@Pedro said:
@Zero_epyon said:
Ok so I was mistaken about those games, I'll admit that. However, that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft doesn't take enough risks. Their strategy is to acquire instead of create which is why they're games aren't as good. Sea of Thieves, for example, is their best attempt at a new IP and look at how that went. Like I said earlier, I'm glad he's doing something about it by signing on more studios. I just hope that they're making cool new IPs and note put on spinoffs or extensions of current IPs like Horizon.
You can't argue MS doesn't take enough risks when they have taken a lot more risk this gen than its competitor. You mentioned Sea of Thieves and that game has risk written all over it. Sony played it safe and it paid off handsomely. So, this false narrative that they have to take more risk or that they haven't is pure nonsense. Many Xbox fanboys WISH they didn't take risks. Lets not pretend that the Sony has not acquire studios (Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch,Guerilla Games) and that MS not have not created its own studio Initiative. Sometimes I wonder if you guys even try to be objective. You claim to be not a fanboy but you have a very selective memory and a very skewed perspective on situations.
Every first party VR title says hi. Plus the VR headset itself. MS was going to take the plunge on that as well and they got cold feet. Again, not saying they don't at all, but they don't take many and Sea of Thieves is the only one listed so far that's first party AND a new IP. I asked if you could name three new IP's from a first party MS dev this gen and you haven't supplied one. Heck I gave you one of them so all you need is two more.
Whereas Sony put out a VR headset, exclusive first party titles, and gave Guerilla Games the green light to make a game that's not an FPS this time around. The conversation is not about acquiring studios though. I'm glad they did. I'm talking about the games, which is what he's commenting on.
But sure. Imagine that this is all me and I have a skewed perspective because it seems to be a jab at MS. So I guess Phil Spencer himself has that same skewed perspective as he said this just last year:
Phil Spencer is frank about the reasons for this relatively sluggish performance. “We launched a box that was underpowered compared to the Playstation, and more expensive because of the inclusion of [motion-sensing camera] Kinect in every box,” he says. “Underpowered and overpriced was … not the right model for us. We had shipped some of our franchises too frequently, which had made them lose some of the anticipation that’s important in the entertainment industry. Our studios had lost leaders, which meant they were the studio that they had been before in name rather than in function.”
How can Xbox fix this? By focusing on actual games that people want to play, as well as on a box that lives under your television. Microsoft’s recent investment in game studios is the start of remedying situation, enabling Xbox to take more creative risks, says Phil.
“The entertainment business is a portfolio business,” he adds. “Most games don’t work. Most movies don’t work; most books don’t work. The worst thing you can do is say, I’m going to create a hit game: if you’re going to create one game, the maths says it’s not gonna work, though of course there are exceptions. When you’re trying to do new things with video games, or another entertainment medium, your hit rate is 20-30%.”
https://www.theguardian.com/games/2018/jun/11/microsoft-e3-xbox-maker-suggest-streaming-will-replace-consoles
I await your list...
Log in to comment