• 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.

MS should attain DC Games exclusivity to compete with Sonys Marvel output.

Lognor

Member
MS is not capable of release a good story driven game. At least not yet.
And they don't need to. Let Sony have those. If you look at the best selling games, by far they are multiplayer online games. Looking at the 20 best selling games in the US in 2021 I'd only classify three of them as "story drive games" - Miles Morales, Resident Evil and Assassin's Creed. Why should Microsoft spend millions to develop one of these AAA story driven games, when they generally sell nowhere near the annual sports games and online multiplayer games? They should focus on those. Sprinkle in some of those story driven games, sure. But unlike Sony, that should not be their main focus. Sony can go after the group of gamers.
 

Reizo Ryuu

Member
Sony could only do that after leveraging their SM movie rights with Disney in the MCU negotiations.
This isn't real, ps4 Spider-man has nothing to do with anything mcu; marvel approaches them for an exclusive marvel game, and insomniac chose Spider-man. This happened in 2013/2014, before the negotiations with sony for his mcu appearance in civil war.
 

Swift_Star

Gold Member
And they don't need to. Let Sony have those. If you look at the best selling games, by far they are multiplayer online games. Looking at the 20 best selling games in the US in 2021 I'd only classify three of them as "story drive games" - Miles Morales, Resident Evil and Assassin's Creed. Why should Microsoft spend millions to develop one of these AAA story driven games, when they generally sell nowhere near the annual sports games and online multiplayer games? They should focus on those. Sprinkle in some of those story driven games, sure. But unlike Sony, that should not be their main focus. Sony can go after the group of gamers.
I never said they needed to. Stop being so defensive about every criticism MS is suffering. The scrutiny is only getting worse from now on.
 
Last edited:

VulcanRaven

Member
Those Sega rumours have been around for ages, but I just don't think they are as important to acquire in the gaming space anymore.

I still hold that buying WBI or at least Rocksteady would be a massive win to compete with Sony plus Marvel output.
I'm not sure if owning Warner's games division would actually guarantee exclusive games. Warner could still want the games to be multiplatform and give them to other companies to develop.
 

Three

Member
Do all Sony fanboys believe this lie? Because that shit is incorrect.
No we just believe Knack is the one and only true AAAA game. Meanwhile you're waiting for your AAA single player gamepass games to be more than a title screen. We'll see if MS release anything comparable to it.
 

Lognor

Member
I never said they needed to. Stop being so defensive about every criticism MS is suffering. The scrutiny is only getting worse from now on.
I am not being defensive though? I clearly stated that I did not feel MS needed those types of games. It's called a counter point and you are the one being offended that I dare question your assertion. Take a breath. I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as you are. No need to get defensive.
 

Swift_Star

Gold Member
I am not being defensive though? I clearly stated that I did not feel MS needed those types of games. It's called a counter point and you are the one being offended that I dare question your assertion. Take a breath. I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as you are. No need to get defensive.
*yawn*
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Problem is that AAA story driven, single player games don't lend themselves to gamepass. MS even when game sales were important rejected a lot of single player games. Now that engagement is key to them they are even less likely.

You're right that MS didn't prioritize single player AAA games. And some of that was due to Gamepass. But I think MS now realizes how wrong that thinking was and will change it. But I hope to god they don't buy WB. That would super suck.

I am not being defensive though? I clearly stated that I did not feel MS needed those types of games. It's called a counter point and you are the one being offended that I dare question your assertion. Take a breath. I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as you are. No need to get defensive.

MS 100% NEEDs those types of games. I guarantee you MS will prove me right and you wrong on this. It's literally the dumbest thing in the world to think otherwise.
 
Last edited:

Lognor

Member
You're right that MS didn't prioritize single player AAA games. And some of that was due to Gamepass. But I think MS now realizes how wrong that thinking was and will change it. But I hope to god they don't buy WB. That would super suck.



MS 100% NEEDs those types of games. I guarantee you MS will prove me right and you wrong on this. It's literally the dumbest thing in the world to think otherwise.
Why do you think they NEED them? I know you're the self proclaimed expert in video games sales, but curious what data you're using to come to this conclusion? I showed in the US that only 3 games in the top twenty are single player story driven games. So why should Microsoft focus on this niche? What data you got, my sales expert? Decades of experience, right?
 
I do think there is some equity in that.

Sony has done a great job with Spider-Man and I'm cautiously optimistic about Wolverine, but I remember back in the day when there was always some tick for tack parity.

Coke vs Pepsi.

I think the biggest problem here though is DC games are way harder to make with the exception of Batman.

DC has far fewer mainstream characters and the characters they do have are difficult to build games around:
Superman - VERY difficult
Flash -- Almost impossible
Aquaman -- Who cares
Green Lantern -- VERY difficult but not impossible, just way too repetitive
Wonder Woman - Easier, but too generic
 

Snake29

Member
exactly like Sony as been unable (even trying) to release valid FPS or multiplayer of any kind and is bent mostly on making and remaking third person action games that they knew how to do well I suppose almost completely leaving out all the other genres . Well it would appear that both companies need to improve.

If you think carefully, Sony has created more in-house first person shooters then Xbox. The first person market is saturated atm. This whole genre needs a big refresh, and i’m sure devs at Firesprite, Firewalk of Deviation Games are on to that.

Killzone still has an enormous potential, Resistance can be Sony’s answer to the Wolfenstein franchise. Both to me have a far more interesting world and backstory.
 
Last edited:

ReBurn

Gold Member
I do think there is some equity in that.

Sony has done a great job with Spider-Man and I'm cautiously optimistic about Wolverine, but I remember back in the day when there was always some tick for tack parity.

Coke vs Pepsi.

I think the biggest problem here though is DC games are way harder to make with the exception of Batman.

DC has far fewer mainstream characters and the characters they do have are difficult to build games around:
Superman - VERY difficult
Flash -- Almost impossible
Aquaman -- Who cares
Green Lantern -- VERY difficult but not impossible, just way too repetitive
Wonder Woman - Easier, but too generic
It's not that building games around characters like Superman and Flash is difficult as much as it's something nobody has put any meaningful effort into. Most Superman games have been made around milking the license more than creating situations where Superman's weaknesses are exploited in a realistic way to drive the narrative. It doesn't do any good to be the strongest, fastest or most physically invulnerable if you can't save everyone or be everywhere, or if you're in situations where you're not the strongest one in the room.

I'd argue that DC just hasn't been good at finding anyone with the vision to make it happen. The comics are full of material that put their strongest characters up against enemies and situations where their character flaws and vulnerabilities set them up for failure. DC games need to do a better job of that kind of narrative formation.
 
Last edited:

Putonahappyface

Gold Member
Not even Batman or Superman?
I'll take Batman over that fucking pussy Spiderman any day of the week.

 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Why do you think they NEED them? I know you're the self proclaimed expert in video games sales, but curious what data you're using to come to this conclusion? I showed in the US that only 3 games in the top twenty are single player story driven games. So why should Microsoft focus on this niche? What data you got, my sales expert? Decades of experience, right?

Because everybody else has them and they sell great!

It's okay for you to discount....

1. Spiderman
2. TLOU
3. Uncharted
4. The Witcher
5. God of War
6. Assassins Creed
7. Sekiro
8. Metal Gear Solid
9. The Outer Worlds
10. Ghost of Tsushima
11. Red Dead Redemption 2
12. Elder Scrolls
14. Horizon Zero Dawn
15. Control
16. Zelda
17. CyberPunk 2077 (it sold great regardless of the bad last-gen launch)
18. Nier Automota
19. Portal
20. DOOM
21. Resident Evil
22. Kingdom Come: Deliverce
23. Mass Effect
24. Main line Mario games
25. Dishonored
26. Dark Souls series
27. Bloodborne
28. Metro Series
29. Bioshock Series
30. Final Fantasy Series
31. Bayonetta
32. Persona Series
33. Yakuza Series
34. Animal Crossing
35. Nioh
36. Xenoblade Chroniles
37. Metroid Dread
38. Dragon Quest
39. Ni no Kuni
40. Dead Cells
41. Hollow Knight
42. Crash Bandicoot
43. The Hitman Series
44. The Fallout Series
45. Wolfenstein Series
46. Far Cry Series
47. Titan Fall
48. Ratchet and Clank Series
49. Tomb Raider Series
50. The Batman Arkham Series of games



That's 50 video game IPs that are single player that have made a good to strong impact in video games within the last generation or so. And I could keep going. So are you going to continue to say single player games shouldn't matter to Microsoft going forward?

Because AGAIN......I can promise you they DO NOT think that.
 

MonarchJT

Banned
ye
If you think carefully, Sony has created more in-house first person shooters then Xbox. The first person market is saturated atm. This whole gerne needs a big refresh, and i’m sure devs at Firesprite, Firewalk of Deviation Games are on to that.

Killzone still has an enormous potential, Resistance can be Sony’s answer to the Wolfenstein franchise. Both to me have a far more interesting world and backstory.
yeah they did trying to find the famous "halo killer" we all know how it ended ..i liked kz 3 but that's it ....Sony fps crazily missed what an immense market was asking for....nice story ...good gun play ...stable fps and nice multiplayer options
 

sircaw

Just a lil finicky
Think about it, what's the one thing that is still holding back the casual gamer from really switching over to XB from PS5? It's triple A story driven, single player games.

Sony have been able to capture and sell the Zeitgeist of the Marvel craze and arguably this is their main selling point especially after the Activision buyout.

If all DC driven games became XB exclusive this would do two things. 1) Be able to compete with Sony on a linear story driven game level and 2) Be able to offer a real alternative to Sony and Marvel exclusives. Especially for those in the market that are more DC fans then Marvel.

Look how successful and well enjoyed the Batman Arkham games are. Now imagine they were exclusive to XB or MS being able to release the latest Suicide Squad or Justice League game right when Sony have a new Marvel game on their platform. BAM. You'd have really good competition in the gaming super hero space.

Buy out Rocksteady, maybe MS's new triple A studio work on a next gen Superman game. It'd go down really well.

Just my two cents on where next MS should go.
I wish there was a punisher game on the level of spiderman, i am sure that would do very well.
 

Reizo Ryuu

Member
MS 100% NEEDs those types of games.
That's a weird statement, need in what way? Will they go bankrupt tomorrow if they don't? Or are you talking about something else? Because there is a difference between thinking "they don't matter" and "NEEDING them", middle grounds exist.
 
It's not that building games around characters like Superman and Flash is difficult as much as it's something nobody has put any meaningful effort into. Most Superman games have been made around milking the license more than creating situations where Superman's weaknesses are exploited in a realistic way to drive the narrative. It doesn't do any good to be the strongest, fastest or most physically invulnerable if you can't save everyone or be everywhere, or if you're in situations where you're not the strongest one in the room.

I'd argue that DC just hasn't been good at finding anyone with the vision to make it happen. The comics are full of material that put their strongest characters up against enemies and situations where their character flaws and vulnerabilities set them up for failure. DC games need to do a better job of that kind of narrative formation.
Yeah, no one put any effort into it, that's what it is. It's actually really easy. Can't wait to see your version.

It's not just a matter of narrative, it's a matter of gameplay.
 

Lognor

Member
Because everybody else has them and they sell great!

It's okay for you to discount....

1. Spiderman
2. TLOU
3. Uncharted
4. The Witcher
5. God of War
6. Assassins Creed
7. Sekiro
8. Metal Gear Solid
9. The Outer Worlds
10. Ghost of Tsushima
11. Red Dead Redemption 2
12. Elder Scrolls
14. Horizon Zero Dawn
15. Control
16. Zelda
17. CyberPunk 2077 (it sold great regardless of the bad last-gen launch)
18. Nier Automota
19. Portal
20. DOOM
21. Resident Evil
22. Kingdom Come: Deliverce
23. Mass Effect
24. Main line Mario games
25. Dishonored
26. Dark Souls series
27. Bloodborne
28. Metro Series
29. Bioshock Series
30. Final Fantasy Series
31. Bayonetta
32. Persona Series
33. Yakuza Series
34. Animal Crossing
35. Nioh
36. Xenoblade Chroniles
37. Metroid Dread
38. Dragon Quest
39. Ni no Kuni
40. Dead Cells
41. Hollow Knight
42. Crash Bandicoot
43. The Hitman Series
44. The Fallout Series
45. Wolfenstein Series
46. Far Cry Series
47. Titan Fall
48. Ratchet and Clank Series
49. Tomb Raider Series
50. The Batman Arkham Series of games



That's 50 video game IPs that are single player that have made a good to strong impact in video games within the last generation or so. And I could keep going. So are you going to continue to say single player games shouldn't matter to Microsoft going forward?

Because AGAIN......I can promise you they DO NOT think that.
That list is laughable! My initial post was in response to someone saying can't make good story driven games. And you respond with a list that includes Animal Crossing? WTF am I reading? LOL

And a lot of those games are indies that are not story driven. Dead Cells is NOT story driven. Great game, but not story driven. Doom is not really story driven (but if you disagree, no worries! Microsoft owns it now and can and will continue to make those games!). The other poster when he is talking about story driven games he is talking about games that rely HEAVILY on the story (God of War, The Last of Us, etc.). He's not talking about Mario games with little to no story .LOL.

I know you love to argue, but your argument is ridiculous when you back it up with that list!
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
Yeah, no one put any effort into it, that's what it is. It's actually really easy. Can't wait to see your version.

It's not just a matter of narrative, it's a matter of gameplay.
Gameplay and narrative aren't exclusive concepts and there are tons of action sequences found in the comics that could translate to gameplay which would appropriately limit how heroes are able to apply their abilities. Tons of source material to draw from that would make believable gameplay. It's not my fault you can't see how that could work. That's a you issue.

I already said what my version would be, and that's putting the characters into situations where their strengths aren't enough to overcome their weaknesses. Where their fears prevent them from operating at their full potential. A game where Lex Luthor can beat up Superman in a straight up fight isn't believable, but a game where Lex Luthor lures Superman into a situation that he can't punch his way out of is believable. Like in the Injustice timeline where Joker tricks Superman into killing Lois Lane and for all of his power he was still the person who killed her. That's a situation where being the most powerful person in the world doesn't automatically make you the winner. There's decades of stuff to pull inspiration from.
 
Gameplay and narrative aren't exclusive concepts and there are tons of action sequences found in the comics that could translate to gameplay which would appropriately limit how heroes are able to apply their abilities. Tons of source material to draw from that would make believable gameplay. It's not my fault you can't see how that could work. That's a you issue.

I already said what my version would be, and that's putting the characters into situations where their strengths aren't enough to overcome their weaknesses. Where their fears prevent them from operating at their full potential. A game where Lex Luthor can beat up Superman in a straight up fight isn't believable, but a game where Lex Luthor lures Superman into a situation that he can't punch his way out of is believable. Like in the Injustice timeline where Joker tricks Superman into killing Lois Lane and for all of his power he was still the person who killed her. That's a situation where being the most powerful person in the world doesn't automatically make you the winner. There's decades of stuff to pull inspiration from.

I think the problem is you are woefully ignorant of game design and the reality that you have to put in 10-20 hour game together and that gameplay needs to be sustained.

And no one wants to play your game where the superheroes are watered down because of some plot device.
 

NickFire

Member
Problem is that AAA story driven, single player games don't lend themselves to gamepass. MS even when game sales were important rejected a lot of single player games. Now that engagement is key to them they are even less likely.
That aside, I'm not sure it will be easy getting exclusivity after two decades of comic characters raking in big money in ticket sales and game sales. Control over the IP is probably valued higher than ever, and if Disney had a time machine to stop the Spiderman deal from so long ago, they would in a second. They aren't playing ball with Sony because of gaming anything IMO. It's only about the MCU and having Spidey in the MCU. I guess if anyone can say name your price it would be MS though.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
That's a weird statement, need in what way? Will they go bankrupt tomorrow if they don't? Or are you talking about something else? Because there is a difference between thinking "they don't matter" and "NEEDING them", middle grounds exist.

Need in the sense that it'll be in their best interest to in invest in good single player games. For them to reach the levels that they want for GamePass, those types of games are "NEEDED". No need to fanboy about this. Phil has said this very same thing. It's not rocket science. It's just purely obvious business at this point. It's what gamers want. It'll be like creating a TV\Movie app network (like Netflix or Peacock) and not creating a first party TV Drama show. Literally everyone knows it's necessary. So why are you and L Lognor questioning this?

That list is laughable! My initial post was in response to someone saying can't make good story driven games. And you respond with a list that includes Animal Crossing? WTF am I reading? LOL

And a lot of those games are indies that are not story driven. Dead Cells is NOT story driven. Great game, but not story driven. Doom is not really story driven (but if you disagree, no worries! Microsoft owns it now and can and will continue to make those games!). The other poster when he is talking about story driven games he is talking about games that rely HEAVILY on the story (God of War, The Last of Us, etc.). He's not talking about Mario games with little to no story .LOL.

I know you love to argue, but your argument is ridiculous when you back it up with that list!

Most of those games on that list are NOT indies LOL!!! Even if you wanted to cut out games like Mario and Dead Cells because they aren't story driven, most of those games on that list fit the criteria of the spirit of the conversation that we all were having.

Again......no need to argue for the sake of arguing. Just stop! Your Uncle Phil agrees. It's just plain obvious at this point and it's okay.





In 2017 Phil Spencer said this.

Phil Spencer may have raised everyone’s hopes when he promised more first party games for Xbox, but you should expect more multiplayer focused, games as a service style titles, if anything else. Clarifying his position on this matter in an interview with The Guardian, Spencer noted that while games like Horizon and Zelda have done well, the economics of the modern market mean that story based single player games don’t make as much sense now as they might have once.

“The audience for those big story-driven games… I won’t say it isn’t as large, but they’re not as consistent,” he said. “You’ll have things like Zelda or Horizon Zero Dawn that’ll come out, and they’ll do really well, but they don’t have the same impact that they used to have, because the big service-based games are capturing such a large amount of the audience. Sony’s first-party studios do a lot of these games, and they’re good at them, but outside of that, it’s difficult – they’re become more rare; it’s a difficult business decision for those teams, you’re fighting into more headwind.”

Now, I absolutely disagree with him on this- not just because single player story based games have been dominating all discourse and sales charts in the last few months. From Resident Evil 7, Nioh, NieR Automata, to of course, the big wigs, such as Persona 5, Horizon: Zero Dawn, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, and Mass Effect Andromeda– story based single player games absolutely have a market, and Xbox is choosing to willingly forego that market. I have to say this pretty plainly, if this is the direction the Xbox brand wishes to go in, then I will have no interest in it any longer.



But in 2021 Phil has changed his tone on Narrative Driven Games

If there's been one common complaint against Xbox, it's the lack of story-driven experiences. As PlayStation delivers titles such as God of War and Uncharted, our community has shouted out for more. It seems the feedback is being heard, as Xbox boss Phil Spencer says there are more in the pipeline than ever in the history of Xbox.

Speaking to The Guardian, Spencer was asked whether there is room for more "traditional forms of narrative games" on Xbox. In response, he claimed that there's "more of those now than [there's ever] been in the history of Xbox", adding that "if it works, [they] get value out of bringing players into the ecosystem."


“I think we’re probably building more of those now than we’ve been in the history of Xbox. Platform holders, whether that platform is subscription or a hardware device or a store, are actively investing in new and probably more risky things, because, if it works, we get value out of bringing players into the ecosystem.”
Matt Booty, the head of Xbox Game Studios, added to this by explaining that developers "don’t have any direction or mandate that says every game has to be an ongoing, sustained game".

Instead, games are judged on a case-by-case basis. Xbox knows that teams such as Double Fine wouldn't be likely to operate by developing a project that runs on for multiple seasons and years, for example.

“We don’t have any direction or mandate that says every game has to be an ongoing, sustained game. Take [surrealist platforming game] Psychonauts: there might be a Psychonauts 3, but I’m not going to tell [designer] Tim Schafer to go make it. Knowing the history of games that he makes, I don’t think he’s going to be making a game that has seasons and goes on for five years.
“Sea of Thieves has longevity and we’re going to have Halo multiplayer start to be based around seasons, but Compulsion Games, our studio in Montreal, weren’t told to go build something that’s going to have seasons or six pieces of DLC or something. Tell Me Why was an important story for us to get out there, but there is no mandate that they’ve got to go figure out how to do seasons for that game.”



After researching this, I do see why you and some other Xbox fans are pushing the idea of story based games aren't needed though. It's that 2017 quote yall remember. And you probably didn't realize that MS isn't living by that stupid code anymore as it was super stupid to begin with.
 
Last edited:

Amiga

Member
This isn't real, ps4 Spider-man has nothing to do with anything mcu; marvel approaches them for an exclusive marvel game, and insomniac chose Spider-man. This happened in 2013/2014, before the negotiations with sony for his mcu appearance in civil war.
Maybe the Sony deal with Marvel was about any character they chose. Explains how Wolverine is also happening.
 

Reizo Ryuu

Member
So why are you and L Lognor L Lognor questioning this?
where am I questioning that?
Your usage of "need" is following your own definition, which gets in the way of clear communication, which is the thing I'm seeking clarity for, now you change it to "best interest", which is not synonymous with "need" at all; need means a requirement, a necessity, an obligation, best interest means something that's beneficial or advantageous.
So by your own definition, which is now "best interest", MS doesn't need.

But the fact you opted for an ad hominem in calling me a "fanboy" says enough really.
 
Last edited:

Megatron

Member
I wouldn't want to see this. MS has a TON of IP right now that they already won't be able to use to it's potential. Why take away games that are being made very well by WB and not see the MS IPs realized?
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
where am I questioning that?
Your usage of "need" is following your own definition, which gets in the way of clear communication, which is the thing I'm seeking clarity for, now you change it to "best interest", which is not synonymous with "need" at all; need means a requirement, a necessity, an obligation, best interest means something that's beneficial or advantageous.
So by your own definition, which is now "best interest", MS doesn't need.

But the fact you opted for an ad hominem in calling me a "fanboy" says enough really.

Why do people act like this on the internet? Maybe English isn't your first language, but it's common for people to use the word "need" and not mean that literally definition. You understand the spirit of what I'm saying. Or at least you should.

Only on the internet do people like to argue for arguing sake like this. What I said is correct. If Microsoft wants to reach their goals with GamePass and with the Xbox brand as a whole, THEY NEED good story-based driven first party games. And they are 100% making them right now. Starfield will probably be their 1st game to prove to you guys what I'm saying.

It's extremely clear, that Microsoft understands the assignment and is looking to deliver it.
 

Reizo Ryuu

Member
Only on the internet do people like to argue for arguing sake like this. What I said is correct.
No it's not arguing for the sake of arguing, you responded to a poster saying they don't need to, saying yes they do need to, clearly there is a difference in definition here which risks a miscommunication.
If you aren't talking about the same thing, then you are actually arguing for the sake of arguing, because you didn't even bother to understand what the person you're replying to meant, and just made an assumption based on your own definition.

I also don't know why you keep repeating what you believe MS's strategy as a whole should be to me, since I never said anything about it because I don't care; I don't have any of the data phil and his team have, nor do I have any investment in MS to even bother with such insights. This in itself is clearly another miscommunication about you assuming I'm saying something I'm not; hence the ad hominem in calling me a fanboy.
 
Last edited:

Lognor

Member
Need in the sense that it'll be in their best interest to in invest in good single player games. For them to reach the levels that they want for GamePass, those types of games are "NEEDED". No need to fanboy about this. Phil has said this very same thing. It's not rocket science. It's just purely obvious business at this point. It's what gamers want. It'll be like creating a TV\Movie app network (like Netflix or Peacock) and not creating a first party TV Drama show. Literally everyone knows it's necessary. So why are you and L Lognor questioning this?



Most of those games on that list are NOT indies LOL!!! Even if you wanted to cut out games like Mario and Dead Cells because they aren't story driven, most of those games on that list fit the criteria of the spirit of the conversation that we all were having.

Where did I say that most of the games on the list are indies? I never said that. Don't try to obfuscate because I called you out on your weak ass list.

The fact remains, mr sales expert, that the best selling games every year are not those AAA story driven games. Yes, they do well, but not on the same level as the Fifas, the Maddens, the Call of Dutys, etc. Those games are on a completely different level. So again, those games can be successful, but Microsoft does not NEED them. Let Sony have that niche. If they focus on those top selling games they could still be very successful. Now, I said they don't need them. You're still going to get those types of games (Starfield, Avowed, etc.) from Microsoft, but they don't need them. Words matter bruh
 

GrayFoxPL

Member
I do think there is some equity in that.

Sony has done a great job with Spider-Man and I'm cautiously optimistic about Wolverine, but I remember back in the day when there was always some tick for tack parity.

Coke vs Pepsi.

I think the biggest problem here though is DC games are way harder to make with the exception of Batman.

DC has far fewer mainstream characters and the characters they do have are difficult to build games around:
Superman - VERY difficult
Flash -- Almost impossible
Aquaman -- Who cares
Green Lantern -- VERY difficult but not impossible, just way too repetitive
Wonder Woman - Easier, but too generic

Hahaha. Poor Jason Momoa.
:messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
No it's not arguing for the sake of arguing, you responded to a poster saying they don't need to, saying yes they do need to, clearly there is a difference in definition here which risks a miscommunication.
If you aren't talking about the same thing, then you are actually arguing for the sake of arguing, because you didn't even bother to understand what the person you're replying to meant, and just made an assumption based on your own definition.

I also don't know why you keep repeating what you believe MS's strategy as a whole should be to me, since I never said anything about it because I don't care; I don't have any of the data phil and his team have, nor do I have any investment in MS to even bother with such insights. This in itself is clearly another miscommunication about you assuming I'm saying something I'm not; hence the ad hominem in calling me a fanboy.

The miscommunication seems to be in what I meant when I used the word "NEED". I've clarified above. At this point, it's extremely obvious that MS understands the assignment, realizing for them to be what they want to be.....they need 1st party story driven games.

That's me discussing parts of what this thread is about.

Where did I say that most of the games on the list are indies? I never said that. Don't try to obfuscate because I called you out on your weak ass list.

The fact remains, mr sales expert, that the best selling games every year are not those AAA story driven games. Yes, they do well, but not on the same level as the Fifas, the Maddens, the Call of Dutys, etc. Those games are on a completely different level. So again, those games can be successful, but Microsoft does not NEED them. Let Sony have that niche. If they focus on those top selling games they could still be very successful. Now, I said they don't need them. You're still going to get those types of games (Starfield, Avowed, etc.) from Microsoft, but they don't need them. Words matter bruh
And a lot of those games are indies that are not story driven. Dead Cells is NOT story driven. Great game, but not story driven. Doom is not really story driven (but if you disagree, no worries! Microsoft owns it now and can and will continue to make those games!). The other poster when he is talking about story driven games he is talking about games that rely HEAVILY on the story (God of War, The Last of Us, etc.). He's not talking about Mario games with little to no story .LOL.

The Fifas, Maddens, and CODs are multiplatform games so that adds to them selling that well. You sir, seem to be ignoring the 1st party-single player games that sell like crazy! MS luckily for the industry's sake, will NOT be listening to you. But will cater more to people like me. And that's a great then. Love to see them doing so, since it's the best approach.

MS are making more of "those" types of games, because the "NEED" them in order to achieve their goal. Yes......you're right....words do matter.
 
Last edited:

ANDS

Thought gaf was racist. Now knows better, honorary gaffer 2022
SONY doesn't have a lock on MARVEL IP. There are three upcoming MARVEL games from three different studios. DISNEY is going to do exactly what they have been doing: giving out licenses to publishers that can make them money.

. . . also it would be VERY surprising for WARNER to not handle game development in house.
 

Lognor

Member
The miscommunication seems to be in what I meant when I used the word "NEED". I've clarified above. At this point, it's extremely obvious that MS understands the assignment, realizing for them to be what they want to be.....they need 1st party story driven games.

That's me discussing parts of what this thread is about.




The Fifas, Maddens, and CODs are multiplatform games so that adds to them selling that well. You sir, seem to be ignoring the 1st party-single player games that sell like crazy! MS luckily for the industry's sake, will NOT be listening to you. But will cater more to people like me. And that's a great then. Love to see them doing so, since it's the best approach.

MS are making more of "those" types of games, because the "NEED" them in order to achieve their goal. Yes......you're right....words do matter.
A lot is not the same as most? Jesus, is English not your first language?

COD will soon not be multiplatform so we'll see how that goes. I imagine it will continue to be successful. Maybe not solely in units sold, but will help grow the Game Pass subscription base.

I'm not ignoring that those story driven games can sell well. Look at Nintendo though. How many story driven games do they have? Xenoblade and what else? And yet their non story based games sell tens of millions! I think Mario Kart and Animal Crossing have both sold more than 30 million! Can you check that, mr sales expert?

Again, they do not need these games. You can even go back in history and look at their most successful console - the Xbox 360. What games were drawing people to that console? Halo, Gears of War, Forza (?), Call of Duty. While most of these games have narratives and single player modes, the multi player modes are the real draw. So no, there is no NEED. Get it?
 

ZywyPL

Gold Member
"Sony's Marvel output"? But that's just... one game, literally. MM wasn't that successful anymore. SM2 will definitely be a huge success once again because A) outside USA, SM=Peter Parker, and B) NWH is only one of the biggest movies ever made, no biggie.

It's actually sad the game won't be launching anytime soon, such a missed opportunity, Sony should've skipped MM and leave it for later, while making SM2 all this time right in time for NWH premiere.

But yeah, so far it's a one game wonder, SM2 hasn't launch yet, and can even fet delayed even further, while Wolverine is even further away, and let's be honest he's not that popular. I actually wish Sony handled the game to ND, to translate TLoU into Logan game, now that would be awesome.

But yeah, given gow far away the two games are, they'll have no impact on PS5 that'll sell like 70-90M units by that time regardless, so MS doesn't have to bother, there's nothing they can do about it either with or without a superhero IP.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
A lot is not the same as most? Jesus, is English not your first language?

COD will soon not be multiplatform so we'll see how that goes. I imagine it will continue to be successful. Maybe not solely in units sold, but will help grow the Game Pass subscription base.

I'm not ignoring that those story driven games can sell well. Look at Nintendo though. How many story driven games do they have? Xenoblade and what else? And yet their non story based games sell tens of millions! I think Mario Kart and Animal Crossing have both sold more than 30 million! Can you check that, mr sales expert?

Again, they do not need these games. You can even go back in history and look at their most successful console - the Xbox 360. What games were drawing people to that console? Halo, Gears of War, Forza (?), Call of Duty. While most of these games have narratives and single player modes, the multi player modes are the real draw. So no, there is no NEED. Get it?

So yeah, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing then. Thanks for displaying that.

Again.....for the last time. MS bought companies with narrative driven games for a reason. And they are proud to say it'll be an important part of their strategy going forward. No need to argue for the sake of arguing. They are showing AND telling you that they care about about those games, because they need them.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
"Sony's Marvel output"? But that's just... one game, literally. MM wasn't that successful anymore. SM2 will definitely be a huge success once again because A) outside USA, SM=Peter Parker, and B) NWH is only one of the biggest movies ever made, no biggie.

It's actually sad the game won't be launching anytime soon, such a missed opportunity, Sony should've skipped MM and leave it for later, while making SM2 all this time right in time for NWH premiere.

But yeah, so far it's a one game wonder, SM2 hasn't launch yet, and can even fet delayed even further, while Wolverine is even further away, and let's be honest he's not that popular. I actually wish Sony handled the game to ND, to translate TLoU into Logan game, now that would be awesome.

But yeah, given gow far away the two games are, they'll have no impact on PS5 that'll sell like 70-90M units by that time regardless, so MS doesn't have to bother, there's nothing they can do about it either with or without a superhero IP.

What do you mean Spiderman: Miles Morales wasn't that successful? By all accounts it was clearly a successful game. Both critically and commercially.
 
No returnal isn't exactly AAA. It's a good game though just like Psychonauts is. Still doesn't make it triple A like Spiderman. Any other questions?

Gears, halo and forza Horizon are multiplayer games too. Ones that have been going since 360. Possible unpopular opinion but the campaign in gears and halo have took a massive downturn too.
I thought that The Halo Infinite campaign was really good tbh. Gears 5 was decent too.
Where did I say that most of the games on the list are indies? I never said that. Don't try to obfuscate because I called you out on your weak ass list.

The fact remains, mr sales expert, that the best selling games every year are not those AAA story driven games. Yes, they do well, but not on the same level as the Fifas, the Maddens, the Call of Dutys, etc. Those games are on a completely different level. So again, those games can be successful, but Microsoft does not NEED them. Let Sony have that niche. If they focus on those top selling games they could still be very successful. Now, I said they don't need them. You're still going to get those types of games (Starfield, Avowed, etc.) from Microsoft, but they don't need them. Words matter bruh

I think this debate really hits the nail on the head of what I was trying to say in my OP. Again, I would argue that the perception within the mainstream, casual gamer market is that Sony are still the guys go to for AAA story driven game experiences.

Do they sell well as games like COD? Of course not, and the same obviously goes for player retention. But what they DO bring is consumer goodwill and trust. Sony made dreams come true with FF7 Remake for example. People loved The Last of Us and Uncharted series. People will return to Sony for those experiences over MS.

Even if Marvel isn't exclusive to Sony, it's still the general public perception within the mass casual gamer Audience that PS5 is where to go for them. That again retains brand loyalty.

MS needs to do the same to have a foot in that race. Will it be a disaster if it doesn't happen? Of course not, but brand loyalty matters for sales and gaining DC exclusivity or having exclusive games that rival the likes of God of War etc would be really good for MS. Let's see what happens over this gen, but to capture that zeitgeist DC Games are the way to go.
 
Last edited:

Lognor

Member
So yeah, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing then. Thanks for displaying that.

Again.....for the last time. MS bought companies with narrative driven games for a reason. And they are proud to say it'll be an important part of their strategy going forward. No need to argue for the sake of arguing. They are showing AND telling you that they care about about those games, because they need them.
Again, look at the sales of games in the US. They are all multiplayer online games. So no, they don't need them. Activision is best known for Call of Duty, not story driven games. Microsoft is not going to revive those Sierra Entertainment games from the 80s. Those are story driven games and they're not coming back. Microsoft bought Activision for Call of Duty, the best selling game on Playstation year after year after year. They bought it to keep the game off Playstation. Yeah, it sucks for PS owners, but that's why they bought them. For a multiplayer online game. Not for a story based game IP.
 

Lognor

Member
I thought that The Halo Infinite campaign


I think this debate really hits the nail on the head of what I was trying to say in my OP. Again, I would argue that the perception within the mainstream, casual gamer market is that Sony are still the guys go to for AAA story driven game experiences.

Do they sell well as games like COD? Of course not, and the same obviously goes for player retention. But what they DO bring is consumer goodwill and trust. Sony made dreams come true with FF7 Remake for example. People loved The Last of Us and Uncharted series. People will return to Sony for those experiences over MS.

Even if Marvel isn't exclusive to Sony, it's still the general public perception within the mass casual gamer Audience that PS5 is where to go for them. That again retains brand loyalty.

MS needs to do the same to have a foot in that race. Will it be a disaster if it doesn't happen? Of course not, but brand loyalty matters for sales and gaining DC exclusivity or having exclusive games that rival the likes of God of War etc would be really good for MS. Let's see what happens over this gen, but to capture that zeitgeist DC Games are the way to go.
Yes, in Sony's case it was the story based games largely that drew their audience. But let's not forget that they did lock down exclusivity on Destiny and on countless Call of Duty games. For those gamers that only played COD or Destiny you were going to buy a PS4 over an Xbox One because COD had timed exclusive maps that didn't come to Xbox for 6-12 months later and Destiny had a lot of exclusive content that was locked to PS for years. For these massively popular online games that certainly moved the needle to for Sony.

Microsoft was really lacking in good exclusive content last gen. Now that they are getting good exclusives (online multiplayer games mostly) we will see how that moves the needle. We already know that the Series consoles are the best selling Xbox consoles ever. We know a lot of people are picking up Series S consoles. They are likely buying Xbox now because of these exclusive games. They are not story driven games, yet it is working for Microsoft. They are bringing in more and more consumers. I wouldn't call Halo a story based game. Or Forza. But both are doing very well for MS. The Medium was a story based exclusive game for Xbox and that did not light the world on fire. If it debuted on PS it probably would have done better because Sony has cultivated that audience. Microsoft has cultivated the audience that plays online games. Look at the history of Xbox Live and how trash PSN was for years and years. Microsoft and Sony do not need to compete in the same niche. Sony has its single player story driven games. Microsoft has its online games. Yes, there will be some cross over (it sounds like Sony is finally going to try to make an online competitive game again...), but we can see where their primary focus is. Sony has done very well without any of their own online games.
 

Oddvintagechap

Gold Member
exclusivity is expensive.

Sony having Spiderman exclusive is only because they are a thorn in Disney‘s MCU plans. They want the ability to use him in MCU whenever they want.
 
Think about it, what's the one thing that is still holding back the casual gamer from really switching over to XB from PS5? It's triple A story driven, single player games.

Sony have been able to capture and sell the Zeitgeist of the Marvel craze and arguably this is their main selling point especially after the Activision buyout.

If all DC driven games became XB exclusive this would do two things. 1) Be able to compete with Sony on a linear story driven game level and 2) Be able to offer a real alternative to Sony and Marvel exclusives. Especially for those in the market that are more DC fans then Marvel.

Look how successful and well enjoyed the Batman Arkham games are. Now imagine they were exclusive to XB or MS being able to release the latest Suicide Squad or Justice League game right when Sony have a new Marvel game on their platform. BAM. You'd have really good competition in the gaming super hero space.

Buy out Rocksteady, maybe MS's new triple A studio work on a next gen Superman game. It'd go down really well.

Just my two cents on where next MS should go.
What studio does MS have that you believe can pull of a story driven single player game? Halo's campaign has virtually no story, Gear's stories have sucked since they left Epic, PlayGround is working on Fable, those AA studios they bought a few years ago? no thanks, Bethesda? most of their smaller studios aren't great story tellers and are focused on FPS or horror games, their main studio will be moving on to Elder Scrolls 6 at some point and then you have Activision/Blizzard and none of their studios seem like a good fit either.

Sony doesn't have a marvel exclusive deal they have a Spider-Man deal and A Wolverine deal. Someone needs to come along and make a good Superman game, it won't be any of MS's studios and I'm really questioning if any of WB's can either, the fact that they are doing Wonder Woman instead sucks but hopefully that'll turn out ok.
 
What studio does MS have that you believe can pull of a story driven single player game? Halo's campaign has virtually no story, Gear's stories have sucked since they left Epic, PlayGround is working on Fable, those AA studios they bought a few years ago? no thanks, Bethesda? most of their smaller studios aren't great story tellers and are focused on FPS or horror games, their main studio will be moving on to Elder Scrolls 6 at some point and then you have Activision/Blizzard and none of their studios seem like a good fit either.

Sony doesn't have a marvel exclusive deal they have a Spider-Man deal and A Wolverine deal. Someone needs to come along and make a good Superman game, it won't be any of MS's studios and I'm really questioning if any of WB's can either, the fact that they are doing Wonder Woman instead sucks but hopefully that'll turn out ok.

I take it you didn't play Hellblade Seunas Sacrafice then? That is a great example of a linear, heavy story driven game that in my view rivals the Sony exclusives. Hellblade 2 will continue that, only with a much bigger budget and team. I would absolutely trust Ninja Theory to lead on a new story driven AAA exclusive IP for MS.

I think the Halo Infinite campaign was really strong and ditto with Gears 5. Let's see what the new MS studio does with Perfect Dark.

As for Bethesda I really don't understand where your coming from? The Wolfenstein series (excluding the Co Op entry) had really strong campaigns and Arkane studios gave us Prey which is an underated gem and it offered a great campaign and story too.

With all due respect I think you have a very bad take on this.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom