That just about sums up all your posts here, lol. You're not informed on the topic obviously. Phil isn't just talking about Horizon and Zelda, he's talking about every single player focused game and saying it's not a sustainable business model because Overwatch is the hotness this gen.
"Single player focused" is just a term for a game shipping without multiplayer....or tacked on multiplayer like Bioshock 2 or Uncharted 4.
At least when Far Cry Primal shipped, Ubisoft fessed up and said that it was missing features Far Cry 2, 3, and 4 had and it was due to bugetary constraints.
I don't know what The Order and Horizons excuses were, but I bet it's related to Sony closing down servers for games less than a year old.
He's basically saying if you want those games go with PS4/Switch because they're just looking for something to make a profit on.
Well yeah, if you're looking for "offline" only games you won't find more than on Nintendo and Sony platforms.
Halo and Gears are already very GaaS heavy. They make money off the REQ packs and overpriced card packs in Gears 4.
You can choose to pay for them, i've never spent a red cent and am considered hyper lethal.
Forza 5 had the same bulls*** going on at launch. You buy the game, and either play it for 20 hours until you can unlock some cars that you want or you pay up to unlock them sooner.
You mean you have to play a game to progress and unlock new vehicles. You just descrbed the game i played yesterday, Darksiders II. I have to earn exp and gold or something, when what i really want to do is skip to the ending to watch the cutscenes.
Xbox truly is the money box, all they care about is making money. It's a failed strategy.
Making money is a failed strategy? Well I guess Apple, Google and MS are f***ed.
Not everything is going to turn a profit. Sony knows that, Nintendo knows that, why can't Microsoft accept it?
So what you're saying is Sony is definitely investing in The Order 1887, Driveclub 2 and The Last Guardian 2 and Gravity Rush 3?
Uncharted 1 didn't sell well at first, it probably flopped even worse than Ryse, Sunset Overdrive, and Quantum Break. Would Uncharted 2 have been green lit under Microsoft? I highly doubt it. They don't take chances anymore.
Well if Uncharted 1 had been an Xbox 360 game it would have been marketed more, had better graphics, split screen co-op/pvp with online play.
The
basic standard for any third person shooter in 2006, let alone 2007. It probably would have done much better.
Lo and behold, MS didn't blink and say "look, we need to remove splitscreen and online modes
gamers hate that s***, lets double down on the story and charge the same amount as we did before for half a game". Sony blinked. Uncharted 2 added multiplayer, Uncharted 3 added a co-op 'mode' and splitscreen and an online pass (remember those?) and Uncharted 4 has loot crates (and removed a 60fps campaign and splitscreen).
And to point out again, one of these IP has been retired indefinitely because Sony felt money would have been better spent on marketing some third party shooters with the nickle dime you hate so much rather then ND's second team.
Maybe if they made more feature complete games they could have cultivated a huge following and the series would have sold on its merits rather then a series of mass giveaways and ND would be making more games instead of less.
It's here's a new feature, that's really not a new feature and please keep pouring money into our GaaS model. All they care about is profit, not what the consumer wants.
Gamers are presented with
options. If they want to pay for loot crates (instead of map packs) they can, if not... then the multiplayer has a lot of replay value. Its no different then one of your JRPGs where you can grind XP to nab more gear. Thats gameplay.
Horizon presents us with one option. Offline only. Red Dead Redemption 2 will not be doing that, that's where my $60 goes.
If MS makes Halo with multiplayer in 2018, it's not because of some nefarious scheme to kill off campaign, it's because that's the standard since 2001 for f***s sake. We already saw what happened when 5 shipped without splitscreen.
Backlash, imagine if they scrapped the whole thing and claimed the reason for no Warzone, Firefight, Forge, Splitscreen, online co-op and pvp was because it was a "single player focus".
It would be 50% s*** storm, 50% laughed off stage.
I don't know what game invented loot crates, but gamers seem to like them over spending points on specific items, which is why it's in everything now.
Sony might be in it for the money too, but my goodness it's so obvious what Microsoft is trying to do. Why else would you cancel your only Japanese exclusive game this gen.
Because for the budget, they can make 2-3 western developed games in a fraction of the time? I don't know what TLG cost to make but I know 2 things.
That's the last team ico game ever
If Sony could have chosen to cancel TLG to make The Getaway and Eight Days instead, they should have.
And Scalebound was a multiplayer game from inception as well. Why? Because if Fable could do it in 2008, why wouldn't it? It's not like open world multiplayer is a new thing, we aren't at the precipice of broadband in 2002.
There mere fact that you class the importance of it as being "japanese" rather than "open world RPG" shows what you think is important.
To top off, we should ask the question why multiplayer is now the devil (as opposed to last year or 2004 or 2007) Or even last holiday when the MS devil games tore TLG a new one.
Its cos E3 is upon us And Uncle Phil promises new games with visuals beyond measure.
When you can't hate the hardware, can't match the quantity, choose something specifically niche.
"Xbots has no jrpg lolirape sim with no dlc. Thats the most important genre of all time!"
