Xbox One

[ricky24]

Xbox One

Ricky.....im not saying that at all. What im saying is that Microsoft tends to focus on the online multi-player aspects OVER the single player campaign. In other words, the online multi-player aspects are far more important to Microsoft than they are for Sony. You can see this by the respective exclusives and the direction those exclusives take.



Gears of War 4 campaign was excellent and still my 2016 game of the year but the majority of people who buy it don't buy it for the campaign. They buy it for the online aspects. The single player campaigns in Microsoft exclusives whether good or bad are secondary to them and those who buy it.





.

Online keeps people coming back and increases revenue. It would be silly for them to not have it in games where the multiplayer is clearly loved by tons of gamers. I listed a bunch of Xbox exclusives earlier that focus on a great single player experience. I'll agree to disagree at this point though. It's pointless to keep going back and forth when you look at online play as a negative when the majority of gamers don't. It's possible that they can focus on both aspects. It doesn't have to be cut and dry.

[daniel77733]

Re: Xbox One

I did forget to mention several times that yes, Sony has triple the amount of studios, agreements and second party deals.

But this is on Microsoft. They have had other studios and either let them go, shut them down or screwed it up. Microsoft has way more money than Sony and can easily build more studios. They simply don't do it and even if they do, they never see it through.

Here's something that's weird if true. 343 Industries has 450 employees give or take. They have their main team that works on nothing but Halo games. Want to know what the rest of the people work on? Halo plush toys and merchandise. Like really? That's what outside vendors and companies are for. Maybe, those people have no experience or whatnot in regards to developing games in any way, shape or form but if they do, why the hell are they being wasted?

343 should easily be two teams if all the employees can work on game development in some capacity. Main Halo team and a second team that should be making a new IP.

Don't know if any of this is true but when you see big studios, you would just think that they would be working on other games besides their main franchise.

[daniel77733]

Re: Xbox One

Online keeps people coming back and increases revenue. It would be silly for them to not have it in games where the multiplayer is clearly loved by tons of gamers. I listed a bunch of Xbox exclusives earlier that focus on a great single player experience. I'll agree to disagree at this point though. It's pointless to keep going back and forth when you look at online play as a negative when the majority of gamers don't.

Your first two lines hit what im trying to say. Single player only games don't get people coming back. Multi-player does. That's why Microsoft's primary focus is just that.

I have no interest in Halo so I can't comment on that respective single player campaign. I loved Gears of War 4 and as you obviously know, loved playing Forza Horizon 3 solo. Never said that they didn't have good or great single player campaigns.

I don't see online play as a negative. It's just not my preference. It doesn't interest me in paying extra money to play online with immature screaming yelling and carrying on morons who don't know what they're doing in the game to begin with (obviously, if you have friends and groups of people you know and are cool, then this doesn't apply), paying for extra maps or a season pass that costs as much as the game itself along with micro transactions just doesn't appeal to me at all.

For those who love playing online, great. Hope those who play online get as much as they can out of the experience. Just not my preference in how I play games.

Perfect example - Days Gone vs State of Decay 2. Loved the original State of Decay on Xbox 360 but the sequel is said to be primary focused on online multi-player and four player online co-op. Days Gone is a single player experience. If I can't play State of Decay 2 solo like I did the first one, then which game do you think appeals to me more and that I'll end up buying and playing?

See what im saying bud? Has nothing to do with the quality whatsoever. Has everything to do with what the focal point of the individual game is.

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: Xbox One

I hadn't heard that MS demanded a 4 player co-op mode that killed the game, I heard (and had been assuming, as I'm sure many others have) that Platinum is a second rate developer masquerading as EA or something and that they've taken on entirely too many projects. They're putting out mediocre games left and right, so from the MS perspective, I wouldn't give them a blank check to do what they want either.

MS having more money but less studios than Sony is irrelevant, the same way Apple has more money than MS but less software engineers on their payroll, that's not what they do. MS has infinite money, we don't really know what kind of money Xbox has. They aren't just looking for places to spend money until they bottom out to $0.

[ricky24]

Re: Xbox One

Daniel are there really many games out there you can't play solo? You keep saying stuff like that but you should know that you will most likely be able to play state of decay solo.

[daniel77733]

Re: Xbox One

I hadn't heard that MS demanded a 4 player co-op mode that killed the game, I heard (and had been assuming, as I'm sure many others have) that Platinum is a second rate developer masquerading as EA or something and that they've taken on entirely too many projects. They're putting out mediocre games left and right, so from the MS perspective, I wouldn't give them a blank check to do what they want either.

MS having more money but less studios than Sony is irrelevant, the same way Apple has more money than MS but less software engineers on their payroll, that's not what they do. MS has infinite money, we don't really know what kind of money Xbox has. They aren't just looking for places to spend money until they bottom out to $0.

That's what's being said in other forums and sites. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. Just find it weird for the game to debut as a single player RPG with no mention of anything related to online and next time you see the game, boom, it's a four player co-op game and no longer meant to be played solo. Not even sure if you could still play it solo.

I agree that Platinum Games have been working on too many projects at once but their last three out of four games were good or better and their history is more good than bad. Playing the Nier Automata demo on PS4, it's now on my list of games to buy and I had no interest in it whatsoever. The main difference is that it appears that Square Enix isn't interfering with Platinum Games in regards to Nier but Microsoft did with Scalebound.

Giving them blank checks is also debatable. I mean, MS paid SE $20m if not more for ROTTR to be a one year timed exclusive. Not exactly a smart move by Microsoft. To me, that's a far bigger waste of money and Scalebound could ever be.

To me, outside of the big three, it just seems like Microsoft tends to keep interfering with the developers who are making the games for them. To me, everything should be agreed upon when the deal is made and then, simply just stay the hell out of their way and let them develop the game.

[mgoblue]

Re: Xbox One

That's what's being said in other forums and sites. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. Just find it weird for the game to debut as a single player RPG with no mention of anything related to online and next time you see the game, boom, it's a four player co-op game and no longer meant to be played solo. Not even sure if you could still play it solo.

I agree that Platinum Games have been working on too many projects at once but their last three out of four games were good or better and their history is more good than bad. Playing the Nier Automata demo on PS4, it's now on my list of games to buy and I had no interest in it whatsoever. The main difference is that it appears that Square Enix isn't interfering with Platinum Games in regards to Nier but Microsoft did with Scalebound.

Giving them blank checks is also debatable. I mean, MS paid SE $20m if not more for ROTTR to be a one year timed exclusive. Not exactly a smart move by Microsoft. To me, that's a far bigger waste of money and Scalebound could ever be.

To me, outside of the big three, it just seems like Microsoft tends to keep interfering with the developers who are making the games for them. To me, everything should be agreed upon when the deal is made and then, simply just stay the hell out of their way and let them develop the game.

Except game development is fluid, but ok

[daniel77733]

Re: Xbox One

Daniel are there really many games out there you can't play solo? You keep saying stuff like that but you should know that you will most likely be able to play state of decay solo.

I never said that there aren't many games out there that I can play solo. Of course, there is but not all those games appeal to me. State of Decay 2 is a game im very interested in and my only major complaint from the first one was the amount of bugs and glitches which should hopefully, all be ironed out with the sequel as well as having a bigger budget and should hopefully keep all the survival elements intact.

I'm hoping I can play State of Decay 2 solo but won't know for sure until after E3. Up to this point, everything mentioned has been about the four player online co-op.

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: Xbox One

That's what's being said in other forums and sites. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. Just find it weird for the game to debut as a single player RPG with no mention of anything related to online and next time you see the game, boom, it's a four player co-op game and no longer meant to be played solo. Not even sure if you could still play it solo.

I agree that Platinum Games have been working on too many projects at once but their last three out of four games were good or better and their history is more good than bad. Playing the Nier Automata demo on PS4, it's now on my list of games to buy and I had no interest in it whatsoever. The main difference is that it appears that Square Enix isn't interfering with Platinum Games in regards to Nier but Microsoft did with Scalebound.

Giving them blank checks is also debatable. I mean, MS paid SE $20m if not more for ROTTR to be a one year timed exclusive. Not exactly a smart move by Microsoft. To me, that's a far bigger waste of money and Scalebound could ever be.

To me, outside of the big three, it just seems like Microsoft tends to keep interfering with the developers who are making the games for them. To me, everything should be agreed upon when the deal is made and then, simply just stay the hell out of their way and let them develop the game.

Lots of things are said on many forums, I don't put too much stake in it. It's not that weird that a game becomes multi-player to me, but we don't know anything. When we first saw Scalebound, it was a CGI trailer. When we saw game play, it was running at like 11.7 FPS. It amazes me that this game being canceled is getting the reaction it is, it's looked bad from the beginning IMO.

Platinum's newest games are TMNT (garbage), Star Fox (garbage), Transformers (good reviews) and Korra (garbage). Another difference is that Square owns Nier and can more than likely call the shots and tell Platinum exactly what they want done.

The Tomb Raider thing is something for MS accountants, I don't know the ROI on that deal nor do I know how much Scalebound costs, but AAA game development is more than likely running them more than that plus marketing so that is a different issue entirely. What you think is better is not necessarily better, and wasting money on Tomb Raider doesn't justify wasting money on Scalebound anyway.

[mestevo]

Re: Xbox One

TMNT was actually just delisted from most marketplaces too, heh.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[ricky24]

Xbox One

I'm hoping I can play State of Decay 2 solo but won't know for sure until after E3. Up to this point, everything mentioned has been about the four player online co-op.

It says you can play SOD solo right on the Xbox.com SOD page.

"Multiplayer and co-op within an interconnected world. Play solo, or for the first time ever in the State of Decay franchise, with up to three of your friends. Work together as you explore the deadly post-apocalyptic environment of this intense and interactive zombie game."

[WTF]

Re: Xbox One

Wow there are some long posts the last few pages that I'll never read lol. This thread has turned into a train wreck.

[ODogg]

Re: Xbox One

Wow there are some long posts the last few pages that I'll never read lol. This thread has turned into a train wreck.

I know, I thought I was one of the few who had severe issues with a lack of brevity but apparently I'm not the only to suffer from that particular affliction...

[mgoblue]

Re: Xbox One

Wow there are some long posts the last few pages that I'll never read lol. This thread has turned into a train wreck.

I know, I thought I was one of the few who had severe issues with a lack of brevity but apparently I'm not the only to suffer from that particular affliction...

Yeah...i skim them after a while...TLDR lol

[daniel77733]

Re: Xbox One

It says you can play SOD solo right on the Xbox.com SOD page.

"Multiplayer and co-op within an interconnected world. Play solo, or for the first time ever in the State of Decay franchise, with up to three of your friends. Work together as you explore the deadly post-apocalyptic environment of this intense and interactive zombie game."

Just read it. Nice. Hope it stays that way and I'll be very happy.