soul" and "hype" of the developers. They aren't interacting and learning from each other in the same way as a 10-20 person team. It becomes more about completing your workload instead of seeing the progress and discussing it with your team. I keep using team because if you've ever been with a small company it really feels that way. Successes and failures are felt together. At these massive studios it just can't happen and I think many who work at them probably feel disconnected from the product they are helping create.

I think one solution is to have smaller teams working on smaller projects alongside the flagship ones. You might see the team passion come back and maybe see some great innovative experiences as a result. They've really got to do something. The vibe I get from a lot of AAA studios today is one of ineptitude and apathy, and devs who are aware of it as well as embodying it. Something has got to change to bring the life back to the developers so the excitement on a project can be felt within and projected outward to potential fans.

IMO Smaller projects are worthwhile for worthwhile downside protection alone, in addition to all you said.

Nintendo wins gaming not because its productions are the most expensive, but because even if a game flops, they don't lose much and still have enough in the money tank to try again.

 

[Puscifer]

Games Matter.
Luckily Xbox has the biggest first party line up in history.

dang