Microsoft is trying to acquire Activision Blizzard (UPDATE: CMA says NO!).

[Superunknown]

8 minutes ago, footle said:

were four years between God of War (the remake) and God of War Ragarnok despite them using what was presumably the same underlying engine.

 

the “troubled development of Halo Infinite” took six years with a pandemic in the way (so only one year longer than God Of War, which didn’t have the pandemic and was only targeting one platform).

 

Ragnarok also had the pandemic to contend with and targeted two platforms. So on that basis we could say 343i are at least 50% slower than Santa Monica

[footle]

7 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

 

Ragnarok also had the pandemic to contend with and targeted two platforms. So on that basis we could say 343i are at least 50% slower than Santa Monica

Despite the fact that they started on a new engine, went open world, and targeted three platforms? (Xbox 1, Xbox Series, PC (then two variants of both Xboxes))

ok.

 

(the better argument is that they didn’t finish in those six years since halo 5).

 

anyway, the point is that we have unrealistic expectations of how long it takes a game to get built and come out. Particularly new IP or a full reset.

[Uncle Mike]

Hellblade to Hellblade 2 is quite a lengthy turnaround so far, and compares pretty poorly with God of War to Ragnarok and Spider-Man to Miles Morales to Spider-Man 2.

 

I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to suggest that MS have a lot of studios under their wing (many of them for a decent period of time, with games presumably in the pipeline when they've been acquired) and not really shown that they're able to manage them in an effective way yet.

 

In fairness, I remember saying at the time of the prior acquisition sprees that Sony didn't really get to grips with that until relatively recently. No-one looked at the Sony exclusives as key titles until perhaps things like Uncharted started coming through? The PS2 into PS3 era is littered with filler.

[Superunknown]

11 minutes ago, footle said:

Despite the fact that they started on a new engine, went open world, and targeted three platforms? (Xbox 1, Xbox Series, PC (then two variants of both Xboxes))

ok.

 

(the better argument is that they didn’t finish in those six years since halo 5).

 

anyway, the point is that we have unrealistic expectations of how long it takes a game to get built and come out. Particularly new IP or a full reset.

 

I was just being light-hearted, hence 

 

Also, you missed multiplayer out, but then you just scale your dev team and do that in parallel, right?  

[thesnwmn]

1 hour ago, footle said:

Despite the fact that they started on a new engine, went open world, and targeted three platforms? (Xbox 1, Xbox Series, PC (then two variants of both Xboxes))

ok.

 

(the better argument is that they didn’t finish in those six years since halo 5).

 

Taking their time is one thing right but failing to deliver the quality or content for something like Halo is a big failure. They set their own timescales (release date) for their headline franchise, missed it by a year, delivered it without some headline expected (fairly or unfairly) features and then seemingly may have tossed their "infinite" base game to build on in the bin.

 

1 hour ago, footle said:

anyway, the point is that we have unrealistic expectations of how long it takes a game to get built and come out. Particularly new IP or a full reset.

 

But as you suggest, Sony are doing it. Consistently. Their problems are all of their own making and they (and we) will have to put up with hearing about how they have repeatedly fucked it up until they quit or get it right. They are easily far enough into some of these acquisitions to be bearing fruit 

 

Having said that, I agree entirely with your core point. Gamers (and sometimes journalists) broadly fail to understand the complexity and time of development projects. Its why the approach of keeping quiet and announcing only a year or two from release (or less) is best. But in order to do that without people baying for your blood for not releasing anything, you actually have to do so. Constantly and consistently.

 

Disclaimer: I'm talking AAA games here. I actually love MS's output for myself. I've no interest in their big titles outside of Forza (and even there I'm a little bored of the relentless repetition of Horizon or unexcited about layers of paint they've spent years putting on the cars of Motorsport). So seeing their other stuff is what I want. Psychonaughts 2, As Dusk Falls, Pentiment, HiFi Rush, etc). But these don't se to satisfy people's requirements for games releases.

[Girth Certificate]

Ironically Call of Duty would be a good test, since they've put out a game every year since like CoD2. If MS's management can break that streak they must be shyte.

[Stanley]

The problem is not the space between games, I don’t really care as I’ve got more than enough to play and there’s more than enough on Xbox. 
 

The problem is that they’re trying to sell a premium subscription off the back of it and revolutionise the industry in the process. 
 

I haven’t turned my Xbox on in months and I’ve let my GP sub lapse. Of course there are some great games such as a Pentiment, Immortality and Hi-Fi Rush, but I’d rather just buy them outright and play them on my Steam Deck or my phone.

 

COD is the last thing I want from MS. I can already play that anyway on Xbox, I don’t give a shit if it’s on Game Pass. 

[footle]

3 hours ago, Girth Certificate said:

Ironically Call of Duty would be a good test, since they've put out a game every year since like CoD2. If MS's management can break that streak they must be shyte.

a ten year agreement where the game only comes out twice would be something.

[Talk Show Host]

7 hours ago, LaveDisco said:

 

That doesn't explain this issue lasting since almost the launch of xbox one though.

 

True, up to a point. Sometimes it is easy to forget that it took Sony three generations to create the production pipeline we saw on PS4. In addition, xbox one started with a disastrous plan which didn't really include the setup which Spencer is trying to do. Microsoft had to change its entire business model mid gen and then try to come up with an different way to compete, hence the GP.

 

I do agree that they have been slower than normal, but not that much. Sometimes we really do not understand how difficult it is to run these divisions and organize a whole bunch of new studios, a new service and a historic acquisition. I bet its pretty difficult and it's always much easier to judge results than come up with strategies. 

[Talk Show Host]

1 hour ago, Stanley said:

The problem is not the space between games, I don’t really care as I’ve got more than enough to play and there’s more than enough on Xbox. 
 

The problem is that they’re trying to sell a premium subscription off the back of it and revolutionise the industry in the process. 
 

I haven’t turned my Xbox on in months and I’ve let my GP sub lapse. Of course there are some great games such as a Pentiment, Immortality and Hi-Fi Rush, but I’d rather just buy them outright and play them on my Steam Deck or my phone.

 

COD is the last thing I want from MS. I can already play that anyway on Xbox, I don’t give a shit if it’s on Game Pass. 

 

I am actually the opposite. I am using GP for those games you mention and I am really enjoying everything it offers. I haven't even thought of buying a PS5, since it really has nothing special to offer until now for me. Also, regarding GP, I would much rather buy Starfield or the new Elder Scrolls and quit the service then, because that would mean I wouldn't play any other game for a considerable amount of time.

[Stanley]

49 minutes ago, Talk Show Host said:

 

I am actually the opposite. I am using GP for those games you mention and I am really enjoying everything it offers. I haven't even thought of buying a PS5, since it really has nothing special to offer until now for me. Also, regarding GP, I would much rather buy Starfield or the new Elder Scrolls and quit the service then, because that would mean I wouldn't play any other game for a considerable amount of time.

I haven’t quit I’m just having a breather until Redfall 

 

Your point about Starfield is interesting though I think. That is the type of game I’d rather buy as well, and if I’m going to be playing it for months on end, which I will, may as well just buy buy it and have it to own. The problem with MS though is that they make it seem so unappealing to own an Xbox and not have Game Pass, they’re just so symbiotic now. 

[Uzi]

I now have insider knowledge that the merger WILL go through and Diablo 4 will come to gamepass in June. See evidence below:

 

[Mr. Gerbik]

Thank you for your sacrifice 

[Talk Show Host]

10 hours ago, Stanley said:

I haven’t quit I’m just having a breather until Redfall 

 

Your point about Starfield is interesting though I think. That is the type of game I’d rather buy as well, and if I’m going to be playing it for months on end, which I will, may as well just buy buy it and have it to own. The problem with MS though is that they make it seem so unappealing to own an Xbox and not have Game Pass, they’re just so symbiotic now. 

I get it, yeah. They just seem to have rushed everything into existence for this generation and are trying to plug strategy holes on the go. They did the same with the acquisition, it just feels like a rushed decision, which was enforced by their rushing to make GP their core strategy etc. It’s a domino.

 

The acquisition will go through. It’s very rare for a vertical acquisition to be stopped by the authorities.

[Lorfarius]

2 hours ago, Talk Show Host said:

I get it, yeah. They just seem to have rushed everything into existence for this generation and are trying to plug strategy holes on the go. They did the same with the acquisition, it just feels like a rushed decision, which was enforced by their rushing to make GP their core strategy etc. It’s a domino.

 

The acquisition will go through. It’s very rare for a vertical acquisition to be stopped by the authorities.

 

It's not a normal acquisition though, its a first for these types of companies and its a incredible amount so isn't being treated like the rest.

[thesnwmn]

4 minutes ago, Lorfarius said:

It's not a normal acquisition though, its a first for these types of companies and its a incredible amount so isn't being treated like the rest.

 

This is being treated exactly the same as all takeovers. The amount makes it more likely to get some attention and at each stage the CMA have decided that this warrants a little further investigation. That's not unique, it's just gone further than the others.

[Lorfarius]

2 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

 

This is being treated exactly the same as all takeovers. The amount makes it more likely to get some attention and at each stage the CMA have decided that this warrants a little further investigation. That's not unique, it's just gone further than the others.

 

But surely if its gone further than the others it is unique?

[thesnwmn]

Just now, Lorfarius said:

 

But surely if its gone further than the others it is unique?

 

I guess in the gaming space that's true. I just think people shouldn't think there's anything from the off that makes this different to Zenimax or other deals in terms of the checks it can or is subjected to.

[Talk Show Host]

3 hours ago, Lorfarius said:

 

It's not a normal acquisition though, its a first for these types of companies and its a incredible amount so isn't being treated like the rest.

Yes, of course, I said so in a previous post. That is why Microsoft needed way more lobbying and paving the way before pulling the trigger. It all seems to have happened too fast for an acquisition like this. 

[Talk Show Host]

2 hours ago, thesnwmn said:

 

I guess in the gaming space that's true. I just think people shouldn't think there's anything from the off that makes this different to Zenimax or other deals in terms of the checks it can or is subjected to.

That is correct but the main problem is how many seem to be against it, plus one particular party which happens to be arguably the biggest player in said market. These drag and complicate  things way more than other acquisitions.

[Broker]

19 hours ago, Talk Show Host said:

 

True, up to a point. Sometimes it is easy to forget that it took Sony three generations to create the production pipeline we saw on PS4. 

 

That’s just not true at all. Development changed massively between the PS2 and PS3, and it’s completely disingenuous to suggest that anything Sony we’re doing during the PS1 generation was in any way laying the groundwork for the development pipelines they have now. If things three generations ago were relevant then at the time Microsoft had a far better pipeline for getting out exclusives, yet that has no effect on their current output. 
 

The difficulty Sony had was getting their first party content to connect with audiences. Guerrilla have been churning out polished, well designed games in reasonable timeframes since Killzone. The issue was that those games never became a critically and commercially successful mega franchise. Naughty Dog have been churning out huge hits since the PS1, but Jak and the first Uncharted didn’t get the level of profit they wanted for them. At the time, everyone agreed that Xbox had the better selection of exclusives. It’s nobody’s fault that they threw all that away except theirs, and believing that Phil is going to sort it all out when he was in a senior position during the period where they pissed it all away seems hopeful at best. 

[JPL]

4 minutes ago, Broker said:

It’s nobody’s fault that they threw all that away except theirs, and believing that Phil is going to sort it all out when he was in a senior position during the period where they pissed it all away seems hopeful at best. 

What do you think his objective is then? Obviously they want people's money, just like Sony and Nintendo, but other than making their service better than their competitors, featuring better games than they currently have, what do you think their plan is to do it?

 

Personally I'm getting a bit tired of waiting for them to give us the games. They've been saying the same thing for years and nothing has come to fruition yet.

[thesnwmn]

4 minutes ago, JPL said:

What do you think his objective is then? Obviously they want people's money, just like Sony and Nintendo, but other than making their service better than their competitors, featuring better games than they currently have, what do you think their plan is to do it?

 

Personally I'm getting a bit tired of waiting for them to give us the games. They've been saying the same thing for years and nothing has come to fruition yet.

 

I don't think Broker is saying that this isn't Phil's aim. Simply that having any confidence that he's capable of it might be misguided given his previous track record of at least being present whilst they destroyed their output.

[Broker]

1 minute ago, JPL said:

What do you think his objective is then? Obviously they want people's money, just like Sony and Nintendo, but other than making their service better than their competitors, featuring better games than they currently have, what do you think their plan is to do it?

I mean, I absolutely think they want to make games. It just seems like a lot of the people who are defending the complete lack of first party games are suggesting that all those problems were because of Don Mattrick and Phil is going to fix them, when he was massively senior during the Mattrick era and has had half a decade to turn the first party studios around. It’s not that I don’t think he wants to do that, it’s that I’m not sure he’s capable of it. 

[JPL]

Ah right, I misunderstood. It's hard to know how much input he had back in the early days of Xbox One, but he's definitely started to steer thing in the right direction since taking over. I agree that it's increasingly looking like he's probably not the right person to get them producing a steady stream of top quality games, but is that really his role anyway? Who oversees studio output for Sony? I can't imagine it's Jim Ryan.

[Petrousgyre]

12 minutes ago, JPL said:

he's definitely started to steer thing in the right direction since taking over. I agree that it's increasingly looking like he's probably not the right person to get them producing a steady stream of top quality games

Let’s see what ChatGPT makes of this:

 

Quote

The person first mentions that Phil Spencer has started to steer things in the right direction since taking over, which suggests that they believe he is making positive changes for the company. However, they then say that he's probably not the right person to get the company producing a steady stream of top-quality games, which contradicts their earlier positive sentiment. The contradiction lies in the fact that they initially praise his leadership but then express doubt in his ability to achieve a key aspect of success in the gaming industry.

 

[Transient Curse]

Just now, Petrousgyre said:

Let’s see what ChatGPT makes of this:

 

 

 

[Majora]

Isn't this all a bit doom and gloom when Redfall, Forza, Starfield and Minecraft Legends are all first party releases scheduled for this year? 

 

Without wanting to turn this into list wars, Sony have Spiderman 2 and literally nothing else so far. I guess they had the VR hardware launch they're definitely not going to stop making first party games for in 12 months.

 

Keeping up a consistent first party release schedule definitely seems to be getting harder and harder as games take longer to develop. Sony had a good 2022 for first party but it feels like they might have shot their load a bit and this will be a relatively quiet year by comparison.

[Mr. Gerbik]

1 minute ago, Majora said:

Isn't this all a bit doom and gloom when Redfall, Forza, Starfield and Minecraft Legends are all first party releases scheduled for this year? 

And Diablo 4!

[RubberJohnny]

Those were all the Xbox first party games for last year too.