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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Xbox Empire - Xbox Games Showcase Recap | Starfield, Redfall, Forza Motorsport Gameplay Reveal | Minecraft Legends, Ara History Untold, Pentiment Announced | Grounded, As Dusk Falls Release Date

 

Would You Like to See Another Fallout in the Original Genre?

Yes, I’d Love to Play an Isometric Fallout 1 16.67%
 
Yes, Isometric Fallout Is Better 0 0%
 
I’d Be Happy With Both 2 33.33%
 
I Don't Care, I Don't Like Fallout 1 16.67%
 
No, I Dislike Isometric Titles 1 16.67%
 
No, It’s Pointless, Giv... 0 0%
 
Give Me Isometric Fallout and More Wasteland 0 0%
 
Not a Mainline/Spinoff bu... 1 16.67%
 
Total:6
shikamaru317 said:
Ryuu96 said:

When Elder Scrolls VI is all but confirmed as exclusive but Indiana Jones isn't then it implies to me that it's either an issue with the license or contract and further convinces me that Microsoft should simply stay away from licenses rather than make a bunch of concessions to make the license holder happy.

I'm only speculating but it may have been greenlit on the basis that it would achieve X amount of sales, to make it exclusive would likely be an obvious break of that goal they made with LucasArts. Microsoft going back to the negotiation table puts them at the disadvantage and allows Lucas to take advantage of that cause Microsoft (in particular, MachineGames) needs this game a lot more than Lucas needs it, which allows Lucas to drive up the price.

The only reason Xbox is even alive right now is Game Pass, the promises that Phil made to Satya about the future of Game Pass, the exclusives need to be day one, as they've already promised to us for years now that every exclusive they're involved in will be day one in Game Pass, it's the business proposition that Phil made to Satya, to go back on it to their fans and their own CEO would be a bad look.

It's bad business sense, sacrificing potential exclusives in the name of making all games day one Gamepass. Some devs and publishers are never going to be willing to accept releasing an Xbox exclusive that is day one Gamepass because they see Gamepass downloads as costing them too many crucial day one $60 sales, it puts Xbox at an automatic disadvantage at the negotiating table. Such a mentality would particularly hurt them when trying to get JP exclusives I suspect, which will make getting 2nd party JP exclusives even more difficult than it already would be. 

Hardware movement should trump all else in Xbox's eyes, with Gamepass growth being a still very important secondary concern. You need to move alot of hardware to be a success in the gaming industry, and nothing moves more hardware than popular, high selling exclusives. Licensing already popular IP's as exclusives is one of the best ways to get a strong selling exclusive that move alot of hardware, Spider-Man from Insomniac already proved that when it sold like 4x as many copies as the previous bestselling Insomniac game. If there is one thing Xbox is currently lacking in, it's exclusives that are capable of selling the kind of numbers that Sony's exclusives like Uncharted, TLOU, Horizon, God of War, and Spider-Man are moving (all trending toward 20m+ lifetime, if not already above 20m), popular licensed IP's as exclusives is one of the best ways that Xbox can move those kind of software numbers themselves.

Why is selling alot of hardware so important? The reasons are severalfold:

  • The more hardware that is sold, the more software, service subs, and accessories the person buying that console buys over the course of the generation, and software, service subs, and accessories all generate big profit unlike the hardware itself which is loss leading.
  • A console that has a big sales lead over another console has a big advantage at the negotiating table when making 2nd party and 3rd party moneyhat deals. The larger a console's install base, the more potential copies sold as an exclusive vs as a multiplat game, which gives an advantage when negotiating for both 2nd party full exclusive deals and 3rd party timed hat deals. In other words, if Xbox doesn't start doing more to close the hardware gap with Sony, Sony will continue to be able to lock down big 2nd party games and timed 3rd party hats with relative ease, which continues a cycle that is bad for Xbox owners.
  • The more hardware that is sold in non-core markets for Xbox, the more retail space and the more headspace Xbox begins to get in those markets, which builds up success that will last into later generations.

"It's bad business sense, sacrificing potential exclusives in the name of making all games day one Gamepass."

Well then it's a good thing that they have 30+ studios once Activision-Blizzard closes, Lol. I also see no evidence outside of licenses that it is hurting their ability to get exclusive content when Xbox Game Publishing has dozens of projects in development alone, it isn't hurting their ability to get independent studios working with them at all, it only really hurts their ability to get exclusive content from major publishers but that was always rare in the industry.

Independent developers will take the offer because most of them have no choice and are working from game to game. LucasArts does have a choice and ultimately them losing Indiana Jones videogame won't hurt them in the slightest. 

Licenses are nice but the fanbase who like licenses have many overlaps with multiple other genres that Microsoft does cover so they are unlikely to miss their cliental, licensed exclusives didn't help at all in Xbox 360 and PS3 selling over 80m, they don't help at all in Nintendo selling over 100m, even PS4 only had a single license exclusive.

Licenses have their fair share of misses too, it's not a guaranteed success, Insomniac is simply an amazing developer working on Marvel's most popular character by a large margin (Spider-Man). They can move hardware and they can be amazing with the right developer but they ultimately won't be needed for Xbox to have long term success.

To make a point, 4/5 of those IPs you listed for Sony aren't licenses, they're IP that Sony created from the ground up into huge successes, two of them being fairly fresh IPs (IPs created within the last 9 years) and one having a resurgence because it was basically soft-rebooted, there's no reason why Microsoft shouldn't be able to do the same.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 28 May 2022

Around the Network
shikamaru317 said:
Ryuu96 said:

Jez still believes Indiana Jones is multiplatform.

I'm assuming this is either a consequence of the contract being done with LucasArt prior to Microsoft acquiring Bethesda or a consequence of the license, Lucas wanting it multiplatform possibly due to Game Pass, if it's exclusive then it would be safe to assume the majority would play it via Game Pass but if it's multiplatform then millions will still buy it on Playstation.

If this is true it's a massive failing on Xbox's part. Sony is out there with 3 Disney games/IP's as timed or full PS exclusives already; KOTOR Remake, Spider-Man, and Wolverine. If Xbox can't even lock down exclusivity on Indiana Jones to counter what Sony is doing, smh. Phil needs to be willing to release a few exclusives that aren't day one Gamepass if it's creating issues with potential 2nd or 3rd party exclusives, there is no reason why you can't sign a deal to bring the game to Gamepass after like 3-6 months after release instead of it being day one Gamepass if it will sweeten the deal for the 2nd or 3rd party partner and allow you to lock down full or timed exclusivity on the game. The way that Phil runs the Xbox division bugs me more and more these days.

Strongly disagree. Day one GP releases are much more important to me than exclusivity. 



Ryuu96 said:
shikamaru317 said:

It's bad business sense, sacrificing potential exclusives in the name of making all games day one Gamepass. Some devs and publishers are never going to be willing to accept releasing an Xbox exclusive that is day one Gamepass because they see Gamepass downloads as costing them too many crucial day one $60 sales, it puts Xbox at an automatic disadvantage at the negotiating table. Such a mentality would particularly hurt them when trying to get JP exclusives I suspect, which will make getting 2nd party JP exclusives even more difficult than it already would be. 

Hardware movement should trump all else in Xbox's eyes, with Gamepass growth being a still very important secondary concern. You need to move alot of hardware to be a success in the gaming industry, and nothing moves more hardware than popular, high selling exclusives. Licensing already popular IP's as exclusives is one of the best ways to get a strong selling exclusive that move alot of hardware, Spider-Man from Insomniac already proved that when it sold like 4x as many copies as the previous bestselling Insomniac game. If there is one thing Xbox is currently lacking in, it's exclusives that are capable of selling the kind of numbers that Sony's exclusives like Uncharted, TLOU, Horizon, God of War, and Spider-Man are moving (all trending toward 20m+ lifetime, if not already above 20m), popular licensed IP's as exclusives is one of the best ways that Xbox can move those kind of software numbers themselves.

Why is selling alot of hardware so important? The reasons are severalfold:

  • The more hardware that is sold, the more software, service subs, and accessories the person buying that console buys over the course of the generation, and software, service subs, and accessories all generate big profit unlike the hardware itself which is loss leading.
  • A console that has a big sales lead over another console has a big advantage at the negotiating table when making 2nd party and 3rd party moneyhat deals. The larger a console's install base, the more potential copies sold as an exclusive vs as a multiplat game, which gives an advantage when negotiating for both 2nd party full exclusive deals and 3rd party timed hat deals. In other words, if Xbox doesn't start doing more to close the hardware gap with Sony, Sony will continue to be able to lock down big 2nd party games and timed 3rd party hats with relative ease, which continues a cycle that is bad for Xbox owners.
  • The more hardware that is sold in non-core markets for Xbox, the more retail space and the more headspace Xbox begins to get in those markets, which builds up success that will last into later generations.

Well then it's a good thing that they have 30+ studios once Activision-Blizzard closes, Lol. I also see no evidence outside of licenses that it is hurting their ability to get exclusive content when Xbox Game Publishing has dozens of projects in development alone, it isn't hurting their ability to get independent studios working with them at all, it only really hurts their ability to get exclusive content from major publishers but that was always rare in the industry.

The problem is that there are very few independent AAA devs left these days. Their 2nd party division is already working with some of the remaining ones like Avalanche and IOI (while Sony has already snatched up deals with alot of the new AAA studios that have recently opened), leaving Xbox with very few remaining potential independent AAA studios to work with on 2nd party exclusives. Their 2nd party division needs more AAA's in the pipeline than they seem to have currently, and it would be alot easier to make 2nd party deals with AAA studios which are owned by other publishers if Xbox was willing to wait say 3-6 months for the game to come to Gamepass.

Independent developers will take the offer because most of them have no choice and are working from game to game. LucasArts does have a choice and ultimately them losing Indiana Jones videogame won't hurt them in the slightest. 

On that I agree.

Licenses are nice but the fanbase who like licenses have many overlaps with multiple other genres that Microsoft does cover so they are unlikely to miss their cliental, licensed exclusives didn't help at all in Xbox 360 and PS3 selling over 80m, they don't help at all in Nintendo selling over 100m, even PS4 only had a single license exclusive.

I don't recall Xbox having any truly big licensed exclusives 7th gen. Star Wars Kinect doesn't exactly count since it was a Kinect game which automatically limited it's sales potential. Your Marvel's and your Star Wars' and your Indiana Jones' and such can move alot of copies and hardware if the game is made well and marketed well by Xbox.

Licenses have their fair share of misses too, it's not a guaranteed success, Insomniac is simply an amazing developer working on Marvel's most popular character by a large margin (Spider-Man). They can move hardware and they can be amazing with the right developer but they ultimately won't be needed for Xbox to have long term success.

I agree that there is no guarantee of success, but if done right big licensed exclusives are a shortcut to success. 

To make a point, 4/5 of those IPs you listed for Sony aren't licenses, they're IP that Sony created from the ground up into huge successes, two of them being fairly fresh IPs (IPs created within the last 9 years) and one having a resurgence because it was basically soft-rebooted, there's no reason why Microsoft shouldn't be able to do the same.

Of course I agree that Xbox should be building up their own IP, but that takes time. Their biggest IP of the past, Halo, only sold like 13m copies on it's biggest game (Halo 3) compared to 20m+ for 5 Sony IP this past gen, while other Xbox IP sold less than Halo. Gears did like 7-8m on it's biggest game, Fable did like 6m on it's biggest game. Forza was selling like 6m copies at most before this past generation, and while Forza Horizon's explosive popularity growth over this past gen has allowed 20m+ players on the series now, we don't know what that comes out to in sales since Xbox doesn't announce sales these days, just player counts. Outer Worlds has sold like 4.5m as a multiplat release, sequel may sell less as an Xbox exclusive. The fact is, many of Xbox's biggest IP's of the past were only selling like 25-33% of what 5 different Sony IP's are now capable of moving. 

Xbox's acquisition of Bethesda did at least give them one studio that has proven themselves to be consistently capable of 20m+ sales, but that is still 1 studio for Xbox compared to 4 studios for Sony so far. Xbox has a lot of catching up to do on 1st party popularity growth, and big exclusive licensed games in the meantime could help with growth overall platform growth while their 1st party IP's are hopefully growing in quality and popularity.

Responses in bold

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 28 May 2022

Angelus said:
shikamaru317 said:

If this is true it's a massive failing on Xbox's part. Sony is out there with 3 Disney games/IP's as timed or full PS exclusives already; KOTOR Remake, Spider-Man, and Wolverine. If Xbox can't even lock down exclusivity on Indiana Jones to counter what Sony is doing, smh. Phil needs to be willing to release a few exclusives that aren't day one Gamepass if it's creating issues with potential 2nd or 3rd party exclusives, there is no reason why you can't sign a deal to bring the game to Gamepass after like 3-6 months after release instead of it being day one Gamepass if it will sweeten the deal for the 2nd or 3rd party partner and allow you to lock down full or timed exclusivity on the game. The way that Phil runs the Xbox division bugs me more and more these days.

Strongly disagree. Day one GP releases are much more important to me than exclusivity. 

They are great in the short term, but you have to think long game. More exclusives = more Xbox hardware sales. More Xbox hardware sales = More Xbox 2nd and 3rd party exclusives, more Japanese ports, less Sony timed hats (as they become more expensive for Sony to hat the less the marketshare ratio favors Playstation).

A handful of key 2nd and 3rd party Xbox exclusives that we have to wait 6 months to play on Gamepass this gen, can have huge benefits for Xbox in the long game, even multiple generations down the line. We have to stop thinking with an instant gratification mindset, and I say this as a Gamer on a very tight budget who loves day one Gamepass games. They are great, but Xbox can't focus only on day one Gamepass. That only day one Gamepass policy hurt them last E3 because it caused very few JP games to be on their showcase, and now it's hurting them with Indiana Jones and presumably other deals they have tried to sign behind closed doors too.



shikamaru317 said:
Angelus said:

Strongly disagree. Day one GP releases are much more important to me than exclusivity. 

They are great in the short term, but you have to think long game. More exclusives = more Xbox hardware sales. More Xbox hardware sales = More Xbox 2nd and 3rd party exclusives, more Japanese ports, less Sony timed hats (as they become more expensive for Sony to hat the less the marketshare ratio favors Playstation).

A handful of key 2nd and 3rd party Xbox exclusives that we have to wait 6 months to play on Gamepass this gen, can have huge benefits for Xbox in the long game, even multiple generations down the line. We have to stop thinking with an instant gratification mindset, and I say this as a Gamer on a very tight budget who loves day one Gamepass games. They are great, but Xbox can't focus only on day one Gamepass. That only day one Gamepass policy hurt them last E3 because it caused very few JP games to be on their showcase, and now it's hurting them with Indiana Jones and presumably other deals they have tried to sign behind closed doors too.

MS can worry about all that stuff and how best to achieve their targets. My only concern is getting more great games, on a consistent basis, hitting GP for me to play. I don't wanna have to wait 3-6 months to play something on GP, just so it can be exclusive and people somewhere else can't play it.



Around the Network
shikamaru317 said:
Ryuu96 said:

Jez still believes Indiana Jones is multiplatform.

I'm assuming this is either a consequence of the contract being done with LucasArt prior to Microsoft acquiring Bethesda or a consequence of the license, Lucas wanting it multiplatform possibly due to Game Pass, if it's exclusive then it would be safe to assume the majority would play it via Game Pass but if it's multiplatform then millions will still buy it on Playstation.

If this is true it's a massive failing on Xbox's part. Sony is out there with 3 Disney games/IP's as timed or full PS exclusives already; KOTOR Remake, Spider-Man, and Wolverine. If Xbox can't even lock down exclusivity on Indiana Jones to counter what Sony is doing, smh. Phil needs to be willing to release a few exclusives that aren't day one Gamepass if it's creating issues with potential 2nd or 3rd party exclusives, there is no reason why you can't sign a deal to bring the game to Gamepass after like 3-6 months after release instead of it being day one Gamepass if it will sweeten the deal for the 2nd or 3rd party partner and allow you to lock down full or timed exclusivity on the game. The way that Phil runs the Xbox division bugs me more and more these days.

Don't forget Ironman VR



Angelus said:
shikamaru317 said:

They are great in the short term, but you have to think long game. More exclusives = more Xbox hardware sales. More Xbox hardware sales = More Xbox 2nd and 3rd party exclusives, more Japanese ports, less Sony timed hats (as they become more expensive for Sony to hat the less the marketshare ratio favors Playstation).

A handful of key 2nd and 3rd party Xbox exclusives that we have to wait 6 months to play on Gamepass this gen, can have huge benefits for Xbox in the long game, even multiple generations down the line. We have to stop thinking with an instant gratification mindset, and I say this as a Gamer on a very tight budget who loves day one Gamepass games. They are great, but Xbox can't focus only on day one Gamepass. That only day one Gamepass policy hurt them last E3 because it caused very few JP games to be on their showcase, and now it's hurting them with Indiana Jones and presumably other deals they have tried to sign behind closed doors too.

MS can worry about all that stuff and how best to achieve their targets. My only concern is getting more great games, on a consistent basis, hitting GP for me to play. I don't wanna have to wait 3-6 months to play something on GP, just so it can be exclusive and people somewhere else can't play it.

We'll definitely be getting day one gamepass games on a consistent basis regardless. They'll soon have over 30 first party studios and over 40 independent teams between those studios, that is like 7-8 first party games per year which will be day one gamepass once their 1st party machine gets into full swing, and they still have more acquisitions planned after Activision-Blizzard. Then you've got the 2nd and 3rd party exclusives deals they sign which are ok with releasing day one Gamepass. Then you've got the day one Gamepass AAA multiplat deals they sign like Back 4 Blood, Outriders, MLB The Show, and Sniper Elite 5, and the day one Gamepass indie deals they sign like Trek to Yomi, Atomic Heart, and Eiyuden Chronicle. All told, we're looking at 20+ day one Gamepass games in any given year later this gen. Do we really need every single 2nd and 3rd party exclusive deal they sign to be day one Gamepass when we already have that many other day one Gamepass games per year, when something like Indiana Jones or a Marvel or Star Wars game as an exclusive has so much potential hardware sales benefit for Xbox, which has compounding benefits for Xbox years and even generations down the line?

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 28 May 2022

shikamaru317 said:
Ryuu96 said:

-Snip-

Responses in bold

The problem is that there are very few independent AAA devs left these days. Their 2nd party division is already working with some of the remaining ones like Avalanche and IOI (while Sony has already snatched up deals with alot of the new AAA studios that have recently opened), leaving Xbox with very few remaining potential independent AAA studios to work with on 2nd party exclusives. Their 2nd party division needs more AAA's in the pipeline than they seem to have currently, and it would be alot easier to make 2nd party deals with AAA studios which are owned by other publishers if Xbox was willing to wait say 3-6 months for the game to come to Gamepass.

I've never really agreed with this Tbh. There is multiple new AAA studios opening every year, that is on top of the already dozens of known AAA developers and there's dozens of developers who could easily go AAA if they had someone to finance them, there's dozens of assistance studios like Certain Affinity who have hundreds of employees but need someone to take a bet on them for a singular project.

Microsoft is doing that now, Certain Affinity is doing their first ever AAA under XGP, Oxide Games is a studio that nobody had really heard of but their IP with Microsoft is listed as AAA, Brass Lion lists their project with Microsoft as AAA, then there's studios as you listed such as Avalanche who have multiple studios or IO Interactive who created a new studio precisely to create an AAA with Microsoft, there was the rumoured MMO which was by a studio that once again nobody had ever heard of but it was AAA, later found out that Microsoft isn't involved anymore but nevertheless it's yet another example of a AAA studio popping up out of nowhere.

There is also studios like Asobo who nobody considers AAA but they just released the AAA Flight Simulator, there's dozens of studios like the above examples but someone needs to take a chance on them, I think what is really true is that there's not many known AAA studios left, as in, the popular ones that everyone knows about, which I can sorta see, but that doesn't mean there's few AAA studios or AAA capable studios left in the entire industry.

This is without getting into all the AAA studios that Microsoft now has under their belt along with the studios which are expanding to be AAA, studios such as Obsidian or InXile who were not AAA until Microsoft started financing them, InXile in particular was nowhere near AAA. Undead Labs and Ninja Theory will likely be AAA too, there is so many studios like that out in the industry, AA ones who could easily do AAA if someone backed them, or studios which expand such as Playground or Arkane opening separate studios.

I don't recall Xbox having any truly big licensed exclusives 7th gen. Star Wars Kinect doesn't exactly count since it was a Kinect game which automatically limited it's sales potential. Your Marvel's and your Star Wars' and your Indiana Jones' and such can move alot of copies and hardware if the game is made well and marketed well by Xbox.

That's sorta my point though, Xbox 360 didn't have any big licensed exclusives and yet did very good in sales, PS3 didn't have any big licensed exclusives, Wii didn't, Switch doesn't, PS4 only had 1 notable big licensed exclusive and it would have still been a 100m+ selling console without it, no doubt they can be awesome and they can push some hardware but so can a lot of things.

Of course I agree that Xbox should be building up their own IP, but that takes time. Their biggest IP of the past, Halo, only sold like 13m copies on it's biggest game (Halo 3) compared to 20m+ for 5 Sony IP this past gen, while other Xbox IP sold less than Halo. Gears did like 7-8m on it's biggest game, Fable did like 6m on it's biggest game. Forza was selling like 6m copies at most before this past generation, and while Forza Horizon's explosive popularity growth over this past gen has allowed 20m+ players on the series now, we don't know what that comes out to in sales since Xbox doesn't announce sales these days, just player counts. Outer Worlds has sold like 4.5m as a multiplat release, sequel may sell less as an Xbox exclusive. The fact is, many of Xbox's biggest IP's of the past were only selling like 25-33% of what 5 different Sony IP's are now capable of moving. 

Xbox's acquisition of Bethesda did at least give them one studio that has proven themselves to be consistently capable of 20m+ sales, but that is still 1 studio for Xbox compared to 4 studios for Sony so far. Xbox has a lot of catching up to do on 1st party popularity growth, and big exclusive licensed games in the meantime could help with growth overall platform growth while their 1st party IP's are hopefully growing in quality and popularity.

Sure, Halo 3 did only 13m compared to Sony's 20m+ sellers in the last generation but Xbox took an absolute battering in the last generation and squandered all their brand build up, Sony didn't, Sony's PS3 era ended very strongly and they entered the PS4 era very strong with multiple extremely high quality developers, they didn't fuck up their marketing, their focus was clear, Xbox's wasn't and it caused them to lose fans, lose faith in the brand, they were running around like headless chickens and releasing half-baked products.

Nowadays they're a lot more focused and have a wide range of quality developers working for them either internally or externally, if they build great products and don't fuck up their brand again then people will come, it took one The Last of Us and one Horizon to turn them into big products cause they were simply great products and Sony didn't screw their brand, if Microsoft does the same, the people will come, whether it's Indiana Jones or Perfect Dark.

Though sales is pointless nowadays cause of Game Pass so I don't know, no point worrying about if they reach 20m+ sales or not.



If Indiana Jones is On Gamepass day one then I’ll be fine with it not being exclusive, the problem I have is the development of that game impacting Wolfenstein 3 and also what if they decide to make Indy a franchise and make sequels. If that happens then MachineGames needs to be expanded into two teams immediately.

My take right now is that if MS cannot get a deal on licensed IP’s that is similar to Sony’s deal with Marvel then they shouldn’t bother at all, Spider-Man and Wolverine are full exclusives that won’t even come out on PC.

This deal was signed before MS purchased Bethesda so their hands are tied but I just hope that it’s not a long term deal.



EspadaGrim said:

If Indiana Jones is On Gamepass day one then I’ll be fine with it not being exclusive, the problem I have is the development of that game impacting Wolfenstein 3 and also what if they decide to make Indy a franchise and make sequels. If that happens then MachineGames needs to be expanded into two teams immediately.

My take right now is that if MS cannot get a deal on licensed IP’s that is similar to Sony’s deal with Marvel then they shouldn’t bother at all, Spider-Man and Wolverine are full exclusives that won’t even come out on PC.

This deal was signed before MS purchased Bethesda so their hands are tied but I just hope that it’s not a long term deal.

Yeah, I'm not really sure what is going on with that. Machine is among Xbox's smallest AAA devs, they have like 155 devs now and were only at like 120 when Indiana Jones itself was announced. Wolfenstein 3 was clearly planned as of 2017-2019, as it was mentioned in multiple Machine interviews over that time period. The GeForce now leak from last year listed 2 different Machine developed games meanwhile, Project Relic and Indiana Jones, each with different estimated release dates (and Relic releasing first), which seems to suggest that both Indiana Jones and Wolfenstein 3 are currently in development, with Wolfenstein planned to release first. If that is the case, I see a few possibilities:

  1. Indiana Jones is still pre-production with only a small team on it until Wolfenstein 3 releases later this year or early 2023, with most of their 155 devs on Wolfenstein currently
  2. Wolfenstein 3 is being co-developed with another studio, perhaps id, who I believe assisted them with some of the earlier Wolfenstein games due to their small size, with the other studio doing most of the grunt work so that the majority of Machine can focus on Indiana Jones
  3. Indiana Jones is being co-developed with another studio, perhaps one that has more experience with 3rd person story driven action-adventure games, considering Machine's devs have mostly worked on FPS games in the past, not story driven action adventure
Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 28 May 2022