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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - If Sea of Thieves Succeeds?

 

What will happen with Rare if Sea of Thieves is successful?

They'll make more new IPs 13 35.14%
 
They'll resurrect some of their old IPs 8 21.62%
 
They'll separate from Microsoft 4 10.81%
 
They'll expand into other genres 3 8.11%
 
Other (please specify) 9 24.32%
 
Total:37
ThisGuyFooks said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

1) 343 was created to continue making Halo games. That's its sole purpose. Look at the company name.

2) Black Tusk I'll give you. It was founded in 2012 to create a new IP, "to build the next Halo." Now it's working on Gears.

3) Rare has been given an obscene amount of freedom to create its own games, yes, including Kinect: https://www.destructoid.com/microsoft-didn-t-push-for-kinect-development-rare-chose-it-327384.phtml

4) According to reports, Playground is working on an RPG: http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/11/23/forza-horizon-devs-secret-new-game-is-an-open-world-action-rpg

Playground is an Independent Studio tho. They are not owned by MS.

Does Nintendo and Sony has any studio built to make a single franchise?

The only one i can think of is Polyphony Digital.

Well these are two different topics right? Couldn't we assume that these studios want to work on the same IP again and again? Creating a bunch of games from the same property over a short amount of time isn't proof positive that publisher meddling was the cause. Otherwise we should extend the same scrutiny to Polyphony, as you wrote, or Naughty Dog, which turned out five Uncharted games in a decade.

For the record I think Microsoft is a poor manager of its properties. But not because of micromanagement. 



Around the Network
Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

They gave the freedom for then to make the IP as they had the freedom to do Kinect games?

Can we talk about studios that had to take on Halo and Gears and drop their previous games? Would rather wait you name a single studio that made a very big IP on MS and were allowed to make anything else... Bungie left MS to stop doing Halo, MS bought Gears because the creator didn't want to keep doing it, Shut down the studio for Fables because the IP died...

There are much more examples of MS demanding studios to keep churning sequels than allowing then to create new IPs.

Too much freedom? What freedom they have on doing sequels in and out?

You know its because MS gave Rare too much freedom in the past with games like Perfect Dark Zero, Grabbed by the Ghoulies and Banjo Nuts n Bolts is why MS moved Rare to Kinect games and guess what.. they made successful Kinect games for a short period of time. It seemed to work for them. Now they have freedom back and are making Sea of Thieves. 

MS is not out to kill your favourite brands because they love to. You need to move on from your anti MS thinking.

Also you failed to name me MS brands that are forced to make IPs that aren't built from the ground up. Bungie wanted to let a multi-million dollar franchise die which is stupid to any major business model and shareholders would have hated it.

Halo - 343i < Built to make Halo games

Forza - Turn10 < Built to make Forza games

Gears - Coalition < Built to make Gears games and open to more once the trilogy is finished.

Fable - Lionhead < Fable series died and Lionhead were no good at anything else and were shut down.

Sony and Nintendo all have there fair share of IPs dying and studios closing down. In fact even if Nintendo took Rare back, they are well known for cancelling projects if they don't meet Nintendo's standards. So Rare going to Nintendo and magically letting Rare release games isn't that easy as you think. Plus MS wont let those IPs go, if anything they will they will sell Rare but keep the assets.

giving to much freedom made they decide what the company have to do? What logic is on it? Or is it documented that MS done it this way instead of assumption? Because from what we have they were releasing different games because none stuck. So when the question is if the game stuck will they be able to deliver new IPs or keep on the same game.

Bungie were obligated until they opted out. Simple as that. You say it's stupid, stupid is milking your franchise to death. There are plenty of developers that do very successful franchises and then wrap it up and move to a new IP. But you first ask to name, but you'll excuse any that happens to had it.

Coalition had other game in development and were forced to make Gears and drop that game because MS bought Gears IP and made they dev it.

And you assume that the company wasn't good for anything besides Fable because? I know why, because that would destroy your narrative that MS give total freedom to their devs... You will also say that the lack of 1st party titles and new IPs made by MS are totally false right?

I don't want Nintendo to buy Rare back, I'm just pointing out that if SoT is massive success the odds of Rare keep doing it is bigger than they moving on (not saying it's impossible). And sure Sony have IPs and studios closing and dying, but from the 3 companies is the one more likely to give devs freedom to choose what they will do.

Also I'm not even saying MS saying what their devs is bad, although I think it can go to the area of creativity impairing and IP milking, but if it works for them I don't worry, more games MS fans like. I like how Sony do and that is why I buy their console, you prefer how MS do and buy their games.

Veknoid_Outcast said:
DonFerrari said:

They gave the freedom for then to make the IP as they had the freedom to do Kinect games?

Can we talk about studios that had to take on Halo and Gears and drop their previous games? Would rather wait you name a single studio that made a very big IP on MS and were allowed to make anything else... Bungie left MS to stop doing Halo, MS bought Gears because the creator didn't want to keep doing it, Shut down the studio for Fables because the IP died...

There are much more examples of MS demanding studios to keep churning sequels than allowing then to create new IPs.

Too much freedom? What freedom they have on doing sequels in and out?

1) 343 was created to continue making Halo games. That's its sole purpose. Look at the company name.

2) Black Tusk I'll give you. It was founded in 2012 to create a new IP, "to build the next Halo." Now it's working on Gears.

3) Rare has been given an obscene amount of freedom to create its own games, yes, including Kinect: https://www.destructoid.com/microsoft-didn-t-push-for-kinect-development-rare-chose-it-327384.phtml

4) According to reports, Playground is working on an RPG: http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/11/23/forza-horizon-devs-secret-new-game-is-an-open-world-action-rpg

1) ok. And that is why I put Bungie leaving because they were mandated to make Halo, not that 343 wasn't made to do it. Still you know that Media Molecule was bought because they were making LBP and still were freed to develop more games.

3) Do you know that obscene would be a bad thing right? And as I put, the point is that they had freedom to try because nothing really struck gold, so from MS ways it being tied down is more likely. But if the dev keep their freedom after that I'll gladly eat the crow.

4) Will wait for it to release, but still it was first mandated to do Forza games.

Do you really doesn't seem MS more on the side of deciding and mandating the games its devs do?



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."

ThisGuyFooks said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

1) 343 was created to continue making Halo games. That's its sole purpose. Look at the company name.

2) Black Tusk I'll give you. It was founded in 2012 to create a new IP, "to build the next Halo." Now it's working on Gears.

3) Rare has been given an obscene amount of freedom to create its own games, yes, including Kinect: https://www.destructoid.com/microsoft-didn-t-push-for-kinect-development-rare-chose-it-327384.phtml

4) According to reports, Playground is working on an RPG: http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/11/23/forza-horizon-devs-secret-new-game-is-an-open-world-action-rpg

Playground is an Independent Studio tho. They are not owned by MS.

Does Nintendo and Sony has any studio built to make a single franchise?

The only one i can think of is Polyphony Digital.

PD was made because Kaz wanted to make GT... but he also made a bike game and helped on LoD.

Veknoid_Outcast said:
ThisGuyFooks said:

Playground is an Independent Studio tho. They are not owned by MS.

Does Nintendo and Sony has any studio built to make a single franchise?

The only one i can think of is Polyphony Digital.

Well these are two different topics right? Couldn't we assume that these studios want to work on the same IP again and again? Creating a bunch of games from the same property over a short amount of time isn't proof positive that publisher meddling was the cause. Otherwise we should extend the same scrutiny to Polyphony, as you wrote, or Naughty Dog, which turned out five Uncharted games in a decade.

For the record I think Microsoft is a poor manager of its properties. But not because of micromanagement. 

Deciding what game the dev will make isn't micromanagement. And ND was free to do TLOU, and decided to go back to UC and there are plenty of examples similar on Sony. While we have Halo and Gears example of devs leaving MS because of lack of freedom over what they would do.



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."

If Sea of Thieves is a success... Then RARE and Microsoft deserve praise... And hopefully that is reflected in some sales data.

That's all there is to it. Oh and then a sequel.

/thread



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Veknoid_Outcast said:
ThisGuyFooks said:

Playground is an Independent Studio tho. They are not owned by MS.

Does Nintendo and Sony has any studio built to make a single franchise?

The only one i can think of is Polyphony Digital.

Well these are two different topics right? Couldn't we assume that these studios want to work on the same IP again and again? Creating a bunch of games from the same property over a short amount of time isn't proof positive that publisher meddling was the cause. Otherwise we should extend the same scrutiny to Polyphony, as you wrote, or Naughty Dog, which turned out five Uncharted games in a decade.

For the record I think Microsoft is a poor manager of its properties. But not because of micromanagement. 

Naughty Dog aproached the situation with the right mindset imo.

It would be silly for a company to just abandon a successful IP just to avoid sequelitis.

Every Uncharted game was more successful than the previous game, they were all well received by the critics, and all of them had a story to tell.

Naughty Dog felt that there was nothing more to do in the Nathan Drake saga so they just backed away from the franchise with Uncharted 4.

Imagine if they were secluded with a single franchise, TLOU wouldn't exist.

Im all for sequels as long as they make sense.

This is all about SP games tho. 

If we are talking about Games as a Service, it makes more sense for a studio to revolve around a single franchise.



Around the Network
ThisGuyFooks said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

Well these are two different topics right? Couldn't we assume that these studios want to work on the same IP again and again? Creating a bunch of games from the same property over a short amount of time isn't proof positive that publisher meddling was the cause. Otherwise we should extend the same scrutiny to Polyphony, as you wrote, or Naughty Dog, which turned out five Uncharted games in a decade.

For the record I think Microsoft is a poor manager of its properties. But not because of micromanagement. 

Naughty Dog aproached the situation with the right mindset imo.

It would be silly for a company to just abandon a successful IP just to avoid sequelitis.

Every Uncharted game was more successful than the previous game, they were all well received by the critics, and all of them had a story to tell.

Naughty Dog felt that there was nothing more to do in the Nathan Drake saga so they just backed away from the franchise with Uncharted 4.

Imagine if they were secluded with a single franchise, TLOU wouldn't exist.

Im all for sequels as long as they make sense.

This is all about SP games tho. 

If we are talking about Games as a Service, it makes more sense for a studio to revolve around a single franchise.

We may think it's silly but ND moved away from Crash and Jax, SP moved from Infamous, GG moved from KZ... Sony studios maybe due to the narrative choice for the games (and in here you can see the games without history are the ones Sony have been doing sequels for longer periods like GT and MLB) they will tell the story they want and when they are done they will go for a new IP. UC4 was a surprise because not only did ND said they were done with it, they also released a game that was an even bigger success, but from all we know they decided they had more to tell on the game and made not only UC4 but also the expansion.



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."

DonFerrari said:
ThisGuyFooks said:

Naughty Dog aproached the situation with the right mindset imo.

It would be silly for a company to just abandon a successful IP just to avoid sequelitis.

Every Uncharted game was more successful than the previous game, they were all well received by the critics, and all of them had a story to tell.

Naughty Dog felt that there was nothing more to do in the Nathan Drake saga so they just backed away from the franchise with Uncharted 4.

Imagine if they were secluded with a single franchise, TLOU wouldn't exist.

Im all for sequels as long as they make sense.

This is all about SP games tho. 

If we are talking about Games as a Service, it makes more sense for a studio to revolve around a single franchise.

We may think it's silly but ND moved away from Crash and Jax, SP moved from Infamous, GG moved from KZ... Sony studios maybe due to the narrative choice for the games (and in here you can see the games without history are the ones Sony have been doing sequels for longer periods like GT and MLB) they will tell the story they want and when they are done they will go for a new IP. UC4 was a surprise because not only did ND said they were done with it, they also released a game that was an even bigger success, but from all we know they decided they had more to tell on the game and made not only UC4 but also the expansion.

It's not even an expansion anymore, it's a stand-alone game, so they already went past it being their final ND game as they said it would be.



VGPolyglot said:
DonFerrari said:

We may think it's silly but ND moved away from Crash and Jax, SP moved from Infamous, GG moved from KZ... Sony studios maybe due to the narrative choice for the games (and in here you can see the games without history are the ones Sony have been doing sequels for longer periods like GT and MLB) they will tell the story they want and when they are done they will go for a new IP. UC4 was a surprise because not only did ND said they were done with it, they also released a game that was an even bigger success, but from all we know they decided they had more to tell on the game and made not only UC4 but also the expansion.

It's not even an expansion anymore, it's a stand-alone game, so they already went past it being their final ND game as they said it would be.

They have done it twice in UC case, but the good part for them is that the standalone had very low cost to make. People seem to have liked the game



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."

VGPolyglot said:
DonFerrari said:

We may think it's silly but ND moved away from Crash and Jax, SP moved from Infamous, GG moved from KZ... Sony studios maybe due to the narrative choice for the games (and in here you can see the games without history are the ones Sony have been doing sequels for longer periods like GT and MLB) they will tell the story they want and when they are done they will go for a new IP. UC4 was a surprise because not only did ND said they were done with it, they also released a game that was an even bigger success, but from all we know they decided they had more to tell on the game and made not only UC4 but also the expansion.

It's not even an expansion anymore, it's a stand-alone game, so they already went past it being their final ND game as they said it would be.

I could be wrong about this, but i think what Neil said was that the "Nathan Drake" story arc was done.

Maybe they'll release another Uncharted game in the future, but without Nate. Just like Lost Legacy.

There are a few studios that i trust blindly and ND is one of them. If Neil and co. feel that there is more to tell about the game, im in!

If i had to predict, they will release a new IP after TLOU II.

It was rumored that they were working on a space game. I hope its true!



DonFerrari said:
Azzanation said:  

Bungie were obligated until they opted out. Simple as that. You say it's stupid, stupid is milking your franchise to death. 

 

 

You lost me when you say its stupid to milk a franchise.. stupid as a business? Far from it. Halo keeps making MS small fortunes hence why they keep making them. Its stupid to drop it.

Your logic - Lets tell Disney to stop making Star Wars movies because its stupid, they should make something new.

You know why MS continue to also make Halo? Because they have a dedicated company to do so and Halo continues to sell well and profits.