Quantcast
How should Microsoft approach first party development going forward?

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - How should Microsoft approach first party development going forward?

Release all their games on PlayStation, Switch and PC. Thanks.



Predictions (Made July 2019)

LTD: PS4 - 130m, Switch - 110m, XBO - 52m       2019 : PS4 - 15m, Switch - 18.8m, XBO - 4.8m        2020: Switch - 22m (Peak Year)


Around the Network

Diversify their portfolio. Too much Gears, Halo, Forza this gen. Obviously, these franchises are big for the Xbox brand, but the popularity of these franchises are declining. Give them time to breathe.

Take more risks with new IP's. Give developers more freedom and additional funding/resources. Didn't Black Tusk want to start working on a new IP but were forced to do Gears instead? Don't interfere with development. MS wanting Scalebound to have a MP component is absolutely ridiculous. MS having a weak catalog of IP's is unacceptable three gens, about to be four gens, in the console business. 

Don't push for MP games when many third parties provide the best experience for it anyway. 



Alternatively, they should just sell their assets and franchises to Sony and retire from the console business altogether.



JRPGfan said:


"Phil says Game pass is important for single player games.... "

"They bought the dev's behinde Hellblade"

And what happend? Ninja Theory first game, is a multiplayer online AA game called Bleeding Edge.

Also if Phil says Game pass is important for single player games.... how many single player focused games, have MS made that are currently on it?
My impression is that Xbox says one thing, but does another.


Your saying that my assumption that Gamepass is for cheap AA games with Online Multiplayer focus, GaaS type, is wrong...
Can you say why? other than "phil says".

Double Fine is doing "Psychonauts 2" currently,  but that was in the work before MS bought them.
Thats a single player game, but are you confident that there next game wont be a Online Focused game?

As Azzanation has already mentioned, Bleeding edge was in development way before MS bought them. This was Ninja Theory's passion project they've been working on. Do you think MS should have cancelled BE and told Ninja Theory to focus on single player games instead? Wouldn't that be the opposite of letting devs have creative freedom? 

MS wouldn't buy up these developers like Compulsion Games, Ninja Theory, Obisidian, Double Fine, and InXile who's main focus have always been single player games, and then tell them to make online focused games, Gaas, and so forth. Maybe you don't believe Phil, but lets look at Netflix. One reason Netflix is so popular is because they release a wide variety of original content which targets many different audiences. If Netflix only released what was considered "popular", they wouldn't be seeing nearly the success they have now. MS is going to let Inxile make the games they want because if they don't, Game Pass will never be the "Netflix of gaming."

Lets's look at several games that are single player or have a single player campaign which will be on Game Pass. Gears 5, The Outer Worlds, Pschonauts 2, Ori 2, Wasteland 3, Age of Empires 4, Age of Empires 2 Remastered, Halo Infinite, MS Flight Simulator, Battletoads, and Gears Tactics. Btw, all these games are either published by MS or from a MS developer. 

Last edited by smroadkill15 - on 08 July 2019

How about they make games with old Rare IPs THAT DON'T SUCK?

We want this:

NOT THIS:

Last edited by CaptainExplosion - on 08 July 2019

Some days I just blow up.

Around the Network
JRPGfan said:
crissindahouse said:

MS's devs already said that they have almost total freedom now and that they get much more time if needed (which we already see with Forza Motorsport, Halo...)

MS also bought studios like Double Fine and they didn't buy a dev for what they achieved with Hellblade just for multiplayer.

Phil Spencer said that Game Pass will be important especially for SINGLE player games and you just say that Game Pass proves how it's all about multiplayer.


"Phil says Game pass is important for single player games.... "

"They bought the dev's behinde Hellblade"

And what happend? Ninja Theory first game, is a multiplayer online AA game called Bleeding Edge.

Also if Phil says Game pass is important for single player games.... how many single player focused games, have MS made that are currently on it?
My impression is that Xbox says one thing, but does another.


Your saying that my assumption that Gamepass is for cheap AA games with Online Multiplayer focus, GaaS type, is wrong...
Can you say why? other than "phil says".

Double Fine is doing "Psychonauts 2" currently,  but that was in the work before MS bought them.
Thats a single player game, but are you confident that there next game wont be a Online Focused game?

Why do you keep mentioning what happened in the past when we talk about the future? MS obviously released multiplayer games on Game Pass because they already released these games.

How has this anything to do with what their plans are with Game Pass? What they released right now wasn't really made with Game Pass in mind, do you understand that?

And sure, they will also release multiplayer games in the future, but they don't buy almost only devs specialized in single player games just for multiplayer content. If that was their plan, they would buy totally different devs.

And don't mention Bleeding Edge, you know how long Ninja Theory works on that, it's their wish to work on it and MS gives them the freedom to do so.



Xbox has a lot of single player games. People believe that "cinematic story driven games" are the only single player games.
Sea of thieves is the only gaas from microsoft and the catalog is more varied, but needs more releases per year
Microsoft has to develop sequels of its new ips, with greater budget, time and polish.
Games like Sunset Overdrive , Recore and Quantum Break could be great series if they improve their flaws.
It's funny how everyone hates corporate monopolies, but they just want every Nintendo and Xbox game on PlayStation.

Sorry for my bad english.



Jpcc86 said:
Alternatively, they should just sell their assets and franchises to Sony and retire from the console business altogether.

Alternatively, Sony could just sell their assets and franchises to Microsoft and retire from the console business altogether.



Conina said:
Jpcc86 said:
Alternatively, they should just sell their assets and franchises to Sony and retire from the console business altogether.

Alternatively, Sony could just sell their assets and franchises to Microsoft and retire from the console business altogether.

Alternatively Microsoft should just sell their Rare-related assets to Nintendo, seeing as Nintendo's treated Banjo-Kazooie better than Microsoft ever has.



Some days I just blow up.

Why do this thread keep popping up like Microsoft hasnt been doing anything. Microsoft in order to better compete next gen needed more studios. They shouldnt get rid of their current IP, they need to reinvest like what they are doing with the next Halo. Microsoft need Halo, gear and Forza but what they needed was other studios to make other games to supplement what they have already.

They also have a superior subscription model which is still unmatched in the industry.

While exclusivity will always have a place, crossplay, play anywhere and subscrition model is the future. Microsoft is doing everything right at the moment and if they keep this momentum they could gain lots of ground next generation.







Tommy Jean, CPA, CGA