Sheikah

Everyone making this game must have known it was a stinker, it's not a labour of love like previous Arkane games. I think you are massively overestimating the impact on morale of cancelling this game - I can only speak from my own (unrelated) job that it's a blessing if a project I really dislike gets cancelled. You're saying cancelling the game could have destroyed the entire studio but the chance of that happening now after its release to terrible reviews is much higher. For instance, Forspoken's developer has been merged, and that's actually a considerably better game than Redfall. The release of this game has also damaged the brand, and Microsoft should have known that would happen.

You didn't reply to the rest though... So you're saying because, years ago, they did a bad job, they should just allow any old crap to be released and damage their brand? Not manage in a positive way at all...not get better at management? They should absolutely have either cancelled this after seeing it, or send in external support to get it working. They've had years to help them at least get this running competently on their flagship console.

You're making it sound like some complex puzzle but it really isn't. Playing Redfall for the smallest amount of time is very revealing - it is garbage. And Microsoft signed off on this; not just on releasing a bad game, but not allowing this to be further delayed at the very least to sort out the basics like getting 60 FPS on Xbox Series X (as well as addressing the litany of bugs). Talking about past studios (where you don't even know the specifics of Microsoft's involvement) is a weird thing to start doing, especially because they should be getting involved but in a positive way. You're basically saying that Microsoft are bad at managing studios and therefore...shouldn't manage the studio meaingfully at all? That's from one bad extreme to another. How about getting better at managing? Microsoft should be stepping in when a game they plan to release is in a terrible state to sort it out - whether that means sending in external support or making the tough decision to cancel it, that's something they needed to do. And put it this way - the fact Microsoft didn't shut this down has now reflected very, very badly on them and Game Pass too - so yes, absolutely they should have been doing their job to either cancel or significantly delay this game! You mentioned the morale at Arkane if they cancelled there and then - what do you reckon their morale is like right now, after releasing this game to a scathing critical reception? Pretty terrible, I'd bet. They might even be wondering whether they'll get to make another game. I think the damage to morale in the here and now is far worse than if they cancelled it back then - this game feels like little love went into it, certainly not like previous Arkane games. It almost feels like a reworked live service game they may have been forced to make. I don't think they'd have been as beat up about its cancellation as you're suggesting. The team must have known from playing it that this wasn't a good game - its cancellation may have even been a blessing.

This is definitely their fault, they own them. They should either have cancelled the game entirely after seeing it or delayed it substantially for it to be reworked/remade. They allowed it to ship in this sorry state. Saying that another of their studios released a good game doesn't change the situation, and especially not when this isn't the first game they've screwed up recently. Microsoft have a reputation now for terrible studio mismanagement.

It's crazy isn't it, the Microsoft kiss of death again (yeah, ultimately this released on their watch). You can see why Microsoft were desperate to get hold of COD now.

You're dead right about their attitude. Disgusting bile they're coming out with because they've been denied, threatening the UK and mouthing off against the CMA. Makes them look completely dense, in all honesty.

Given that when I was a teenager we used to connect to internet via dialup, and now we can stream in 4K, I think you are drastically underestimating what will be achieved in our lifetimes.

Well that's the thing, the way internet is going, connectivity will eventually not be a problem.

Are you really going to compare 3DTVs to cloud gaming? Cloud gaming has continuously improved and will take over once the technology reaches a certain point. It's also dependent on internet connection speeds, which have improved dramatically over the last 10 years, and continue to improve. Once you can stream games with negligible input lag there will basically be no reason for expensive dedicated hardware boxes anymore. It's inevitable we will reach that point given how technology continues to progress. To return to your point - 3DTVs were a realised technology, it's not like they needed refining. People just didn't care for them. But cloud gaming, when it reaches a technological point where it's sufficiently indistinguishable from regular gaming, will be the superior option. You just ignored the whole point that there are multiple other (non COD) series that Microsoft would acquire that will almost certainly be ringfenced...just as Microsoft have already done with Bethesda content. So this is BAD for gamers. The COD deal is also only 10 years (yes, only; or 1.3 generations). After which they are free to ringfence that too. Meanwhile if ABK remained unacquired then COD plus other ABK titles would continue to be multiplatform anyway. And to hell with Switch to be honest, it's a garbage console in terms of hardware that nobody actually wanting a good experience would even consider playing COD on. Needs to be said. Microsoft would have absolutely no intention of releasing COD on Switch had they not been trying to make a case about expanding access. So I'd have expected any releases to be serviceable box tickers at best. Many people with a Switch also have another console so it's not like the hundred odd million extra Switch gamers being quoted is even accurate. Many could easily access COD already if they choose to, and let's be honest, if they're into COD they will already be playing it on a PS4/5 or Xbox. Those Switch gamers who have a PS4/5 losing access to COD would not suddenly be happy they can play it instead on Switch. And as popular as COD is, ABK have a lot of other hugely popular titles that all add up, like Overwatch and Diablo that could have sequels pulled away from multiple consoles including Switch (which OW2 is currently on).

It's not though, is it? Nothing is preventing ABK from going the cloud route, or even partnering with Microsoft to bring those games to cloud services. If they choose not to, that's on them. The CMA's issue was that Microsoft could become extremely dominant in this emerging space if they had this additional content, which is completely justified. Cloud gaming is obviously going to be the future as technology improves and they'd be making a big mistake if they just let Microsoft become too dominant.

Nintendo were to only receive Call of Duty. Meanwhile we have seen already with Microsoft's acquisition of Bethesda that they are making many previously multiplatform games/series exclusive. It's certainly interesting that you think this would have been a good thing for gamers. Consolidation of huge companies is a terrible thing for consumers, under no circumstances should anyone be siding with the deal.

Work for me.

I thought Alice in Borderland had a really satisfying ending, which honestly surprised me. I wasn't expecting the loose ends to be explained so well.

It's too bad that those games aren't very good though. It's like they split out the mechanical aspects of old Final Fantasy but then forgot to supplement it with the stuff that actually makes Final Fantasy great - namely the characters, story, towns and exploration. I feel like the new Final Fantasy games have a lot of that but lack the old school battle system and have really doubled down on being like movies.

The post I challenged was one pointing to MM and how quickly it was made in order to contrast it to BOTW2's development time. But that comparison isn't great because MM was made with ridiculous crunch.

No, you can't just say "let's ignore the whole point you're making and argue that it was actually done". The whole point I was making...undermines the whole point you were making. You can't point to an example that was made under the worst conditions and argue that it can be done that quickly, when the conditions for it getting done that quickly should never be repeated.

You're absolutely right, it was an insane suicide moment from Microsoft and let Sony take over. Now we have people locked into ecosystems with big gaming libraries. They have never been able to walk it back. The Konami 2010 conference will always be the best for me. I actually lost it when that creepy looking developer was right behind someone giving a talk.

Exactly - it seemed strange to me that people were using MM as an example as to why the sequel should be developed much quicker. MM was developed on a horrible crunch timeline. I think we're also missing the obvious here as to why there is so long between titles now. Because they don't need to rush games out any sooner. Back in the 90s it was more the done thing to rush sequels out. Not just MM after OOT, but look at RPGs like Final Fantasy too. Between 1997 and 2001 they released Final Fantasy VII, VIII and IX. Which is kind of mad - nowadays they would probably release just one main Final Fantasy title in that period of time. I've no idea why they did this back then, but they did. Now though? I reckon BOTW continued to sell very well over the last 6 years, so why rush another one out? Add on top of that COVID and 6 years doesn't seem so crazy.

Isn't this the same Majora's Mask that was made under such intense crunch that the developers inserted messages saying as much?

I mean, yeah? Nothing special about the gameplay at all. AC Origins wouldn't have sold anything like it did if it wasn't a painstakingly realised Ancient Egypt. People fucking love pyramids, you know.

You're still not understanding - still! It's quite extraordinary at this point. The fact that they both sold 10 million copies does not make them comparable in this way. Not. In. Any. Way. They are two different products that reached that 10 million sales checkpoint based on very different reasons. Mario Kart did that through gameplay and mass mainstream appeal, AC did that through sheer scale and representation of an Ancient Egypt (which requires a lot of developers). There are games made today which sell many millions and have even fewer than 50 developers, but instead you picked AC Origins, likely because you already knew a lot of people made it. Your whole argument seems to be "Mario Kart 64 sold 10 million with 50 staff, AC Origins sold 10 million with 1,000 staff - games make less profit now!" It's just such a ridiculous argument because these are so very different games. The reason for the difference has nothing to do with the passage of time (and games being more profitable back then) and entirely to do with the desirability of each game. Mario Kart is a much more popular series - it's just the audience was much smaller back then. That's why Mario Kart Switch, with its much bigger audience of available customers, has sold 52 million copies, while AC Origins, like you said, sold a "paltry" 10 million by comparison. Mate, there's nothing hilarious about this. It's sad.

Why do you think? Because you are comparing apples and oranges. AC Origins is a game pitched as an authentic slice of Ancient Egypt, of course it requires a lot of people to develop it. You can't say "hey, this game had thousands of people making it, it proves that games aren't making as much profit!". It's an entirely different game with a different objective in mind. If it didn't have thousands of people making a realistic sandbox, it wouldn't reach those 10 million sales - but that's not the case with Mario Kart. Mario Kart is immensely popular (more so than AC), the fact it "only" sold 10 million on N64 is because the audience was smaller back then. Like I say, terrible comparison! The proper comparison is to compare Mario Kart then to Mario Kart now. Which you seem to not want to do. Mario Kart now brings in way more money than it did back on the N64. Mario Kart Switch has sold 52 million copies. And add to that, it was a rehash of a Wii U game (so likely much lower development costs), and also had DLC for sale to bring in even more money! Yet...you're making a case games aren't more profitable now? This one comparison is far more accurate and supports everything I have been saying. The audience is bigger and there are more ways to generate revenue beyond game sales. So then Starwdew Valley sold 20 million copies and mostly was just 1 guy making it. Does that put the lid on the argument then? Games are more profitable now?

You did however miss how I noted it was a bad comparison, and also seemed to miss comparing within series. It's strange to me that you're comparing Mario Kart 64 with AC Origins instead of Mario Kart 64 with MK Switch. One of my arguments was that the audience has grown (which therefore means more people to sell to, either physically, digitally, or via subscription) - you can see this just by looking at Mario Kart 64 vs Switch sales. So why have you picked out a game that sold 10 million in the 90s vs a completely different kind of game that sold 10 million a few years ago? It's like you're not understanding the point I was making. I could just as easily make a silly extrapolation using the example of Stardew Valley. A relatively recent game which sold 20 million copies and was mostly made by just one guy. This one examples therefore proves gaming is a million times more profitable than it ever used to be!! You mean from companies that then report record profits? Usually right before laying off a bunch of staff? Gotcha.

Well that's not really a good comparison. Those are two entirely different games with different purposes and setups. AC for instance relies heavily on virtual tourism and realism, which you could argue justifies having bigger teams (at the cost of profit). But then AC Odyssey also has more ways of making profit than MK64 did - it has multiple limited edition versions, microtransactions, things like XP boosters, multiple DLC packs (which admittedly the most recent MK game has too, but I think AC charges more for them). AC games also make a juicy wad from being put on subscription services too like PlayStation Plus Extra. Certainly, you could argue that both sold the same number of copies but likely the revenue was nowhere close. A better comparison would be within series - i.e. compare Mario Kart 64 to Mario Kart Switch, or FIFA 96 to FIFA 23. Which I'm sure you can guess are way, way more profitable now, with bigger audiences and more revenue streams. I believe FUT alone in FIFA brings in something silly each year, like over a billion USD. No way in hell were they making that money with FIFA 96. So yeah, for the majority of games, I'd argue they're much more profitable, if nothing more because there's usually bigger audiences now and more ways they make money now - not just from the sale of the game. There will be exceptions to this though (like with some first party games with no microtransactions, which more or less serve as tools to sell consoles). That's a different issue though (that being that most F2P are, by design, shit). Me mentioning F2P was more proof of concept - F2P exists because it can be very lucrative. All the additional revenue from microtransactions and the like can bring in so much cash that it can actually be better to not even charge for the game at all. Games these days can be extraordinarily profitable. You often hear people say that microtransactions exist to keep the base game price static. But when FIFA is bringing in a billion a year on FUT it's clear they're making vast, vast profits that far exceed whatever they're arguing they need to recoup. Not every game is a FIFA, sure, but there's a heck of a lot of games making a lot of money from microtransactions and the like.

Video games have generally become much more profitable though over the years which is why they can afford to stay the same price. A constantly growing audience, microtransactions and DLC mean there's generally much more money coming in. To the point that some games are even F2P as they've figured out that brings more money in in the long run. So when it seems like they're coming up with convoluted excuses for price rises...that's usually because they are convoluted excuses.