Quantcast
Microsoft is focusing more on old games rather than new games.

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Microsoft is focusing more on old games rather than new games.

Microsoft's software output?

Good, I'm not complaining. 47 20.35%
 
Not bad, but they can do better. 50 21.65%
 
Bad, I'm not happy. 134 58.01%
 
Total:231
barneystinson69 said:
Risthel said:
Am i the only one who have this impression? Recently I'm reading how many games Microsoft is adding to their backwards compatibility (which is nice), but they're having a poor 2016 so far regarding new titles: - Fable Legends: cancelled, Lionhead closed; - Project Spark: closed; - Phantom Dust: cancelled (not official but come on, you still believe it exists?); - Scalebound: delayed to 2017 - Recore: delayed (again, not official, but I think it's safe to say it). And maybe I'm forgetting something. The only game that came out is Quantum Break, which didn't actually set the world on fire. Not to say that their support for Windows 10 games is pretty bad, but this is another story. Microsoft's management of their first party software output has never been good to begin with this gen, but it's really becoming awful. It's almost like they are slowing giving up and that they don't care so much anymore. Even Phil Spencer stopped tweeting about his daily routine (or maybe the videogame media stopped making news for every tweet he's writing). I'm not expecting anything big at Microsoft E3 this year honestly, only games already announced and some sort of hardware revision. What do you think about it?

What is there to do? Phil Spencer only became head 2 years ago, that isn't much time for any reform. Any new games coming out would likely take a couple years longer to become a reality. Realistically, they need to just focus their efforts on their next-gen console, as its clear the XB1 has been a lemon for them. Hoping for the best, but we'll just have to wait and see.

 

"My Strategy is more around our own first party franchises, and investing in franchises that we own, and probably fewer exclusive deals for third party content. I want to have strong third party relations, but paying for many third party exclusives isn’t our long term strategy."

"It’s great to have Tomb Raider as part of our line-up, but investing in first party...is really core to our strategy." [Phil Spencer]



Don't copy random editorials.

Around the Network
ThatDanishGamer said:
barneystinson69 said:

What is there to do? Phil Spencer only became head 2 years ago, that isn't much time for any reform. Any new games coming out would likely take a couple years longer to become a reality. Realistically, they need to just focus their efforts on their next-gen console, as its clear the XB1 has been a lemon for them. Hoping for the best, but we'll just have to wait and see.

 

"My Strategy is more around our own first party franchises, and investing in franchises that we own, and probably fewer exclusive deals for third party content. I want to have strong third party relations, but paying for many third party exclusives isn’t our long term strategy."

"It’s great to have Tomb Raider as part of our line-up, but investing in first party...is really core to our strategy." [Phil Spencer]

Microsoft considers "1st-party" as games that are only a reality because of their investment in them. Companies like Nintendo do that as well----for example, Nintendo considers Bayonetta 2 as part of its 1st-party lineup.

So Microsoft could theoretically have a very strong 1st-party lineup with most of the games made by third-party partners...that quote doesn't necessarily mean that Phil is going to focus heavily on building Microsoft's internal studios. It appears he sees them more as a liability than anything from all of these studio closures and shutdowns

Rise of the Tomb Raider would have been made regardless of Microsoft...they just swooped in and bought a semi-exclusive deal over it. That's why it's a "third-party exclusive," they only really invested enough into it for a year of timed exclusivity.

Compare that to games like Scalebound which were COMPLETELY funded by Microsoft and literally would not exist if Microsoft didn't pump $10 million into them. That's the difference.



d21lewis said:

Well at least I was close with the name of the game.  :(

You're right.  No games, this year.  *Sells PS4*

A wise decision. Time to embrace your maker *gives Ouya* 

d21lewis said:
VXIII said:

And that isn't really a problem. Some games don't "count" for me because I'm simply not in interested in them. Everyone must feel the same about different kinds of games. So let's not turn in into something to fight over.

This is something many people don't realize, for some reason.  Or maybe they do.  I see people posting this "list wars" but only buy one or two games.  I see other people comparing console A with console B and don't own EITHER console!  Nobody buys every game.  More games to choose from is always a good thing.  I've bought games with low scores and enjoyed them.  I've bought games with high scores and instantly regretted them.  It all comes down to what you want to play in your own home and your personal tastes.  People like to fight, though.

Which is why I keep myself away from those discussions. Any good won't come out of it, just more harms and bans will get. Sure PS4 gets more games than XB1 but how those XB1-only owners will feel? Of course they'll feel bad and regret with their purchase.

Same thing can be said to PS4 last year when there was a steady release of exclusive games throughout the year and suddenly only the holiday period was counted.

As a Vita owner, I don't care anymore of these lists. As long as new games announced that is all that matters. Sony ditched us years ago.



         

Aquamarine said:
JustBeingReal said:

See reply above bolded.

When you're in a top-heavy organization like Microsoft, you have to be enthusiastic about whatever the boss says, even if deep down inside you hate it.

That isn't the way it works for a company that wants to stay successful. Most CEO's don't just want yes men, they want people that will contribute to the whole company and create a wide variety of the best possible products to turn a big profit in a given industry. A big project like making a video games console has to be a combination of research into the target market, overall ideas that all departments involved will agree on, not a single top man that has an idea he thinks is going to work.

The most logical conclusion is that Phil agreed with Mattrick's line of thinking, as did everyone else involved and that all parties actually believed in the project, otherwise the system and games would have reflected a different approach than the one we got with XBox One.

If Mattrick tells him to make a game based on the cloud then he has to make do...it's not like he had the ability to go against Mattrick's wishes, even as manager of Microsoft Studios during that time.

Again that's not how it works, for one thing a company the size of Microsoft and the overall size of their game studio division is built based on a division wide structure, Phil could have commissioned any games he felt were financially worth the risk, based on internal testing among all parties.

Phil ran the studios from 2008, he's been in charge of making the decisions for what games get greenlit, it's the end results that Mattrick would care about and that's all down the financials.

Just because Spencer "hyped up" the original Xbox One and Kinect doesn't mean that's the direction he would have taken it. He's required to be a PR man no matter what. But Microsoft's actions getting rid of that nonsense under his tenure speaks to the fact that he thought they were a bad idea.

See you're under the impression that Phil had to agree with how XBox One was created, he didn't, this goes back to my point above about CEO's not wanting their employees to just blindly agree.

Mattrick had to answer to share holders, likely the design and approach of XBox One and Kinect 2.0 being baked in was an Xbox company wide decisions, Mattrick may have signed off on the platform going in that direction, but it doesn't mean that it all came from him.

In the end Mattrick was the scapegoat, because he signed off on Kinect, Xbox One as we know it and cloud focus, DVR stuff.

TBH the company would have made sure they were confident in their approach prior to conceiving their marketing plan, I doubt Phil knew XBox One was going to blow up in their faces as much as it did back then and tbh as I said he's greenlit the projects he has, he's been in charge of games since 2008, so would have to be in a position of power.

It's abundantly clear that Spencer wants Microsoft to increasingly source its 1st-party lineup from external studios. It's pretty obvious why he does that----because if the game fails, you can just stop partnering with the studio and not have to worry about all of the overhead and headaches that come with owning your own studios.

Not sure where you get the impression that Spencer wants this, he has to source what he can, from where he can. If your 1st party studios are all busy on the games you OK then you have to source development resources from elsewhere if you come across another game or more games you want to have on your platform.

Whether you make a game internally or externally you have to pay for that title and if it's made externally then you have to share the end profits, whereas if you make it internally and it makes money then you earn all of the profit.

Doesn't mean the games are any less 1st-party....Scalebound and ReCore exists because of Microsoft and they treat them like it's part of their 1st-party lineup. I still think Spencer is responsible for their creation even if there was evidence of them before the instant it was announced that Spencer was Head of Xbox.

Actually it does. Any games made from a studio you don't own, but you publish are second party (because they're made by a second party entity, separate from your company), if you own the studio, then they're a part of your company, making them 1st party.

3rd party is when another publisher acts as an intermediary between you (the platform holder) and the developer.

Games can still be exclusive in some fashion, but they're only 1st party if they were made by a studio you own.

Scalebound and ReCore exist because those games were conceived by the studios that came up with those titles, those studios approached Microsoft or Microsoft approached those studios and asked them if they had any games that they would be willing to work on and develop exclusively for Microsoft's console.

Platinum Games, Comcept and Armature Studios aren't owned by Microsoft, they're independent entities, so they're second party in those situations and ReCore and Scalebound would have existed regardless of whether Microsoft stepped in or not. Hell any of those companies could have partnered with Sony, Nintendo, Activision, Namco, EA or anyone else to get the games published.

It's most certainly not like Microsoft creatively came up with the ideas for Scalebound and ReCore and then they approach all of those studios to work on those games.

Do I think Spencer is a saint, though? Hell no. I really don't like how he's handled Rare, for example. And it was bullshit to close down Lionhead instead of moving them onto Fable 4 or a new studio unrelated to Fable.

I don't think I outright said that you said Phil was a saint, I just disagree that Phil was unable to make choices on what games Microsoft puts out, he has control over the studios at MS, I doubt if the studios at MS came up with standard games, new IPs that looked cool and were able to break into new markets for games that anyone in charge would be stopping those games from being developed into something big.

Phil likely agreed with all parties involved in developing Xbox One and set the wheels in motion to end up with the platform and games we've seen. Things have happened the way they have, evidence of that speaks for itself.

But I also think that it's still too early to fully gauge whether or not he has done a bad job with Microsoft Studios.

I don't, being that Phil's been in charge of Microsoft studios since 2008, which is 8 years he could have commissioned any number of internally or even externally developed projects and we should have seen something more than we have been.

TBH Phil should have been supporting all requirements for games for 360 and XBox One, clearly he agreed with the overall approach that the company took, otherwise things would have been different years ago.

See reply in bold.



JustBeingReal said:
Aquamarine said:

When you're in a top-heavy organization like Microsoft, you have to be enthusiastic about whatever the boss says, even if deep down inside you hate it.

That isn't the way it works for a company that wants to stay successful. Most CEO's don't just want yes men, they want people that will contribute to the whole company and create a wide variety of the best possible products to turn a big profit in a given industry. A big project like making a video games console has to be a combination of research into the target market, overall ideas that all departments involved will agree on, not a single top man that has an idea he thinks is going to work.

The most logical conclusion is that Phil agreed with Mattrick's line of thinking, as did everyone else involved and that all parties actually believed in the project, otherwise the system and games would have reflected a different approach than the one we got with XBox One.

If Mattrick tells him to make a game based on the cloud then he has to make do...it's not like he had the ability to go against Mattrick's wishes, even as manager of Microsoft Studios during that time.

Again that's not how it works, for one thing a company the size of Microsoft and the overall size of their game studio division is built based on a division wide structure, Phil could have commissioned any games he felt were financially worth the risk, based on internal testing among all parties.

Phil ran the studios from 2008, he's been in charge of making the decisions for what games get greenlit, it's the end results that Mattrick would care about and that's all down the financials.

Just because Spencer "hyped up" the original Xbox One and Kinect doesn't mean that's the direction he would have taken it. He's required to be a PR man no matter what. But Microsoft's actions getting rid of that nonsense under his tenure speaks to the fact that he thought they were a bad idea.

See you're under the impression that Phil had to agree with how XBox One was created, he didn't, this goes back to my point above about CEO's not wanting their employees to just blindly agree.

Mattrick had to answer to share holders, likely the design and approach of XBox One and Kinect 2.0 being baked in was an Xbox company wide decisions, Mattrick may have signed off on the platform going in that direction, but it doesn't mean that it all came from him.

In the end Mattrick was the scapegoat, because he signed off on Kinect, Xbox One as we know it and cloud focus, DVR stuff.

TBH the company would have made sure they were confident in their approach prior to conceiving their marketing plan, I doubt Phil knew XBox One was going to blow up in their faces as much as it did back then and tbh as I said he's greenlit the projects he has, he's been in charge of games since 2008, so would have to be in a position of power.

It's abundantly clear that Spencer wants Microsoft to increasingly source its 1st-party lineup from external studios. It's pretty obvious why he does that----because if the game fails, you can just stop partnering with the studio and not have to worry about all of the overhead and headaches that come with owning your own studios.

Not sure where you get the impression that Spencer wants this, he has to source what he can, from where he can. If your 1st party studios are all busy on the games you OK then you have to source development resources from elsewhere if you come across another game or more games you want to have on your platform.

Whether you make a game internally or externally you have to pay for that title and if it's made externally then you have to share the end profits, whereas if you make it internally and it makes money then you earn all of the profit.

Doesn't mean the games are any less 1st-party....Scalebound and ReCore exists because of Microsoft and they treat them like it's part of their 1st-party lineup. I still think Spencer is responsible for their creation even if there was evidence of them before the instant it was announced that Spencer was Head of Xbox.

Actually it does. Any games made from a studio you don't own, but you publish are second party (because they're made by a second party entity, separate from your company), if you own the studio, then they're a part of your company, making them 1st party.

3rd party is when another publisher acts as an intermediary between you (the platform holder) and the developer.

Games can still be exclusive in some fashion, but they're only 1st party if they were made by a studio you own.

Scalebound and ReCore exist because those games were conceived by the studios that came up with those titles, those studios approached Microsoft or Microsoft approached those studios and asked them if they had any games that they would be willing to work on and develop exclusively for Microsoft's console.

Platinum Games, Comcept and Armature Studios aren't owned by Microsoft, they're independent entities, so they're second party in those situations and ReCore and Scalebound would have existed regardless of whether Microsoft stepped in or not. Hell any of those companies could have partnered with Sony, Nintendo, Activision, Namco, EA or anyone else to get the games published.

It's most certainly not like Microsoft creatively came up with the ideas for Scalebound and ReCore and then they approach all of those studios to work on those games.

Do I think Spencer is a saint, though? Hell no. I really don't like how he's handled Rare, for example. And it was bullshit to close down Lionhead instead of moving them onto Fable 4 or a new studio unrelated to Fable.

I don't think I outright said that you said Phil was a saint, I just disagree that Phil was unable to make choices on what games Microsoft puts out, he has control over the studios at MS, I doubt if the studios at MS came up with standard games, new IPs that looked cool and were able to break into new markets for games that anyone in charge would be stopping those games from being developed into something big.

Phil likely agreed with all parties involved in developing Xbox One and set the wheels in motion to end up with the platform and games we've seen. Things have happened the way they have, evidence of that speaks for itself.

But I also think that it's still too early to fully gauge whether or not he has done a bad job with Microsoft Studios.

I don't, being that Phil's been in charge of Microsoft studios since 2008, which is 8 years he could have commissioned any number of internally or even externally developed projects and we should have seen something more than we have been.

TBH Phil should have been supporting all requirements for games for 360 and XBox One, clearly he agreed with the overall approach that the company took, otherwise things would have been different years ago.

See reply in bold.

"Second party" is a concept people on Internet forums invented and like to talk about. But internally it doesn't mean anything these days because the concept is inherently nebulous and arbitrary. This is how the real world works: companies like Microsoft look at their 1st-party budget. They decide to finance specific games. When they fully finance games, it's considered part of their first-party. When they pay for exclusivity of a game that's already financed and in development, it's a third-party exclusive. When they don't pay for the game at all, it's third-party.

Sure, Platinum could have gone to another studio to pitch Scalebound, but Microsoft was the one who picked it up...so Microsoft is the one who made it a reality. There's no guarantee another publisher would have picked it up, and it's dumb to play with hypotheticals and assumptions here. For all intents and purposes, games like Scalebound and Crackdown 3 are just as "worthy" of being part of Microsoft's 1st-party lineup as games like Gears of War and Halo, JUST LIKE how Pokemon is just as worthy of being a 1st-party game as Mario.

You do not necessarily have to share the end profits / royalties if you hire external companies to make your games. It's all baked into whatever contract you sign with them. Some have royalty / profit deals, some don't. You can't make blanket assumptions like "All games by external companies have profit-sharing deals baked in."

The "top men" like Ballmer come up with the overall idea. Broad strokes...broad company policy. That's what the guys on the top do. You know, things like "We should power our games by the cloud" or "Kinect was a huge success, let's make another one" or "Let's focus on TV because TV is really profitable." Then yes, it's up to guys like Phil Spencer to try and figure out how to best implement that. In that sense, Phil Spencer was responsible and signed off on Xbox's 2011-2013 lineup.

But as we have seen, Phil has completely axed the 2011-2013 way of thinking the instant he went into power. He has shifted Microsoft back to a more traditional games environment, but this time he's replacing 1st-party studios with external studios. That indicates Phil wanted Microsoft to stick to the core all along...and that he had to make the best of company-wide mandates.

I've had about enough of this back and forth. I'm going to stop arguing with you now because you're starting to veer on the side of contrarianism.



Around the Network

Enjoying my X1 and I have no complaints with the software output.



Microsoft have loads of games coming and are about to win E3 this year