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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Rumor of the day: DINO CRISIS REBOOT expected at MS show

twintail said:

Why is the Switch version of Hellblade published by NT and not MS?
Why is the physical ps4 release by 505 Games and not MS?
Why is Obsidian still on Outer Worlds?
Why is Wasteland 3 still coming to PS4 with no MS attachment?

Do publishers have to sign a binding contract with Steam to use their service?
Were preorders not honoured after the Epic deal?

I have shown no disdain to MS in this thread. And I know that MS wants their games everywhere.

At the end of the day the result is the same: a multiplatform studio will be making MS published games. There's no need to deny the obvious here. Nothing you have tried to say in any of your points changes this.

Likewise you claim Nintendo/ Sony do the same without anything to show for it. 

There can be other reasons as to why other publishers are bringing these games to other platforms, and one of the main points here is that MS doesn't have to pay to bring it across. This would be more inline with a smart business move rather then MS publishing all there titles and spending more dollars when someone else can do it for them.

Either way if the studio is owned by MS and a game is releasing after the buyout, like Wasteland 3 or The Outer Worlds than they would have to come to terms with the owner first and in this case its MS or Xbox Game Studios for the rights. There way of thinking could be something like this, you want this game on your platform, than if you can find a publisher to publish it than its all yours, type of thing. That last part is just an assumption so don't jump me for that.

Games previously contracted before the buyout will fall under the microscope of the new owners and its up to them if they choose to terminate it which could lead to a payout.

When a company is under a umbrella like NT, they are given budgets, and in this case, NT has the budget to spend to publish there own game instead of relying on there mother brand to piggy back them, all MS want to see is profits not expenses so NT is taking the risk and hoping for the reward. They are allowing NT to bring Hellblade to the Switch same goes for Wasteland 3 for PS4 etc.

Lets not forget that MS Publish games, but I don't see why they need to do it to all of them especially since there very open with the Switch and Steam platforms and it can be quite an expense publishing all there IPs on other machines. All I am saying to you is they have the choice and that's allowing these deals to be created or to be continued, they are not terminating these contract agreements and locking these games and future games away. Different story if they only own part of the company like 50% etc. At 100% there is no debate, a full buyout includes all previous, current and future contracts. That's why buying companies can be quite an expense. Weather its worth cancelling or allowing is up to the rightful owners. 

Last edited by Azzanation - on 17 April 2019

Around the Network

Huge news if true, that would get me really hyped!, the last time i played a truly great Dinosaur game was on the PS1 with Dino Crisis 2... meaning Dino Crisis was the first and last time i played a great Dinosaur game, and i absolutely loved it.

Back then i was big into dinosaurs thanks to a small film called Jurassic Park and DC was the closest thing we had to a JP game, im on board for either a Remake of the first 2 games or a full reboot, current Capcom is  (in my opinion) as good as it was on its golden days so i can trust them with whatever they wanna do with the franchise.



Azzanation said:
twintail said:

Why is the Switch version of Hellblade published by NT and not MS?
Why is the physical ps4 release by 505 Games and not MS?
Why is Obsidian still on Outer Worlds?
Why is Wasteland 3 still coming to PS4 with no MS attachment?

Do publishers have to sign a binding contract with Steam to use their service?
Were preorders not honoured after the Epic deal?

I have shown no disdain to MS in this thread. And I know that MS wants their games everywhere.

At the end of the day the result is the same: a multiplatform studio will be making MS published games. There's no need to deny the obvious here. Nothing you have tried to say in any of your points changes this.

Likewise you claim Nintendo/ Sony do the same without anything to show for it. 

There can be other reasons as to why other publishers are bringing these games to other platforms, and one of the main points here is that MS doesn't have to pay to bring it across. This would be more inline with a smart business move rather then MS publishing all there titles and spending more dollars when someone else can do it for them.

Either way if the studio is owned by MS and a game is releasing after the buyout, like Wasteland 3 or The Outer Worlds than they would have to come to terms with the owner first and in this case its MS or Xbox Game Studios for the rights. There way of thinking could be something like this, you want this game on your platform, than if you can find a publisher to publish it than its all yours, type of thing. That last part is just an assumption so don't jump me for that.

Games previously contracted before the buyout will fall under the microscope of the new owners and its up to them if they choose to terminate it which could lead to a payout.

When a company is under a umbrella like NT, they are given budgets, and in this case, NT has the budget to spend to publish there own game instead of relying on there mother brand to piggy back them, all MS want to see is profits not expenses so NT is taking the risk and hoping for the reward. They are allowing NT to bring Hellblade to the Switch same goes for Wasteland 3 for PS4 etc.

Lets not forget that MS Publish games, but I don't see why they need to do it to all of them especially since there very open with the Switch and Steam platforms and it can be quite an expense publishing all there IPs on other machines. All I am saying to you is they have the choice and that's allowing these deals to be created or to be continued, they are not terminating these contract agreements and locking these games and future games away. Different story if they only own part of the company like 50% etc. At 100% there is no debate, a full buyout includes all previous, current and future contracts. That's why buying companies can be quite an expense. Weather its worth cancelling or allowing is up to the rightful owners. 

Contracts are legally binding documents. MS cant just come in and nullify it on a whim. Them buying a company doesn't negate a contract said company already had, and no one is going to sign a contract that allows one party to drop out whenever they feel like it. I am not saying that MS does not want these games on other platforms, but rather that these contracts existed before the acquisitions, and they are being honoured, so for the most part it doesn't really matter what MS wants.

MS can't get NT out of their contract work on the Ocullus VR game, nor do I expect Occulus to allow that (depending on the scope of their contract work). Likewise, there is zero pull MS has on The Other Worlds since that is a Take 2 published game and Take 2 aren't going to let MS try to end that contract.

And of course, all of this would have been negotiated before the acquisitions: NT wanting to honour their contract with QloC and 505 Games etc. would have to be terms MS would have to accept for the acquisition (hypothetical, but possible)

That said, what MS owned IP has MS allowed their own devs to publish themselves? Even if they do, how exactly does that save MS money when said dev is on MS's payroll?



twintail said:

Contracts are legally binding documents. MS cant just come in and nullify it on a whim. Them buying a company doesn't negate a contract said company already had, and no one is going to sign a contract that allows one party to drop out whenever they feel like it. I am not saying that MS does not want these games on other platforms, but rather that these contracts existed before the acquisitions, and they are being honoured, so for the most part it doesn't really matter what MS wants.

MS can't get NT out of their contract work on the Ocullus VR game, nor do I expect Occulus to allow that (depending on the scope of their contract work). Likewise, there is zero pull MS has on The Other Worlds since that is a Take 2 published game and Take 2 aren't going to let MS try to end that contract.

And of course, all of this would have been negotiated before the acquisitions: NT wanting to honour their contract with QloC and 505 Games etc. would have to be terms MS would have to accept for the acquisition (hypothetical, but possible)

That said, what MS owned IP has MS allowed their own devs to publish themselves? Even if they do, how exactly does that save MS money when said dev is on MS's payroll?

Contracts are legally binding, however contracts can be terminated at a cost. Depends if its worth it. With MS's vision lately, its no surprise they allow these deals to happen. Its something they have been doing this gen and this isn't just with new studios or IPs they recently purchased, but even with there older IPs. They have been pushing for more multiplats this gen so letting NT continue with a Switch port of Hellblade is a no brainer. Also since NT is publishing there own game its very easy for MS to decide weather or not to allow the game or cancel it since there is no binding contracts with a 3rd party and MS own 100% of NT and all there properties. NT is working for MS now. This gives MS full control.

MS still hasn't pulled Minecraft from PS4 and they were the ones who pushed it to come out on Switch and so with Cuphead. Even if you are correct and MS have no choice because of a super duper contract that NT made with another, MS would have still most likely released Hellblade on Switch them selves. Its what they are doing lately. This type of effort needs to be praised not shutdown saying MS have no choice in the matter. Its something I support a lot of this gen and if Sony and Nintendo did the same thing they will get my praises as well.

MS have there own targets, goals and budgets, NT have there own targets, goals and budgets. NT still has there own pockets. Think of it like a Jar of money. Every time NT profits, that Jar fills up with money. Now lets say every quarter MS has a hand that takes from that Jar. So an example would be 15% of whatever NT make but that can vary depending on what MS wish to take etc, however NT still make there own money its just they are now bind to MS meaning they have to supply MS. This goes to all internal companies under a major umbrella. NT publishing there own game means the expense doesn't come out of MS's bank account but NTs which at the end of each quarter NT need to provide a income for MS.

Who said MS want to stop NT from making a VR game with Occlus? And why would MS stop releasing The Outer Worlds that Take 2 has offered to pay for the publishing rights? All MS care about is that money Jar that NT has. They don't care how they make the money, as long as NT feed MS's hand than there is no problem. The moment NT cannot provide MS's hand, than that's why we have closures like Lion Head Studios. Unable to pay there way for so long = gone.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 18 April 2019

Neat. I haven't played the series in well over a decade. I like what Capcom have been doing with their RE engine, so I'd be interested in seeing a good Dino game, since that area of gaming is seemingly dead.