-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft Closes Redfall Developer Arkane Austin, HiFi Rush Developer Tango Gameworks, and More in Devastating Cuts at Bethesda
- Thread starter Thick Thighs Save Lives
- Start date
- News
demigod
Member
How convenient of you to leave out horse armor(mtx).
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
Ninja Theory 2 is fucked any way you cut it. MS wants to consolidate and only focus on big IPs (and GAAS). In that future there's no room for small studios creating games with a more limited appeal. It doesn't matter if the games are profitable and get high ratings, that AA games making $2 million profit isn't worth it for a company that's worth $3 trillion.
My guess is that the higher ups at NT already know they'll be axed next. Even though there's work to be done (Hellblade 2 for PS5), they must have been pitching ideas for new projects to keep the devs at the studio working and if those ideas were all rejected like they did with anything Arkane Austin and Tango Gameworks came up with), well, then it's game over, too.
MS Gaming is just too big for its own good. Any MS owned studio not working on a major AAA IP will be killed off when they finish a game. The best they can hope for is to become a helper studio creating assets for Call of Duty, Halo and other tentpole IPs.
It's so much better to be big fish in a small pond than a big fish in an ocean the size of the Microsoft Corporation.
The Mad Draklor
Member
Consumers are not obligated to financially support a failing product. Either the product improves or it ultimately dies. If you want more competition, then the competition actually needs to be competent and the Xbox executives are not.
FewRope
Member
6 years to make Hellblade 2, Tango made two games in a similar amount of time iirc one of then being the very first "hit" with audience and critics alike. Theres NO WAY Ninja Theory is not already dead right now
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
Nintendo would most likely still be competing with Sony in the power department if Microsoft hadn't entered the ring.
Anyway, Nintendo is still viable competition for Sony today.
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
"Competition" is just another buzzword that Xbox fans throw around, kind of like "hardcore" and "casual" back in the 360 days.
The fifth and sixth generations are fondly remembered yet competition was lowest... Sony dominated which forced the other brands to work very hard to stand out. This hard work meant that even the "losers" like SEGA, Nintendo, and Microsoft put out exceptional consoles that were worth owning if the library matched your interests.
In the PC space, it wasn't until after competition cratered and Steam came in that PC was accessible enough for normies. Steam enjoyed an uncontested monopoly for 15 years, arguably still going.
When there's a major consolidated platform in the market -- console, PC, or handheld -- then competition between games is accelerated, which is what benefits gamers most.
By my reckoning, the only competition we care about as customers is the hard-working, ass-busting competitiveness which creates amazing games. That specific kind of competition appears to be highest when there's one major player dominating the market and the others are doing their best to steal marketshare by offering better features and better games.
This is seriously one of the easiest Bingo cards to fill on a videogame forum: competition is good, Arrogant Sony, saving money with Game Pass, just wait until E3, Microsoft could literally buy Nintendo. The free space in the middle is a picture of "I believe Phil Spencer".
Last edited:
Unknown?
Member
We wouldn't be paying for online though. Also I don't care, I liked the PS2 online better. Centralized accounts are terrible.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
How we've come from Xbox doesn't need to keep COD on PS to where we are today is absolute fucking poetry. All you had to do was look at how these puplic companies operate. You fucking idiots.
Last edited:
Zheph
Member
Damn, Destin got hacked
Topher
Gold Member
GHG
Gold Member
So after all is said and done, Jim Ryan was actually trying to do Xbox a favour.
Who knew.
Gamer_By_Proxy
Member
Broken clock theory working once again I see.
splattered
Member
Wonder how long before #Sony too ? I mean they put out Astrobot but otherwise they seem to mainly be focusing on bigger IPs and started up a GaaS initiative... signed some decent 3rd party deals but otherwise their pipeline feels similar to where Microsoft is/headed. Everyone is dancing on Microsoft's grave right now but it may only be a matter of time before Sony implodes as well depending on how well their upcoming games perform.. *it really does feel like the industry as a whole is headed for that ugly crash
Last edited:
Zheph
Member
Ryan can be a bit moderate at times but Destin? Must be having a really really rough time #Pray4Destin
FunkMiller
Gold Member
Anyone who'd close a studio that does this can get fucked all the way to oblivion (and Skyrim).
Gamer_By_Proxy
Member
When Ryan shit all over Halo Infinite I thought maybe I was having a stroke.
Topher
Gold Member
Sony laid off employees and closed London Studios earlier this year. Difference is PlayStation doesn't have a $70 billion acquisition that they need to make good on. Having said that, studio closures still could come. Plenty of speculated that Media Molecule may be on the chopping block. There is going to be a lot of pressure on Bend Studio's next game. Personally I don't think the Gaas shift for first party studios is going to work and there may be some repurcussions there.
Either way, the outrage that comes with any future Sony closures isn't going to be fueled by a phethora of past comments from a CEO making grandiose statements about the freedom the studios have to make the games they want and self-serving shit like that.
FunkMiller
Gold Member
I remember all the acquisition defenders screaming that Xbox had infinite supplies of money because they were owned by Microsoft.
I - and many others - tried to point out that these massive companies don't function like that. They are all smaller fiefdoms under an umbrella, and are in competition with one another. Xbox never had 'the might of Microsoft's warchest behind them whatever' and we're seeing the proof of that now.
People confused Microsoft with Xbox. And Phil bit way, way more off than he could chew. This disaster is absolutely on him for buying ABK.
They're going to strip mine and eventually kill Xbox to get as much of that 70bn back as they can.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
We'll react to Sony when Totoki goes and fucks things up too. (which he will, I'm not even going to be suprised)
Last edited:
vaibhavpisal
Member
“Our layoffs are better than yours”….??
Punished Miku
Member
Console monopolies are awesome, PC storefront monopolies are awesome. Real mask off moment for people going along with this. Not surprising at all though.
rhodesianshepard
Member
Everybody was saying that Xbox has all these profits now that they own ABK, when they fail to mention that Microsoft doesn't expect to recoup the ABK costs for another 35 years
How we've come from Xbox doesn't need to keep COD on PS to where we are today is absolute fucking poetry. All you had to do was look at how these puplic companies operate. You fucking idiots.
What is funny is that Ryan used to be the biggest Xbox fanboy in the Mid 2000's. He was the original "Xbox influencer" that would constantly engage in console wars. I think he is embarrassed by that, because he is pretty objective with his analysis on Xbox nowadays, and not afraid to shit on them
Last edited:
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
no offense to fans of Playstation first party stuff, but that has never been the brand's strength. Sony puts out an excellent third-party mass-market box. If you want a one-stop-shop for most of the AAA stuff and most of the indie stuff and most of the stuff in between, Playstation is the place to go. Personally, the last 8 years of PS first party have been trash. I didn't like GoW Reboot or GoW Ragnarok. I didn't like Uncharted 4 or Last of Us 2. Didn't like either Horizon game. Didn't like either Spider Man. Kena, Astro Bot, and Returnal are the only Sony games that I thought were good on PS5 so far. Yet, my PS4/PS5 library is absolutely packed with stuff to play.
My point is that Playstation can do just fine with a few first-party games throughout the year to buttress a large third-party library. That business model has worked for them for almost 30 years.
It is the customer's prerogative to be selfish. I'm just pointing out the historical trends which seem to match the "best" periods of gaming. I want games to be at their best. Single platforms dominating a market seems to coincide with the most innovation and the most memorable games.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
There isn't any "ours" or "yours" except for tribalistic warrior nonsense. If Sony closes studios while still making massive profits that in itself is enough to give them plenty of shit about it. Fact of the matter is that Phil Spencer's words are being thrown back in his face from even the most fervent Xbox supporter.
Damn straight. I'm sure there will be apologists just like there are for Microsoft, but stockholders are the primary concern for these companies, not gamers, so I don't get why people feel the need to lick those boots.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Monopolies aren't inherently bad. They're bad when they're helmed by the complete cunts like Jim and Phil.
Thankfully Valve isn't currently that, so the status quo can stay as far as i'm concerned, and the rest competing can scramble for eternity.
Last edited:
DeltaPolarBear
Member
In the current case, the only Reason Sony is dominating is because Xbox refuse to get off the stage. If Xbox shut down, say, 5 years ago, then someone else would have put their hands up and try to join the console race. Maybe Stadia would have had a proper home hardware, or maybe Amazon would try something. But either way, Xbox refusing to go home is helping Sony immensely in preventing anyone else from even thinking about challenging PlayStation.
As long as Xbox remained, Playstation will stay king, and there will be no other challengers.
Punished Miku
Member
If you want to state your theory that's fine, even if controversial. But I think it's very surface level and is not really illuminating anything that justifies championing a console monopoly..
What are the monopoly golden era examples you're using; I assume NES and PS2? PS2 as a piece of hardware was the worst of the 4 that gen; with Gamecube, Xbox 1, and Dreamcast all being better built systems. I owned them all and in no way was supportive of a monopoly. It was actually the peak of competition in that space, since Sega was still putting out hardware. PS2 had pretty weak 1st party support also. It really only succeeded because it was a DVD player, and was marketed with a mature style for the first time. 3rd party games in this era were dirt cheap to make, and almost none of them sold above 1 million copies. If you could sell 100k for a niche game you were still making it. All that is gone now. As for the NES era, that wasn't really a golden age either. 3rd parties were getting crushed with excessive fees and Nintendo had more power than they ever had at that point. As for Steam, it's not even a publicly traded company and really runs as an anomaly, not an example to use to advocate for monopolies. Half the stuff people like about Steam is buying cheap keys from other sites and just using it on Steam, and if those other sites didn't exist it would be much worse. Software development is more expensive than its ever been now and tons of games are already bombing. What you're proposing is forcing them all to compete on just 1 storefront. Nothing about that is better than having more chances for 2nd party deals, more chances for sub deals, more chances for store exposure somewhere else.
It's just hilarious that anyone on here is agreeing with this after all the monopoly fearmongering posted on here for a year straight. Just a lot of liars. No other word for it. Like I said, not at all surprising.
Last edited:
ZehDon
Member
Oh boy, looks like the vanguard is starting to collapse. I guess it's that time of the year to say: Xbox better have a great show this June
Last edited:
vaibhavpisal
Member
This in turn helps xbox.
A weak Playstation will be subject to acquisitions from Google, Amazon etc. not something xbox wants.
Those would pose real problems for MS that would not be easily solvable.
It actually helps both companies, the way its current setup.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Sony had their big consolidation back in the PS3 era. and Jim already said they were going to focus in big shit, and already have closed several studios.
right now the biggest uncertainty in Sony's camp is what's going to happen to Bungie after the final shape.
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
We've not once had a console monopoly, if we're being literal, just console dominance. It's not so much that I'm "championing" a console monopoly. I'm just looking back at gaming history and pointing out that so-called console monopolies have ended up really, really good for gamers. A dominant platform results in a ton of software competing within the same marketplace.
Muh Precious Competition appears to be highest when there is a dominant platform with smaller brands nipping at its heels. The reasons are two-fold and are extremely simple to understand:
1) the platforms with less market share must punch significantly above their weight or they cannot compete. This is how you get genre-defining games like Smash Bros or Halo or Shenmue on systems with tiny userbases. Game systems that cannot compete with the dominant platform end up dying in obscurity (Atari Jaguar, 3D0, Neo Geo Pocket Color).
2) third-party publishers are poisonous and always have been. Fewer platforms means third parties have to compete more on a software basis because the library is more crowded. Maximizing the competition between software instead of competition between hardware brands is how you get juggernaut libraries like PS2, Nintendo DS, PS4, and Steam. Third-parties shitting up the console market is how we got a crash followed by Nintendo's draconian policies. Third-parties playing sides is how we got all the sports games on Genesis and barely any on SNES.
I like games. I don't care about hardware brands as much as game brands. When games compete, they tend to be better overall. When platform brands compete, we get silliness like timed ESG exclusivity and buying up third-party developers to shore up a weak library.
Last edited:
DeltaPolarBear
Member
It doesn't help MICROSOFT. Xbox as a division was a waste of money, but at least it was just a rounding error. But then all the acquisitions meant it is time for box to die for real. It is over.
The death of Tango Gameworks is only logical if there wasn't going to be an Xbox platform any longer. A studio that makes AA games that are well received is extremely valuable for any platform. You only kill them off if you are going third party full time.
Punished Miku
Member
I just think your analysis is based on how things were 25 years ago and really doesn't apply to the present in any way or the current challenges facing software development or the industry. But not up to us anyway, whatever happens happens. We're in a totally different highly corporate era. It has almost no resemblance to 25 years ago.
Last edited:
Peter Moore moving to MS is like
SEGA: I just moved shit with my mind.
Last edited:
diffusionx
Gold Member
If you slice up any industry enough you can find a monopoly. If Xbox goes away and Sony is the only one making a "powerful console" doesn't mean they have a monopoly. For one thing, PCMR dorks would scoff at the idea of the PS6 or whatever being a "powerful" console, and two, console is a very small part of the gaming landscape. If you don't like PlayStation you can buy a Switch, a PC, play games on your phone, whatever. It's not like the PS2 or NES era at all because unlike then most "high profile" games come out on PC and console (back then it was basically two different gaming industries running side by side, even in the early 2000s).
Right, "monopoly" is a neutral term. It just describes a market. Monopolies are bad when they use their market power to engage in anticompetitive behavior. But there are lots of monopolies that don't just exist but are legally sanctioned, for example your power company is likely a legal monopoly.
Right, "monopoly" is a neutral term. It just describes a market. Monopolies are bad when they use their market power to engage in anticompetitive behavior. But there are lots of monopolies that don't just exist but are legally sanctioned, for example your power company is likely a legal monopoly.
Last edited:
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
You're saying nothing at all here. If you like competition between games, then a dominant platform is what facilitates that best. The brands that can punch above their weight will survive anyway. It's not complex. You might think it's "unfair" but who cares? I just want good games.
Hardware competition = splintered market with tons of misfires and so-so exclusives propped up as "system sellers" to appease fanboys.
Software competition = one or two dominant platforms where all the best games can be easily compared to others, forcing game devs to innovate or die. "System sellers" in this situation can only work when they're actually a cut above the games available on the dominant platform.
Punished Miku
Member
I did already say a lot. More opportunities for games on more platforms with more marketing events, more 2nd party funding, more sub deals, more storefront visibility helps more games. What you want is narrowed opportunities. That doesn't really do anything but favor the big AAA stuff. Those are already dominating visibility anyway, and there's just going to be less 2nd party deals on that front since they're not needed anymore. "Forcing devs to innovate or die." Yeah, no shit. Anything not a mainstream AAA blockbuster will have even less chance to exist and they will die. Innovation is what will die. It's more like conform to a safe design or die. Conform to a safe IP or die. More safe design, more budget bloat to stand out, less opportunities for supportive marketing, sub deals or 2nd party deals. Worse on every front. But you know, enjoy your utopia I guess. You're still in the PS2 era mentally.
Last edited:
Astray
Member
That colt gif will forever live in infamy lmfao.
How we've come from Xbox doesn't need to keep COD on PS to where we are today is absolute fucking poetry. All you had to do was look at how these puplic companies operate. You fucking idiots.
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
You want more marketing opportunities and back-door exclusives instead of letting as many games compete against one another as possible?
Well okay then.
The future is mobile and it sucks, there are clear evidences already, steam deck, switch, the rumored Sony and MS handheld, though, still better than a complete quit from the industry cause it sucks that way.
Gabe also made a video about how games should stay the way they are rather than chasing real graphics, I think he's serious and his words are taken seriously.
Last edited:
Well, at least he got gifted a backpack to pack his shit outta there and a shirt so he wouldn't go to the fuck without a shirt on his back.
Zheph
Member
splattered
Member
Very true... that last part being said i cant help but wonder if there has been some sort of shift in power despite the outward facing org chart we see? Decisions being made that the Xbox team itself doesn't want? I wish we had real concrete answers about who made these decisions and why.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Why? They were actively looking to do that themselves. Their last few projects before being acquired were not hits either so it's not like they were uber-prospering or anything.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked