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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Black Tusk renamed to The Coalition. will show more at E3. becoming a "gears machine"

DerNebel said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
You mean a company who makes software wants a studio to focus on one of their all time biggest selling and best received franchises ever? No way. Next you'll tell me the Green Bay Packers are going to keep Aaron Rodgers at QB instead of letting him branch out to tight end or free safety.

I don't care about the name change portion, just deliver quality Gears games please. lol @ all the sudden concern in this thread.

Translation: Why should they let a studio of their own try and make something new and big when that's so risky and they can instead just continue a series that's already popular on its own, that's so much easier.

Translating the translation: Video Game Publishing 101



Around the Network

One other thing of note. MS does have a pretty liberal policy of allowing people to move around from one group to another. Can anyone say that isnt the case with the different game studios? Maybe a dev or artist from 343 moves to Coalition after current project is complete and vice versa.



Its libraries that sell systems not a single game.

LudicrousSpeed said:
DerNebel said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
You mean a company who makes software wants a studio to focus on one of their all time biggest selling and best received franchises ever? No way. Next you'll tell me the Green Bay Packers are going to keep Aaron Rodgers at QB instead of letting him branch out to tight end or free safety.

I don't care about the name change portion, just deliver quality Gears games please. lol @ all the sudden concern in this thread.

Translation: Why should they let a studio of their own try and make something new and big when that's so risky and they can instead just continue a series that's already popular on its own, that's so much easier.

Translating the translation: Video Game Publishing 101

As if that's commendable or necessary, Sony for example is regularly letting their studios make new IPs.



DerNebel said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
DerNebel said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
You mean a company who makes software wants a studio to focus on one of their all time biggest selling and best received franchises ever? No way. Next you'll tell me the Green Bay Packers are going to keep Aaron Rodgers at QB instead of letting him branch out to tight end or free safety.

I don't care about the name change portion, just deliver quality Gears games please. lol @ all the sudden concern in this thread.

Translation: Why should they let a studio of their own try and make something new and big when that's so risky and they can instead just continue a series that's already popular on its own, that's so much easier.

Translating the translation: Video Game Publishing 101

As if that's commendable or necessary, Sony for example is regularly letting their studios make new IPs.

@ LudicrousSpeed: Hideo Kojima at Konami. 'nuff said.



true_fan said:
Happy gaming to all though, let's hope they nail Gears of War and go on to make Shangheist, so that Banaking, DerNobel, Archangel.... can purchase an XB1.


if you have a personal problem with me report it and move on. but stop derailing my thread with your blind allegiance and nonesense. thank you. 

User moderated for this post -RavenXtra



Around the Network
MoHasanie said:
The name sounds bad. Black Tusk was better but Microsoft Vancouver was the best one.


nuu uhh.  black tusk was a cool name. it was a tusk.. and it was black... the color black is cool, tusks are like cool pointy swords coming out of cool animals. so black tusk was cool. MS Vancouver was lame... this new one is also lame... 



Not liking that name at all really. Also, it's a shame that we won't get any new IP's from them now. Just Gears after Gears....



bananaking21 said:
true_fan said:
Happy gaming to all though, let's hope they nail Gears of War and go on to make Shangheist, so that Banaking, DerNobel, Archangel.... can purchase an XB1.


if you have a personal problem with me report it and move on. but stop derailing my thread with your blind allegiance and nonesense. thank you. 

Blind allegiance coming from you. WOW! 

How is my comment derailing? You said you were concerned Shanheist was completely cancelled, so I hope that eventually it releases so you can buy an XB1. Or are you fake concerned about Shangheist, agenda perhaps?



Teeqoz said:


Which of the studios there would you say are one game studios? (besides Polyphony which is a one game studio) I'd give you Guerilla Games, since they still haven't released any non-KZ games, but Sucker Punch or Santa Monica? Nah.


Actually GG did ShellShock Nam 67 before KZ and the upcoming Project Horizon so that's something



         

DerNebel said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

Translating the translation: Video Game Publishing 101

As if that's commendable or necessary, Sony for example is regularly letting their studios make new IPs.

As it pertains to this thread and the reaction most of you are giving, no, they really don't. They eventually allow devs to move on to new IP's after the iron is no longer hot. Naughty Dog was relegated to Jak games on PS2, and only after three Uncharted titles were they allowed to release something new last gen. Which they have already re-released on PS4, and are now back to work on Uncharted 4. Sucker Punch has done nothing but Infamous. Maybe now after three Infamous games and two expansions are they going to be allowed to make a new IP?

Moving on, Sony Santa Monica. Just God of War. I don't care about how they've helped other studios with work on various games. SSM is considered one of the top studios in Sony's stable, and they've been allowed to release nothing but God of War ever since 2001. Polyphony. I'll throw your theory a bone here and even include games from when they were before Polyphony. GT and two other racers in another franchise. Aside from Omega Boost, released in 1999, they have done nothing but Gran Turismo racing games and a motorcycle racing game. Which, was out nine years ago.

Guerilla Games had to make six Killzone titles before they were finally allowed a new IP. Were they allowed this new IP because Sony regularly allows their studios to make them, or was it because the last KZ title was the lowest received since the original, and maybe Sony realizes games might be sick of Killzone after ten years?

I could go on here but 1. I think I have more than proved my point and 2. I don't want to make it seem as if this is some MS vs Sony thing. I'm not saying it's bad that Sony rarely allows their big studios to take big risks with new IP's, I am saying it's par for the course in the gaming world. Can you actually tell me of a big Sony studio that "regularly" releases new IP's on the scale of what Gears of War is or what Coalition was working on? I mean, sure, Media Molecule is allowed to create Tearaway after two LBP games. But that's not a AAA game. That's a low risk Vita title.

What you're going to have to do before you make comparisons like that to what Sony has done, you have to give MS and Coalition time. In seven years after they churn out two-three Gears titles, might MS allow them to work on a new IP, like Sony did with ND last gen? Maybe. But all this doom and worry at game one is just reaching and very premature. Would I have liked a new IP? Of course. They can be awesome. However, we know Gears of War is awesome. And Microsoft knows it's awesome. They also know it sells millions of units. Which is what allows them to fund other projects. This is just how business works.