Xbox Exec Responds To Claims That Microsoft Has Too Few Exclusives In 2017

[flashfire926]

Tulipanzo said:

flashfire926 said:

none of these games are GaaS and campaign/single player are a big part of all of those games except Halo Wars, so I dont know what youre trying to say. 

Those games were canselled because they werent shaping up well, not because they werent GaaS. Ori and the Blind Forest, Ori and the Will of the Wisps, Sunset Overdrive, Recore, Quantum Break, and Cuphead wouldve all been cancelled if that was the case. 

Heck, the argument isnt even if they have interest in SP games or not, its if they are going all in on GaaS, which even their "micro-transaction ridden" games arent (forza 7 is the only game from that which gets somewhat hurt by microtrsnasactions) What a baseless argument.

Ok, a Game as a Service is a game that is designed to generate increased revenue over a longer period of time. This is achieved by microtransactions, often coupled with lootboxes. While not all of those games feature lootboxes, all feature microtransactions.
So, while the definition is quite broad, these games quite definitely fit in it.

Now, I never claimed Microsoft cancelled ALL of their SP games, or that they weren't making any. Not much of a "gotcha!" I'm afraid.
It seems quite obvious though, that the biggest titles in their line-up, the ones pushing the system and brand, are multiplayer-driven, microtransactions-filled experiences, meant to generate revenue for years after release. You know, GaaS!
I'd add that Quantum Break and Sunset Overdrive, possibly the two biggest SP games you listed, not getting any sequels because Microsoft isn't interested in publishing them doesn't bode well for your argument.

Also, convenient how all those cancelled games were all not shaping up well. It makes it seem clean and justified.
Must be a coincidence that they also closed Lionhead, a studio which specialized in RPGs, notoriously hard to sell with microtransactions.
We now know they tried to add extraneous elements to Stormlands, Phantom Dust and Scalebound, alienating the devs and making the projects unsustainable.
The common element to these games' cancellation is one: Microsoft's involvement and poor decision-making.

You moved from saying these games weren't technically GaaS, to saying that SP games have also been made (which is something I never denied BTW).
You end by saying microtransactions don't hurt the experience. This is rubbish.
Games don't add monetization for the fun of it: it's meant to exploit people into spending more money. Systems are created to make them more enticing, more noticeable, and they are ultimately there so you can skip the experience and get the reward.
It's fundamentally admitting that time spent playing your game is worth less than whatever virtual currency you're getting.
Ignoring how they prey on addiction, and how there is currently no legal framework for them to operate in, is naive at best.

So if a game features microtransactions of any kind they are now GaaS........ way to move goalposts. So by your defenition The Last of Us,   Uncharted 4 are all GaaS just because they have microstransactions.......... it dosnt work like that.  That definition is blatantly wrong., and I can fit a lot of games there that would be insane to think that GaaS. And I have a question, have you played any of those games?  It hurts  each of those games, very little to none ,and even though I would also like them to be gone, they arent really a major hindrance. Even the worst case scenario, Forza 7, has a reasonabe pogression system that you can comfortable without ever thinking of buying a microtransaction.

Scalebound was in development for three years. It was obvious development wasnt coming along right, so they decided to cancel it. Just look at its E3 showings, it was always janky AF. This was not something Microsoft asked them to make, this was Hideki Kamiya's dream project, which he always wanted to make since the start of PLatinum games in 2006. I agree to you on the poor decision making part tho, they shouldve stuck to it a bit longer, even if the resulting game ended up to be broken or janky. And why have we started to make conspiracy theories about Microsoft alienating the devs by adding extraneous elements? Do we have a single piece of proof? a single leak? Anything? Or is it just wild assumptions?

Quantum break isnt getting a sequel because of Microsoft not being interested, it was  because remedy wanted to move on and make a multiplatform game (this was stated earlier this year) (because they saw little returms from quantum break.  I also agree on the Sunset Overdrive 2 part, Microsoft should grab the opportunity at once (there is still time, and this could still happen, right now insomniac is busy at spider-man), but its understandable if they are hesitant, since the the first game underperformed in sales. 

I am not denying the bolded. But saying theyre "all in on GaaS" is assumptive at best, insane at worst.