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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - If Sea of Thieves Succeeds?

 

What will happen with Rare if Sea of Thieves is successful?

They'll make more new IPs 13 35.14%
 
They'll resurrect some of their old IPs 8 21.62%
 
They'll separate from Microsoft 4 10.81%
 
They'll expand into other genres 3 8.11%
 
Other (please specify) 9 24.32%
 
Total:37
DonFerrari on 13 December 2017
ThisGuyFooks said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

1) 343 was created to continue making Halo games. That's its sole purpose. Look at the company name.

2) Black Tusk I'll give you. It was founded in 2012 to create a new IP, "to build the next Halo." Now it's working on Gears.

3) Rare has been given an obscene amount of freedom to create its own games, yes, including Kinect: https://www.destructoid.com/microsoft-didn-t-push-for-kinect-development-rare-chose-it-327384.phtml

4) According to reports, Playground is working on an RPG: http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/11/23/forza-horizon-devs-secret-new-game-is-an-open-world-action-rpg

Playground is an Independent Studio tho. They are not owned by MS.

Does Nintendo and Sony has any studio built to make a single franchise?

The only one i can think of is Polyphony Digital.

PD was made because Kaz wanted to make GT... but he also made a bike game and helped on LoD.

Veknoid_Outcast said:
ThisGuyFooks said:

Playground is an Independent Studio tho. They are not owned by MS.

Does Nintendo and Sony has any studio built to make a single franchise?

The only one i can think of is Polyphony Digital.

Well these are two different topics right? Couldn't we assume that these studios want to work on the same IP again and again? Creating a bunch of games from the same property over a short amount of time isn't proof positive that publisher meddling was the cause. Otherwise we should extend the same scrutiny to Polyphony, as you wrote, or Naughty Dog, which turned out five Uncharted games in a decade.

For the record I think Microsoft is a poor manager of its properties. But not because of micromanagement. 

Deciding what game the dev will make isn't micromanagement. And ND was free to do TLOU, and decided to go back to UC and there are plenty of examples similar on Sony. While we have Halo and Gears example of devs leaving MS because of lack of freedom over what they would do.



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."

Around the Network
Pemalite on 13 December 2017

If Sea of Thieves is a success... Then RARE and Microsoft deserve praise... And hopefully that is reflected in some sales data.

That's all there is to it. Oh and then a sequel.

/thread



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

ThisGuyFooks on 13 December 2017
Veknoid_Outcast said:
ThisGuyFooks said:

Playground is an Independent Studio tho. They are not owned by MS.

Does Nintendo and Sony has any studio built to make a single franchise?

The only one i can think of is Polyphony Digital.

Well these are two different topics right? Couldn't we assume that these studios want to work on the same IP again and again? Creating a bunch of games from the same property over a short amount of time isn't proof positive that publisher meddling was the cause. Otherwise we should extend the same scrutiny to Polyphony, as you wrote, or Naughty Dog, which turned out five Uncharted games in a decade.

For the record I think Microsoft is a poor manager of its properties. But not because of micromanagement. 

Naughty Dog aproached the situation with the right mindset imo.

It would be silly for a company to just abandon a successful IP just to avoid sequelitis.

Every Uncharted game was more successful than the previous game, they were all well received by the critics, and all of them had a story to tell.

Naughty Dog felt that there was nothing more to do in the Nathan Drake saga so they just backed away from the franchise with Uncharted 4.

Imagine if they were secluded with a single franchise, TLOU wouldn't exist.

Im all for sequels as long as they make sense.

This is all about SP games tho. 

If we are talking about Games as a Service, it makes more sense for a studio to revolve around a single franchise.



DonFerrari on 13 December 2017
ThisGuyFooks said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

Well these are two different topics right? Couldn't we assume that these studios want to work on the same IP again and again? Creating a bunch of games from the same property over a short amount of time isn't proof positive that publisher meddling was the cause. Otherwise we should extend the same scrutiny to Polyphony, as you wrote, or Naughty Dog, which turned out five Uncharted games in a decade.

For the record I think Microsoft is a poor manager of its properties. But not because of micromanagement. 

Naughty Dog aproached the situation with the right mindset imo.

It would be silly for a company to just abandon a successful IP just to avoid sequelitis.

Every Uncharted game was more successful than the previous game, they were all well received by the critics, and all of them had a story to tell.

Naughty Dog felt that there was nothing more to do in the Nathan Drake saga so they just backed away from the franchise with Uncharted 4.

Imagine if they were secluded with a single franchise, TLOU wouldn't exist.

Im all for sequels as long as they make sense.

This is all about SP games tho. 

If we are talking about Games as a Service, it makes more sense for a studio to revolve around a single franchise.

We may think it's silly but ND moved away from Crash and Jax, SP moved from Infamous, GG moved from KZ... Sony studios maybe due to the narrative choice for the games (and in here you can see the games without history are the ones Sony have been doing sequels for longer periods like GT and MLB) they will tell the story they want and when they are done they will go for a new IP. UC4 was a surprise because not only did ND said they were done with it, they also released a game that was an even bigger success, but from all we know they decided they had more to tell on the game and made not only UC4 but also the expansion.



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."

VGPolyglot on 13 December 2017
DonFerrari said:
ThisGuyFooks said:

Naughty Dog aproached the situation with the right mindset imo.

It would be silly for a company to just abandon a successful IP just to avoid sequelitis.

Every Uncharted game was more successful than the previous game, they were all well received by the critics, and all of them had a story to tell.

Naughty Dog felt that there was nothing more to do in the Nathan Drake saga so they just backed away from the franchise with Uncharted 4.

Imagine if they were secluded with a single franchise, TLOU wouldn't exist.

Im all for sequels as long as they make sense.

This is all about SP games tho. 

If we are talking about Games as a Service, it makes more sense for a studio to revolve around a single franchise.

We may think it's silly but ND moved away from Crash and Jax, SP moved from Infamous, GG moved from KZ... Sony studios maybe due to the narrative choice for the games (and in here you can see the games without history are the ones Sony have been doing sequels for longer periods like GT and MLB) they will tell the story they want and when they are done they will go for a new IP. UC4 was a surprise because not only did ND said they were done with it, they also released a game that was an even bigger success, but from all we know they decided they had more to tell on the game and made not only UC4 but also the expansion.

It's not even an expansion anymore, it's a stand-alone game, so they already went past it being their final ND game as they said it would be.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 13 December 2017
VGPolyglot said:
DonFerrari said:

We may think it's silly but ND moved away from Crash and Jax, SP moved from Infamous, GG moved from KZ... Sony studios maybe due to the narrative choice for the games (and in here you can see the games without history are the ones Sony have been doing sequels for longer periods like GT and MLB) they will tell the story they want and when they are done they will go for a new IP. UC4 was a surprise because not only did ND said they were done with it, they also released a game that was an even bigger success, but from all we know they decided they had more to tell on the game and made not only UC4 but also the expansion.

It's not even an expansion anymore, it's a stand-alone game, so they already went past it being their final ND game as they said it would be.

They have done it twice in UC case, but the good part for them is that the standalone had very low cost to make. People seem to have liked the game



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."

ThisGuyFooks on 13 December 2017
VGPolyglot said:
DonFerrari said:

We may think it's silly but ND moved away from Crash and Jax, SP moved from Infamous, GG moved from KZ... Sony studios maybe due to the narrative choice for the games (and in here you can see the games without history are the ones Sony have been doing sequels for longer periods like GT and MLB) they will tell the story they want and when they are done they will go for a new IP. UC4 was a surprise because not only did ND said they were done with it, they also released a game that was an even bigger success, but from all we know they decided they had more to tell on the game and made not only UC4 but also the expansion.

It's not even an expansion anymore, it's a stand-alone game, so they already went past it being their final ND game as they said it would be.

I could be wrong about this, but i think what Neil said was that the "Nathan Drake" story arc was done.

Maybe they'll release another Uncharted game in the future, but without Nate. Just like Lost Legacy.

There are a few studios that i trust blindly and ND is one of them. If Neil and co. feel that there is more to tell about the game, im in!

If i had to predict, they will release a new IP after TLOU II.

It was rumored that they were working on a space game. I hope its true!



Azzanation on 13 December 2017
DonFerrari said:
Azzanation said:  

Bungie were obligated until they opted out. Simple as that. You say it's stupid, stupid is milking your franchise to death. 

 

 

You lost me when you say its stupid to milk a franchise.. stupid as a business? Far from it. Halo keeps making MS small fortunes hence why they keep making them. Its stupid to drop it.

Your logic - Lets tell Disney to stop making Star Wars movies because its stupid, they should make something new.

You know why MS continue to also make Halo? Because they have a dedicated company to do so and Halo continues to sell well and profits.



VGPolyglot on 13 December 2017
ThisGuyFooks said:
VGPolyglot said:

It's not even an expansion anymore, it's a stand-alone game, so they already went past it being their final ND game as they said it would be.

I could be wrong about this, but i think what Neil said was that the "Nathan Drake" story arc was done.

Maybe they'll release another Uncharted game in the future, but without Nate. Just like Lost Legacy.

There are a few studios that i trust blindly and ND is one of them. If Neil and co. feel that there is more to tell about the game, im in!

If i had to predict, they will release a new IP after TLOU II.

It was rumored that they were working on a space game. I hope its true!

The thing is, Lost Legacy was originally supposed to be DLC, but then it ballooned into a full game. I think they're done with Uncharted after that, but I assume that other developers will pick it up.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-06-21-naughty-dog-on-lost-legacy-and-the-future-of-uncharted



pokoko on 13 December 2017
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Azzanation said:

You know MS gave Rare the freedom to make Sea of thieves right?

Go on, name me the brands under MS that are forced to make single IPs that aren't built from the ground up under MS to do so in the first place?

Yeah, I think Don if off base here. If anything, Microsoft gives its studios too much freedom.

That's a hard one for me to accept when many say that Lionhead shut down partially because they were forced into making a games-as-a-service entry despite having no experience or desire in that direction.

I think the freedom aspect is circumstantial.  If Microsoft doesn't have plans then they might not care that much but if they want something in particular then they'll hand down a mandate.