-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Microsoft’s Aaron Greenberg feels Xbox Game Studios are in a great place as far as their content coverage is concerned
- Thread starter TitlePending
- Start date
Whereas I read it as a diplomatic way of Greenberg sticking to the script, not saying anything he shouldn't, and talking about what they have in their box now, and now what they may or may not have in the future. And regardless, Greenberg isn't on the board and is highly unlikely to be involved in any acquisition talks.
All that aside, I think we may yet see 1-2 acquisitions per year, but nothing like we did last year. Acquisitions are also only half the puzzle when it comes to bolstering Microsoft's first party output - I expect they'll forge more second party relationships with external developers like they did with Remedy back in the day, pre-acquisition Playground Games, and currently have with Moon Studios. At least they should be doing.
Another good example of how you have to read the whole thing and not jump to conclusions. XO19 seems like a safe bet to expect at least one more studio announcement or more. And like others said, hopefully what Phil said about a Asian studio comes to fruition. I would like that a lot.
Precisely, and it's not like they haven't got a lot to work with as it is.
That settles that...I wonder how many they plan to acquire next. definitely getting an announcment at X019.
No. Phil Spencer only once said "I think it would be nice if we would find an asian studio. In particular a Japanese studio". And suddenly everybody went with "They want to acquire a japanese dev studio next".
Aaron Greenberg isn't likely to disclose in an interview with the press that they are actively talking to studios, those discussions would probably be classed as confidential, no? And the fact that both Matt and Phil are attending XO19 tells me they ain't done buying yet.
Rumor was MS acquisitions team was getting around lately, sooooo not sure I believe the head of marketing on this one...
I doubt Sony or Nintendo have much interest in Moon Studios they are too small fish for them. I'm more worried that MS might buy IO Interactive, I don't want any platform holders to buy them, Hitman is too good to not be on all platforms.
I mean, them being done actively seeking out studios and them still having acquisitions lined up could both technically be true. Maybe they've made inquiries to all studios they're interested in?
I would imagine something like this is the case. They have 1-2 lined up and "done", so Aaron is technically correct just not being forthcoming on the details.
Well I rather see MS do it than someone who isn't interested in the PC space, that's my thinking for all this. Console exclusives are just annoying. You can see the potential from the big budget and general quality, but in the end you're forced to play at low fps with no settings menu to fix things, that is unless you buy a second upgraded console, which might still get low framerate because the devs thought it was better to increase the resolution instead. :(
I see what you did there.
With Obsidian being grabbed by Microsoft, I didn't think Sony had a solid counter. But Insomniac AND Remedy? That would over-deliver for me.
What?
Evolution made the same game for like 7 years. Then after not being successful with 2 sequels let them build their dream game. It was also delayed becasue it needed more time. It came out and took sony's own engineers to get the game where it needed to be for online. It had tons of content they put out for it before Sony saw the game wasn't doing well because of such a bad launch state. So they pulled the plug.
They let them make whatever they wanted for a very long ass time, it didn't work out. And seeing to what happened to most of the people hired at Codemasters I think it was one of the smarter decisions.
So? What's your point? They also closed Liverpool. I don't think the fault is entirely on Evolution. There were natural disasters and then Sony PR blunders for PS Plus. Evo devs are super talented.
Other non-related rant: Sony are the worst arrogant pricks this gen and I bought all their consoles and exclusives not knowing the twists they've taken mid-gen. They've gone anti-consumer and have an awful customer service department. Fuck these guys. What a 180 from PS3 days.
Yea and liverpool also made the same game from F1 to Wipeout for a long time? The one that really stings is Guerrilla Cambridge. But I'm not going to go any further since you seem to have some kind of agenda with Sony.
I was just pointing out the closure like most outside of ones like zipper, and cambridge all dev's are able to die by the freedom sword over at SOny. It doesn't always work out. But are given the freedom to work on their dream projects as long as they meet milestones.
Those studios in particular had a history of games not selling and didn't change in what they were making. The reason studios like Insomniac have stayed in the business as long as they did independently was because they never made the same thing.
You do know that projects don't get funding unless greenlit by directors or publishing heads, right? The only reason they were making these games was to hedge on safe bets and the moment risks were taken, bye. Also, Polyphony seems to be their pet company, takes years to roll out a GT but the company clearly has favorites.
11 out of 18 console games that Insomniac has made since 2002 have been Ratchet and Clank. Three out of the other seven have been Resistance, the rest being Fuse, Sunset Overdrive and Spider-Man.
Everything Sony Santa Monica has made is God of War.
Guerrilla Games has been a Killzone developer bar Horizon Zero Dawn.
Naughty Dog was mainly Jak and Daxter in the PS2 era, and that had a lot of similarities to Crash. And last gen it was Uncharted and The Last of Us, staples that they have stuck to this generation.
Big publishers like things that are tried and tested for the most part.
Sony might even go............ platinum.
Thank you I'll be here all week. :p
Title is different than what is actually said. We know they're looking at asian studios(specifically Japan), Booty is coming to X019, and Klobrille is confident another studio is coming.
What you shouldn't expect is them on stage announcing 5 studios like they did at E3, but I fully expect them to pickup a studio or two from time to time. However, what I think Greenberg is emphasizing is that they want to grow their internal studios which they have been.
What you shouldn't expect is them on stage announcing 5 studios like they did at E3, but I fully expect them to pickup a studio or two from time to time. However, what I think Greenberg is emphasizing is that they want to grow their internal studios which they have been.
Your not even counting Disruptor?, Song of the Deep? I believe that was my point though. They moved to something else and then came back to a series like ratchet. Sony lets their developers do what ever they want given it meets milestones and is able to convey something Sony can promote/sell. Those other studios I MENTIONED made the same games for over a decade. Then when they were able to make something else it didn't go so well.
No one is forcing them to make the same games. There's tons of information that points to a more open structure when it comes to game development over at Sony.
Like you just ratted off a bunch of different titles regardless if they got sequels, they still worked on other stuff. Naughty Dog started out doing adventure games that were more for a younger audience then were given a big chance to make something more mature. It was a decent hit, so they wanted to explore that.
Why would he count games made by Insomniac without Sony? Insomniac is a great get, but is not even surprising given that 95% of their output was made under Sony.
If anyone goes for Platinum, is gonna be Nintendo. Look at Bayonetta and Astral Chain. Sony hasn't made a game with them and Microsoft, welp...
If Control does good, I don't expect them to be bought by Sony. I expect Remedy to sign a multiyear deal with 505. You don't drop your publisher under the bus after you find success.
Last edited:
The one game I failed to mention was Song of the Deep. Outside this, Ratchet and Clank has been staple for Sony and Insomniac each gen since the PS2. It has been their to go to game.
Going back to my original point, publishers want something that makes money. If it is something that makes money on the first try, it is likely to go on and get sequels, if it is not a project that makes money, it gets canned. It is for this same reason that Heavenly Sword was cancelled. Not that it was a bad game, but it did not meet sales projections that Sony had set.
Apart from this, publishers can often cancel a game that they have spent considerable time and money on. Sometimes it is due to reasons no one can fathom e.g. Sony Santa Monica's new IP, and eventually they went back to the same IP they had been making for years.
Sometimes is is because a loss of trust between the publisher and the developer (Amy Hennig's Star Wars game, Stormlands, Scalebound).
At the end of the day, the publisher is the one that that green lights projects, and they are the one that can them. Sony is no different in this regard. When push eventually comes to shove, they like any other publisher are in the business of managing IP and studios, who to keep, who to cut, what to persist with. It is not an exact science and that is why we often see them getting it wrong time to time.
Yea, I get that but the track record of those developers again, shows they worked on different series period. Insomniac before the purchase also was working on a new VR title for Oculus, which more than likely will come to PSVR.
Santa monic's " New" IP did not meet milestones and couldn't make a vertical slice, so it was canned before they spent any more money. Santa monica has made tons of other games besides God of war. Twisted metal? Mark of Kri? Kinetica? Fat Princess?
And btw you roping in EA with amy's Hennigs game is disingenuous to the conversation. EA has tons of issues when it comes to new IP's and then milking the shit out of them over a shorter period of time. They have studio management issues period.
In the end you are right it is up to the publisher, but from every developer who has spoken openly they are given freedom to work on what they want. Stigg's game was not in a good state and they had spent a good amount of time developing it and nothing really played right. So like a lot of early stuff it got canned.
Amy Hennig's game could have been in the same boat, but from what reports came out they had few people, and had people being pulled off without any warning, nor did they have any communication about EA pulling the plug.
I don't think Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, would be as successful as they are if they made the same game. I could not see Naughty Dog surviving on Crash/Jak, nor Sucker punch surviving on just Infamous or making Sly cooper.
I mean to go from Sly cooper, to infamous is a big leap, let alone going to something like Ghost of Tsushima .
They would not have the portfolio they have if they had them be like San Diego MLB developer and made the same thing.
Last edited:
There are publishers that give developers freedom. This is not something that is simply isolated to Sony. The Coalition chose to make Gears of War, Playground Games approached Microsoft to make Horizon, Sea of Thieves was Rare's project, and they are still letting Ninja Theory pursue their passion projects like Bleeding Edge.
There is also nothing disingenuous about bringing EA into this. Every publisher sticks with what makes money simply because it makes money. This is the main reason we have seen so many Ratchet and Clank titles, it is the only reason why Polyphony Digital can take all the time they need. It is the main reason why all Sony Santa Monica mainline titles are God of War. It is why Capcom still persists with Resident Evil and Devil May Cry, Ubisoft with Assassin's Creed.
Eventually, all publishers cancel projects for one reason or another. There is always a reason behind the scenes as to why they fail to see a project as being viable. It is not an exact science, and this is why you will see cancelled projects from almost all publishers. It might be development problems, it might be communication issues, it might be that they no longer see a business case to continue with the project.
At the end of the day, these publishers give the green light, and they also say 'time to move on.' In this regard, Sony is no special case.
That is not the case with all publishers. Microsofts culture last gen was not anywhere near where SOny's was for creative freedom. ANd EA has been known to have too many producers in on projects to micromanage.
That is not the case with a lot of Sony's or Nintendo's Studios now. It use to be at Nintendo Miyamoto would over see most games coming out. But as time went on I think he understood he needs to let new young talent take a stabe at something new.
WHich is why we got arms, splatoon, mario maker.
Not saying Sony is a saint, and hasn;t mismanaged studios/projects. Every Publisher does. But I would argue Sony's track record for their owned studios shows that they have complete freedom to make what they want as long as it holds up to milestones and certain guidlines/standards.
Something from previous gen that Microsoft learned the hard way this gen.
Honestly I'd prefer to see Sony pick up an RPG studio if they were going to acquire someone. I don't think Sony needs another studio like Remedy, and I feel their main weakness is big RPGs.
What I'm saying is Sony should buy Spiders. Give us big budget eurojank.
Ugh I hate GamingBolt. They have always been designed for the clickbait, though at least the quality of their English has improved. Their MO has always been stoking console wars via headlines and this is no different. Greenberg says what any marketing guy should say, 'We love where we are at but you never know when the even more perfect opportunity will just pop up!'. Duh.
He's not going to say "Yea, xbox still has this gap in its portfolio that we are DESPERATELY trying to fill, good god please help". lol. This is managing expectations 101. He never said they were done looking and he never said they have stopped talking. He only said that MS is happy with the acquisitions so far and that if they stopped today, Xbox is in a good place. I would agree. I don't think they're done. (Besides, Greenberg would know, but isn't just going to spill secrets of what's coming. We don't like him because he's a through and through marketer. But also.. he's a through and through marketer. He's not dumb.)
He's not going to say "Yea, xbox still has this gap in its portfolio that we are DESPERATELY trying to fill, good god please help". lol. This is managing expectations 101. He never said they were done looking and he never said they have stopped talking. He only said that MS is happy with the acquisitions so far and that if they stopped today, Xbox is in a good place. I would agree. I don't think they're done. (Besides, Greenberg would know, but isn't just going to spill secrets of what's coming. We don't like him because he's a through and through marketer. But also.. he's a through and through marketer. He's not dumb.)
lol thank you. If only they weren't already taking things out of context from the original source XD.
I do not know what you are talking about. Last generation was the best Microsoft had not only from a first party standpoint, but also from some of the partnerships that they went to. The mistakes that were undertaken mainly come from the end of that generation with emphasis on Kinect, the winding down of internal studios (some, no one will argue about) and going forward, the lack of adequate investment in new IP especially with third party partners. It was the single greatest generation for them when it came to getting new games in, taking greater risk, sometimes to gain market share in places where they would never do well.
As Phil Spencer said to have stated to Satya Nadella, they needed to be all in if they were going to be in the gaming industry. The 360 with all its hardware issues was Microsoft making a serious push to become an established player in the industry. The XB1 started strong, but Microsoft was never right having only five internal studios coming into the generation and eventually the lack of investment showed. Those five studios were essentially making core games i.e. Forza (Turn 10), Halo (343i), Gears (The Coalition) and Minecraft (Mojang). The only studio that had wiggle room was Rare.
But there was also a lack of investment when it came to games with other partners, something that Microsoft had been exceedingly strong at. That meant that there was a lot of pressure on the titles that they did invest in to deliver, and way too much pressure on their existing developers and partners to hit certain dates and that is why you rarely see those long dev times from XGS. Sea of Thieves needed more time, State of Decay II needed more time.
Sony's staples are Uncharted, God of War, Gran Turismo, Killzone, Ratchet and Clank. Established games from prior generation(s).
Microsoft's staples are Halo, Forza and Gears of War.
Nintendo's go to games are Mario, Legend of Zelda, Xenoblade, Donkey Kong and Metroid.
Games like Horizon Zero Dawn have done well, same as The Last of Us. Commercially, they were a success and we will be getting The Last of Us II and I postulate that the same will be the case with Horizon Zero Dawn.
In the same vein, games like State of Decay II, being a success in sales bodes well for the franchise and I would hazard a guess that if The Outer Worlds does well critically and commercially, we might see Microsoft trying to buy the rights to the title. Betting on a new game is hard, but once it succeeds, chances are that there is a narrowing of scope to stick with it. To this degree, Sony is no different from any publisher despite what people try and paint.
As for EA, they have a fascination with loot boxes. That will forever be their problem.