By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - A new beginning for Xbox

aLkaLiNE on 08 March 2016
Azzanation said:

EPIC GAMES – Epic have worked very well under Xbox for many years, they created one of Xbox’s greatest franchises in Gears of War and MS have also supported Unreal Engine 4 with DX12. With Epic they can co-develop Unreal Engines to utilize DX12 and with MS behind the budget, they could do amazing things. 

Fat chance. Epic is worth too much and being bought out by MS would hamper them in many ways. It just won't happen.

 

 You can scratch Capcom off that list as well.



Around the Network
Azzanation on 08 March 2016
LivingMetal said:
Any company with a good working relationship with Sony at this current moment would be a FOOL to be bought out by Microsoft. Sony was on top of the console market during the PS1 and PS2 days. They bounced back from the PS3 with the PS4. The PS4's success is bigger than most anyone could have anticipated. And if you are a fairly successful third party developer who have been catering to the multi-platform market, allowing yourself to be bought out by a first party console maker would be asinine. Especially with Microsoft when we've have already witnessed the reality of studios that have come and gone under Microsoft's banner in relatively short period of time.

Besides just fantasizing which third party developers Microsoft will buy out to undercut the competition in a false hope that poises the Xbox One over the PS4, just face the reality that the PS4 is a successful gaming console of offerings that have catered to the gaming audience far and wide. This thread would NOT have been started if the Xbox One wasn't in such a unpredictable state of content support to maintain some semblance of a competitive edge over the content offerings of the PS4.

For starters a dev is a worker and a brand is a company. Devs want to get paid and a company wants to make products. Being owned has many benefits, one including a salary which allows the dev to live under. Its not always trying to sell the best games but enough games. Its not a sport where the idea is to come first. If MS buy a brand that can contribute to a profit then it doesnt matter who or what there competitors do. Its a job not a sport and garenteed work is better then casual work.

So for your the rest of your post, you are going way off topic. This isnt about PS4. PS4 can do its own things. If you want to talk about PS4's success then go write your own article please. This is about Xbox and what the future holds.



TheMessiah on 08 March 2016

First Party studios aren't necessarily the way to go. owning the IP is more important. Would it really matter if a non First Party studio makes a game owned by MS for them? Look at Killer Instinct. Its a breath of fresh air in the fighting genre and is not made by MS.



sabvre42 on 08 March 2016

Capcom is under contract to NOT ever put SFV on Xbox. Even if MS acquired the company, they still would never get a port of SFV; which would mean that Microsoft would have to either kill off the franchise, or kill SFV and move on to SFVI already.

Monster hunter wouldn't appeal to the XB fanbase.... and while it might sell some consoles to the japanese -- it'd more than likely cause a different company to come up with a replacement for MH.

Resident Evil isn't as popular as it used to be... so not sure how beneficial that IP would be....



sabvre42 on 08 March 2016
COX said:

Which Capcom game would be succeful in the west expect maybe SFV/DR ? I don't really see why MS should buy Capcom. To try saving the Xbox brand in Japan with games like MH ? Lol it would more likely kill MH in the process than help Xone.

Nintendo and Sony have better reasons to buy Capcom than MS.

Capcom cannot publish SFV on any console other than PS4 by contract.



Around the Network
sabvre42 on 08 March 2016
Ka-pi96 said:
sabvre42 said:
Capcom is under contract to NOT ever put SFV on Xbox. Even if MS acquired the company, they still would never get a port of SFV; which would mean that Microsoft would have to either kill off the franchise, or kill SFV and move on to SFVI already.

Monster hunter wouldn't appeal to the XB fanbase.... and while it might sell some consoles to the japanese -- it'd more than likely cause a different company to come up with a replacement for MH.

Resident Evil isn't as popular as it used to be... so not sure how beneficial that IP would be....

Do you know the exact terms of that contract then? Because if you don't then who's to say there's nothing stopping them from re-releasing it in a couple years time as SFV Ultimate edition or something and releasing that on Xbox?

Because they verbatim stated that will never happen. "The PS4 is the ONLY console this numbered version of street fighter will ever appear on."

It would have to be Street Fighter 6.



sabvre42 on 08 March 2016
Ka-pi96 said:
sabvre42 said:

Because they verbatim stated that will never happen. "The PS4 is the ONLY console this numbered version of street fighter will ever appear on."

It would have to be Street Fighter 6.

Well until certain either way it's still safer to assume there are loopholes in a contract than there aren't.

The loophole is exactly what I stated. They kill off Street Fighter 5 and release Street fighter 6.



LivingMetal on 08 March 2016
Azzanation said:
LivingMetal said:
Any company with a good working relationship with Sony at this current moment would be a FOOL to be bought out by Microsoft. Sony was on top of the console market during the PS1 and PS2 days. They bounced back from the PS3 with the PS4. The PS4's success is bigger than most anyone could have anticipated. And if you are a fairly successful third party developer who have been catering to the multi-platform market, allowing yourself to be bought out by a first party console maker would be asinine. Especially with Microsoft when we've have already witnessed the reality of studios that have come and gone under Microsoft's banner in relatively short period of time.

Besides just fantasizing which third party developers Microsoft will buy out to undercut the competition in a false hope that poises the Xbox One over the PS4, just face the reality that the PS4 is a successful gaming console of offerings that have catered to the gaming audience far and wide. This thread would NOT have been started if the Xbox One wasn't in such a unpredictable state of content support to maintain some semblance of a competitive edge over the content offerings of the PS4.

For starters a dev is a worker and a brand is a company. Devs want to get paid and a company wants to make products. Being owned has many benefits, one including a salary which allows the dev to live under. Its not always trying to sell the best games but enough games. Its not a sport where the idea is to come first. If MS buy a brand that can contribute to a profit then it doesnt matter who or what there competitors do. Its a job not a sport and garenteed work is better then casual work.

So for your the rest of your post, you are going way off topic. This isnt about PS4. PS4 can do its own things. If you want to talk about PS4's success then go write your own article please. This is about Xbox and what the future holds.

You are right, this isn't about the PS4 and its successes.  This is about a content provider's decision (third party) to whether or not accept a buyout from a console maker based on the successes of that and other console makers in the industry (or failings of you want to see it from that angle).  So the PS4 successes and its maker's history of consoles was only used as EXAMPLES to determing whether or not a third party should go exclusively with Microsoft as a first party.  You just cannot face the fact that your vision for the Xbox One is most improbable.  This is due to the reality that the PlayStation's success is incentive for the third parties to NOT be bought out by Microsoft.  Therefore, they can continue to develop, publish and profit from the industry as a whole and not just from a single platform that has yet to provide a consistant vision.  So again, you are right that this is not about the PS4.  But the PS4 and its successes are major deciding factors for content provider going first party whether it's to Microsoft or not.  There's no avoiding it... unless you're in denial.



Lrdfancypants on 08 March 2016

They just closed two studios, right? I guess I don't see how that was done to free up room under their banner. I'm not sure I see the relation between closing studios, one of which was so close to releasing a product, and freeing up space. I would think the space was already available.

If they aren't doing what the other articles refer to that you don't like; instead of adding studios in relation to closing studios I'd think they'd be shifting to paying studios for work while maintaining IP ownership probably lowering overall cost. I think that fits better with recent moves than prepping a buying spree.
Look to Scalebound, Recore and QB with closing owned studios. That seems to fit their recent moves better.



l <---- Do you mean this glitch Gribble?  If not, I'll keep looking.  

 

 

 

 

I am on the other side of my sig....am I warm or cold?  

Marco....

Azzanation on 08 March 2016
LivingMetal said:
Azzanation said:

For starters a dev is a worker and a brand is a company. Devs want to get paid and a company wants to make products. Being owned has many benefits, one including a salary which allows the dev to live under. Its not always trying to sell the best games but enough games. Its not a sport where the idea is to come first. If MS buy a brand that can contribute to a profit then it doesnt matter who or what there competitors do. Its a job not a sport and garenteed work is better then casual work.

So for your the rest of your post, you are going way off topic. This isnt about PS4. PS4 can do its own things. If you want to talk about PS4's success then go write your own article please. This is about Xbox and what the future holds.

You are right, this isn't about the PS4 and its successes.  This is about a content provider's decision (third party) to whether or not accept a buyout from a console maker based on the successes of that and other console makers in the industry (or failings of you want to see it from that angle).  So the PS4 successes and its maker's history of consoles was only used as EXAMPLES to determing whether or not a third party should go exclusively with Microsoft as a first party.  You just cannot face the fact that your vision for Microsoft is most improbable.  This is due to the reality that the PlayStation's success is incentive for the third parties to NOT be bought out by Microsoft.  Therefore, they can continue to develop, publish and profit from the industry as a whole and not just from a single platform that has yet to provide a consistant vision.  So again, you are right that this is not about the PS4.  But the PS4 and its successes are major deciding factors for content provider going first party whether it's to Microsoft or not.  There's no avoiding it... unless you're in denial.
                               

Let me make it clear to you. An employee wants to get paid to work. A Job is a Job and if you’re under a huge corporation you have the benefits of getting paid and having a secure future. Devs make the games, company worries about selling them

Go write your PS4 article. Sorry I stopped reading after you said “You are right”

Thanks ;)