Relieved to read this. The way the article had it focused out of context had me more than a bit tilted since I read it.
Last edited:
Phil is right though. Xbox gamers only buy two things: Pew pew pew and sports games. why waste resources on SP only games when Xbox gamers don't buy them.
Theres a reason why many SP games from MS have a hard time reaching a million copies.
You're missing Phil's point.Well you're wrong. Overwatch has 30m players, of which at least 50-60% PC. Probably at least 60%. That leaves console with at most 40% players which is 12 million. And that doesn't mean 12m copies sold. So less than that. Even if that's 10m at most divided between xbox/ps that gives PS at most 7m copies. Most likely 6 considering it's sold pretty well on xbox too.
But all of this is besides the point. You completely took something, even if you were right, and changed it to a pointless direction.
The point is Uncharted, HZD all sold incredibly well. Better than most popular MP games on the same platform (excluding COD, GTA5 etc) and HZD can get there with time. The point is that SP games CAN sell as much as some of the more popular MP games out there if they are GREAT.
Phil said ''these games don't have the same impact as they used to have'' while talking about Zelda. The biggest Zelda to date. With a 1:1 attach ratio. Uncharted 4 which sold more than 3,2,1.
Imagine if MS had these great SP games. Imagine Sony PR making these comments. Would we have replied in the same manner ?
We give gaf deserved flack but are we really all that different ? Being a fan of the brand is great but blind fanboyism hurts the brand more than it helps them.
Spencer's point wasn't that they can't sell as well it was that its more rare that they do.
The outrage about this has been blown out of proportion and like flies to poop the fanboys have taken it as canon. No where in that interview did Phil say that SP games would not be a focus.
Yeah and it seems to be mostly on NeoGAF where it's really bad in terms of that. Didn't see those kind of reactions on Reddit for example.
Xbox Game Pass and EA Access are basically straight up definitions of games as a service. The service is access to a library of games in exchange for a subscription fee. The market will determine the value and success of that service.
Nope.Nope. None of those sold more than UC4 on PS4,which has sold over 9m.
The outrage about this has been blown out of proportion and like flies to poop the fanboys have taken it as canon. No where in that interview did Phil say that SP games would not be a focus.
Its foolish to read this and come to the conclusion that they are not going make SP games anymore but its silly to read this and think that their commitment will be as high as ever
After I first read the snippets posted on Neogaf, I was disappointed with what Phil said. After reading the entire article for myself, I realize how badly out of context it was taken.
Additionally....3rd parties don't leave any gaps. There are great story driven, single player campaigns by 3rd parties such as Witcher, Tomb Raider, MGS, and Dishonored. Did we forget that Titanfall and Doom both had good campaigns?...or that Call of Duty, Red Dead and Battlefront will all have those as well?
- The fact that extremely high budget "one and done" games are no longer a sustainable business model is not new news or a Phil Spencer concept
- Focusing on GAAS does not mean that single player games are gone
- One and done games work better as part of a bigger service (whether than be tied to a multiplayer game like Halo or episodic on Game Pass)
- Single player games can still bring gamers in however it's the GAAS aspects of games that keep them coming back
Sony's 1st party sticks to what they do best. They have movie studios. They have been perfecting narrative driven, scripted games for years and have perfected the model. MS's competitive advantage is not in that area. I'd argue story-telling is the weakest aspect of even their best franchises. Their strength is services and ecosystem and they can use those to do things that 3rd parties will not.
What MS is doing with Crackdown, what they did with Forza Driveators...what they did to change online multiplayer with Halo 2 in the past...that's where they need to play with their investments. They've flushed money down the toilet with Ryse, SSOD, Quantum Break and Scalebound....even if a couple of those games were decent. Those games did nothing to sell Xbox's or improve the brand.
That said, Spencer needs to be more careful with what he says before he has something to show. The hardcore base still wants some less profitable fan service games in there. The base is still expecting a RPG and for MS to eventually use the licenses of Battletoads, Banjo and Perfect Dark in meaningful ways. Can MS tie a story driven RPG or platformer into GAAS? It's not impossible...but until they can demonstrate it, gamers will assume the worst. Based on the year after year demise of their 1st party under Mattrick, gamers have a right to be skeptical.
By the way, I've been wondering. Would you guys like 343 to be put on a different project?
The way he turned things around for the console, hopefully he can manage to do that for exclusives as well.
By the way, I've been wondering. Would you guys like 343 to be put on a different project? They can keep it a Halo game but give the FPS Halo a break after 6 and make a KOTOR / ME like Halo game. Apparently 343 consists of a huge amount of people, why not split the team and let one work on the FPS while the other team works on Halo on a different genre
Peter Monoloux just did a really cool interview
I think not only should MS allow their developers to work on different projects, they should rotate their mainline franchises between different development studios.You don't want creative people to get stuck on a hamster wheel or check the box. I think the reason why the industry feels fatigue with Halo, Gears or and Forza is because the developers are
No. Its a form of trolling. You don't see this outrage at Nintendo for releasing another Zelda, Ubisoft for Ghost Recon, or Activision for CoD.
Especially since we're on Uncharted 13 and god of war 11 . Gears of war 4 is the 6th.
Its surprising how Horizon has sparked such a faux crusade that games with multiplayer are the devil, especially since the other Horizon game has a much higher metascore in part due to a comprehensive multiplayer....and took half as long to make.
Yes! 100 x's yes! This is coming from someone who's favorite all time gaming franchise is still Halo. It would not only be good for the portfolio but it would be good for Halo. Would keep the franchise fresh.
Peter Monoloux just did a really cool interview (IGN Unfiltered) and he talked about studios becoming restricted to one IP. He says when that happens, these creative people get bored and no matter the talent, when developers get bored they don't do great work. The big problem with Halo is that the developers are stuck between pleasing the long time base and spreading their creative wings. I think that's why they so badly wanted to change the gameplay and move away from MC.
I think not only should MS allow their developers to work on different projects, they should rotate their mainline franchises between different development teams. You don't want creative people to get stuck on a hamster wheel or check the box. I think the reason why the industry feels fatigue with Halo, Gears or and Forza is because the developers are.
To be fair some of those sequels were quite different than the previous games in the franchise. In the case of Naughty Dog, they were allowed to work on a new franchise before going back to UC4.
No doubt there are trolls doing their thing but I can also admit that MS's big pillar franchises need to regain their magic. I'm hoping that the next Gears and Halo take the core gameplay and do something fresh with it. Linear corridor shooters with big water cooler moments are a dime a dozen now.
Horizon:ZD is one of the most over-rated games this gen. Good...but not great. I beat it and found the gameplay to be average and forgettable. The reason is the world is so static with terrible AI, average physics and invisible walls. I would love for MS to take an open world, story driven RPG and make it dynamic with their Azure servers. MS could get creative and make something persistent that allows both single and multiplayer. The Destiny model doesn't have to be relegated to multiplayer only. How cool would it be to be playing the Witcher 3 and then some unexpected large event happens in the world that hits every Witcher 3 player at the same time no matter where they're at in the game and the AI of the NPCs evolves over time?
MS could do this without scaring people into thinking they will get nickel and dimed. Create a static version of a game but allow gamers to subscribe, for a fee, to a persistent version of a game. I might be in the minority but I'd like to see GAAS become part of some single player campaigns. Right now the reason why there's this perception that MS is bailing on single player games is because gamers think GAAS=multiplayer. GAAS could do a lot to make single player games fresh. There will be plenty of static, story driven games from 3rd parties. MS should carve out their own niche.
Great, but where's their Horizon ZD or Uncharted?
I think there has to be a balance. It's true that single player games are a risk, and sales of a game are definitely important. I also think of consoles having an identity wrapped around some key experiences. Arguably, some of those console-defining games need to be single player experiences.
Obviously the sales of single player games have mixed results, especially for Microsoft. So far with Xbox One, you have Ryse, Sunset Overdrive, and Quantum Break (putting Halo and Gears campaigns aside for the purpose of this discussion) that really stood out as AAA. These are solid efforts, but not exactly console-defining material, IMO. I don't think they should give up, though. I still think they really could use a boost in the single player domain. I am of the belief that they could really use at least one new, big SP title every year out two, but that's just me. So yeah, still kind of bummed by P Spencer's comments.
Mainly, my beef is really that I'd rather them focus on developer innovation, rather than dictate what to make by sales-driven agenda. I keep hearing that Scorpio is the place to play 3rd party games. Great, but where's their Horizon ZD or Uncharted? They still need to define this thing other than Forza, Gears, etc. I'm not hating, but rather HOPING they really have something special, going forward. I can't wait to see some good games at E3, but they really need to bring it, now more than ever, perhaps.