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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - MS hiring for 'next-gen AAA' game 'similar to Horizon Zero Dawn'

Azzanation said:

Your missing one key fact. Starting a generation costs billions. It takes half a generation life span to make back the RnD costs. Starting a new gen will reset all the games. Why would MS want to reset all there games as they are adding more and more to there BC lineup (like Steam)

If you cant see it by now, the Xbox eco system is becomming more like a Steam service where you can play all your games. I dont believe a X2 is in the works. I believe theres a boosted X1X in the making that will rival PS5 specs but will play all X1 games etc. Thats the trend i see MS going and its alot cheaper. PC has the largest gaming community where gamers have different spec PCs with a monster library of games.

There is no need for generations anymore. It does nothing but take away what we already own. 

Also just because Sony is selling more does not mean Xbox isnt making a profit. The vision is clear where MS want to go with Xbox. If you spend less than your profit targets wont be as high, if you spend more than your profit targets become alot higher.

Trust me you dont need a generation leap to improve on visuals on games. Like i said PCs dont use generation leaps however everyone with different specced PCs can play the same games. Some will play them better than others. Much like X1X will play X1X2 games just at a degraded performance.

You are talking like the beefed up consoles didn't had their own R&D costs. It's not like they found the X1X in the floor of a factory. It's the same stuff, only diluded in more frequent investiments. Also, if you look at the profits of Sony's gaming division, the PS4 barely made them put a tiny loss during a fiscal year, followed by big profits. The previous gen console can offset this expenses since it sells with a big profit margin. And that's with the problematic PS3 carrying the division. The PS5 will have an easier time since we can have a 150 bucks PS4 carrying it. The only thing they can't do is pull a freaking PS3, but that was beyond stupid and they only escaped from a sounding beat from MS because they were lucky enough to have MS screwing up their entire first 3 years. That gen would've be the 3 stooges, but Nintendo at least was being reasonable.

PC have the largest community, but not the largest AAA gaming community, the guys with beefed up PCs with GPUs. Most of them are just playing on laptops and other PCs they already have for other reasons. This segment isn't investing on dedicated hardware. That's exactly the segment of consoles, people that will pay hundreds of dollars in gaming hardware. We can't put everyone in the same basket and try to outline a strategy from it.

Sony isn't just selling more, they are profiting more with PS4. MS isn't showing their Xbox numbers, which clearly shows that it's not as good as the competition. Sony also masked numbers by cramping divisions together when they were performing badly. Nobody hides numbers when they're good, if they were at least close to getting similar profits they would boost about it (note: I'm talking about the game division, not the whole MS, of course).

Also, nobody will lose their library if there's BC. PS4 doesn't have it because of the architecture of the PS3. The next consoles will have it since they will all be x86 from now on, until someone comes with a better architecture.

I know we don't need generational leaps to show improvements. But a new gen shows a big leap that encourages people to pay for new hardware. It has the "wow" factor. And that's hard to beat.

It also looks clear that a clean slate helps to show dramatic improvements. The X1X is massively more powerful than the X1, still, the games look basically the same but in 4K. Of course it is better, but if you put a PS360 2010 game side-by-side with a PS4 game, the difference is huge.

I get that it's perfectly doable to forget gens altogether. But I belive that, if MS goes the no-gen route, it doesn't matter how good the next X1s will be, a shiny new-gen PS5 would steal the thunder and make it look obsolete. People like big new annoucements. Does the buzz made by the X1X looks minimally similar to PS4 or X1 launch? Not even close. The buzz generated by the Switch is also much, much higher.



Around the Network

Halo zero dawn



REQUIESCAT IN PACE

I Hate REMASTERS

I Hate PLAYSTATION PLUS

DonFerrari said:

Yes and I stand on the keep your MPs out of my games. The dev didn't found a need to put MP but you are demanding it because you want MP in all games. I'm not going to CoD or Halo and requesting they to be SP only because that is not the focus. So I have no problem saying that a SP focused game don't get pestered with MP.

I keep arguing because those take time and resources that would be better invested on the focus of the game.

And no it doesn't add value, it adds feature. It would add value if it would sell more and make the devs more profit, so unless you can prove the game will generate more money due to MP (and more than it costed of course) them you can't affirm it. And the MP mania have destroyed a lot of IPs.

Ok this is getting ridiculous now so let's go back a bit.. We are talking about this 'next-gen AA game' Microsoft is hiring for right? My MP from your games wtf? Halo´s focus is both SP and MP and this is what jason and I were hoping for from this new game. Show me where I'm demanding MP for all games, please do.

I also think it was pretty obvious I mean value as bang for your buck when buying a game. I used Quantum Break as an example. Multiplayer would have offered countless of hours more time playing the game. That's value for your purchase. I might be wrong but developing costly single-player games has also destroyed lots of studios. I don't know how this, or what you are saying about the cost of MP, is relevant to this discussion though.

And I'm also paying Microsoft for live subscription so obviously I want them to offer an online experience too.



KiigelHeart said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes and I stand on the keep your MPs out of my games. The dev didn't found a need to put MP but you are demanding it because you want MP in all games. I'm not going to CoD or Halo and requesting they to be SP only because that is not the focus. So I have no problem saying that a SP focused game don't get pestered with MP.

I keep arguing because those take time and resources that would be better invested on the focus of the game.

And no it doesn't add value, it adds feature. It would add value if it would sell more and make the devs more profit, so unless you can prove the game will generate more money due to MP (and more than it costed of course) them you can't affirm it. And the MP mania have destroyed a lot of IPs.

Ok this is getting ridiculous now so let's go back a bit.. We are talking about this 'next-gen AA game' Microsoft is hiring for right? My MP from your games wtf? Halo´s focus is both SP and MP and this is what jason and I were hoping for from this new game. Show me where I'm demanding MP for all games, please do.

I also think it was pretty obvious I mean value as bang for your buck when buying a game. I used Quantum Break as an example. Multiplayer would have offered countless of hours more time playing the game. That's value for your purchase. I might be wrong but developing costly single-player games has also destroyed lots of studios. I don't know how this, or what you are saying about the cost of MP, is relevant to this discussion though.

And I'm also paying Microsoft for live subscription so obviously I want them to offer an online experience too.

You were asking for MP on HZD as well (besides QB). It adds value to you but not to others, and for the company it only offers value if it becomes money in the bank, everything else is useless for them.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:

You were asking for MP on HZD as well (besides QB). It adds value to you but not to others, and for the company it only offers value if it becomes money in the bank, everything else is useless for them.

I haven't mentioned HZD even once and I don't care whether it has MP or not. I'd imagine many people who bought it would appreciate an option to play multiplayer though. You make it sound like I'm the only one who sees value in MP lol. Yeah I'm done with this nonsense, it's derailing this thread.



Around the Network

Man some people just like arguing for the sake of it.



Proud to be a Californian.

Why do we need other horizon zero dawn.? Can't we have red dead redemption sort of exclusive, or another heavy rain/beyond/detroit type where the console's power can be brought to showcase....they need a game from Fromsoftware as well.



GameAnalyser said:
Why do we need other horizon zero dawn.? Can't we have red dead redemption sort of exclusive, or another heavy rain/beyond/detroit type where the console's power can be brought to showcase....they need a game from Fromsoftware as well.

They were kinda pushing Quantum Break as their QD-esque game. It didn't sell well. Now they're pushing Anthem as the XOX graphical showpiece. FromSoftware won't make an XBO exclusive in today's landscape, and why would they want a game like RDR exclusive? Nothing against RDR, but why not Horizon, Uncharted, Scalebound, or the other types of games that fill a void?