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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - A new beginning for Xbox

Chazore on 08 March 2016

I'd rather the two out of the big 3 not buy any of those pubs/studios like at all.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Around the Network
aLkaLiNE on 08 March 2016
Azzanation said:
                               

Let me make it clear to you. An employee wants to get paid to work. A Job is a Job and if you’re under a huge corporation you have the benefits of getting paid and having a secure future. Devs make the games, company worries about selling them

Go write your PS4 article. Sorry I stopped reading after you said “You are right”

Thanks ;)

Except Microsoft has a proven history of acquiring and shutting down studios. (17 studios in 14 years, I think this number just jumped up 5 today as well since a bunch of Devs were removed from their site which means the total is potentially 22 studios in 14 years). I don't think creating Ip under the constant threat of getting the boot is job security, but I don't work where you do so maybe they run things different here in the west.



LivingMetal on 08 March 2016
Azzanation said:
LivingMetal said:

You are right, this isn't about the PS4 and its successes.  This is about a content provider's decision (third party) to whether or not accept a buyout from a console maker based on the successes of that and other console makers in the industry (or failings of you want to see it from that angle).  So the PS4 successes and its maker's history of consoles was only used as EXAMPLES to determing whether or not a third party should go exclusively with Microsoft as a first party.  You just cannot face the fact that your vision for Microsoft is most improbable.  This is due to the reality that the PlayStation's success is incentive for the third parties to NOT be bought out by Microsoft.  Therefore, they can continue to develop, publish and profit from the industry as a whole and not just from a single platform that has yet to provide a consistant vision.  So again, you are right that this is not about the PS4.  But the PS4 and its successes are major deciding factors for content provider going first party whether it's to Microsoft or not.  There's no avoiding it... unless you're in denial.
                               

Let me make it clear to you. An employee wants to get paid to work. A Job is a Job and if you’re under a huge corporation you have the benefits of getting paid and having a secure future. Devs make the games, company worries about selling them

Go write your PS4 article. Sorry I stopped reading after you said “You are right”

Thanks ;)

I pay those employees by voting with my wallet.  Last time I checked in the console industry, consumers by and large are voting PS4 and PS4 content.  Therefore, it would be ignorant for a content provider to ignore those votes = getting paid in this context.  This is a major economic factor for third parties to consider limiting themself to just one platform, namely the Xbox One in this case.  On topic and all truth.



Ultrashroomz on 08 March 2016

Just here to reiterate, let's not get too personal with our disagreements.



"Just for comparison Uncharted 4 was 20x bigger than Splatoon 2. This shows the huge difference between Sony's first-party games and Nintendo's first-party games."

Lrdfancypants on 08 March 2016
Azzanation said:
LivingMetal said:

You are right, this isn't about the PS4 and its successes.  This is about a content provider's decision (third party) to whether or not accept a buyout from a console maker based on the successes of that and other console makers in the industry (or failings of you want to see it from that angle).  So the PS4 successes and its maker's history of consoles was only used as EXAMPLES to determing whether or not a third party should go exclusively with Microsoft as a first party.  You just cannot face the fact that your vision for Microsoft is most improbable.  This is due to the reality that the PlayStation's success is incentive for the third parties to NOT be bought out by Microsoft.  Therefore, they can continue to develop, publish and profit from the industry as a whole and not just from a single platform that has yet to provide a consistant vision.  So again, you are right that this is not about the PS4.  But the PS4 and its successes are major deciding factors for content provider going first party whether it's to Microsoft or not.  There's no avoiding it... unless you're in denial.
                               

Let me make it clear to you. An employee wants to get paid to work. A Job is a Job and if you’re under a huge corporation you have the benefits of getting paid and having a secure future. Devs make the games, company worries about selling them

Go write your PS4 article. Sorry I stopped reading after you said “You are right”

Thanks ;)

Your own thread topic brought up third party failure with Sony.  

Why are you shutting down his counter of why third party might take Sony into consideration in relation to the rest of what you said?



l <---- Do you mean this glitch Gribble?  If not, I'll keep looking.  

 

 

 

 

I am on the other side of my sig....am I warm or cold?  

Marco....

Around the Network
Azzanation on 08 March 2016
aLkaLiNE said:
Azzanation said:
                               

Let me make it clear to you. An employee wants to get paid to work. A Job is a Job and if you’re under a huge corporation you have the benefits of getting paid and having a secure future. Devs make the games, company worries about selling them

Go write your PS4 article. Sorry I stopped reading after you said “You are right”

Thanks ;)

Except Microsoft has a proven history of acquiring and shutting down studios. (17 studios in 14 years, I think this number just jumped up 5 today as well since a bunch of Devs were removed from their site which means the total is potentially 22 studios in 14 years). I don't think creating Ip under the constant threat of getting the boot is job security, but I don't work where you do so maybe they run things different here in the west.

These companies close their doors eventually. MS still house very old brands like Rare. If what you’re saying is true then why haven’t they closed Rare down? As for the 8 that closed down. Most of them were Kinect brands. Since when was Kinect considered important today? We aren’t talking about talented companies here, most of them i haven’t even heard of before. This is a clean out for quality control not a act of desperation.

LivingMetal said:
Azzanation said:
                               

Let me make it clear to you. An employee wants to get paid to work. A Job is a Job and if you’re under a huge corporation you have the benefits of getting paid and having a secure future. Devs make the games, company worries about selling them

Go write your PS4 article. Sorry I stopped reading after you said “You are right”

Thanks ;)

I pay those employees by voting with my wallet.  Last time I checked in the console industry, consumers by and large are voting PS4 and PS4 content.  Therefore, it would be ignorant for a content provider to ignore those votes = getting paid in this context.  This is a major economic factor for third parties to consider limiting themself to just one platform, namely the Xbox One in this case.  On topic and all truth.

Your topic is drifting more and more. What’s PS4 got to do with this article? This is in the Microsoft discussions not General discussions. 



Frogger on 08 March 2016

I don't know if they really need to buy these studios. Their exclusive line up has been very strong without them. I also think that, outside of monster hunter, none of Capcom's franchises are really financial boons in Japan, so the idea of acquiring them specifically for that purpose seems flat. No japanese gamer will be lining up to buy an XBO for Resident Evil 7. I think Square would be a much stronger aquisition in that regard.

Which doesn't matter because they legally cannot buy a japanese company because they are not japanese.



JoeTheBro on 08 March 2016

They just shut down three game studios and got rid of Twisted Pixel a few months ago. Why are we expecting them to turn around and buy more?


If MS was in the buying mood, Remedy seems like the only realistic option. Long history of exclusively working with Microsoft, and they'd stand toe to toe with 343/turn 10/the coalition.



Links

Azuren on 08 March 2016

Epic Games purchased by Microsoft? No, they make more than enough on their own selling Unreal Engine.

And Capcom is more likely to be acquired by Sony or Nintendo. Microsoft would be wasting money trying to increase presence in Japan, so not only is this not likely but it would be a complete waste. They would just close it down when it doesn't perform.

Everything else makes sense, though.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Azzanation on 08 March 2016
Lrdfancypants said:
Azzanation said:
                               

Let me make it clear to you. An employee wants to get paid to work. A Job is a Job and if you’re under a huge corporation you have the benefits of getting paid and having a secure future. Devs make the games, company worries about selling them

Go write your PS4 article. Sorry I stopped reading after you said “You are right”

Thanks ;)

Your own thread topic brought up third party failure with Sony.  

Why are you shutting down his counter of why third party might take Sony into consideration in relation to the rest of what you said?

I am not shutting down anything. His comments fair no meaning in my article. Its off topic. We are talking about what Companies should Xbox acquire now they have more breathing room, nothing to do with Sony or anyone else for that matter. Company buy-outs happen all the time, you dont need to be the top selling console to buy out brands.