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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - [Soft-locked DO NOT POST] Is MS focusing too much on quantity over quality with their 1st party games?

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Is this really the best time to ask this question when A ) Most of the studios Microsoft have acquired have not yet released the games they've worked on since their acquisition and B ) Most of the Sony (Microsoft's main competitor) games (funded by Sony or timed-exclusive for them) which have released in the past year have received critical praise at least decently lower than people were expecting, if not outright significantly lower.

I know Metacritic = / = quality but we act like that all the time on this site and now is no reason to change, especially if we're just referring to critical reception. Days Gone, Death Stranding, MediEvil, and now (albeit to a much lesser extent) Final Fantasy 7 Remake have all received scores lower than what most people were expecting. You could even throw Shenmue 3 in there, though it is a console-exclusive, and Concrete Genie, though that's a smaller first party IP that never had much expectations from the general public, however I'll include it because those are the kind of games OP is literally referring to. Many of these are games that have had hype-cycles for years, people had to wait for them forever and when they arrived they were messy blobs. Playstation's first party studios are generally more proven, and they probably will be for quite a while, but that's just more reason for Xbox to step up to the occasion.

When you look at a list of Death Stranding, Days Gone, Final Fantasy 7 Remake, Shenmue 3, Concrete Genie, MediEvil, do you honestly see a focus on quality? Or easy marketing montages for E3s of yesteryear? A more appropriate question might be, is Sony paying too much money for Japanese Timed-Exclusives?

And as for Nintendo? It might be nice to get more than one new game every 6 months, and good third party support to boot!

Man, pretending Death Stranding, Days Gone and FF7R are quantity and not quality is really funny. If you were going to do it you would need to discount almost all MS titles as just quantity.

Actually you would need to do it for almost any developer.



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."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Is this really the best time to ask this question when A ) Most of the studios Microsoft have acquired have not yet released the games they've worked on since their acquisition and B ) Most of the Sony (Microsoft's main competitor) games (funded by Sony or timed-exclusive for them) which have released in the past year have received critical praise at least decently lower than people were expecting, if not outright significantly lower.

I know Metacritic = / = quality but we act like that all the time on this site and now is no reason to change, especially if we're just referring to critical reception. Days Gone, Death Stranding, MediEvil, and now (albeit to a much lesser extent) Final Fantasy 7 Remake have all received scores lower than what most people were expecting. You could even throw Shenmue 3 in there, though it is a console-exclusive, and Concrete Genie, though that's a smaller first party IP that never had much expectations from the general public, however I'll include it because those are the kind of games OP is literally referring to. Many of these are games that have had hype-cycles for years, people had to wait for them forever and when they arrived they were messy blobs. Playstation's first party studios are generally more proven, and they probably will be for quite a while, but that's just more reason for Xbox to step up to the occasion.

When you look at a list of Death Stranding, Days Gone, Final Fantasy 7 Remake, Shenmue 3, Concrete Genie, MediEvil, do you honestly see a focus on quality? Or easy marketing montages for E3s of yesteryear? A more appropriate question might be, is Sony paying too much money for Japanese Timed-Exclusives?

And as for Nintendo? It might be nice to get more than one new game every 6 months, and good third party support to boot!

Man, pretending Death Stranding, Days Gone and FF7R are quantity and not quality is really funny. If you were going to do it you would need to discount almost all MS titles as just quantity.

Actually you would need to do it for almost any developer.

That's going by what this site constantly goes by, not my personal standards. I'm actually decently excited for FF7R, but I don't think my arguments are any more disingenuous than most arguments about Microsoft's output (of course, they have been way worse than Sony consistently, but I'm saying that in the recent term both companies haven't done the best, and that in both cases the future prospects have yet to be seen). Of course, Metacritic was never and has never been an actual symbol of quality, but let's be consistent now. And the counter-argument would be, Ori and all the recent Forza Horizons are just as quality, if not moreso, then those titles, again going by Metacritic. 

However, considering the OP is basically talking about the difference between AAA vs AA/A games, I guess it doesn't even matter. I think it's a little silly to act like Microsoft's first party releases for this year set a precedent for what the future is going to be when, again, most of their studio acquistions have yet to release games yet, and even when they do smaller games are developed faster than bigger games, so it's more coincidence that the smaller titles will release first. Again though, it's totally fair to say MS has way more to prove, than Sony, but I don't think the OP is giving a very good example. Days Gone is literally, 3 measly points, about Bleeding Edge.  



Chris Hu said:
JRPGfan said:

The good:
Ori and the blind forest - 88
Ori and the will of the wisps - 90
Gears 4 - 84
Gears 5 - 84
Halo: The Master Chief Collection - 85
Halo 5: Guardians - 84
Forza Horizon 3 - 91 (+ Hot Wheels - 87)
Forza Horizon 4 - 92
Forza Motorsport 6 - 87
Forza Motorsport 7 - 86
Quatum Break - 77
Killer Instinct - 73
Sunset Overdrive - 81

The bad (and or ugly):
Bleeding edge - 68  (has 13 viewers on twitch right now. Intrest seems really low)
Crackdown 3 - 60 (has 1 viewer on twitch.tv)
Recore - 63
State of decay 2 - 66
Sea of theives - 69
Super Lucky's Tale - 64
Zoo Tycoon: ultimate Animal collection - 70
Rush: A disney/pixar adventure - 68
Disneyland Adventures - 67
Phantom Dust - 73
Voodoo Vince: Remastered - 69
Halo Wars 2 - 79
Dead Riseing 4 - 72
Project Spark - 73

Microsoft does just as many good, as they do these smaller terrible games.
If its Forza/Gears/Halo, its likely a good game. Those guys that make "Ori" seem to make enjoyable platformers too.

Alot of these multiplayer focused games that review poorly, are just left to die a week or two after release.
State of decay 2, seems to have "stuck" around better (than crackdown 3 or Bleeding edge).

I think its a bad strategy to focus so much on these multiplayer focused games, theres too many of them, most are poor quality.
Big AAA games from multiplats, do things so much better that these games are basically just fighting a loseing battle from the start.
Its almost unavoidable, that they just end up left for dead.

I'm pretty sure that most X1 gamers actually stream on Mixer instead of Twitch.  So Mixer is a much better indicator on how popular any given X1 title is.

0 people are watching or streaming crackdown 3.
12 people are watching bleeding edge, on mixer atm.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
DonFerrari said:

Man, pretending Death Stranding, Days Gone and FF7R are quantity and not quality is really funny. If you were going to do it you would need to discount almost all MS titles as just quantity.

Actually you would need to do it for almost any developer.

That's going by what this site constantly goes by, not my personal standards. I'm actually decently excited for FF7R, but I don't think my arguments are any more disingenuous than most arguments about Microsoft's output (of course, they have been way worse than Sony consistently, but I'm saying that in the recent term both companies haven't done the best, and that in both cases the future prospects have yet to be seen). Of course, Metacritic was never and has never been an actual symbol of quality, but let's be consistent now. And the counter-argument would be, Ori and all the recent Forza Horizons are just as quality, if not moreso, then those titles, again going by Metacritic. 

However, considering the OP is basically talking about the difference between AAA vs AA/A games, I guess it doesn't even matter. I think it's a little silly to act like Microsoft's first party releases for this year set a precedent for what the future is going to be when, again, most of their studio acquistions have yet to release games yet, and even when they do smaller games are developed faster than bigger games, so it's more coincidence that the smaller titles will release first. Again though, it's totally fair to say MS has way more to prove, than Sony, but I don't think the OP is giving a very good example. Days Gone is literally, 3 measly points, about Bleeding Edge.  

For me Days Gone is an underappreciated game, I really liked it.

But considering the time it took to develop even if someone wants to say it isn't quality (be it Metacritic or personal taste) it isn't a "just quantity", same with DS and FF7R. Guess I should have been more clear.

And also I agree with you that we are still to early to judge anything. And as long as MS output enough quality content, having some quantity that isn't of the best quality is good as well. I miss the days when A, AA and AAA had very good games. And would be great to get back at that with prices also varying in accordance with scope, budget and quality of the product as we have in basically all other markets.



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:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Is this really the best time to ask this question when A ) Most of the studios Microsoft have acquired have not yet released the games they've worked on since their acquisition and B ) Most of the Sony (Microsoft's main competitor) games (funded by Sony or timed-exclusive for them) which have released in the past year have received critical praise at least decently lower than people were expecting, if not outright significantly lower.

I know Metacritic = / = quality but we act like that all the time on this site and now is no reason to change, especially if we're just referring to critical reception. Days Gone, Death Stranding, MediEvil, and now (albeit to a much lesser extent) Final Fantasy 7 Remake have all received scores lower than what most people were expecting. You could even throw Shenmue 3 in there, though it is a console-exclusive, and Concrete Genie, though that's a smaller first party IP that never had much expectations from the general public, however I'll include it because those are the kind of games OP is literally referring to. Many of these are games that have had hype-cycles for years, people had to wait for them forever and when they arrived they were messy blobs. Playstation's first party studios are generally more proven, and they probably will be for quite a while, but that's just more reason for Xbox to step up to the occasion.

When you look at a list of Death Stranding, Days Gone, Final Fantasy 7 Remake, Shenmue 3, Concrete Genie, MediEvil, do you honestly see a focus on quality? Or easy marketing montages for E3s of yesteryear? A more appropriate question might be, is Sony paying too much money for Japanese Timed-Exclusives?

And as for Nintendo? It might be nice to get more than one new game every 6 months, and good third party support to boot!

Man, pretending Death Stranding, Days Gone and FF7R are quantity and not quality is really funny. If you were going to do it you would need to discount almost all MS titles as just quantity.

Actually you would need to do it for almost any developer.

Think the idea was promoting these games with a implication of 90+ metacritic score when they couldn’t reach it



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Around the Network
JRPGfan said:
Chris Hu said:

I'm pretty sure that most X1 gamers actually stream on Mixer instead of Twitch.  So Mixer is a much better indicator on how popular any given X1 title is.

0 people are watching or streaming crackdown 3.
12 people are watching bleeding edge, on mixer atm.

Streaming in general isn’t a measure of people buying games. It’s a measure of how watchable a game is. Even then Mixer just isn’t popular, even though it comes with every Xbox One.  



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:

Man, pretending Death Stranding, Days Gone and FF7R are quantity and not quality is really funny. If you were going to do it you would need to discount almost all MS titles as just quantity.

Actually you would need to do it for almost any developer.

Think the idea was promoting these games with a implication of 90+ metacritic score when they couldn’t reach it

Fair enough.

Also until these purchases of studios I would also not consider MS doing quantity over quality. Certainly most of the games didn't had good reviews and the ones that could be considered "rush" because they were 2 years or lower development were the ones that got good reviews (like Forza).

My concern is what balance will MS get going forward, I don't think they are dumb and know they also need quality for the service, so I think all will go well in the end.



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:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

That's going by what this site constantly goes by, not my personal standards. I'm actually decently excited for FF7R, but I don't think my arguments are any more disingenuous than most arguments about Microsoft's output (of course, they have been way worse than Sony consistently, but I'm saying that in the recent term both companies haven't done the best, and that in both cases the future prospects have yet to be seen). Of course, Metacritic was never and has never been an actual symbol of quality, but let's be consistent now. And the counter-argument would be, Ori and all the recent Forza Horizons are just as quality, if not moreso, then those titles, again going by Metacritic. 

However, considering the OP is basically talking about the difference between AAA vs AA/A games, I guess it doesn't even matter. I think it's a little silly to act like Microsoft's first party releases for this year set a precedent for what the future is going to be when, again, most of their studio acquistions have yet to release games yet, and even when they do smaller games are developed faster than bigger games, so it's more coincidence that the smaller titles will release first. Again though, it's totally fair to say MS has way more to prove, than Sony, but I don't think the OP is giving a very good example. Days Gone is literally, 3 measly points, about Bleeding Edge.  

For me Days Gone is an underappreciated game, I really liked it.

But considering the time it took to develop even if someone wants to say it isn't quality (be it Metacritic or personal taste) it isn't a "just quantity", same with DS and FF7R. Guess I should have been more clear.

And also I agree with you that we are still to early to judge anything. And as long as MS output enough quality content, having some quantity that isn't of the best quality is good as well. I miss the days when A, AA and AAA had very good games. And would be great to get back at that with prices also varying in accordance with scope, budget and quality of the product as we have in basically all other markets.

Yeah to be clear I'm arguing more about the Metacritic portion of the OP's argument. The actual OP is such a tangled web of different ideas that they're all hard to respond to at once in a logical fashion, even if when written down they seem to make perfect sense, they're actually pretty hard to argue against because they are all different ideas. It's like how you can easily say what you love about your favorite movie, usually in one or two sentences, but it's hard to say what you don't like about a movie without delving into a lot of detail. To be clear, quantity over quality, legitimate quality, and system sellers are all different ideas. They aren't the same from a theoretical standpoint even if in the real world they seem to fit together. Just as an example, Minecraft would undoubtedly be a system seller if MS locked it to Xbox, and that was an indie game. All I'm really saying is that something like Days Gone is not that different from Bleeding Edge when using review aggregates. 

I can understand that. For me The Last Guardian is one of the cooler exclusives this gen and no one else seems to really agree. As I said Metacritic isn't actually representative in quality. 

And I would say we should be careful when using time to develop as a good thing. I actually think things taking longer can lead to disappointment when they don't score as high, which was part of my point. But also, there are so many things that factor into how long a game's development is. Would I say Final Fantasy 15 is more AAA or "quality" than Final Fantasy 7 Remake? Probably not. 

sales2099 said: 
DonFerrari said: 

Man, pretending Death Stranding, Days Gone and FF7R are quantity and not quality is really funny. If you were going to do it you would need to discount almost all MS titles as just quantity.

Actually you would need to do it for almost any developer.

Think the idea was promoting these games with a implication of 90+ metacritic score when they couldn’t reach it

Yeah kinda. Also, I'm frankly glad reviewers seem to finally be using number scores more correctly (even if only slightly). 



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
DonFerrari said:

For me Days Gone is an underappreciated game, I really liked it.

But considering the time it took to develop even if someone wants to say it isn't quality (be it Metacritic or personal taste) it isn't a "just quantity", same with DS and FF7R. Guess I should have been more clear.

And also I agree with you that we are still to early to judge anything. And as long as MS output enough quality content, having some quantity that isn't of the best quality is good as well. I miss the days when A, AA and AAA had very good games. And would be great to get back at that with prices also varying in accordance with scope, budget and quality of the product as we have in basically all other markets.

Yeah to be clear I'm arguing more about the Metacritic portion of the OP's argument. The actual OP is such a tangled web of different ideas that they're all hard to respond to at once in a logical fashion, even if when written down they seem to make perfect sense, they're actually pretty hard to argue against because they are all different ideas. It's like how you can easily say what you love about your favorite movie, usually in one or two sentences, but it's hard to say what you don't like about a movie without delving into a lot of detail. To be clear, quantity over quality, legitimate quality, and system sellers are all different ideas. They aren't the same from a theoretical standpoint even if in the real world they seem to fit together. Just as an example, Minecraft would undoubtedly be a system seller if MS locked it to Xbox, and that was an indie game. All I'm really saying is that something like Days Gone is not that different from Bleeding Edge when using review aggregates. 

I can understand that. For me The Last Guardian is one of the cooler exclusives this gen and no one else seems to really agree. As I said Metacritic isn't actually representative in quality. 

And I would say we should be careful when using time to develop as a good thing. I actually think things taking longer can lead to disappointment when they don't score as high, which was part of my point. But also, there are so many things that factor into how long a game's development is. Would I say Final Fantasy 15 is more AAA or "quality" than Final Fantasy 7 Remake? Probably not. 

sales2099 said: 

Think the idea was promoting these games with a implication of 90+ metacritic score when they couldn’t reach it

Yeah kinda. Also, I'm frankly glad reviewers seem to finally be using number scores more correctly (even if only slightly). 

I agree with you. And I wasn't using time to develop as something positive, I was just saying that if those games are taking 3 to 5 years to be developed they aren't product of quantity before quality even if they didn't had quality it wasn't due to rush or pushing games out.

And yes lenghty time to develop usually show a lot of big issues on the game itself (more than the expectations), usually 3 to 5 years is ok, over that mostly we only see "bad" games released.

I also liked The Last Guardian (but I have to say it took me effort, the first half I played in 30-60m sessions over 1 year and wasn't liking or clicking with the game, but once I did I finished the game in like 3 days).

I don't like Metacritic (but I use it for games I don't know, if it is below 80 I'll hardly buy) but yes metawise both examples would be really comparable, plus 1 or 2 point difference is more meaningfull the highest the scores are, like a logaritimic curve.



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."

goopy20 said:

Obviously we don't know exactly what they're all working on

Kind of makes it hard to see how one can be critical if one also admits they have no idea what the studios are working on. The smaller projects you're mentioning, like Grounded or Bleeding Edge, were already in development when MS bought them. Personally I think it's a good thing that rather than canning what they were working on and make the developers shift to something else, MS put support behind them and let them release the games. There's nothing wrong with releasing smaller titles, all the companies do it, but it also takes years and years to make a AAA game and MS hasn't owned these studios for years and years. Plus many of the ones they bought were already in the middle of developing big titles.

JRPGfan said:
Alot of these multiplayer focused games that review poorly, are just left to die a week or two after release.
State of decay 2, seems to have "stuck" around better (than crackdown 3 or Bleeding edge).

Bleeding Edge just came out and we know more content is coming. Crackdown 3 got multiple updates and is not a "MP focused" game. Having multiplayer doesn't make a game "multiplayer focused". State of Decay is even less multiplayer focused and it has gotten tons of post launch support.

JRPGfan said:
I think its a bad strategy to focus so much on these multiplayer focused games, theres too many of them, most are poor quality.
Big AAA games from multiplats, do things so much better that these games are basically just fighting a loseing battle from the start.
Its almost unavoidable, that they just end up left for dead.

You just listed a ton of first party Xbox content and only three to four were multiplayer focused games. Some of the other titles have strong MP elements but also have strong SP. And a vast majority of the ones with strong MP elements got good reviews, and got great support post launch. So I have no idea what you're talking about here. I mean, you claim they release too many MP focused titles, most are bad quality, and a lot are forgotten with no support and "left to die a week or two after release", so let's go down your own list.


Ori and the blind forest - Single player
Ori and the will of the wisps - Single player
Gears 4 - Has MP, I wouldn't call this a MP focused game though. The marketing certainly went into the campaign. Either way, if you want to say this game is MP focused, it doesn't fit your criteria of poor quality, forgotten, or poorly supported.
Gears 5 - See above
Halo: The Master Chief Collection - See above
Halo 5: Guardians - 84
Forza Horizon 3 - See above
Forza Horizon 4 - See above
Forza Motorsport 6 - See above
Forza Motorsport 7 - See above
Quatum Break - Single player
Killer Instinct - Maybe you can count this as a MP focused title but Shadow Lab and Shadow Lords are incredible content for SP gamers. Either way, like Gears, this is a game with strong MP elements but it certainly doesn't fit any of your criteria. It reviewed well and got great support post launch
Sunset Overdrive - Has co-op but this was not a MP focused title
Bleeding edge - Literally just came out and we know more content is coming
Crackdown 3 - Not a MP focused title and has seen multiple updates for the campaign mode
Recore - Single player
State of decay 2 - Has co-op but is not a MP focused title. Has seen great support post launch and a majority of that support is for the campaign mode, not MP
Sea of theives - One of the few actual MP focused titles on this list
Super Lucky's Tale - Single player
Zoo Tycoon: ultimate Animal collection - SP game with a co-op option added years after release
Rush: A disney/pixar adventure - Has a split screen/couch co-op mode but is not MP focused
Disneyland Adventures - Another SP kids game with optional local co-op
Phantom Dust - this is a MP title but is a port from OG Xbox
Voodoo Vince: Remastered - Single player
Halo Wars 2 - Has MP but is not MP focused
Dead Rising 3 - I changed this to DR3 because DR4 was just a timed exclusive. DR3 is another SP title with optional co-op
Project Spark - Has MP, but I wouldn't say this is MP focused just like I wouldn't say Dreams is MP focused, its focus was whatever game you made

So going by your own list there doesn't seem to be any over-emphasis on multiplayer titles and the titles with strong MP focus mostly got real good reviews and support.