-
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 didn't have anything to do with Scalebound having 4 player co-op
- Thread starter JINX
- Start date
No surprise there. People love to throw around unfounded narratives to find blame where it doesn't exist.
Everything about what really went wrong with Scalebound seems like textbook Occam's razor, and we'll still get folks arguing otherwise in a year from now. Sometimes, the developer over-scopes and is severely ill-prepared for the challenges therein that leads to projects just like this one getting cancelled without the publisher even coming anywhere near the real trouble.
Last edited:
Bro, thanks for reminding me again that this once existed. I was always a PlayStation User but even I felt sad this got cancelled.
OP
OP
This became clear a long time ago if you read around about the troubled development.
Whether it was a MS mandate or not, I still thought the co-op was not really a good idea at all and definitely seemed to be a feature that contributed to the bloated scope of the game
Whether it was a MS mandate or not, I still thought the co-op was not really a good idea at all and definitely seemed to be a feature that contributed to the bloated scope of the game
it's so much easier to take the position that microsoft is very evil and pushed for bad things. people do this shit with rare too and how they say "microsoft forced them to make kinect sports". it's annoying
Thought this was known a long time ago? I mean obviously things happened on both sides for the game to fail, MS just took the brunt of it because of their suspect history and having previously been involved in numerous studio closures and game dev failures, and it was coming on the heels of shitty publisher actions from the likes of Bethesda, etc.
Myth busted.
XGS Publishing put out games that were singe-player during the Xbox One gen, it was frustrating that there was this narrative that Xbox insisted on ubiquitous multiplayer/co-op as their house style. We have a public example of Microsoft seeking Kinect features from Obsidian with Stormlands rather than demanding multiplayer/co-op on published projects in that early-to-mid Xbox One era, yet there was this perception around mutliplayer.
XGS Publishing put out games that were singe-player during the Xbox One gen, it was frustrating that there was this narrative that Xbox insisted on ubiquitous multiplayer/co-op as their house style. We have a public example of Microsoft seeking Kinect features from Obsidian with Stormlands rather than demanding multiplayer/co-op on published projects in that early-to-mid Xbox One era, yet there was this perception around mutliplayer.
Inaba has even said in interviews that he thinks Platinum bit off more than they could chew with Scalebound and that both Platinum and MS are to blame for its cancellation (https://www.destructoid.com/platinum-accepts-partial-fault-for-scalebounds-cancelation/).
The narrative that the project failed solely due to MS is straight up not true and mostly exists because the game was canceled at a time when Platinum was beloved and MS was hated so people made assumptions. I think Platinum has made some amazing stuff but it's more clear than ever that management has never been the studio's strong suit and it's easy to see them underestimating the scope of a big AAA product.
The narrative that the project failed solely due to MS is straight up not true and mostly exists because the game was canceled at a time when Platinum was beloved and MS was hated so people made assumptions. I think Platinum has made some amazing stuff but it's more clear than ever that management has never been the studio's strong suit and it's easy to see them underestimating the scope of a big AAA product.
While the quote might cover Scalebound specifically, it's not as easy as saying that because the developer wanted it, the publisher had nothing to do with it. Let's take a hypothetical example: Microsoft gets 100 pitches for games. 50 service game pitches and 50 single player pitches. Out of those they choose to approve 40 service games and 4 single player titles, also giving the service games substatantially larger budgets.
In that theoretical example you could also say, that the developer was the one pitching the service games, but if far more service games gets approved and they also get larger budgets, how long before developers catch on and mostly start pitching service games, knowing full well they have a much larger chance of being approved?
Now, this is purely hypothetical. We don't know the amount of pitches they got, though we do have several sources talking about how they were pushing for service games and of course we know the amount of games making it to market and can attempt to guess their budgets. That doesn't necessarily say anything about Scalebound specifically, but it is an interesting question to ask: Would Scalebound had been just as likely to be approved, if it had been a single player one and done title, as if it had co-op/service elements?
In that theoretical example you could also say, that the developer was the one pitching the service games, but if far more service games gets approved and they also get larger budgets, how long before developers catch on and mostly start pitching service games, knowing full well they have a much larger chance of being approved?
Now, this is purely hypothetical. We don't know the amount of pitches they got, though we do have several sources talking about how they were pushing for service games and of course we know the amount of games making it to market and can attempt to guess their budgets. That doesn't necessarily say anything about Scalebound specifically, but it is an interesting question to ask: Would Scalebound had been just as likely to be approved, if it had been a single player one and done title, as if it had co-op/service elements?
Man people really be jumping through a circus worth of hoops trying to find some way to pin this on microsoft lmao
Not surprised by this at all.
I think the whole "Evil publisher" - "Good guys developers" narrative that is very prevalent in the gaming community leads to people just automatically assigning blame on one side, and then coming up with wild theories about "what actually happened".
Developers are people too and they can fuck up a project as much as the publisher.
I think the whole "Evil publisher" - "Good guys developers" narrative that is very prevalent in the gaming community leads to people just automatically assigning blame on one side, and then coming up with wild theories about "what actually happened".
Developers are people too and they can fuck up a project as much as the publisher.
You're making a criticism of Microsoft Studios' overall Xbox One strategy though. On which I would agree that it was misguided to focus so much on MP games back then.
That's not really what this thread is getting at, however. I'll admit I was one of the ones who suspected that Xbox was pushing this on Platinum. Much because of what their strategy looked like at the time. Sea of Thieves, Fable Legends, "the power of the cloud", etc. It seemed like they were going all in on multiplayer. Even Press Play was going in a more MP centric direction. I'll gladly eat crow on this one, though.
This is exactly why Platinum should always stick to their guns with more linear action/adventure style games. That's their bread and butter and I don't think anyone who is a Platinum fan wants or asks them to make an open world game that has a big scope.
Please cite those sources, specifically sources from Microsoft. I look at what else they were pushing around the same time from third parties (early XB1 games), Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive, RYSE, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Dead Rising 3/4, Recore, Ori, etc etc...none of them were live service games. They were mostly all very single player focused "one and done", projects that they were having third party developers work on for them.
Last edited:
Well, it sounds like they were way too ambitious with this game.
It was supposed to be their biggest game yet with some kind of RPG structure iirc, a main character with his dragon at all time, 4 player coop for a dev focused on SP games until... Babylon's Fall? (Oups, sorry Anarchy Reigns! :P) And all that while working with a new engine for their team (UE).
It was supposed to be their biggest game yet with some kind of RPG structure iirc, a main character with his dragon at all time, 4 player coop for a dev focused on SP games until... Babylon's Fall? (Oups, sorry Anarchy Reigns! :P) And all that while working with a new engine for their team (UE).
Ms pretty much got full blame for this cancel. Even though, and when the developers keep saying it was their own ideas and fault.
Ms can new blamed for announcing and showing too early.
Ms can new blamed for announcing and showing too early.
Why do you really expect to get from this line of musing?
You got the Creative Producer saying they pitched the game as having 4-player co-op after someone tweeted at him factually wrong information, and you respond to that with some longwinded "hypothetical" that is little more than insinuating that Microsoft's gameplan at the time heavily coerced Platinum to make it 4 player co-op.
It's especially rich given how Platinum has talked about and handled their games since. Nier: Automata is their most successful title and the game they pitched to SE as a follow-up to the previous partnership is a GAAS Game. Inaba has talked about how they're looking at games that players engage with for a long time.
Is it such a wild idea that they've been wanting to do this for a while now?
I don't see it as a criticism, so much as a recognization that developers will likely pitch different things to different publishers and every publisher have games, that are more in line with their overall strategy than others. If you're pitching a game with a lot of nudity, would Nintendo be the first publisher, you'd seek out? Was it completely random that Kojima's pitch became a one and done single player game with Sony, while the rumored Stadia project with Google was different in structure? I would certainly doubt that.
I think we see it somewhat similarly. When I look at games like Crackdown suddenly being about the power of the cloud or the tv elements of Quantum Break or Sunset Overdrive tv in-game elements or several developers suddenly switching to Kinect for franchises ill-fitted for it, I see that as examples of how the overall direction of the publisher influences the games being made. That doesn't mean that the games weren't pitched or wanted by the developer or that it was right or wrong to approve them. It's back to what I said earlier about different publishers being more likely to approve titles that fit their overall strategy.
And like I said in my other post, all of this obviously doesn't say anything about Scalebound specifically.
Last edited:
Around 2016 elections anytime something bad came out about trump republicans were quick to but what about her emails. Say it fast enough and butter mails sounds but her emails.
Anti Gaas scare mongers are starting to sound the same after every little thing about a game having an online component
Xbox' strategy was weighted way too much towards MP gaming last gen. That's why I saw your post as a criticism of their strategy. They lost their way, if you ask me.
MP is still clearly an important part of Xbox' strategy, but now they're back to the balance they struck in the X360 era when they had titles such as Fable, Lost Odyssey, Mass Effect, Rare's titles, etc. to round out their lineup alongside their MP offerings. Honestly, they've never had as strong of a selection of 1st party SP devs and games as they do now.
There was also the Granblue Fantasy Relink development which Platinum was taken off of, seemed of similar scope with having 4 player coop functionality in a RPG setting. It looks like they couldn't crack it until Babylon's Fall which has the online coop elements.
The game had a different aesthetic style but it seemed like it was doing similar things to the more recent Cygames developed version:
Last edited:
It's amazing. I was one that thought MP was forced by MS. I was apparently WRONG.
I can only imagine the vitriol that would be spewed at them if they green lit the game a second time and it got cancelled again!
Haha, I was being just a bit facetious. They've definitely had issues on a few games, like Granblue, Bayonetta development hell, etc.
It really isn't. It's discussion OT on the old forum had very little activity but it's cancelation thread had well over a hundred pages in just a week or two. The idea that Scalebound was going to be this GOAT release and looked excellent was manufactured by fanboys after the fact.
This is not purely hypothetical, this is pure console war lmao
The evil Microsoft imposed multiplayer on those poor developers that only wanted to
make a single player game but had to otherwise they wouldn't get approved :( so sad!
Well I may be remembering incorrectly, but I thought people came to that conclusion about the co-op thing because it was reported on at the time, at least that was the impression I had (It is possible it was Era who fed that impression though).
I believe a lot of people will tend to blame the publisher versus the developer for troubles or cancellations. Developers never make bad decisions or mistakes in their opinion.
Absolutely. Rare wanted to do the Kinect games and actually they don't want to work on old IP, despite some fan demanding it.
Where you been for the last 12 months haha, you completely missed big bad monopoly ruining the games industry by buying everyone up and putting their games in game pass for $10 a month!
This very tweet alone is still going on about big bad MS
