So he was promising before having power to do so?
So since you are saying he wasn't lying, them the reason for taking 4+ years to honoring the promise to increase 1st party content was?
Idk bro, where did he say this? What was he referring to, exactly? How much control did he have at the time? Was he answering to someone confident in the Xbox brand or was it the guy who didn’t want to spend money on Xbox? What content was there for Microsoft to secure at the time? What studios that they bought recently were available to buy four years ago?
Unless you factually know the answers to these questions and more, you’re talking out of your ass to say he’s a liar.
So you were away from this forum the last 5 years? I do remember you participating, even on the Spencer's threads.
There were multiple promises of improving 1st party along those years. And here you and others trying to say he can't be blamed for the past 6 years because first it was Don Mattrick fault then it is because he wasn't high on the hierarchy (yes Senior Directors are powerless). So either he is to blame because he had the power but didn't take action or he was lying because he didn't had power to honor the promise. You can't have both.
|Chris Hu said:
When this generation started Crackdown 3 was going to use "the power of the Cloud" and squish out every once of power the Xbox had to prove its technical superiority to PS4. It was suposed to be a flagship title, then things went bad, it got delayed 500 times and MS themselves seen to have just forgotten the game, they didn't even make much of a noise when it released, a lot of ppl didn't even know it had released until they stumbled upon the reviews. The point is ppl seen to be in a cruzade to find things to use as excuse for this game, it is an unexcusable game just like something like Fallout 76. A big studio, with time on their hands and a big budget should be able to deliver something way more polished than these two games I use on the example.
It maybe was supposed to be a flagship title for about a second but never was in reality. Also it wasn't made by a big studio and neither where the previous two games and none of the Crackdown games had big budgets. If the first game didn't come with the beta for Halo 3 there more then likely wouldn't have been a second or third game even though none of them had big budgets.
Yes, they have kept hyping it for all these years because it wasn't a flagship, it wasn't the poster child for the Power of the Cloud. If they thought the game have less than 1M sales potential why would they throw so much money and time and hype on the game? Your math doesn't match.
|Mr Puggsly said:
Sorry if I phrased that poorly, I have no idea if hundreds of people were working on it all at the same time, I just meant hundreds of people worked on the game over a 4-5 year period.
To me that seems like the game wasnt as low budget as Chris Hu made it seem.
Given its MS we can assume it had a fairly big budget, they can afford to throw some money around. But I highly doubt it had a MS AAA budget.
At one point it may have had a lot of people that touched this project in some way, but during the entire development? Highly unlikely. Some studios just did their work and left the project, it was Sumo's job to put it all together.
Why does it even matter though? This is MS, they can afford to take risks. Frankly its good thing MS has Gamepass because that helps justify a project like Crackdown 3 by encouraging people subscribe. Even if people subscribe and dislike it, there are a bunch of objectively notable games they might like on Gamepass. Anecdotally, I'm a Gamepass subscriber because it only takes two $60 games to justify a year subscription. So Forza Horizon 4 and Crackdown 3 have already made my subscription worthwhile.
MS certainly can afford to take risks, still they were more conservative and making less new IPs (even if paid for 3rd parties) than Sony and Nintendo, even though they are many times bigger than both.