Man people really be jumping through a circus worth of hoops trying to find some way to pin this on microsoft lmaoWhile 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?
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.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?
You really want to pin this on MS with this wild theory huh?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?
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.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.
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?
Why do you really expect to get from this line of musing?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?
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.
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.
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.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 single player game with Sony, while the rumored Stadia project with Google was supposedly cloud focused? 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.
Wow, never seen Platinum have trouble developing a game before.
It's amazing. I was one that thought MP was forced by MS. I was apparently WRONG.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.
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:
Haha, I was being just a bit facetious. They've definitely had issues on a few games, like Granblue, Bayonetta development hell, etc.
Eh, this is a conspiracy theory too.The fact that this game 200 times more positive duscussion than negative after it's cancelation said it all really.
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.
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?
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.Buh Buh it had to be evil microsofts fault it just had to!!!
Honestly this is just someone in the knows response to a clearly bad take, sad people think stuff up like this in the first place. What's even worse is others actually believing unfounded rumors.
Absolutely. Rare wanted to do the Kinect games and actually they don't want to work on old IP, despite some fan demanding it.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
now they are the pro consumer saviours of the gaming industry.