I'm always amazed by how fast people jump to playing armchair corporate interests, rather than their own (Not just Microsoft).
-
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.
Obsidian on why their Microsoft published XB1 RPG Stormlands got cancelled
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
I'm always amazed by how fast people jump to playing armchair corporate interests, rather than their own (Not just Microsoft).
Thebeardofknowledge
Banned
Xbox defense force activate
Do you work for MS?
Lord of Ostia
Member
Sunset Overdrive was not a success. It's a great game but it didn't sell well and probably didn't move many consoles. It seems Microsoft is trying to push online/games as a service pretty heavily, yet they are either pushing those goals onto otherwise single player projects, or cancelling those projects before they ever make it to market (Fable Legends)
To be fair, it probably didn't cost them nearly as much to develop those games.
It's a shame but it's true in any business, no one wants to stick out their neck for something unless they truly believe it will succeed.
Lmao even in GAF people believe this eh? If they do it for the fans why not have the games come out for free?
Lmao even in GAF people believe this eh? If they do it for the fans why not have the games come out for free?
Nightengale
Member
lol whut. Go back and check my post history if it compels you, 90% of my posting are all Sony-related, because I lean PlayStation.
I'm just expanding the context of the language for those unfamiliar with what it means to be a product champion and the risk involved in it.
VincentMatts
Member
Dont bother, SonyGaf appear just as quickly.
Newtype-001
Member
Yoshidas gone on record to say only 4/10 ps games make good money and out of those the "hit" games cover for the rest which is why they can diversify.
I wonder how its like at MS
I wonder how its like at MS
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
I know it wasn't a success. That's literally my point lol. Their biggest success in publishing external games this gen wasn't an actual success, so of course they're going to be a lot more cautious in the games they do put out, as well as changing up the format of projects they're pursuing, for better or worse.
Lord of Ostia
Member
In addition, Gravity Rush is Japan Studio's baby, and Japan Studio is one of Sony's largest and has a hand in the development of a ton of titles. I'm sure it's worth funding to keep the studio heads happy while they get their money's worth out of Japan Studio from their collaborations and xdev stuff.
I don't understand, are you implying that there's a game publisher out there that doesn't care about budget and profit at all?
Surprisingly a game can still take risks and be good, Recore was just a poorly made game.
Why would I dismiss Quantum Break? It was a standard 3rd person shooter.
Much like the Halo megabloks game, it was never actually announced and still in pre-production . Yet it plays into the narrative of MS cancels everything
Yup. Without knowing the budget or team size of Gravity rush, you can't just say Sony was being charitable. Plus if they have employees in the Japan studio just there, they have to work on something. Like same for Knack 2. You have bodies that need work and the budget probably isn't huge for it
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
I believe it was cancelled without ever being properly revealed.
Lord of Ostia
Member
That isn't their biggest externally developed success though. Ori and the Blind Forest, State of Decay, and Dead Rising are all more successful. Why even bring up Sunset Overdrive when it bombed?
We can pull out our console warrior blue/green 'CONSOLE EXCLUSIVE' lists and PS4 will markedly have more games, but that's also a benefit of being ~the~ home console in Japan, and having Japanese studios release games on their platform over anything else. In terms of IP and franchise management they both have similar practices; if anything Sony is more cautious, barring The Last Guardian, which probably had Yoshida himself as the 'champion' in that case.
You will never know if something will be a hit if you don't at least try. It has been proven time and time again in the entertainment industries that products made by committee and where decisions are based solely on marketing aren't always successful. In fact they usually turn out soft.
Granted this points to the importance of a champion who has to show management why a product will be successful and is still worth developing.
Remember many decisions in business aren't based on whether or not a product is going to be profitable but more based on the return on that capital spent. It is much more nuanced than 'making money'.
If Ford was just in it to make money 100 years ago they wouldn't have made cars or built assembly lines. He would've just made a better buggy.
Sometimes the market doesn't known what it wants until you give it to them.
I am not speaking to this particular game, but to be dismissive of what the dude said is dumb. Sometimes you have to take a real risk on a product to bear real rewards. What the last couple cancellations make me think is that people are too afraid to take risks, and instead are making short term decisions that keep them employed a little longer versus taking a bigger risk to improve market share...
Ah oke. That explains it.
Salty Rice
Member
Microsoft cancels a game? Shocker.
Im being hyperbolic because saying they do it exclusively for the fans is stupid. They do it to ultimately make a profit.
Sony and MS just have different viewpoints about it. Sony wants exclusives to make their product more appealing, and MS wants games on all their platforms that are guaranteed to make a profit.
People thinking Sony cares about them should have went out the window when they started charging you to pay for online. They don't do that for you folks.
LordRaptor
Member
I could well be wrong, but I feel it is somewhat understandable that it is harder to trust in the output of a studio on the other side of the planet that you can only communicate with via translator and that you may only visit to get a handson a couple of times a year, than one thats a couple of hours away and works the same hours you do.
The difference here being that Microsoft could afford to blow a few million on some games that aren't guaranteed to make money hand over fist. Some of the best games ever made didn't do that well sales-wise, so I don't know why Microsoft should catch a break for being "business savvy". They've been fucking up ips for years now. I don't think they actually have a fucking clue.
Makes sense. If no one is willing to go to bat for your game, then when it comes time for executives to look at trimming the fat your game is probably going to be considered fat, regardless of its quality
The sad truth is that AAA games have become way too expensive for publishers to take risks and hope something sticks. It is why I consider the AAA segment to be pretty stagnant creatively for the past decade or so.
The sad truth is that AAA games have become way too expensive for publishers to take risks and hope something sticks. It is why I consider the AAA segment to be pretty stagnant creatively for the past decade or so.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
It's arguably rather poor business sense given that microsoft's lack of software diversity is showing a decline in established software sales and is failing to push hardware.
You and Doffen.
Lord of Ostia
Member
If MS was serious about getting in on the PC space again they'd do well to buy Obsidian and fund some CRPGS or AAA Open World RPGS from them, while also making new Age of Empires or other strategy titles with at least one other studio. If they had titles that were attractive to the PC market I think they would do a lot better in that space. Obsidian even has tons of staff with experience on F2P online games, leverage that.
Zap Rowsdower
Banned
This.
It's not even good business because now the Scorpio will barely have any exclusives. I'd bet Crackdown 3 got dropped like Phantom Dust too, there's hasn't been a single word about it in years.
Devs really need to learn that working with Microsoft is practically a death sentence.
GeordieMark
Member
This is a problem with how Microsoft constantly reshuffle. If your champion gets transferred you can be left very exposed, especially if the project is overdue or over-budget.
Post like this show a complete lack of understanding of how the business side of this industry works.
Post like this show a complete lack of understanding of how the business side of this industry works.
Herp Derpington
Member
I do agree risk taking isn't a bad thing. MS does seem to be risk averse quite often. That's what got us in the gears/halo/Forza situation. Still I think they're within their right to back out and the subtle (and not so subtle) digs at MS over stuff like this gets old after awhile.
BRocknRolla
Member
People can preach risk aversion all they want. And that's a fine business approach to take too. But if MS wants to build a bigger audience and create an attractive library of IPs to differentiate and sell Xbox, they'll need to carry through on some of these investments, even if they pose risk at times. If no one is willing to do that, it'll continue to be the same old, but that's not going to bring in new users. How long does Halo, Gears, and Forza remain a sustainable business model?
If we give all these cancellations the benefit of the doubt, and say they all would have been very poor business decisions, then I'd say there's still a significant problem with MS's ability to field pitches and get good development going for their IP.
If we give all these cancellations the benefit of the doubt, and say they all would have been very poor business decisions, then I'd say there's still a significant problem with MS's ability to field pitches and get good development going for their IP.
VincentMatts
Member
Yeah for sure, but at the same time i truly believe that a good game shouldn't need a salesman pushing it. A good game will sell itself.
Its possible that MS just isn't very organized and it might have just fallen though the cracks. Kinda like how Sports teams sometimes pass up on good draft picks. They dont purposely do it, but maybe the people in charge of that arent up to par.
The whole point is when people mention Microsoft doesn't do this thing...then someone shows they do do that thing...there comes an asterisk with it. Like being a standard 3rd person shooter.
And reading this article the game was so early that being even mildly preturbed at this is hilarious.
ALLseeingEYE
Member
For Crackdown, it seemed like David Jone's new company was centered around the destruction tech, and that seemd to be the focus for the first while. I imagine they kept a core team focused on that tech, while honing it, and simply ramped up the rest of the team around the project as the tech proved itself out, and they were ready to build the rest of the game. Let's also not forget that MS has a lot of prove with regards to its 'Power of the Cloud' comments.
Also, Crackdown is a proven franchise, which I imagine, if this tech proves to be as awesome as it looks for the multiplayer portion of the game, could seriously push it towards being a pretty big hit. There was also a ton of room for the game to expand on the campaign front, so I imagine the game as it stands, is well positioned to impress the pants off a lot of people unexpectedly if all goes well. A sequel would also no doubt be able to be made within a shorter time span.
FinaruDensetsu
Member
Do you care to debate the merits rather than a pointless post?
Do you disagree that what they showed of SB (which ought to be the best parts) was shit? Do you disagree that we would not be as good as someone within MS who has actually seen the Obsidian game to judge on its quality?
Zap Rowsdower
Banned
I know that beggars can't be choosers when it comes to game development but that just showcases how screwed up the industry is. They really need to unionize like the film industry.
This was in 2012.
Then you get posts like this. A quote from last week attached to a canceled game from 3 years ago.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
Ori is a small budget, downloadable game. It's not really relevant here. State of Decay is a port of a 369 game, isn't it? I did forget about Dead Rising 3 though.
The point is, as flawed as the execution may have been, that Microsoft has had numerous high profile failures with externally developed games this gen. Ryse, Quantum Break, ReCore, Sunset Overdrive, Rise of the Tomb Raider all thoroughly underperformed expectations. Titanfall, while not published by MS, was an expensive exclusivity deal that got them nowhere. So yeah, obviously they're cautious.