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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Crackdown 3 Should Have Been Announced Later, Microsoft States

Errorist76 on 25 August 2017
smroadkill15 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Please... they just exposed how bad their first party development time table is. There's no need for bullshit lines. That game was expected in 2016 which means the development timetable was around four years more posisjbly more. horizon zero dawn took five years and crackdown is nowhere on that game or breath of the wilds level. You're closing in on five years Microsoft. This isn't about learning how to keep your mouth shut microsoft. This is about learning how to develop on a world class level.

 

if they didn't announce crackdown in 2014 people would've expected that they weren't going to have much sooner.

Crackdown 3 is a very ambitious game on the multiplayer side. No other game has every released something like it. Of course I believe MS should have waited to announce it much sooner but comparing it to Horizon isn't really a fair comparison. Both are very different games. MS knows if they fuck up with the multiplayer they will be eating their words for years. It can't be, "good enough". It has to work like they advertised. 

It won't work as advertised. That '10 times more power' argument was nothing but a marketing stretch. It simply won't work with our everyday's internet. This statement by MS actually seems kinda hypocrite now...The reason Crackdown 3 was presented that early was only for PR reasons anyway..,they needed something to show off "The Cloud" to somehow counter the obvious lower power their console had. It's the same principle they tried with HoloLens to counter VR, showing off some highly touched up videos which didn't have much to do with reality. Like that ominous C3 MP trailer with that massive destruction. Smoke and mirrors.

Crackdown 3 imho was pulled back because everybody kept complaining about how it looks and because it would have thrown a bad light on the X1X at release. 



Around the Network
LudicrousSpeed on 25 August 2017
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Lol do you honestly believe nintnedo wants an uncharted?? Haha... not their style and that's what makes them special. They know how to succeed at doing their own thing. THe only thing nintnedo would want from Sony or Microsoft would be their third party. 

Sony and Microsoft both want Nintendos titles and have both tried to emulate smash and failed.playstation allstars was a better try than small arms. Luckily for us Sony is starting to stay in their lane. Micoroft has no lane. They will take anything. That's be why they had so many third party flops. They need know where they stand with their audience and stick with it.

No one said Nintendo wants Uncharted. I said Nintendo would love a big IP like Uncharted. As in, an IP that can have a release sell close to or past 10 million, idk what U4 has sold. Of course, Nintendo has plenty of these IP's already, but one more wouldn't hurt. The moral of the story is, all of these companies are competing with each other. It's not revealing any sort of trade secret for one of them to say they'd love an IP like one of the other companies have.

Small Arms wasn't a mascot fighter and was a tiny XBLA game. Idk if I would even call it an attempt to cash in on Smash, but I would hope a game like PS All Stars would have done a better job at emulating it, seeing how it's an actual mascot fighter filled with characters from Sony games you know, as opposed to a random collection of animals in Small Arms LOL. But you're just proving my point for me. If Small Arms is a Smash ripoff then great, both companies have tried.

You of all people saying MS has no lane is incredibly silly. You bitch about their style more than anyone on here. There is a thread on the front page by you stating you're ditching their consoles if they stay in their lane and release Halo 6 on PC. Maybe you're just not a fan of the lane MS is in? That's cool, more power to you. But they clearly have a vision. Also, what exactly do you mean by "they'll take anything"? Sony has funded/secured some real turds from third party devs this gen as well.



DonFerrari on 25 August 2017
Normchacho said:
Nah, they announced it the perfect time. Everyone wants to see the same game trotted out at every conference for 3 years. I for one will be very upset if God of War shows up before 2020.

kkkk I wouldn't like that much.

S.T.A.G.E. said:
DonFerrari said:

Mainly when talking about the commitment on 1st party and that they are increasing funds on it.

Lol if moneyhatting third party that had a similar game to Sony because they couldn't make a game on par is the case. Haha

Yes the guy is the image of sincerity.

LudicrousSpeed said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

 

The problem  is that they cannot make ips on level with the competiton. They should've never hired Phil if they didn't want him spilling the developmental beans.

Exhibit a:

 

In part is it about having an answer to Uncharted 4? The comparison between the last Tomb Raider and Uncharted has been made.

Phil Spencer: Totally. I'm a big fan of Uncharted and I wish we had an action adventure game of that ilk. We've started some, and we've looked at them. But we don't have one today of that quality. This is an opportunity.

People push me as the content guy, shouldn't it all be about the content you're building? I want to own all of the hits on our platform. Well, not all of them - that's too much. But I want to have a stable of hits on our platform that we own. Absolutely. That's fundamental to us having a successful platform. When a unique opportunity comes up, I've got to go look at that. And this was a unique opportunity.

 

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-08-18-xbox-boss-phil-spencer-makes-case-for-tomb-raider-exclusivity-deal

"spilling the developmental beans" lol, as if it's some kind of secret that Microsoft or Nintendo would want an IP as big as Uncharted. Do you think Sony wouldn't have been thrilled if PlayStation All Stars Super Battle Supreme Royale became the next Smash Bros? I mean, of course they would. You think Sony wouldn't love a FPS series as big as Halo? Wouldn't Microsoft love for Horizon to sell as much as Mario Kart. These aren't trade secrets being revealed or anything, it's common sense.

Since you're on about Tomb Raider, why did Sony sign it to an exclusive deal during the PSone days? Was it because their own games were weak and they were incapable of delivering something as good, or did they just see a strong IP that could fill a whole in their offerings? Again, it's just common sense. You think Sony wouldn't have been thrilled for The Order to be the next Gears? Please.

Perhaps the point have passed way over your head.

There is a big different between trying and failing (All Stars, point in case) or admiting to not being capable of even "trying" (TR, they assumed they tried some approaches and couldn't make a game of it, All Stars for all its worth is an enjoyable game that tried to puch to far from its weight).

Sure Sony would like KZ to sell more than Halo. But how can MS hope that an action adventure 1st party of them overcomes UC if they don't even release one?

Yes Sony had the deals when they launched PS1, that is when they first entered the market and didn't had any studios, MS still wasn't able to delevope their own games and this is the mid to end of their 3rd console. And yes Sony would have like The Order to be higher than Gears... Well even MS would like Halo to be Halo again and Gears to be Gears. They just lost their hands.



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."

Frogger on 25 August 2017

"Every Delayed Game Ever Made Should Have Been Announced Later," Common Sense States



S.T.A.G.E. on 25 August 2017
DonFerrari said:
Normchacho said:
Nah, they announced it the perfect time. Everyone wants to see the same game trotted out at every conference for 3 years. I for one will be very upset if God of War shows up before 2020.

kkkk I wouldn't like that much.

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Lol if moneyhatting third party that had a similar game to Sony because they couldn't make a game on par is the case. Haha

Yes the guy is the image of sincerity.

LudicrousSpeed said:

"spilling the developmental beans" lol, as if it's some kind of secret that Microsoft or Nintendo would want an IP as big as Uncharted. Do you think Sony wouldn't have been thrilled if PlayStation All Stars Super Battle Supreme Royale became the next Smash Bros? I mean, of course they would. You think Sony wouldn't love a FPS series as big as Halo? Wouldn't Microsoft love for Horizon to sell as much as Mario Kart. These aren't trade secrets being revealed or anything, it's common sense.

Since you're on about Tomb Raider, why did Sony sign it to an exclusive deal during the PSone days? Was it because their own games were weak and they were incapable of delivering something as good, or did they just see a strong IP that could fill a whole in their offerings? Again, it's just common sense. You think Sony wouldn't have been thrilled for The Order to be the next Gears? Please.

Perhaps the point have passed way over your head.

There is a big different between trying and failing (All Stars, point in case) or admiting to not being capable of even "trying" (TR, they assumed they tried some approaches and couldn't make a game of it, All Stars for all its worth is an enjoyable game that tried to puch to far from its weight).

Sure Sony would like KZ to sell more than Halo. But how can MS hope that an action adventure 1st party of them overcomes UC if they don't even release one?

Yes Sony had the deals when they launched PS1, that is when they first entered the market and didn't had any studios, MS still wasn't able to delevope their own games and this is the mid to end of their 3rd console. And yes Sony would have like The Order to be higher than Gears... Well even MS would like Halo to be Halo again and Gears to be Gears. They just lost their hands.

Thank you. It's getting beyond tiresome at this point. I'm going to respond to his other post but im wondering if itd even worth it. The dude just ignored irrefutable proof that Spencer couldn't keep his mouth shut and admitted that ms had to moneyhat because they cannot produce new ips on he level of uncharted. If that had been Greenberg he wouldn't have answered that question and exposed their development level which most of us knew was an issue.



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 25 August 2017
Bandorr said:

Don't announce the game. Don't trot it out at E3 multiple times. Don't make a big deal of it.
And people won't come down on you time, and time, and time again when you delay, and then cancel it.

Yet that puts Microsoft in a horrible corner because if they don't show those games.. they will have little to show.

Their first party is getting exposed. There isn't enough third party in the world they can pay off to cover that shit up. If there is no halo or gears on repeat all eyes are on them.



Cloudman on 25 August 2017

Pretty much what I've been thinking since they delayed it yet again...



 

              

Dance my pretties!

The Official Art Thread      -      The Official Manga Thread      -      The Official Starbound Thread

LudicrousSpeed on 26 August 2017
DonFerrari said:
Normchacho said:
Nah, they announced it the perfect time. Everyone wants to see the same game trotted out at every conference for 3 years. I for one will be very upset if God of War shows up before 2020.

kkkk I wouldn't like that much.

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Lol if moneyhatting third party that had a similar game to Sony because they couldn't make a game on par is the case. Haha

Yes the guy is the image of sincerity.

LudicrousSpeed said:

"spilling the developmental beans" lol, as if it's some kind of secret that Microsoft or Nintendo would want an IP as big as Uncharted. Do you think Sony wouldn't have been thrilled if PlayStation All Stars Super Battle Supreme Royale became the next Smash Bros? I mean, of course they would. You think Sony wouldn't love a FPS series as big as Halo? Wouldn't Microsoft love for Horizon to sell as much as Mario Kart. These aren't trade secrets being revealed or anything, it's common sense.

Since you're on about Tomb Raider, why did Sony sign it to an exclusive deal during the PSone days? Was it because their own games were weak and they were incapable of delivering something as good, or did they just see a strong IP that could fill a whole in their offerings? Again, it's just common sense. You think Sony wouldn't have been thrilled for The Order to be the next Gears? Please.

Perhaps the point have passed way over your head.

There is a big different between trying and failing (All Stars, point in case) or admiting to not being capable of even "trying" (TR, they assumed they tried some approaches and couldn't make a game of it, All Stars for all its worth is an enjoyable game that tried to puch to far from its weight).

Sure Sony would like KZ to sell more than Halo. But how can MS hope that an action adventure 1st party of them overcomes UC if they don't even release one?

Yes Sony had the deals when they launched PS1, that is when they first entered the market and didn't had any studios, MS still wasn't able to delevope their own games and this is the mid to end of their 3rd console. And yes Sony would have like The Order to be higher than Gears... Well even MS would like Halo to be Halo again and Gears to be Gears. They just lost their hands.

Didn't go over my head at all. There is no point, especially coming from him. No one on this board bitches and complains about MS first party more than him. We've seen countless posts about how they can't create anything, every IP they have was bought or made by someone else, they can't hang with Nintendo or Sony, they'll never achieve what Sony can do because blah blah, none of their games count as their own because yadda yadda. And that's fine. That's a valid opinion for him to have. But if he, a random forum dweller has it figured out, how is it "spilling the beans" for Papa Phil to say they signed a game deal because they want an Uncharted type game? That's not even getting into the fact that we don't know anything about the games they tried. I'll address your reply piece by piece but then I am bouncing from here as this has turned into another shit on MS thread.

1. Your stuff about PSABR is cool and all, but Sony didn't make that game. They paid a third party dev, just like MS paid for Tomb Raider. The type of deal the person I was responding to repeatedly craps on MS for making. Had MS paid a third party to make a new IP like Uncharted, it wouldn't be "oh wow MS doing something new!" it would be the same type of stuff he's already listed in this thread, basically "lulz third parties". 

2. MS must have seen a potential deal for Tomb Raider and thought it would be a better than anything they could make at the time. TR is a huge franchise. Spencer said they wanted something akin to Uncharted. They got Tomb Raider.

3. The TR deal Sony had was years after the PSone launched and they had plenty of studios. Also you just said yourself MS is in their third gen. They probably have less studios now than Sony did when they signed their Tomb Raider deal. I guess this makes it ok? Clearly Microsoft goes about gaming in a different way than Sony. Personally I'd rather have console companies that are different than them all sharing the same vision and playbook.

What exactly did Papa Phil "spill the beans" on? MS has no one that can do an Uncharted type game as well as ND? Shocker. Microsoft would rather buy games or pay outside companies than invest in their own studios? We know this.



Normchacho on 26 August 2017
LudicrousSpeed said:
DonFerrari said:

kkkk I wouldn't like that much.

Yes the guy is the image of sincerity.

Perhaps the point have passed way over your head.

There is a big different between trying and failing (All Stars, point in case) or admiting to not being capable of even "trying" (TR, they assumed they tried some approaches and couldn't make a game of it, All Stars for all its worth is an enjoyable game that tried to puch to far from its weight).

Sure Sony would like KZ to sell more than Halo. But how can MS hope that an action adventure 1st party of them overcomes UC if they don't even release one?

Yes Sony had the deals when they launched PS1, that is when they first entered the market and didn't had any studios, MS still wasn't able to delevope their own games and this is the mid to end of their 3rd console. And yes Sony would have like The Order to be higher than Gears... Well even MS would like Halo to be Halo again and Gears to be Gears. They just lost their hands.

Didn't go over my head at all. There is no point, especially coming from him. No one on this board bitches and complains about MS first party more than him. We've seen countless posts about how they can't create anything, every IP they have was bought or made by someone else, they can't hang with Nintendo or Sony, they'll never achieve what Sony can do because blah blah, none of their games count as their own because yadda yadda. And that's fine. That's a valid opinion for him to have. But if he, a random forum dweller has it figured out, how is it "spilling the beans" for Papa Phil to say they signed a game deal because they want an Uncharted type game? That's not even getting into the fact that we don't know anything about the games they tried. I'll address your reply piece by piece but then I am bouncing from here as this has turned into another shit on MS thread.

1. Your stuff about PSABR is cool and all, but Sony didn't make that game. They paid a third party dev, just like MS paid for Tomb Raider. The type of deal the person I was responding to repeatedly craps on MS for making. Had MS paid a third party to make a new IP like Uncharted, it wouldn't be "oh wow MS doing something new!" it would be the same type of stuff he's already listed in this thread, basically "lulz third parties". 

2. MS must have seen a potential deal for Tomb Raider and thought it would be a better than anything they could make at the time. TR is a huge franchise. Spencer said they wanted something akin to Uncharted. They got Tomb Raider.

3. The TR deal Sony had was years after the PSone launched and they had plenty of studios. Also you just said yourself MS is in their third gen. They probably have less studios now than Sony did when they signed their Tomb Raider deal. I guess this makes it ok? Clearly Microsoft goes about gaming in a different way than Sony. Personally I'd rather have console companies that are different than them all sharing the same vision and playbook.

What exactly did Papa Phil "spill the beans" on? MS has no one that can do an Uncharted type game as well as ND? Shocker. Microsoft would rather buy games or pay outside companies than invest in their own studios? We know this.

The bold is not correct. PSABR is a Sony IP that was made by a different developer, like the Epic Gears of War games. The ROTR deal was MS paying to keep the game off the PS4 for a year.

That's a weird comparison to try and draw.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

S.T.A.G.E. on 26 August 2017
Normchacho said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

Didn't go over my head at all. There is no point, especially coming from him. No one on this board bitches and complains about MS first party more than him. We've seen countless posts about how they can't create anything, every IP they have was bought or made by someone else, they can't hang with Nintendo or Sony, they'll never achieve what Sony can do because blah blah, none of their games count as their own because yadda yadda. And that's fine. That's a valid opinion for him to have. But if he, a random forum dweller has it figured out, how is it "spilling the beans" for Papa Phil to say they signed a game deal because they want an Uncharted type game? That's not even getting into the fact that we don't know anything about the games they tried. I'll address your reply piece by piece but then I am bouncing from here as this has turned into another shit on MS thread.

1. Your stuff about PSABR is cool and all, but Sony didn't make that game. They paid a third party dev, just like MS paid for Tomb Raider. The type of deal the person I was responding to repeatedly craps on MS for making. Had MS paid a third party to make a new IP like Uncharted, it wouldn't be "oh wow MS doing something new!" it would be the same type of stuff he's already listed in this thread, basically "lulz third parties". 

2. MS must have seen a potential deal for Tomb Raider and thought it would be a better than anything they could make at the time. TR is a huge franchise. Spencer said they wanted something akin to Uncharted. They got Tomb Raider.

3. The TR deal Sony had was years after the PSone launched and they had plenty of studios. Also you just said yourself MS is in their third gen. They probably have less studios now than Sony did when they signed their Tomb Raider deal. I guess this makes it ok? Clearly Microsoft goes about gaming in a different way than Sony. Personally I'd rather have console companies that are different than them all sharing the same vision and playbook.

What exactly did Papa Phil "spill the beans" on? MS has no one that can do an Uncharted type game as well as ND? Shocker. Microsoft would rather buy games or pay outside companies than invest in their own studios? We know this.

The bold is not correct. PSABR is a Sony IP that was made by a different developer, like the Epic Gears of War games. The ROTR deal was MS paying to keep the game off the PS4 for a year.

That's a weird comparison to try and draw.

Yep. Phil Spencer admitted he could not make or find a game on level with uncharted that was of a quality that could compete with it, so he and MS helped co publish rise of the tomb raider to have an answer for Uncharted. Problem for them was that Sony pushed the date of Uncharted up to the following year to fix some issues.