Microsoft to acquire ZeniMax Media and Bethesda Softworks for $7.5B(bethesda.net)
bethesda.net
Microsoft to acquire ZeniMax Media and Bethesda Softworks for $7.5B
https://bethesda.net/en/article/1iLtcvwY6Nb1GeKADyDUEX/why-microsoft-is-the-perfect-fit
797 comments
Carmack left Zenimax because they wanted him to work on sequels instead of VR. They only started caring about VR once the $2B Oculus acquisition was dangled in their faces, and then scrambled to find a way to get a slice that they didn't earn.
I didn't buy DOOM because I didn't support Zenimax's cynical lawsuit/cash grab. Maybe now I'll get DOOM after the Microsoft acquisition closes.
I didn't buy DOOM because I didn't support Zenimax's cynical lawsuit/cash grab. Maybe now I'll get DOOM after the Microsoft acquisition closes.
I hope you do — Zenimax aside, it’s a damn good game.
Is there a source for this? Because I always thought that it was the other way around - Carmack was rather bored, sold the company and moved somewhere else.
He sold the company in 2009, long before Oculus existed. He intended to continue working there [1] and he did for several years. AFAIK he didn't start dabbling in VR until 2012 and didn't leave id until 2013, after attempting to work on VR stuff there for a while which was seemingly blocked, e.g. DOOM 3 BFG VR support which he promised but Zenimax never released.
[1] https://www.engadget.com/2009-06-24-bethesda-parent-company-...
[1] https://www.engadget.com/2009-06-24-bethesda-parent-company-...
Confirmation from the man himself: https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1312272675222491136...
I thought ZeniMax won in court?
They lost on their claims against Carmack, had their award against Oculus reduced and injunction denied, and ultimately settled out of court. I strongly disagree with the magnitude of the damages sought.
Carmack also sued them separately for failing to pay him for part of their id software acquisition. They settled out of court again, with Carmack saying the settlement "fully satisfied their obligations" to him.
Carmack also sued them separately for failing to pay him for part of their id software acquisition. They settled out of court again, with Carmack saying the settlement "fully satisfied their obligations" to him.
Interesting, didn't Rage pioneer the on-demand texture streaming approach? It fits well with the DMA SSDs in the coming console generation.
Wow, that's now a decade ago.
Wow, that's now a decade ago.
I believe it did, in addition to mega-textures in video games.
What I am hoping for, and been hoping for a while, is for game engines to start integrating AI into workflows. There are some tools out there that do leverage machine learning to some extent, but what I would love to see are tools for instance that can take a video shot of an actor and then infer the bone structure a decent degree and transfer that animation into the model. Or a tool that allows style transfer of an image onto a 3D model so we can have realistically dynamic brush tools for environments, also integrating Face generation GANs onto models to reduce sculpting effort. Not to mention tools that can dynamically and infinitely scale 3D models based on material information.
I know some tools exist that can do some of these things at an okay degree, but it can be taken even further.
Truly the power of AI in video game tooling has yet to be unlocked, but I believe video games as a medium is in the position of being able to push for practical applications of new and exciting research, second only to CGI films. It's exciting what's in store for the future and I'm sure Carmack can appreciate the kind of breakthroughs that Microsoft would be able to foster
What I am hoping for, and been hoping for a while, is for game engines to start integrating AI into workflows. There are some tools out there that do leverage machine learning to some extent, but what I would love to see are tools for instance that can take a video shot of an actor and then infer the bone structure a decent degree and transfer that animation into the model. Or a tool that allows style transfer of an image onto a 3D model so we can have realistically dynamic brush tools for environments, also integrating Face generation GANs onto models to reduce sculpting effort. Not to mention tools that can dynamically and infinitely scale 3D models based on material information.
I know some tools exist that can do some of these things at an okay degree, but it can be taken even further.
Truly the power of AI in video game tooling has yet to be unlocked, but I believe video games as a medium is in the position of being able to push for practical applications of new and exciting research, second only to CGI films. It's exciting what's in store for the future and I'm sure Carmack can appreciate the kind of breakthroughs that Microsoft would be able to foster
Texture streaming was a thing before Rage.
ID tech implemented megatextures earlier also, Quake Wars heavily relied on that feature.
ID tech implemented megatextures earlier also, Quake Wars heavily relied on that feature.
The fact that Zenimax corporate, and likely some unknown exec in that machine, had a long standing grudge against John Carmack made me loose so much respect for them. I may not always agree with Carmack from what I've read on twitter (he works for Facebook now) but I have the utmost respect for him, his transparency in his key note lectures, and his supremely engineering focused priorities. His leadership at id Software led to open sourcing of game engines and building modding support in all their titles. This openness and community building became a trend in the PC gaming industry though the 90s and 2000s and ushered a creative golden age that jumpstarted many game development studios and careers. It seems like Zenimax took whatever excitement those early days of PC gaming generated and started extracting consumer dollars with over-produced sequels that treated PCs like another console. They were able to make much more money, but we all came out intellectually impoverished in my opinion.
>had a long standing grudge against John Carmack made me loose so much respect for them.
No kidding. You want to keep a guy like Carmack in the family in whatever capacity you can, because he carries such deep respect in the industry. It was a stupid thing for ZeniMax to burn that bridge.
No kidding. You want to keep a guy like Carmack in the family in whatever capacity you can, because he carries such deep respect in the industry. It was a stupid thing for ZeniMax to burn that bridge.
Carmack's pull as an individual among tech folks, is unrivaled in gaming.
I can bet that many people would willingly taken pay cuts (or more-likely skipped on pay bumps) to work for a team led by Carmack.
Almost all of the other pop-culture figures in game development such as Todd Howard, Kojima and the like are designers, producers or story writers.
Carmack is the only one that is a proper coding guy.
______
Maybe Carmack comes back to lead Windows mixed reality ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and PCVR ? True wishful thinking right here.
I can bet that many people would willingly taken pay cuts (or more-likely skipped on pay bumps) to work for a team led by Carmack.
Almost all of the other pop-culture figures in game development such as Todd Howard, Kojima and the like are designers, producers or story writers.
Carmack is the only one that is a proper coding guy.
______
Maybe Carmack comes back to lead Windows mixed reality ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and PCVR ? True wishful thinking right here.
I think a few of Nintendo's star players are (and were) coders as well as designers going back to the assembly days.
Late Satoru Iwata famously coded Pokemon Stadium battle system without design document, only by looking at the gameboy source code. He later became Nintendo CEO.
Just wanted to point out a small discrepancy here: As his bio on Twitter says, he's currently an independent AI researcher. But also sometimes consults for Oculus VR, although not actively employed there anymore. [0]
It'd be very interesting to see if his return to Id might spark some changes :)
[0]: https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack
It'd be very interesting to see if his return to Id might spark some changes :)
[0]: https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack
Carmack's Facebook Connect talk last week[1] sure made him sound very plugged into what's happening at Oculus. I was surprised, given that I, too, thought he had essentially left for AI research.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXmY26pOE-Y
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXmY26pOE-Y
I am guessing Carmack "retiring" from Oculus is something akin to "went from 80 hours a week to 40".
yeah he sounded like he was tech lead for the project, i am surprised to learn he's "independent"
Most of the higher level Oculus engineers are very in tune with what is happening within Oculus and the industry. There is constant discussion internally about it, and Oculus still knows more about VR than anybody else. Source: I was one of them.
I think every non-manager employee these days should be "independent." Some may not have noticed, but tech company managers have gone insane and turned their ego up to 11 echoing the current political climate. Anyone who is a famous dev or even a grunt that shows they have basic competency is going to be an immediate management target.
What grudge is he even talking about? The lawsuits?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZeniMax_v._Oculus
https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/09/oculus-cto-john-carmack-is...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZeniMax_v._Oculus
https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/09/oculus-cto-john-carmack-is...
Perhaps, but also perhaps that recent thing where Nine Inch Nails released an LP with the Quake 1 soundtrack [0], had some notes from John Carmack and American McGee to be included with the record and Zenimax forced NIN to remove the notes [1]. Though of course people saved it [2].
[0] https://store.nin.com/products/quake-vinyl
[1] https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1306279981459308546
[2] http://handscandance.com/quake/NINQuakeBooklet.pdf
[0] https://store.nin.com/products/quake-vinyl
[1] https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1306279981459308546
[2] http://handscandance.com/quake/NINQuakeBooklet.pdf
Looks like the total being reported elsewhere is $7.5B.
- https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/370520/Microsoft_buys_Ze...
-https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1308028640488292352
- https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/370520/Microsoft_buys_Ze...
-https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1308028640488292352
Even 7.5B is still only 15% of the failed TikTok deal. Seems like a bargain in comparison.
3x the Mojang purchase[1], and I still think it's worth it.
1: https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1308029942018510848
1: https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1308029942018510848
3x Mojang makes it sound like MS got a really good deal on Bethesda, at the time they bought Mojang they were really buying a single (very popular) game, while with Bethesda they get a huge back catalogue, some really big franchises, and ID with all their knowledge of engine development.
[deleted]
I swapped my numbers, thanks for the heads up, fixed now.
Maybe we'll get a followup to new vegas.
How many writers who worked on New Vegas are still in the game industry? Obsidian's latest games writing was pretty mediocre.
Wow, what a press release!
Microsoft is serious about great content for its Xbox/Windows 10 platform.
The press note still caused some fear in me. Years ago (FASA?) such a move meant closure, since MS was not really in the gaming industry business content wise.
Microsoft is serious about great content for its Xbox/Windows 10 platform.
The press note still caused some fear in me. Years ago (FASA?) such a move meant closure, since MS was not really in the gaming industry business content wise.
It's nothing but heebie jeebies for me. Just Anti-Trust issues. I guess in 2020 we don't do exclusivity agreements, we just buy the fuck out of you.
[deleted]
Holy sh!t. Bethesda is huge!
Well I was just thinking the other day that Microsoft really doesn't have any first party studio that are really as good as Sony's first party. IMO they didn't release a game 'this' gen that makes picking up a xbox one worth it. This could change that with fallout and doom. Also this allows them to bring the ID tech engine under their stewardship....
I just hope that they don't trash the franchises in an attempt to bolster game pass.
Well I was just thinking the other day that Microsoft really doesn't have any first party studio that are really as good as Sony's first party. IMO they didn't release a game 'this' gen that makes picking up a xbox one worth it. This could change that with fallout and doom. Also this allows them to bring the ID tech engine under their stewardship....
I just hope that they don't trash the franchises in an attempt to bolster game pass.
ID tech is one of the biggest Vulkan users. I really hope they don't port it to Directx 12 instead :(
When I saw Doom 2016 running on OpenGL I was shocked. I would’ve never thought you could write an AAA game with it. It made me wonder why game developers use DX instead.
If you want to target Xbox, you need to write a D3D renderer anyway (although the Xbox API has some significant differences, if I understand correctly). There's little point writing an OpenGL renderer if your target platforms are Windows, Xbox, and PlayStation (which has its own graphics API).
Also, my understanding is that on Windows, OpenGL generally runs into more issues with driver bugs than D3D does.
Also, my understanding is that on Windows, OpenGL generally runs into more issues with driver bugs than D3D does.
I work for a large video games company and we usually write two backends - DirectX for Windows and Xbox, and a special one for PlayStation. That is changing slightly with Stadia, because that forces us to write a Vulkan renderer too. But on the few games that have it, the DX12 performance is better on windows than that of the Vulkan renderer backend - so we haven't released it to the public.
you should release vulkan for proton / linux users i think
Please do release it to the public! Just for Proton and to experiment/bechmark.
As much as I'd like that, I can hear from here the outcries from the gaming community.
"Your game is bugged! It doesn't work! I want a refund!"
"But the vulkan renderer is only tested on Stadia, it's not officially supported and the game is free."
"I. Want. A. Refund."
"Your game is bugged! It doesn't work! I want a refund!"
"But the vulkan renderer is only tested on Stadia, it's not officially supported and the game is free."
"I. Want. A. Refund."
Put another way, then: doing so would mean taking on a considerable support burden.
Make it a command line flag ;)
Not a bad idea, especially if it's something like --experimental-vulkan. Unlikely to get blamed if it goes wrong, that way.
Or a beta branch in Steam.
So.....no, because gamer press is ruthless :P We've had one graphical bug in one of our games(which I'm certain everyone on the internet has seen by this point), and in reality it was only happening if you played on one specific GeForce card, and only when using beta Nvidia drivers. But of course no one cared that the bug only happened when using experimental drivers - it was somehow a proof of how broken our games are. If this(the vulkan backend) lead to any graphical bugs in our games, I can almost guarantee that they would be paraded everywhere, no matter how clearly we mark it as experimental and unfinished.
> Also, my understanding is that on Windows, OpenGL generally runs into more issues with driver bugs than D3D does.
I'm not sure if that's the case anymore, but it definitely has a bad rep on Windows. Initially (throughout XP and maybe some of Vista) OpenGL support on Windows was done by a OpenGL -> DirectX translation layer, so performance was always worse in OpenGL mode unless a game's Direct3D implementation was especially awful. This stopped being the case when NVIDIA started shipping a full OpenGL driver. (I'm not sure when AMD/ATI started shipping theirs)
I'm not sure if that's the case anymore, but it definitely has a bad rep on Windows. Initially (throughout XP and maybe some of Vista) OpenGL support on Windows was done by a OpenGL -> DirectX translation layer, so performance was always worse in OpenGL mode unless a game's Direct3D implementation was especially awful. This stopped being the case when NVIDIA started shipping a full OpenGL driver. (I'm not sure when AMD/ATI started shipping theirs)
> Initially (throughout XP and maybe some of Vista) OpenGL support on Windows was done by a OpenGL
Initially (Windows 95), OpenGL support was provided directly by the OS. Starting with Windows 98, Microsoft stopped updating the OGL version of their reference driver, so users were stuck with OGL 1.1 unless the graphics card driver shipped with a custom OpenGL implementation.
So whenever an application uses an OGL version higher than v1.1, it is provided by the graphics card driver and that has nothing to do with DirectX. There is no translation layer in that case (unless of course, that's what the driver does internally, but that's up to the manufacturer).
TL;DR Custom OGL drivers shipped with every graphics card that supported OGL in Windows since 1998.
Initially (Windows 95), OpenGL support was provided directly by the OS. Starting with Windows 98, Microsoft stopped updating the OGL version of their reference driver, so users were stuck with OGL 1.1 unless the graphics card driver shipped with a custom OpenGL implementation.
So whenever an application uses an OGL version higher than v1.1, it is provided by the graphics card driver and that has nothing to do with DirectX. There is no translation layer in that case (unless of course, that's what the driver does internally, but that's up to the manufacturer).
TL;DR Custom OGL drivers shipped with every graphics card that supported OGL in Windows since 1998.
That hasn't been the case, then, because I clearly remember OpenGL being translates to DirectX in XP/Vista days. Whether it was because anything >1.1 called that up or because the driver vendors chose translation over native, I don't know.
Original link seems to be dead but Slashdot references Vista layering OpenGL on top of Direct3D:
https://slashdot.org/story/05/08/06/177251/windows-vista-may...
Original link seems to be dead but Slashdot references Vista layering OpenGL on top of Direct3D:
https://slashdot.org/story/05/08/06/177251/windows-vista-may...
That comment references something else entirely - namely the Aero rendering system of the OS. This didn't affect applications that didn't use the Aero glass scheme (it was an option during window creation), however, or apps running in full-screen mode.
The Aero glass scheme was hardware accelerated and only worked with Direct3D, thus any OGL context created for a window using this renderer would have to run via Direct3D.
This is a very special case and as noted earlier, easily circumvented by simply not using this feature in your app.
The Aero glass scheme was hardware accelerated and only worked with Direct3D, thus any OGL context created for a window using this renderer would have to run via Direct3D.
This is a very special case and as noted earlier, easily circumvented by simply not using this feature in your app.
Because game developers mostly don't pick the backend, game engine developers do. The vast majority of game developers pick a game engine and that drives most of their other technical decisions. There are really only a dozen game engines that have enough market share to matter, and a decent chunk of the biggest ones were built on top of DX for various reasons. OpenGL, while a great concept, was a fairly flawed execution for quite a while (its gotten a lot better in the last 10 years or so), so I can at least partially understand why in the past someone who doesn't care at all about cross-platform support might have steered clear of it.
This is right of nose and defines exactly why MSFT pivoted to the Game Pass strategy - there were no console-moving titles (besides Sea of Thieves, that game rocks)
What we could see now is these games coming to Game Pass early, or even getting Xbox exclusive content. Theres a low chance they dont drop on other platforms (Skyrim on your Windows phone?) but still a big chip for MSFT to have on hand.
What we could see now is these games coming to Game Pass early, or even getting Xbox exclusive content. Theres a low chance they dont drop on other platforms (Skyrim on your Windows phone?) but still a big chip for MSFT to have on hand.
If I am not mistaken they have some few PS5 exclusives under development. Is there any new IP that Bethesda is working on, which can be potentially a Xbox/PC exclusive?
Sans Socom 2 remake, PS5 is going to be absolute garbage.
Demon Souls remake?
Given how many of the PS4 exclusives were absolutely amazing (some of the best games in the last decade in my personal opinion), I have no reason to think that PS5 won’t have some incredible games too. Hell, between Demons Souls and the next Horizon Zero Dawn, there’s enough there to make me want one.
Deathloop too, which was just shown off in the PS5 event.
Reading this the second time, I think it might be one of the best "we're being acquired by X" announcements I've ever read. Excited but restrained, and it acknowledges (somewhat implicitly, but still) that there's going to be _quite a bit_ of trepidation in Bethesda's fanbase over the change.
"WHEN THE HELL WILL YOU TELL ME ABOUT STARFIELD?" and the rest of that paragraph actually fills me with a pretty high degree of confidence that this will go well. That, and Nadella-era Microsoft's surprisingly good track record in recent acquisitions.
"WHEN THE HELL WILL YOU TELL ME ABOUT STARFIELD?" and the rest of that paragraph actually fills me with a pretty high degree of confidence that this will go well. That, and Nadella-era Microsoft's surprisingly good track record in recent acquisitions.
Really? I was immediately unimpressed when they started trying to claim they did it so they can make better games, rather than because Microsoft offered them a boatload of money.
Why not both? So far Microsoft has been pretty "hands off" with the development process of a lot of the IPs it has acquired.
No, not at all.
They've been pretty hands-off with their most recent acquisition, but one studio does not a trend make.
They've been pretty hands-off with their most recent acquisition, but one studio does not a trend make.
Looking outside of the gaming space their recent acquisitions seem to have gone fine, no? For example Github seems to go well, Linkedin was always pretty shit and unethical, so I'm not sure it's any better or worse. Citus seems to still be going well and still offers on-prem or enterprise versions on other clouds than Azure. Xamarin is more open-sourced since Microsoft took over.
IMO, (and if you told me I'd say this 10 years ago I'd say you're crazy) of the big tech companies right now I think MS might be the best steward.
IMO, (and if you told me I'd say this 10 years ago I'd say you're crazy) of the big tech companies right now I think MS might be the best steward.
Skype is a very loud example of a poorly handled acquisition by Microsoft.
The client has been turned into a real fan-spinner and it seems like they sacrificed a great standalone service for something that pushes consumer and business users towards tight integration with Microsoft's platform.
2020 could have been a banner year for Skype; instead Zoom is now shorthand for any video meeting whatsoever.
The client has been turned into a real fan-spinner and it seems like they sacrificed a great standalone service for something that pushes consumer and business users towards tight integration with Microsoft's platform.
2020 could have been a banner year for Skype; instead Zoom is now shorthand for any video meeting whatsoever.
Yes, Skype was handled incredibly bad. I don't think MS knew what they bought and both the client and the platform turned from being the kleenex of voip to similar to seeing a yahoo email nowadays.
I think MS'es ways have changed since then though, looking at acquisitions since 2013 to 2015-ish they seem to have been handled better IMO.
I think MS'es ways have changed since then though, looking at acquisitions since 2013 to 2015-ish they seem to have been handled better IMO.
Also, an argument can be made that some of Microsoft's mess was being too hands off with Skype. A lot of Skype's own development woes were projects they started back while owned by eBay and simply finished in time for Microsoft to get the blame. Also the whole "Skype for Business isn't Skype and doesn't share anything but the brand name" was a hands off decision that was dumb in retrospect.
Maybe, but that really depends on how independent Microsoft's gaming business is from the rest of the company.
I'm still waiting on the other shoe with github.
I'm still waiting on the other shoe with github.
No Microsoft game has monetization as bad as Fallout 76. So whatever Bethesda does from now on can't be worse than what it does today. ;)
This should be filed under the "Tell me in 2 years" section.
What would you say is Microsoft's worst game for microtransactions?
I've played Forza Horizon 4 for a while and you can buy cars in that game, but you earn enough points that they all become pretty cheap after only a few hours in the game.
I've played Forza Horizon 4 for a while and you can buy cars in that game, but you earn enough points that they all become pretty cheap after only a few hours in the game.
Forza Street probably. Anything with microtransactions is bound to be bad for customers but FS is probably the most criticized MS product to date (and yeah, it's a re-skinned, acquired product but I'd still count it against Microsoft since they attach themselves to it).
The biggest issue for me was that certain in-game cars were locked behind the spin-the-wheel game, and while(thankfully) there was no way to spend real life money for more spins, it still felt absolutely shit that I could have 100+ in-game hours, hundreds of millions of in-game currency, and yet no, I can't have that Mercedes E63 AMG, because it can only be won through spins. In Horizon 3 you could just buy any car at any point, it was just a matter of getting enough currency.
Thankfully Microsoft experimented with the real money payment for sort of the "spin-the-wheel" equivalent in the mainline Forza Motorsport series (off hand I can't remember if it was 5 or 6 that was the absolute nadir), and learned enough from that failed experience (and a similar one in I think it was Gears 4 and Halo 5) that it never infected the Horizon series.
You can't buy them in-game without buying them with real money first. Once you unlock the car pack, or spend 1/3 as much to unlock that particular car, you can buy as many extras as you want with in-game money.
Halo 5, Warzone REQ packs could be a money sink for certain kinds of players. Personally, I haven’t spent a dime on the game except the initial purchase - but it really soured the community that one could spend real money on power weapons. Given that many items in REQ packs are single-use rather than permanent unlocks it can be a whale magnet as well, and I absolutely do not think game developers should be allowed to capitalize on people with addiction problems like this.
The weird thing about F76 is that the monetization doesn't effect the game, it's just not very good. I have never supported a game through microtransactions, but I actually felt I wanted to for F76 as it seems like a candidate for a "Forever Game" fallout world that gets expanded upon. But they have nothing I would ever want to buy.
I hope this acquisition will fix Bethesda. Skyrim was their last game worth talking about, everything since then has either been effectively a Skyrim mod or a cash grab. With exception to Doom.
Just to double down on Skyrim - I paid for it at least four times.
Once on PC, once on Xbox, another time to get the remastered special edition, and finally on Nintendo Switch and I had zero regrets tbh. I even played switch and xbox in parallel when I traveled more.
Once on PC, once on Xbox, another time to get the remastered special edition, and finally on Nintendo Switch and I had zero regrets tbh. I even played switch and xbox in parallel when I traveled more.
I loved Fallout 4
Every game has somebody who loves it. Even that terrible Superman game. Fallout 4 wasn't total garbage, but it was huge step down from Fallout 3 or Skyrim.
> it was huge step down from Fallout 3 or Skyrim
In what way?
And how is your opinion better metric than my opinion? You have data to back it up?
In what way?
And how is your opinion better metric than my opinion? You have data to back it up?
How about comparing metacritic scores?
https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-3
https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-4
One might slice and dice this by platform, but I think there was a general consensus that 4 was not as good as 3 both in meta score and user score.
https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-3
https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-4
One might slice and dice this by platform, but I think there was a general consensus that 4 was not as good as 3 both in meta score and user score.
Skyrim was a significant technical advancement of Gamebryo, not just in terms of visual quality or so forth, but also in terms of what was possible with the engine. Fallout 4 was a minor upgrade and could have easily been a total conversion mod for Skyrim - there was no innovation and it did nothing new. Irrespective of whether people enjoyed that re-skinned Skyrim, it was a blatant cash-grab.
The argument has nothing to do with anybody enjoying the game, a metric that I did not mention at all in my comment, it has to do with a growing trend where Bethesda has been doing the absolute bare minimum to cash in on their fans' good will.
The argument has nothing to do with anybody enjoying the game, a metric that I did not mention at all in my comment, it has to do with a growing trend where Bethesda has been doing the absolute bare minimum to cash in on their fans' good will.
That was my big problem with Fallout 3, it felt like an Oblivion total conversion... I had difficulty enjoying it because it still "felt" like Oblivion in so many ways, to me :(
You do understand that the quality of game engine is completely orthogonal to how good a game is, right?
For some reason you believe that your opinion about the game is universally true, while the opinion on the other is personal preference.
You are just trying to prove that vanilla flavor is universally better than chocolate.
Edit: Retracting "Borderline bigotry."
For some reason you believe that your opinion about the game is universally true, while the opinion on the other is personal preference.
You are just trying to prove that vanilla flavor is universally better than chocolate.
Edit: Retracting "Borderline bigotry."
They left a comment on the internet - I don’t think it’s civil to conflate it to being universal - why not explore their opinion, or just accept that de gustibus non est disputandum?
Also, what if vanilla could be proven to be universally better? That’d be cool, how could one go about doing that? Probably either: eliminate the supply of chocolate world wide, or spend billions marketing vanilla... Probably lots of ways to get a universal sentiment with the right levers!
One ding in chocolate: there’s no chocolate coca-cola... or is there? I should google that :) There do seeeeeem to be more vanilla flavored mass market colas than chocolate, but that’s very much cherry picking.
A ding for vanilla, I’m not sure if it’s ever eaten alone in any meaningful way, but I dunno, I’d have to think about it more.
Also, what if vanilla could be proven to be universally better? That’d be cool, how could one go about doing that? Probably either: eliminate the supply of chocolate world wide, or spend billions marketing vanilla... Probably lots of ways to get a universal sentiment with the right levers!
One ding in chocolate: there’s no chocolate coca-cola... or is there? I should google that :) There do seeeeeem to be more vanilla flavored mass market colas than chocolate, but that’s very much cherry picking.
A ding for vanilla, I’m not sure if it’s ever eaten alone in any meaningful way, but I dunno, I’d have to think about it more.
> quality of game engine is completely orthogonal to how good a game is, right?
That's exactly my point. I haven't once conflated the two, all of your comments have.
That's exactly my point. I haven't once conflated the two, all of your comments have.
> That's exactly my point. I haven't once conflated the two, all of your comments have.
How? The disagreement is if Fallout 4 was a moneygrab or not. Is that correct?
According to you it was because it "Skyrim was a significant technical advancement of Gamebryo, not just in terms of visual quality or so forth, but also in terms of what was possible with the engine. Fallout 4 was a minor upgrade and could have easily been a total conversion mod for Skyrim - there was no innovation and it did nothing new."
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this "conflatng" the effort gone into a game, and specifically the engine, with the quality of the game?
How? The disagreement is if Fallout 4 was a moneygrab or not. Is that correct?
According to you it was because it "Skyrim was a significant technical advancement of Gamebryo, not just in terms of visual quality or so forth, but also in terms of what was possible with the engine. Fallout 4 was a minor upgrade and could have easily been a total conversion mod for Skyrim - there was no innovation and it did nothing new."
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this "conflatng" the effort gone into a game, and specifically the engine, with the quality of the game?
No. It's measuring the amount of investment into the game.
Some very dedicated folks took the pittance of time/money afforded to them and made a fantastic effort. Imagine what the same people could have done with an engine that wasn't merely a minor graphical improvement. Imagine what FO4 could have been with richer story telling technology (dialog mechanics, interaction mechanics, etc.), instead the content team was stuck with the same scripting power available in Skyrim.
BOTH the effort of people who clearly care about the franchise AND the publisher's shameless money grubbing show in the final product.
Some very dedicated folks took the pittance of time/money afforded to them and made a fantastic effort. Imagine what the same people could have done with an engine that wasn't merely a minor graphical improvement. Imagine what FO4 could have been with richer story telling technology (dialog mechanics, interaction mechanics, etc.), instead the content team was stuck with the same scripting power available in Skyrim.
BOTH the effort of people who clearly care about the franchise AND the publisher's shameless money grubbing show in the final product.
I’m feeling like, during the lockdown, we need to have some kind of shit throwing HN comment competition to get all the angst out of our systems.
First rule: make every assumption about the other commenter’s intent. Second rule: never actually directly respond to the other commenter.
It’s like code golf, but to get toxic online interactions out of our systems in a controlled environment. What do you think? :)
First rule: make every assumption about the other commenter’s intent. Second rule: never actually directly respond to the other commenter.
It’s like code golf, but to get toxic online interactions out of our systems in a controlled environment. What do you think? :)
I think settlement building was a pretty big step for the engine/gameplay.
It was a huge step down if you liked RPG games, which given Bethesda traditionally made rpg games and that fallout was originally an rpg series is hugely important.
Fallout 4 suffered from quest repetition/duplication, an emphasis on combat over other rpg driven approaches to play and a relatively low ability to effect the world as the player.
It's not a bad game per say but it's a mediocre rpg. It was arguably more disappointing given how incredible an rpg New Vegas was despite not having been finished properly.
Fallout 4 suffered from quest repetition/duplication, an emphasis on combat over other rpg driven approaches to play and a relatively low ability to effect the world as the player.
It's not a bad game per say but it's a mediocre rpg. It was arguably more disappointing given how incredible an rpg New Vegas was despite not having been finished properly.
Fallout 1st gives you the currency to buy anything but also the ability to pretry much play fully solo.
I only started Fallout 76 this summer so I can't speak to the bad state it launched in. But the recent major update got good word of mouth and it was on sale for $15. I haven't paid a dime extra and I've had a full single player experience that matches or succeeds Fallout 4.
If you just want another single player Fallout game, this game is a steal and has no monetization problem. What I can't do is build up a camp using a lot of different trinkets from the store, but luckily I don't care about that.
If you just want another single player Fallout game, this game is a steal and has no monetization problem. What I can't do is build up a camp using a lot of different trinkets from the store, but luckily I don't care about that.
Isn't Minecraft a bigger game than anything Sony makes? It's owned by Microsoft but isn't an xbox exclusive.
Minecraft is just a single game. Sony has a bunch of very good console exclusives under its name.
[deleted]
It was cross platform before the Microsoft acquisition. I think Minecraft is sort of a special case, it's essentially its own genre.
> Also this allows them to bring the ID tech engine under their stewardship.
It doesn't have to be id tech, but can they make Todd Howard use some other engine than whatever Gamebryo monstrosity Bethesda Softworks been using for 20 years?
It doesn't have to be id tech, but can they make Todd Howard use some other engine than whatever Gamebryo monstrosity Bethesda Softworks been using for 20 years?
There's no way they could trash any franchise worse than Bethesda has trashed Fallout.
I think that's overstating it. Fallout 4 was well received even if it was a little disappointing. So it really is just Fallout 76. They can recover from that, especially considering that Fallout 76 wasn't even a proper mainline sequel.
A lot of people think that Fallout 76 did recover with the last expansion pack (and cross-play and Game Pass). Microsoft acquiring Bethesda even further insures at the very least it will stay a Game Pass mainstay for some time now.
(Also, it is interesting to note that with the Bethesda purchase, Microsoft will now own "all" of Fallout and the "Fallout diaspora" caused by Interplay's death, as Microsoft already owned development studios Oblivion [made FO:Vegas, had developers involved with FO1 and FO2] and inXile [had developers on FO1, FO2, and FO-predecessor Wasteland 1/2/3, and was in a blood feud of sorts with Oblivion].)
(Also, it is interesting to note that with the Bethesda purchase, Microsoft will now own "all" of Fallout and the "Fallout diaspora" caused by Interplay's death, as Microsoft already owned development studios Oblivion [made FO:Vegas, had developers involved with FO1 and FO2] and inXile [had developers on FO1, FO2, and FO-predecessor Wasteland 1/2/3, and was in a blood feud of sorts with Oblivion].)
>Oblivion
Obsidian, the company is called Obsidian Entertainment.
That said, the folks at Obsidian (especially the creators of the original Fallout and New Vegas) have said they have no interest in doing a Fallout game. Tim Cain specifically mentioned during the Outer Worlds Q&A that the Fallout ship had sailed.
Obsidian, the company is called Obsidian Entertainment.
That said, the folks at Obsidian (especially the creators of the original Fallout and New Vegas) have said they have no interest in doing a Fallout game. Tim Cain specifically mentioned during the Outer Worlds Q&A that the Fallout ship had sailed.
Hah, an easy typo/slipup to make when talking about Fallout/Bethesda (due to ES: Oblivion).
I think that Obsidian is better off doing non-Fallout things (and personally Outer Worlds is so much "Fallout Alternate Space Timeline" already that I'd much rather see them continue with Outer Worlds as the closest thing they ever again do to Fallout). It's just interesting to point out how many of the "Fallout birds" will come home to roost at Microsoft.
I think that Obsidian is better off doing non-Fallout things (and personally Outer Worlds is so much "Fallout Alternate Space Timeline" already that I'd much rather see them continue with Outer Worlds as the closest thing they ever again do to Fallout). It's just interesting to point out how many of the "Fallout birds" will come home to roost at Microsoft.
Microsoft doesn't care about exclusives that much, imo. Sure, a few here and there, but overall they just want people to use their software. That's why their new "exclusive" titles are also on Xbox One. Microsoft will make money by selling their Bethesda titles to PlayStation users, etc. They might make a few of their titles exclusive, but Fallout and Doom won't be among them.
Isn't XBOX ONE from MS?
What? They absolutely will make them exclusive.
Can you play Halo on the PlayStation? No, for the same reason you can’t play Uncharted on the Xbox.
Microsoft will happily support Windows gaming, for obvious reasons. But the PlayStation for a franchise like Fallout or Elder Scrolls?
I will believe it when I see it. It makes little strategic sense to offer those titles on Sony hardware when Microsoft have their own console.
Can you play Halo on the PlayStation? No, for the same reason you can’t play Uncharted on the Xbox.
Microsoft will happily support Windows gaming, for obvious reasons. But the PlayStation for a franchise like Fallout or Elder Scrolls?
I will believe it when I see it. It makes little strategic sense to offer those titles on Sony hardware when Microsoft have their own console.
Microsoft's Mojang titles are still on PlayStation and with the xCloud partnership with Sony, things are probably going to get weird on what is considered an "Xbox Exclusive" to the point where "Xbox on PlayStation powered by xCloud" sounds almost a reasonable expectation to happen this console generation.
That hasn't been true for a while now. Xbox Game Studios has acquired Rare, Obsidian, Double Fine, Ninja Theory, Mojang...
>Also this allows them to bring the ID tech engine under their stewardship....
I'm surprised that isnt more commented on here. Everyone is focused on creative IP. Owning id Tech 6 is or should be a play against Epic, Unity, Crytek etc. 1-4 were open source, and ZeniMax clamped down 5-6. I can see Microsoft marketing id Tech's long open source history, and transforming it into an Amazon Lumberyard competitor.
I'm surprised that isnt more commented on here. Everyone is focused on creative IP. Owning id Tech 6 is or should be a play against Epic, Unity, Crytek etc. 1-4 were open source, and ZeniMax clamped down 5-6. I can see Microsoft marketing id Tech's long open source history, and transforming it into an Amazon Lumberyard competitor.
>Owning id Tech 6 is or should be a play against Epic, Unity, Crytek etc.
Does Microsoft even want to compete against their customers/partners in this space? After all, MS may not want to alienate them to the point they won't release their games for the Xbox.
Does Microsoft even want to compete against their customers/partners in this space? After all, MS may not want to alienate them to the point they won't release their games for the Xbox.
Microsoft is a developer company and their oldest division is developer tools. They've made several attempts into the game engine / game engine adjacent space over the years, though rarely saw wins outside of low level DirectX. (XNA will be most remembered as an indie dev play, but a key piece of XNA was its content pipeline and Microsoft tried but didn't succeed that well at trying to replace the mostly mish-mash of custom tools that most AAA studios use for content pipelines for something somewhat more standardized; though of course with the easy retrospect failure of being hobbled by focusing on Xbox first/primarily.) So productionizing id Tech 6 isn't an entirely crazy idea for Microsoft in terms of something that makes cultural sense for them. Game Engines can be an important dev tool; especially in the increasing interest in non-game capital-E Enterprise in game engines for visualization tools (including AR/MR/VR).
But yes, Microsoft seems to have a good working relationship with Unity at this point and probably wants to try to keep a good relationship with Epic, so I don't envy whatever product strategist would have to figure out if that minefield would be worth disturbing.
But yes, Microsoft seems to have a good working relationship with Unity at this point and probably wants to try to keep a good relationship with Epic, so I don't envy whatever product strategist would have to figure out if that minefield would be worth disturbing.
I honestly don't see it being the kind of competition that ruffles those feathers. Microsoft wants developers developers developers to fill Game Pass and run their Infrastructure on Azure, and Microsoft Hearts Open Source. Microsoft open sourcing id Tech 6, and then saying Azure/XboxStore is the best places to build your game and host it, regardless of which engine you want, is the cold war, mutually assured rising tide raises all boats, kind of competition.
What Microsoft doesn't want is Epic or Google getting all the power, becoming the standard, and then being able to strongarm them. Competition, especially open competition, keeps the players more honest.
It's just another entry on this page, albeit a strong one. https://dotnet.microsoft.com/apps/gaming
What Microsoft doesn't want is Epic or Google getting all the power, becoming the standard, and then being able to strongarm them. Competition, especially open competition, keeps the players more honest.
It's just another entry on this page, albeit a strong one. https://dotnet.microsoft.com/apps/gaming
Though Epic being a very loud squeaky wheel right now (versus Apple) is exactly why Microsoft may show concerns of rocking the game engine boat right now. Xbox Game Studios is using the Unreal engine in a lot of projects (Rare's projects like Sea of Thieves; though divorced from Epic for several years now, The Coalition still sometimes seems to get "second party tech demo" support from Epic on Gears) and probably couldn't quickly switch everything to id Tech if Microsoft got into a showdown with Epic like Epic has been fighting Apple lately. Which partly means it is already too late for Epic getting "too much" power to strong arm in the engine space (and thanks to Fortnite increasingly having the confidence to use it).
I want to think that Microsoft can do it, regardless of Epic (and even Unity), but I still think it is a minefield.
I want to think that Microsoft can do it, regardless of Epic (and even Unity), but I still think it is a minefield.
I wouldn't see Microsoft pulling an EA and mandating ID tech like Frostbite. Maybe far down the road there would be a preference.
Indeed, which is why the potential threat of Epic trying to end support for Microsoft for Unreal would be a very credible threat that I think Microsoft would have to deal with. Xbox Game Studios has a lot of projects invested in Unreal today.
Yup, I have the same feeling. I've had an Xbox since the Xbox 360 days:
Xbox 360 -> Xbox One S -> Xbox One X
But, looking at the different showcases. Definitely getting a PS5 this time. I don't do many multi-player games and actually enjoy story based single player games. Looking forward to play God of War, Unchartered, Spider Man, etc.
Maybe this will give Microsoft the boost they need to make some fun next gen games.
Xbox 360 -> Xbox One S -> Xbox One X
But, looking at the different showcases. Definitely getting a PS5 this time. I don't do many multi-player games and actually enjoy story based single player games. Looking forward to play God of War, Unchartered, Spider Man, etc.
Maybe this will give Microsoft the boost they need to make some fun next gen games.
Then you might be getting the best deal with the new PS Plus Collection offer. You'll get to play some of the best games of the past generation immediately on release of the PS5.
Wow, amazing to see Microsoft really being aggressive when it comes to their games line up for Xbox. With the strong offering they are showing with the Xbox All Access I am in general really impressed with them.
microsoft are seeing that the money is going to be made in a subscription model for games. by purchasing the studios it makes it much easier for them to bundle games (possibly with exclusivity) with their gamepass.
i know i'm more likely to subscribe to gamepass (and keep it running for years) vs. the 1/2 games i buy a year.
i know i'm more likely to subscribe to gamepass (and keep it running for years) vs. the 1/2 games i buy a year.
I wonder if they are moving to a subscription model because players hate the Windows store and basically refuse to use it instead of Steam when purchasing games. Having failed at running a store I wonder if they've decided plan b is running a rental service.
Well if nothing else, it makes people use their new React Native Xbox app, which is quite possibly the worst windows application Microsoft has ever produced (and they've produced a lot of very bad ones).
I think the Microsoft store is pretty good actually. I got 6 months of game pass for PC and didn't encounter any problems.
When it works it's fine but sometimes the window store breaks and you basically have to reinstall Windows- in whole or in part- to get it running again. It also is designed to prevent modding and doesn't work with Steam Link for remote play even though normal non-steam games work with Steam Link just fine.
GloSC[1] will get you steam controller mapping / streaming for UWP apps (and more, but I've never had an issue ie adding UPlay games as non-steam games). Here's Minecraft Dungeons running on iOS via Steam Remote Play that I just recorded[2].
Also, Windows Store / GamePass doesn't stop modding, as Crusader King 3 proves.
[1]: https://alia5.github.io/GloSC/
[2]: https://imgur.com/a/Zwz9yvV
Also, Windows Store / GamePass doesn't stop modding, as Crusader King 3 proves.
[1]: https://alia5.github.io/GloSC/
[2]: https://imgur.com/a/Zwz9yvV
Thanks. I tried to get a hardware Steam Link working with Gamepass games and failed, I either tried with that App or some other one I forget but ultimately I got it working by installing Moonlight on the Steam Link instead and essentially using it like a remote desktop.
I've read reports of Windows Store overwriting mod files, either this is a game by game problem or maybe it's solved. I do know a year or two ago the Window Store refused to open on a Windows PC of mine so it's a real problem and there's no way to easily reinstall the windows store if it occurs.
Whether Microsoft has solved these issues by now I don't know. I think I eventually got the windows store back with a Windows update.
I've read reports of Windows Store overwriting mod files, either this is a game by game problem or maybe it's solved. I do know a year or two ago the Window Store refused to open on a Windows PC of mine so it's a real problem and there's no way to easily reinstall the windows store if it occurs.
Whether Microsoft has solved these issues by now I don't know. I think I eventually got the windows store back with a Windows update.
The total market for AAA games right now is probably in the region of 250 to 300 million people if you look at the install base of xbox, playstation and pc.
With gamepass being on pc, xbox and cloud they could potentially capture a substantial part of that market and even expand it due to the low barrier of entry of xcloud or their rent to own scheme. They have 15 million subscribers now which is about 2 billion in revenue depending on the composition of their subscribers. They grew 50% in just 6 months. The potential for gamepass is therefore vast compared to traditional boxed products. If they capture 50% of the current market, thats 20 billion. That would be similar to netflix in size.
With gamepass being on pc, xbox and cloud they could potentially capture a substantial part of that market and even expand it due to the low barrier of entry of xcloud or their rent to own scheme. They have 15 million subscribers now which is about 2 billion in revenue depending on the composition of their subscribers. They grew 50% in just 6 months. The potential for gamepass is therefore vast compared to traditional boxed products. If they capture 50% of the current market, thats 20 billion. That would be similar to netflix in size.
I still have some trouble around the idea that hardcore consumers will want a bundle that has maybe 2-5 games they would have bought otherwise + 95 more they dont really care about.
Aren't consumers just going to buy what they want anyway? Plus the Sony world just has so many more games worth playing
Aren't consumers just going to buy what they want anyway? Plus the Sony world just has so many more games worth playing
If you look at the games shown for the next gen, it's MS is not far away. They have acquired some serious studios and reviving Fable, Halo Infinite hopefully lands, Hellblade 2 looks truly next gen and there's Obsidian, The Initiative and rumoured unannounced "AAAA" game
Doesn't the success of Netflix help convince you?
That's the model Microsoft are going for with Game Pass, just pay us a fixed monthly fee and play any of the hundreds of games we have available on Android/PC/XBox.
That's the model Microsoft are going for with Game Pass, just pay us a fixed monthly fee and play any of the hundreds of games we have available on Android/PC/XBox.
Not really. The alternative before Netflix was more expensive cable/satellite tv. Netflix was both better and cheaper.
As a gamer I probably only spend ~£150 a year on a few really good big games and the odd cheap sale game. And I prefer not to spend so much because it feels wasteful, moreso than Netflix for reasons I can't figure.
Paying £15-20 a month is more money for something I feel I should be spending less on.
As a gamer I probably only spend ~£150 a year on a few really good big games and the odd cheap sale game. And I prefer not to spend so much because it feels wasteful, moreso than Netflix for reasons I can't figure.
Paying £15-20 a month is more money for something I feel I should be spending less on.
Honestly, their investment into game pass and cloud streaming is currently making me choose an Android phone over the new iPhone.
I feel like actual AAA gaming has never been more accessible than it is now.
I feel like actual AAA gaming has never been more accessible than it is now.
I'm in the same boat. My current phone is a work-supplied iPhone, but next time I have to buy my own cell phone it will be an Android device for this reason.
I've only ever owned iPhone smartphones, but unless Apple changes their approach to game streaming services like xCloud or Stadia, I won't continue to be a customer.
I've only ever owned iPhone smartphones, but unless Apple changes their approach to game streaming services like xCloud or Stadia, I won't continue to be a customer.
Microsoft now "owns" Quake? That is ironic.
Can you clarify what you mean? I recently got into developing on the Quake 2 engine, which I think is an amazing piece of software, so I'm kinda obsessed with all things Quake right now.
Quake is made by id Software. ZeniMax Media owns id Software. Microsoft just aquired ZeniMax Media.
That's stating a chain of ownership, not why it's ironic..
Carmack is the only reason why OpenGL is at all relevant in PC gaming as it was miniGL that made it popular in first place, against Glide.
Later on he changed his mind regarding OpenGL vs DirectX, but there are legions of wannabe game developers that worshiped his opinions regarding OpenGL.
See my sibling post regarding his change of opinion.
Later on he changed his mind regarding OpenGL vs DirectX, but there are legions of wannabe game developers that worshiped his opinions regarding OpenGL.
See my sibling post regarding his change of opinion.
Technical merits and discussions aside, without Carmack keeping OpenGL alive, we wouldn't have gaming, engineering and visualization support on GPUs to the level we do today on non-windows platforms.
If MS kills (migrates) Bethesda off of Vulkan, I'd like the DOJ to censure them.
If MS kills (migrates) Bethesda off of Vulkan, I'd like the DOJ to censure them.
Contrary to urban myths consoles don't fully support OpenGL, if at all, depending on the model.
Good example of non-windows platforms.
Which I would also add Mac OS, because the only reason it supports OpenGL is Copland's failure, as it was going to use Quickdraw 3D.
And they are on the path to migrate off to Metal anyway.
OpenGL portability on anger is like POSIX or Web development, write once, debug everywhere, rince and repeat.
It is hardly any different than just defining an abstraction layer and loading the best API for the job on each platform.
A 3D API is a tiny portion of a game engine.
By the way, only DirectX works in all Windows modes and Microsoft is keen to contribute to Mesa/Angle instead of allowing ICD drivers on such contexts.
Good example of non-windows platforms.
Which I would also add Mac OS, because the only reason it supports OpenGL is Copland's failure, as it was going to use Quickdraw 3D.
And they are on the path to migrate off to Metal anyway.
OpenGL portability on anger is like POSIX or Web development, write once, debug everywhere, rince and repeat.
It is hardly any different than just defining an abstraction layer and loading the best API for the job on each platform.
A 3D API is a tiny portion of a game engine.
By the way, only DirectX works in all Windows modes and Microsoft is keen to contribute to Mesa/Angle instead of allowing ICD drivers on such contexts.
Well, I find this even more ironic, giving how wannabe game developers just blindly following Carmack's advises.
> Speaking to bit-tech for a forthcoming Custom PC feature about the future of OpenGL in PC gaming, Carmack said 'I actually think that Direct3D is a rather better API today.' He also added that 'Microsoft had the courage to continue making significant incompatible changes to improve the API, while OpenGL has been held back by compatibility concerns. Direct3D handles multi-threading better, and newer versions manage state better.'
A few paragraphs below
> 'It is really just inertia that keeps us on OpenGL at this point,' Carmack told us. He also explained that the developer has no plans to move over to Direct3D, despite its advantages.
https://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/pc/carmack-directx-bett...
And for a more up to date remarks
> "Lets fix OpenGL" http://cs.cornell.edu/~asampson/media/papers/opengl-snapl201... some interesting thoughts, but the shading language is the least broken part of OpenGL.
> For everyone saying "Vulkan!", the conclusion is that there is an opportunity for an API between Vulkan and the game engines. I agree.
https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/851397231320150017?...
So I can definitely feel the irony.
> Speaking to bit-tech for a forthcoming Custom PC feature about the future of OpenGL in PC gaming, Carmack said 'I actually think that Direct3D is a rather better API today.' He also added that 'Microsoft had the courage to continue making significant incompatible changes to improve the API, while OpenGL has been held back by compatibility concerns. Direct3D handles multi-threading better, and newer versions manage state better.'
A few paragraphs below
> 'It is really just inertia that keeps us on OpenGL at this point,' Carmack told us. He also explained that the developer has no plans to move over to Direct3D, despite its advantages.
https://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/pc/carmack-directx-bett...
And for a more up to date remarks
> "Lets fix OpenGL" http://cs.cornell.edu/~asampson/media/papers/opengl-snapl201... some interesting thoughts, but the shading language is the least broken part of OpenGL.
> For everyone saying "Vulkan!", the conclusion is that there is an opportunity for an API between Vulkan and the game engines. I agree.
https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/851397231320150017?...
So I can definitely feel the irony.
Seems like a better deal than the vapid fad that is TikTok, in addition to them partnering with Oracle which looks like a marriage made in a hellstew.
Well done Microsoft and Bethesda.
Well done Microsoft and Bethesda.
TikTok is not an investment in tech, it’s an investment in relations with the US public sector. The fact that it comes with an actual company attached is almost irrelevant for Oracle.
Sure, but we are talking about Microsoft here.
You should look at the rumoured purchase price that Microsoft was willing to pay for TikTok.
You should look at the rumoured purchase price that Microsoft was willing to pay for TikTok.
MS has plenty of "relations with the US public sector" already, they won the DOD JEDI contract. They didn't need to spend anything on TikTok.
TikTok is a fad, like Instagram and other social networks.
TikTok is a fad, like Instagram and other social networks.
I'm not sure about this take. Are Facebook and Twitter fads 15 something years later?
> MS has plenty of "relations with the US public sector" already
Indeed, which is why in the end they didn't go for it and oracle did: one of the two cared about improving the relationship more than the other.
Indeed, which is why in the end they didn't go for it and oracle did: one of the two cared about improving the relationship more than the other.
From a strategy perspective this is an absolutely massive win for Xbox. Their entire strategy [1] for the next generation of consoles is breadth vs depth, essentially saying they cant beat Sony in exclusives so they'll offer way more value for a lower price.
What this acquisition means is that the gap between potential Xbox exclusives/Day 1 releases and what Sony has is much smaller. Realistically there is a very low chance that any of the IP from this purchase becomes Xbox-exclusive, but even an early launch on Xbox shifts momentum massively.
[1] https://pausebutton.substack.com/p/level-69-the-next-generat...
What this acquisition means is that the gap between potential Xbox exclusives/Day 1 releases and what Sony has is much smaller. Realistically there is a very low chance that any of the IP from this purchase becomes Xbox-exclusive, but even an early launch on Xbox shifts momentum massively.
[1] https://pausebutton.substack.com/p/level-69-the-next-generat...
Microsoft bought the legendary game company Rare some time ago. That acquisition didn't go well, so I hope this works out well for Bethesda.
How did it not go well?
> Kinect Sports Rivals
Great game
> Sea of Thieves
Another great title
> Kinect Sports Rivals
Great game
> Sea of Thieves
Another great title
If you played Rare games from the 90s you would understand.
Also those games while not considered 'bad' weren't exactly considered system sellers.
Also those games while not considered 'bad' weren't exactly considered system sellers.
the things Rare has been known for were platformers (Banjo Kazooie, Donkey Kong) and FPS games (Goldeneye, Perfect Dark).
Perfect Dark Zero in 2005 was probably the last title in either of those veins, which was a launch title for the 360 (soon to be 2 consoles ago!)
Sea of Thieves is certainly a feather in their cap, it's just a bit disappointing that we haven't been able to see Rare take a modern crack at the things they were so known for, if that's even possible now.
Perfect Dark Zero in 2005 was probably the last title in either of those veins, which was a launch title for the 360 (soon to be 2 consoles ago!)
Sea of Thieves is certainly a feather in their cap, it's just a bit disappointing that we haven't been able to see Rare take a modern crack at the things they were so known for, if that's even possible now.
To expect a company to produce the quality/type of games that they made 20+ years ago is a bit unfair, don't you think? I'd venture to guess that the folks behind those games left the studio along time ago anyway.
Most of the Rare staff responsible for those games have left in the decades since (many of them formed Playtonic, which was the pitch behind Yooka-Laylee)
I hope that was long enough in the past where they've done their DD and learned their very-much-needed lesson.
Pre-MS Rare was my personal golden age of gaming. I don't really play anymore, but man do I think fondly on those days.
Pre-MS Rare was my personal golden age of gaming. I don't really play anymore, but man do I think fondly on those days.
That was more then 18 years ago though, back when Microsoft was very new to the console game. They've had a lot of successes and failures since then. A more recent example would be Mojang which has gone extremely well for them - Minecraft is now the best selling game of all time with 147m copies by 2019 compared to around 14m back in 2014 when the company was acquired - largely down to their successful pivot to mobile and console.
Soon we'll just have Microsoft, Epic, and a conglomeration of EA, Activision, and Ubisoft after Bobby Kotick forces them all to merge. Facebook will bungle up any chance they have of capturing the gaming market after writing a cryptic paragraph about their legal right to request blood samples from all Oculous users in the TOS. Valve will quietly exit software development altogether, and pivot to building custom vanity knives using their hardware manufacturing experience. Can't wait for the future GAAS market!
Don't forget Tencent.
Epic is partly owned by Tencent but yeah, they are a very big fish, specially with their interests in mobile gaming.
And not just Tencent - there are also other companies, like NetEase, which while smaller than Tencent at about 1/6th of the size, still takes more annual revenue than EA. (Going by figures on Wikipedia).
And also Bilibili might also join the industry with Fall Guys mobile
https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/1297205586350747648
Nintendo is self-sustainable, Apple is exerting a lot of influence among smaller studios with Arcade. Like Annapurna Interactive (which is nota bene funded by Oracle).
I would never want it to happen because of how much I love Nintendo. But I have always thought if there is any gaming property Apple can really benefit from buying, it is Nintendo.
If I'm doing the maths correctly - Nintendo's current worth is somewhere around $40BN?
Like, that's a lot of money, even for Apple, and then I'm not sure Nintendo would want to sell?
Like, that's a lot of money, even for Apple, and then I'm not sure Nintendo would want to sell?
> I'm not sure Nintendo would want to sell?
Nintendo definitely wouldn't want to sell but it's publicly traded so a hostile takeover is always in the cards
Nintendo definitely wouldn't want to sell but it's publicly traded so a hostile takeover is always in the cards
Japan government would for sure exercise their golden power if someone tries an hostile takeover on any big national corporation like Nintendo.
I mean, one of the founders (Megan Ellison) is Larry Ellison's daughter, I'm sure he helped it get started, but does Oracle as a company have any official activity with Annapurna?
Nintendo is just two bad generations of hardware from being vulnerable enough to sell itself (IMO.)
They had only $4.3 billion cash on hand as of 2018 (surely more by now thanks to the success and maturation of the Switch.) But Microsoft just dropped a little less than double that on ZeniMax.
I wish Nintendo were in such a rock-solid place where I'd feel confident about them existing forever like Disney but I don't think that's ever been the case.
Edit- The people downvoting me have apparently already forgotten about the Wii U. Imagine if they had two such systems in a row, without the DS/3DS line as a profitable fallback. Such are the possibilities of the future.
When Nintendo's doing well, they're doing great, and everyone seems to forget the bad times. The GameCube era wasn't much better, but at least the GameCube and GBA were profitable/break even from their launches, as opposed to the Wii U and especially 3DS post-Ambassador price cut.
Would be interested in a discussion or any kind of rebuttal from others who are actually familiar with Nintendo's financial history.
To be clear: Nintendo as a company operated a loss from 2012-2015. An incompetent CEO could easily exacerbate that into a death spiral. Don't take Nintendo for granted, is all I'm saying.
They had only $4.3 billion cash on hand as of 2018 (surely more by now thanks to the success and maturation of the Switch.) But Microsoft just dropped a little less than double that on ZeniMax.
I wish Nintendo were in such a rock-solid place where I'd feel confident about them existing forever like Disney but I don't think that's ever been the case.
Edit- The people downvoting me have apparently already forgotten about the Wii U. Imagine if they had two such systems in a row, without the DS/3DS line as a profitable fallback. Such are the possibilities of the future.
When Nintendo's doing well, they're doing great, and everyone seems to forget the bad times. The GameCube era wasn't much better, but at least the GameCube and GBA were profitable/break even from their launches, as opposed to the Wii U and especially 3DS post-Ambassador price cut.
Would be interested in a discussion or any kind of rebuttal from others who are actually familiar with Nintendo's financial history.
To be clear: Nintendo as a company operated a loss from 2012-2015. An incompetent CEO could easily exacerbate that into a death spiral. Don't take Nintendo for granted, is all I'm saying.
> But Microsoft just dropped a little less than double that on ZeniMax.
And there you have a key difference between Microsoft and Nintendo.
And there you have a key difference between Microsoft and Nintendo.
Worst case scenario for Nintendo would likely be making Xbox and PS5 games and PC games. I don't think they will ever be for sale.
Yeah, I mean, Sega don't have the mindshare they used to when they owned hardware, but they're very much still a thing.
(replying to both you and the parent)
It's a possibility but pivoting to software isn't easy by any stretch, and it wasn't something Sega should have even been able to do (financially.) The only reason it happened is because Sega's biggest debtor, Isao Okawa, forgave that debt on his deathbed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/17/business/isao-okawa-74-ch...
In a slightly altered timeline where Okawa didn't do this, Sega would have went under and its IP's would have been sold piecemeal to the highest bidders.
It's a possibility but pivoting to software isn't easy by any stretch, and it wasn't something Sega should have even been able to do (financially.) The only reason it happened is because Sega's biggest debtor, Isao Okawa, forgave that debt on his deathbed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/17/business/isao-okawa-74-ch...
In a slightly altered timeline where Okawa didn't do this, Sega would have went under and its IP's would have been sold piecemeal to the highest bidders.
Nintendo has famously large cash reserves rich and a quick Internet search suggests they have about 7 billion in cash. Things would have to go very badly for them to go out of business, especially as they can presumably issue new stock to help raise money for a pivot in some sort of doomsday scenario.
You make good points but Nintendo is such an iconic Japanese brand, it seems like their government would get involved if they were in dire straights.
As a Nintendo baby, it'd be a dark day if some conglomerate bought them.
I was just thinking though, if they needed money they could easily raise crazy amounts of cash from their fanbase via crowdfunding.
As a Nintendo baby, it'd be a dark day if some conglomerate bought them.
I was just thinking though, if they needed money they could easily raise crazy amounts of cash from their fanbase via crowdfunding.
Their central bank is already buying Nintendo stock and is the largest shareholder in Japan, I think.
Over $4 billion cash on hand is an insane amount of money for such a small company. Nintendo is only about 4,000 employees worldwide, so that cash will go a very long way.
I wish Nintendo would just take some ideas from other companies in the areas of online play and incorporate them into their own products. My friends and I would love to play Mario Kart on Switch with each other, but we can't be bothered to setup an additional voice chat solution and use the dumb lobby system. We also would like to play Mario Party online, but Mario Party Switch doesn't even offer its main game modes online, just a handful of mini games.
It's frustrating because there's a lot of untapped potential.
It's frustrating because there's a lot of untapped potential.
You're getting downvoted because you are talking from a place of objectivity. From my understanding (outside of the Wii U), aren't they the only company not losing money on consoles - even now? Why would you bring up "selling themselves" when talking about a company founded in 1889? None of the competitors existed that long - using your logic, Sony and Microsoft might as well count their last days.
"It eventually became one of the most prominent figures in today's video game industry, being the world's largest video game company by revenue"
i.e. on the verge of bankruptcy according to ^
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nintendo
"It eventually became one of the most prominent figures in today's video game industry, being the world's largest video game company by revenue"
i.e. on the verge of bankruptcy according to ^
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nintendo
Annapurna Interactive has had their name on so many creative, well-done projects recently. I had no idea they received funding from Oracle, but quite frankly that just makes me think (somewhat) better of Oracle, not less of Annapurna.
Annapurna was founded/is run by Megan Ellison, Larry Ellison's daughter, if it seems curious!
I'd disagree here. Would recommend checking out this piece [1] on Nintendo's failure to expand as an IP brand.
https://www.matthewball.vc/all/onnintendo
https://www.matthewball.vc/all/onnintendo
> Nintendo is self-sustainable, Apple is exerting a lot of influence among smaller studios with Arcade. Like Annapurna Interactive (which is nota bene funded by Oracle).
I feel Apple Arcade sucks. I recently subscribed, cause I thought maybe my daughter would enjoy it. But most of the games are still too hard for her. So then I tried to play some games on Arcade for myself, but can't say I enjoyed it. Played a few games for 15 - 30 minutes then got bored. There just seems to be very few -if any- really quality games on Apple Arcade, at least from my point of view.
A few days ago I ordered the Retroid Pocket 2 [0], I hope this device will help me get my gaming fix.
If the Retroid Pocket 2 provides me and my daughter with a fun experience, then later I'll order a 2nd one for my daughter. I believe old NES/SNES games are probably easier to play for a 3.5 year old child compared to most of Apple Arcade's offerings. My daughter can already handle a simple gamepad, so as long as the game doesn't use too many buttons (4 directions + A/B/X/Y), a game should be playable for her.
---
[0]: https://www.goretroid.com/products/retroid-pocket-2-handheld...
I feel Apple Arcade sucks. I recently subscribed, cause I thought maybe my daughter would enjoy it. But most of the games are still too hard for her. So then I tried to play some games on Arcade for myself, but can't say I enjoyed it. Played a few games for 15 - 30 minutes then got bored. There just seems to be very few -if any- really quality games on Apple Arcade, at least from my point of view.
A few days ago I ordered the Retroid Pocket 2 [0], I hope this device will help me get my gaming fix.
If the Retroid Pocket 2 provides me and my daughter with a fun experience, then later I'll order a 2nd one for my daughter. I believe old NES/SNES games are probably easier to play for a 3.5 year old child compared to most of Apple Arcade's offerings. My daughter can already handle a simple gamepad, so as long as the game doesn't use too many buttons (4 directions + A/B/X/Y), a game should be playable for her.
---
[0]: https://www.goretroid.com/products/retroid-pocket-2-handheld...
Have you tried any NES games lately? They're super hard! SNES games are better but they're still almost all very difficult.
> Have you tried any NES games lately? They're super hard! SNES games are better but they're still almost all very difficult.
NES games might be hard. I never really had a NES while I was young. But I do know for sure some SNES games that will be easy to play. E.g. Mario Kart & Unirally. There's some videos on YouTube that shows other games that are playable by young children [0]. Super Double Dragon isn't too complicated either I think and the Retroid Pocket 2 can be connected to a tv using HDMI cable and can use BLE to connect controllers. So that way I can play together with my daughter at the same time, to make it even easier for her.
Here's a video that suggests some NES games for children [1].
---
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwn1IM7GV10
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dmF3FbZwlQ
NES games might be hard. I never really had a NES while I was young. But I do know for sure some SNES games that will be easy to play. E.g. Mario Kart & Unirally. There's some videos on YouTube that shows other games that are playable by young children [0]. Super Double Dragon isn't too complicated either I think and the Retroid Pocket 2 can be connected to a tv using HDMI cable and can use BLE to connect controllers. So that way I can play together with my daughter at the same time, to make it even easier for her.
Here's a video that suggests some NES games for children [1].
---
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwn1IM7GV10
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dmF3FbZwlQ
Apple's entire approach to gaming is broken. I tried to play various games on my iPad Pro and AppleTV recently and just getting a controller to work is a shitshow. Half the games that work with controllers have weird moments where you need to touch the screen.
It's fine for extremely casual or touch based games but doesn't work for anything serious.
It's fine for extremely casual or touch based games but doesn't work for anything serious.
I was expecting you to finish with valve pivoting to hats.
I mean, the joke is funny but realistically it's clear that Valve is getting back in the game, so to speak, and we're probably going to see some VR followup to Alyx in the next year or two.
I dunno about this. The current consensus of community is that Dota 2 is dying and valve couldn't be bothered doing anything about it. Just cashing in while they can.
And Dota 2 is by far their biggest game.
And Dota 2 is by far their biggest game.
I would say since it was made free to play CS:GO (also Valve) surpassed Dota 2 and it is still rising.
> Dota 2 is dying
I'm old enough that I remember people saying this in 2014. Actual data on active users - https://steamcharts.com/app/570#All. This indicates that it's far from it's peak of 1.2M active players but 700k active is still respectable.
> Dota 2 is by far their biggest game.
Not by players. That would be CS:GO (https://steamcharts.com/app/730) with 900k active players.
I'm old enough that I remember people saying this in 2014. Actual data on active users - https://steamcharts.com/app/570#All. This indicates that it's far from it's peak of 1.2M active players but 700k active is still respectable.
> Dota 2 is by far their biggest game.
Not by players. That would be CS:GO (https://steamcharts.com/app/730) with 900k active players.
900k active presumably includes the 50% of Deathmatch players that are zombies?
It's interesting to see there seems to be some evolutionary pressures at play as a couple of new routines are being used, not just 'rotate on the spot', one or two shoot now (yes, I got shot by an XP farming zombie) and one does epicycles which makes them surprisingly hard to shoot.
It's interesting to see there seems to be some evolutionary pressures at play as a couple of new routines are being used, not just 'rotate on the spot', one or two shoot now (yes, I got shot by an XP farming zombie) and one does epicycles which makes them surprisingly hard to shoot.
I think its actually someone in a computer lab in pakistan etc running 10 computers at a time and just selectively doing an action or two per account each round.
CSGO has the same thing.
They've managed to make a Dota 2 tutorial that's worse than the 2014 one. And matchmaking for the new players is just brutal, there is no retention.
Personal story time, few months back me and my buddy got asked to help our non-dota friend get into the game. We are both playing occasionally in lower brackets.
Both of us created new account to so that noobie wouldn't be thrown into deep water right away. Note that me and my friend were 'baby sitting' - playing neutrally not trying to win vs lower rated opponents.
Out of 10 games 7 had hardcore smurfs in them. People in stack dominating their lanes. I don't see how anyone new and without any friends could possibly survived through such acid pool.
Imagine you are starting to play chess and 7/10 opponents are rated master and will crush you. And its kind of crush that you can't really learn from either.
I really don't see how dota can grow when there are so many alternatives.
Both of us created new account to so that noobie wouldn't be thrown into deep water right away. Note that me and my friend were 'baby sitting' - playing neutrally not trying to win vs lower rated opponents.
Out of 10 games 7 had hardcore smurfs in them. People in stack dominating their lanes. I don't see how anyone new and without any friends could possibly survived through such acid pool.
Imagine you are starting to play chess and 7/10 opponents are rated master and will crush you. And its kind of crush that you can't really learn from either.
I really don't see how dota can grow when there are so many alternatives.
Are you sure matchmaking didn't detect you were smurfing?
Nah we both play passive (avoiding aggression ourselves), besides blatant smurfs getting 15 kills by 20min are not tagged as smurfs. I just don't think there are any mechanisms to catch that and match noobies with other noobies. Instead they are sent straight into slaughterhouse.
To fix that problem you have game systems that are more random / forgiving in lower ranked games (remove the skill).
Then in the harder ranks you can dial back those mechanics and make the game more skill based.
Just a little tip for Valve there. I'm sure they're reading.
Then in the harder ranks you can dial back those mechanics and make the game more skill based.
Just a little tip for Valve there. I'm sure they're reading.
I am of the mind that any new player should play 10 games with bots at a minimum with tutorial driven gameplay.
Only after that should they be allowed multiplayer.
On a side note, the bots are not working since the latest patch.
Only after that should they be allowed multiplayer.
On a side note, the bots are not working since the latest patch.
[deleted]
CS:GO is actually their biggest game now, but it does look like Dota 2 is dying. From a business perspective, they don't have any reason to try and save it though. They've lost ~40% of their players over the past 4 years, but are making more money than ever. The in-game tutorials have been unfinished for years, their Dota+ subscription service is all but abandoned (but still bringing in millions of dollars a year), and even cosmetics are mostly contained to a time-limited battlepass to take advantage of FOMO.
CS GO was abandoned by valve, community picked up the scene by creating their own leagues and tournaments. Only then valve gracefully came back to support CS :(
CS:GO is also going to trend downward soon with the release of Valorant, which is basically the same game with a few superpowers attached. All my friends who played GO switched over, they're attracting a pro scene, I think it's only a matter of time tbh.
I've avoided Valorant because it requires kernel drivers. But I'm in the minority, most gamers don't even know whats involved there.
I'll be a single counter-point. I straight up reinstalled Windows to play Valorant and all it's done is made me play a lot more CSGO. I'm legitimately having more fun with CSGO now than I have in a very long time! The game feels like it's in a super good place. It's got a ton of cool skins, the competitive scene feels really competitive at the moment, playing it competitively feels great. The DM mode scratches a very good itch, gun game is still a lot of fun, etc...
The International has been growing every year.
I'm not sure about that. I read Alyx as a very successful tech demo intended to push the market sector out a bit and make money off the platform and hardware, rather than a renewed more games-centric direction for Valve. Much like iD's output often being tech demos for the game engines that they then license to other studios.
> very successful tech demo
Can't think of a Valve game that doesn't fit this description.
Can't think of a Valve game that doesn't fit this description.
Tech demo? Have you played it?
It's a heck of a "demo". It's about the size of Half Life 2.
It's a heck of a "demo". It's about the size of Half Life 2.
I do not doubt it is a full game.
But that is not its sole purpose.
The only debate is whether is a game first, or a demo of how full games work in the framework/hardware first and a full game because that was deemed the best way to showcase the what is possible.
But that is not its sole purpose.
The only debate is whether is a game first, or a demo of how full games work in the framework/hardware first and a full game because that was deemed the best way to showcase the what is possible.
People really need to watch (play?) (read?) The Final Hours of Half Life Alyx. Its a documentary-like experience available on Steam which dives in to the past decade or two at Valve.
From the outside, all we see is very few games being produced. From the inside, its far more complex; something like a Dark Decade for Valve where even they weren't sure what they should be working on. Hundreds of failed prototypes and ideas. Major technical issues with Source 2 that took years to fix. L4D3 was under development, but ran into huge scope creep (full open world with variable length days depending on time of year and hemisphere, variable tides based on moon cycle, crazy stuff like that). They were working on a tech showcase codenamed ARTI/Artifact using a brand new voxel-based game engine separate from Source (and after the game was canceled, the name was taken and used for the now-released Dota 2 Card Game).
From the outside, all we see is very few games being produced. From the inside, its far more complex; something like a Dark Decade for Valve where even they weren't sure what they should be working on. Hundreds of failed prototypes and ideas. Major technical issues with Source 2 that took years to fix. L4D3 was under development, but ran into huge scope creep (full open world with variable length days depending on time of year and hemisphere, variable tides based on moon cycle, crazy stuff like that). They were working on a tech showcase codenamed ARTI/Artifact using a brand new voxel-based game engine separate from Source (and after the game was canceled, the name was taken and used for the now-released Dota 2 Card Game).
When you hear stuff like this, the acquisition binge that so many companies go on starts to make sense.
When you hear stuff like this, you start to wonder if Valve's management style is half as sustainable as they would like to think. Without Steam and hats/knives they'd be broke several times over with that sort of lack of focus and inability to release games outside of what seems a decadal cycle. (ETA: Which possibly makes a "locusts of gaming" analogy relevant for Valve, hah.)
Except that out of that experimentation came Alyx. Everything in that game is outstanding from a technical perspective, the way you interact with the world feels completely natural.
Sure they could have pushed out a VR game every year for the last 5 years to maybe get to the same level of interaction fluidity but they would all feel subpar, not quite there, like the vast majority of other VR games.
Valves strength is that they a have a structure that allows experimentation without a hard deadline, they can afford to throw millions at the wall and see what sticks. This allows themw to take a decade between large, ground breaking projects. They're not beholden to YoY or QoQ growth.
They've had what? Two duds in 20+ years? Not bad when you consider the rest of their output are beloved classics.
Granted they have a good few money printing machines to help them work like this but I would argue that they have these money printing machines because they have the ability to experiment, because of their structure.
Sure they could have pushed out a VR game every year for the last 5 years to maybe get to the same level of interaction fluidity but they would all feel subpar, not quite there, like the vast majority of other VR games.
Valves strength is that they a have a structure that allows experimentation without a hard deadline, they can afford to throw millions at the wall and see what sticks. This allows themw to take a decade between large, ground breaking projects. They're not beholden to YoY or QoQ growth.
They've had what? Two duds in 20+ years? Not bad when you consider the rest of their output are beloved classics.
Granted they have a good few money printing machines to help them work like this but I would argue that they have these money printing machines because they have the ability to experiment, because of their structure.
Sort of; unless they make more games, Alyx is "just" a tech demo or an attempt to sell more of their VR kits.
It's weird, they've got some seriously good franchises that they haven't done anything with; Half-Life could use a sequel every few years; Portal could become a massive franchise; Team Fortress 2, CS:GO and DOTA 2 are huge money makers but I think they're reluctant to make sequels to those because of balancing and pissing off the existing, invested player bases. (I think that may have happened when they went from CS:S to CS:Go, where the latter had very lucrative monetization options, lucrative but morally dubious because of off-site trading and gambling)
It's weird, they've got some seriously good franchises that they haven't done anything with; Half-Life could use a sequel every few years; Portal could become a massive franchise; Team Fortress 2, CS:GO and DOTA 2 are huge money makers but I think they're reluctant to make sequels to those because of balancing and pissing off the existing, invested player bases. (I think that may have happened when they went from CS:S to CS:Go, where the latter had very lucrative monetization options, lucrative but morally dubious because of off-site trading and gambling)
[deleted]
as a player, I'm not really sure what would be gained from a sequel to csgo. any big change to the mechanics would just piss everyone off, and smaller changes can just be done as updates to the existing game. csgo was only ~$20 when it launched, and it's free now, so I don't think there's much financial upside to selling a newer cs title. they already make plenty of money off skins.
the only thing I see that they could really change in a new title would be the graphics, but I don't think that's much of a selling point to the audience. cs players care more about getting >100fps on their potato computer than pretty graphics.
the only thing I see that they could really change in a new title would be the graphics, but I don't think that's much of a selling point to the audience. cs players care more about getting >100fps on their potato computer than pretty graphics.
Do we need sequels every few years? Don't get me wrong I'll be the first I the queue for HL3 or Portal 3 but only because historically it has been a fantastic set of games.
Maybe I misunderstand what you mean but pretty sure the CS:GO knife market is way bigger than the TF2 hat market, so knives fit the joke better.
>Soon we'll just have Microsoft, Epic, and a conglomeration of EA, Activision, and Ubisoft
And, you know, all the other independent developers. Of which there are a legion.
And, you know, all the other independent developers. Of which there are a legion.
Unity just had its IPO, and the technology is powering a huge fraction of games across all platforms, from recent hit Fall Guys to Pokemon Go, to thousands of indie efforts, not to mention wide adoption in both the AR software industry and as a platform for many AI research projects. I don't know what its financial future will be as the company has been focusing on growth over profit, but it's a significant player.
Tangentially, open-source game engine Godot keeps getting better and better, and it's just a matter of time before a significant game is made using its tools: https://godotengine.org/
Tangentially, open-source game engine Godot keeps getting better and better, and it's just a matter of time before a significant game is made using its tools: https://godotengine.org/
According to Switch data, Unity powers about 50% of its games.
It is also the tier1 engine sponsored by Google and Microsoft for their 3D offerings, Godot needs to grow a bit more to reach that level of relevance for game studios, AR/VR companies and Hollywood now looking at Unity.
It is also the tier1 engine sponsored by Google and Microsoft for their 3D offerings, Godot needs to grow a bit more to reach that level of relevance for game studios, AR/VR companies and Hollywood now looking at Unity.
Nintendo isn't really helpful to understand the greater market.
Most developers don't work with them, and their customers represent a tiny less "gaming educated" population. It's like using cellphone games as a gauge on the greater market.
Most developers don't work with them, and their customers represent a tiny less "gaming educated" population. It's like using cellphone games as a gauge on the greater market.
That's silly gatekeeping bullshit.
By the numbers, mobile gaming is the greater market. It's traditional gaming that's becoming the niche.
By the numbers, mobile gaming is the greater market. It's traditional gaming that's becoming the niche.
[deleted]
That's some impressive mental gymnastics to try to redefine a market to be more like one you want it to be. Here's a tip: Markets are defined by demand, not supply.
> Most developers don't work with them, and their customers represent a tiny less "gaming educated" population.
That's a bit insulting. Mario and Zelda are a few of the consistently best game franchises. Smash Bros gamers aren't "uneducated"
> It's like using cellphone games as a gauge on the greater market.
The mobile game market is bigger than the console and PC market.
That's a bit insulting. Mario and Zelda are a few of the consistently best game franchises. Smash Bros gamers aren't "uneducated"
> It's like using cellphone games as a gauge on the greater market.
The mobile game market is bigger than the console and PC market.
The switch is also a huge market for indie devs now. Just a crazy amount of indie games in the switch market. Hell one company, Brace Yourself Games, leveraged their game 'Crypt of the Necrodancer' into a connected zelda licensed game called 'Cadence of Hyrule' that just won some awards.
The whole 'Nintendo is a thing unto itself' narrative is fading quickly.
The whole 'Nintendo is a thing unto itself' narrative is fading quickly.
It still is, though.
I mean, a part of the reason why indie titles work there is that Nintendo is refusing to offer a AAA gamepass, is using underpowered hardware and is charging a price premium for it. They very much are resisting trends and are their own thing, and it's kind of hard to really use them as a long term market barometer because it can and will backfire as often as it works.
They also kind of are in uncharted waters too. This is now the first time I think they don't have a dedicated handheld and home console, and just have one platform. A lot of why they were able to survive mistakes was having the handheld market as an evergreen to fall back on.
I mean, a part of the reason why indie titles work there is that Nintendo is refusing to offer a AAA gamepass, is using underpowered hardware and is charging a price premium for it. They very much are resisting trends and are their own thing, and it's kind of hard to really use them as a long term market barometer because it can and will backfire as often as it works.
They also kind of are in uncharted waters too. This is now the first time I think they don't have a dedicated handheld and home console, and just have one platform. A lot of why they were able to survive mistakes was having the handheld market as an evergreen to fall back on.
>The whole 'Nintendo is a thing unto itself' narrative is fading quickly.
I fully agree with you, but that narrative has started changing only in recent times. Not that long ago, I would have mostly agreed with the premise that "Nintendo is a thing unto itself."
If my memory serves right, Nintendo was dipping feet into it since at least GameCube/Wii era, but only with Switch they started seriously being, in my eyes, a not "unto itself" kind of an entity.
I fully agree with you, but that narrative has started changing only in recent times. Not that long ago, I would have mostly agreed with the premise that "Nintendo is a thing unto itself."
If my memory serves right, Nintendo was dipping feet into it since at least GameCube/Wii era, but only with Switch they started seriously being, in my eyes, a not "unto itself" kind of an entity.
Unity is definitely a big player on all platforms, but it's probably strongest on smartphones / AR / simulation for AI / and indie developers. Epic's niche with Unreal is more high end AAA games / big studio console releases, and now apparently Hollywood & VFX. Disney and ILM are using Unreal for real-time on-set backdrops in shows like The Mandalorian: https://venturebeat.com/2020/02/20/ilm-reveals-how-it-used-u...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games#Un...
The underlying C++ source code is available for both commercial engines, but Unity charges high fees for source access, and only on a direct per-studio basis, whereas Unreal 4's source is available on GitHub if you pay $20/mo. The vast majority of Unity developers work within its IDE and C# API. There are definitely strong network effects from the sheer number of developers using Unity, such as the amount of documentation, tutorials, and C# code available online.
But again, Godot is fully open source and getting consistently better as it evolves. It's C++ based, closing in on competitive rendering, ported to every relevant architecture, and has a full IDE and scripting system. It reminds me a lot of the Blender project. At some point, some significant video game IP will be built using it and shake things up. It's just a matter of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games#Un...
The underlying C++ source code is available for both commercial engines, but Unity charges high fees for source access, and only on a direct per-studio basis, whereas Unreal 4's source is available on GitHub if you pay $20/mo. The vast majority of Unity developers work within its IDE and C# API. There are definitely strong network effects from the sheer number of developers using Unity, such as the amount of documentation, tutorials, and C# code available online.
But again, Godot is fully open source and getting consistently better as it evolves. It's C++ based, closing in on competitive rendering, ported to every relevant architecture, and has a full IDE and scripting system. It reminds me a lot of the Blender project. At some point, some significant video game IP will be built using it and shake things up. It's just a matter of time.
> Unreal 4's source is available on GitHub if you pay $20/mo
Unreal 4's source has been free to access for a while now. The $20/month thing was just when it first came out.
Unreal 4's source has been free to access for a while now. The $20/month thing was just when it first came out.
I wouldn't write off Godot, it may not have the hype or big names but it is seeing swelling support from the indie and garage developer side of things
Probably missing the largest gaming company in the world Tencent here. I believe they will still thrive.
There are more:
- paradox interactive
- rockstar, which is strong from gta v online and rdr
- cd projeckt red, which also get income from gog and hyped cyberpunk
- valve won't exit software devs in short time, their investment in vr is big. I won't be surprised if they release vanity knives with lootbox though
IMO Bethesda decided to sell to MS because their recent games cannot generate enough popularity. They can only hoped for skyrim and are struggling with their old engine.
IMO Bethesda decided to sell to MS because their recent games cannot generate enough popularity. They can only hoped for skyrim and are struggling with their old engine.
If Rockstar ever gets acquired, this will be one of the most expensive deals ever. They routinely sell games in the dozens of millions of units.
GTA V, mainly thanks to their online offering, has been the 2nd best selling video game of all time, second only to Minecraft... which Microsoft bought in 2014 for $2.5 billion.
Mind you, Minecraft's income comes from a lot of merchandise and spinoffs, whereas GTA is mainly from the game itself.
I was curious; RDR 2, also a Rockstar game, is the #14 best selling game of all time apparently; I didn't know it did that good. The other GTA games are also in the top 50.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_gam...
Mind you, Minecraft's income comes from a lot of merchandise and spinoffs, whereas GTA is mainly from the game itself.
I was curious; RDR 2, also a Rockstar game, is the #14 best selling game of all time apparently; I didn't know it did that good. The other GTA games are also in the top 50.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_gam...
Note that two thirds of the sales of Minecraft occured after 2014[1].
[1]: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-06-26-minecrafts-con...
[1]: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-06-26-minecrafts-con...
It makes me happy to see RDR2 do well financially. It's a breathtaking game that's not just about mindless fast-paced action all the time.
And then you shoot a squirrel.
I rarely buy new games at full price, but I bought RDR2 twice: first for the PS4, the on the PC.
Contrary to popular opinion, Rockstar is actually not a competent game developer.
I'm curious how you measure competence.
Virtually every release Rockstar does sells millions. And from my point of view their games are fun too.
Virtually every release Rockstar does sells millions. And from my point of view their games are fun too.
Rockstar makes multiplayer titles, but doesn't have an engine that's capable of dealing with that (leading to an absurd number of bugs and performance problems), and they have no security at all, so their games are only playable on not-yet-cracked consoles. Rockstar even went so far as to include a "finger of god" feature in GTA, which allowed their admins to kick players from and mess with the single player mode, except Rockstar has no security, so mod menu developers figured out how anyone with a menu could use those features to mess with literally anyone's single player. They eventually removed that feature, which as I recall is one of maybe two or three times they fixed a security problem. Previously mod menu users could reset character stats and outright ban other players. It's incredibly broken, even though financially successful, based on ethically questionable marketing of ingame purchases to minors. RDR2 may be beautiful, but performance is bad. RDO runs on the exact same system as GTA, so zero security and unplayable on PC.
I've played most Rockstar titles, but never multiplayer. I don't understand how a lack of security means they're only playable on uncracked consoles. That sounds backwards. I've only ever played them on uncracked consoles. (and it's not just "yet", I just don't crack any consoles I own)
The performance is good enough for any of my purposes. I don't doubt it could be better.
The security thing sounds like a real problem. I didn't know about any of that.
The performance is good enough for any of my purposes. I don't doubt it could be better.
The security thing sounds like a real problem. I didn't know about any of that.
The problem is not what you do with your console or PC, the problem is that multiplayer is P2P and a complete lack of security, anticheat and hardening means that anyone with a mod menu can do practically everything with your game (kick from the game, ban you from in-game features, make the game stuck, crash it, give you bad FPS, flashing or shaking screen, follow you into every session you join and even damage your installation). The only thing that prevents all of this is the platform not being cracked.
How do you define competency? Games sold, aggregate review score, or some other arbitrary metric that you're using to gatekeep on game quality?
My point was that they know how to make games that sell by truckloads. Quality of development is another matter altogether
The people that made GTA great left so that well is going to dry up pretty quick
How do you know? Do you have any source information? I had not read of this before
So more flying motorcycles that shoot rockets? :-) I think they ran out of ideas some time ago unless you count my example.
> IMO Bethesda decided to sell to MS because their recent games cannot generate enough popularity
Truly mystifying why they'd want to create an MMO. It's as if they hadn't been following the news. The success of WoW is incredibly hard to repeat, and most studios who try fail, no matter how much money they throw at it.
The MMO space has been, WoW aside, a money bonfire for one and a half decade at this point.
Truly mystifying why they'd want to create an MMO. It's as if they hadn't been following the news. The success of WoW is incredibly hard to repeat, and most studios who try fail, no matter how much money they throw at it.
The MMO space has been, WoW aside, a money bonfire for one and a half decade at this point.
That, and also, Bethesda already owns the (3rd largest? ish?) MMORPG on the planet, with Elder Scrolls Online.
ESO has been pretty successful, 15 million players:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidjagneaux/2020/03/30/elder-...
I'd guess that the article has it wrong and they're mainly on the free tier and that's not the subscriber count though.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidjagneaux/2020/03/30/elder-...
I'd guess that the article has it wrong and they're mainly on the free tier and that's not the subscriber count though.
ESO has no free tier. You need to buy the base game.
I forgot, that's true. But it wasn't a big hit on release, I'd imagine the vast majority of those are bought when it's on sale, like the steam summer sale.
Fallout 4 was a massive hit and they've got a new franchise about to come out (Starfield). Wolfenstein + Dishonored have consistently sold well.
In May 2016, 5 years after Skyrim was released, it was valued at $2.5 billion, now it's being bought 4 years later for $7.5 billion.
I appreciate some Bethesda fans have a weird agenda, but you are wrong. Also, Starfield has been written in an overhauled engine, so again, wrong[1]. Although to be honest, it's probably the same engine with updates and they're just saying that to try and stop the small minority of rabid fans that keep on harping about their imagined deficiencies of the creation engine with every new Bethesda game. That's then always a massive hit.
[1]https://bethesda.net/en/article/4IwKWIj174Cb2QNTTtBAEb/todd-... - paragraph 9 "[The new console cycle has] led to our largest engine overhaul since Oblivion, with all new technologies powering our first new IP in 25 years, Starfield"
In May 2016, 5 years after Skyrim was released, it was valued at $2.5 billion, now it's being bought 4 years later for $7.5 billion.
I appreciate some Bethesda fans have a weird agenda, but you are wrong. Also, Starfield has been written in an overhauled engine, so again, wrong[1]. Although to be honest, it's probably the same engine with updates and they're just saying that to try and stop the small minority of rabid fans that keep on harping about their imagined deficiencies of the creation engine with every new Bethesda game. That's then always a massive hit.
[1]https://bethesda.net/en/article/4IwKWIj174Cb2QNTTtBAEb/todd-... - paragraph 9 "[The new console cycle has] led to our largest engine overhaul since Oblivion, with all new technologies powering our first new IP in 25 years, Starfield"
Fallout 76 was an unmitigated disaster and absolute embarrassment to the studio however [1].
[1]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kjyeCdd-dl8
[1]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kjyeCdd-dl8
So? Lots of studios have flops. The point is they've had plenty more successes since Skyrim. I even forgot to mention DOOM and Prey. And don't forget, FO76 wasn't even made by the main studio.
Adding the back catalogue to gamepass (and probably taking it all off steam), is part of the price too.
Hell, if the price was $7.5 billion even after the FO76 flop, what would it have been if they'd pulled it off? Making a whole new type of MMO.
Adding the back catalogue to gamepass (and probably taking it all off steam), is part of the price too.
Hell, if the price was $7.5 billion even after the FO76 flop, what would it have been if they'd pulled it off? Making a whole new type of MMO.
Fallout 76 is even the exact sort of "live service" game that seems to do really well on Xbox Game Pass. (Sea of Thieves is often mentioned by Microsoft as a gold standard live service game that exceeds exceeds "sales expectations" precisely because of Game Pass; it probably wouldn't have sold as much as it has without Game Pass.) Rumors are that when Bethesda put FO76 on Game Pass the player count went way up, though Microsoft remains mysterious about actual Game Pass numbers, and FO76 also released a major expansion pack and cross-play at the same time, so if those rumors are true it may not just have been Game Pass but the confluence of things.
That video is a year and a half old. I hear the game has improved since then, but I haven't tried it myself.
So was No Man's Sky when it came out. Though rare, sometimes studios do the right thing over time. FO76 seems to be having a better second act.
I think comparison is a bit unfair since nms is (mostly) single player while fo76 is not. If nms gets good (i believe it is good btw, I play it regularly on VR) it would still sell 5 years later but fo76 would be dead if it can't keep up player count high.
So yeah, a failed multiplayer/mmo game is a bigger failure imo, because it is hard/impossible to recover from
So yeah, a failed multiplayer/mmo game is a bigger failure imo, because it is hard/impossible to recover from
See also, Final Fantasy XIV. From disaster to IMO one of the most magnificent games ever created.
> ... stop the small minority of rabid fans that keep on harping about their imagined deficiencies of the creation engine with every new Bethesda game.
Seeing as there are still some ancient problems with CreationKit (physics over 60fps, widescreen support, etc), I'll be interested to see how much they will overhaul it and how many old bugs will have to be fixed by the community (see nexusmods "Universal Patch" for any CK Bethesda game).
Seeing as there are still some ancient problems with CreationKit (physics over 60fps, widescreen support, etc), I'll be interested to see how much they will overhaul it and how many old bugs will have to be fixed by the community (see nexusmods "Universal Patch" for any CK Bethesda game).
FWIW the 60fps issue was introduced in Oblivion (it didn't exist in Morrowind) and that was because of the physics integration. However that is an integration issue and something they have actually fixed - in other games (e.g. Skyrim VR).
Similarly with widescreen support, there isn't really an issue with it, you can use any resolution by modifying configuration files but they just... do not bother to polish it up.
(note that any bug that can be fixed with normal mods isn't really an engine bug but a content bug - though some mods do work by hooking the engine executable)
Similarly with widescreen support, there isn't really an issue with it, you can use any resolution by modifying configuration files but they just... do not bother to polish it up.
(note that any bug that can be fixed with normal mods isn't really an engine bug but a content bug - though some mods do work by hooking the engine executable)
The creationkit games are one of the few that have the two critical components that allow this, mod support and extensive modding communities.
It's easy to have no fixes, when it can't be fixed.
It's easy to have no fixes, when it can't be fixed.
> I appreciate some Bethesda fans have a weird agenda, but you are wrong
> small minority of rabid fans that keep on harping about their imagined deficiencies of the creation engine
You post comes across a bit aggressive and insulting.
> small minority of rabid fans that keep on harping about their imagined deficiencies of the creation engine
You post comes across a bit aggressive and insulting.
> their recent games cannot generate enough popularity
I wouldn't be so sure. Sure, they are not GTA or CoD, but Prey, Dishonored or Doom have all sold rather good.
I wouldn't be so sure. Sure, they are not GTA or CoD, but Prey, Dishonored or Doom have all sold rather good.
FWIW Ubisoft is very hostile to being acquired.
I worked there for 6-7 years and the CEO fought off vivendis acquisition. Which was not the first.
He has even gone so far as to decentralise the Canadian studios so that if the company was somehow acquired the aquirer could not close down studios without heavy fines from the Canadian government.
I worked there for 6-7 years and the CEO fought off vivendis acquisition. Which was not the first.
He has even gone so far as to decentralise the Canadian studios so that if the company was somehow acquired the aquirer could not close down studios without heavy fines from the Canadian government.
Could you elaborate on that last point or share a source? I don't doubt you but I don't understand the legal basis behind that move (but sounds interesting)!
Standard: I am not a lawyer disclaimer here.
The way it was described to me was that there's two major types of fine that the canadian government will levy against large companies that dump lots of workers at once.
1) More than 50 people within a 4week period.
Usually this means that the company must continue paying employment benefits on behalf of the company for a period of a year (iirc).
2) More than x% of your company being closed down.
You can get around #2 by claiming redundancies or claiming that you've moved the job to another canadian state (or, centralised a position), but once you give the studio its own legal entity and place an MD in charge (who is legally responsible for the studio) you can't do that any longer because the parent company continues to have a legal presence in the country, but operations are considered separate/independent.
Thus, if you close down the studio you've effectively terminated 100% of employment there which will garner super heavy fines.
Also also: Ubisoft doesn't want to piss of the canadian government either because nearly their entire profit exists in the tax break that montreal gives game companies.
.. but, like I said, this was told to me only a few times by a few high level directors and it was when we were talking about Vivendi trying to buy us, and they were also not laywers, so it could be a lot of chinese whispers.
But I've spoken to Yves, and while he's a really genuinely nice person... he will salt the earth before he sells the company.
The way it was described to me was that there's two major types of fine that the canadian government will levy against large companies that dump lots of workers at once.
1) More than 50 people within a 4week period.
Usually this means that the company must continue paying employment benefits on behalf of the company for a period of a year (iirc).
2) More than x% of your company being closed down.
You can get around #2 by claiming redundancies or claiming that you've moved the job to another canadian state (or, centralised a position), but once you give the studio its own legal entity and place an MD in charge (who is legally responsible for the studio) you can't do that any longer because the parent company continues to have a legal presence in the country, but operations are considered separate/independent.
Thus, if you close down the studio you've effectively terminated 100% of employment there which will garner super heavy fines.
Also also: Ubisoft doesn't want to piss of the canadian government either because nearly their entire profit exists in the tax break that montreal gives game companies.
.. but, like I said, this was told to me only a few times by a few high level directors and it was when we were talking about Vivendi trying to buy us, and they were also not laywers, so it could be a lot of chinese whispers.
But I've spoken to Yves, and while he's a really genuinely nice person... he will salt the earth before he sells the company.
What other Canadian state can you move the job to?
We have offices in Quebec, Ontario and Mantinoba.
None of which are states.
A federated state and a province are interchangeable terms. They have more specific names in some places, e.g. oblasts, emirates, etc. In much of the world the term state is usually used to refer to sovereign states unless directly talking about the US.
But you knew what I meant and are being pedantic.
But you knew what I meant and are being pedantic.
My point is you can't write a long post about Canadian law, use the wrong terminology and expect to be taken seriously. It's not like its commonly referred to as the Ontario state or state of Quebec.
It would be like if I was talking about US law and said the territory of Maryland. It is technically a territory as in "an area of land under the jurisdiction of a ruler or state" but no one refers to it as the territory of Maryland either formally or informally and also makes my post less credible as it sounds like I don't know what I am talking about.
To be perfectly fair with you it's a mistake I commonly make as I'm not exactly interacting with Canadian provinces and it has very little to do with my day to day.
What I am repeating is a "fact" I've heard multiple times from multiple executives and I live half a world away, I've never been truly interested in what the various political systems are in Canada (or the US, or Mexico, or wherever) but I am acutely aware of different laws in those countries too.
For instance in some states in the US it is legal to turn right on red.
If I use the wrong terminology when referencing county or region then it has little bearing on the things I've actually heard.
I never claimed to be an expert on Canadian law, just that I had heard this anecdote and I'm trying to say as often as I can that I'm not an expert in law or Canada itself.
I understand your point, but it _is_ rather pedantic as it doesn't actually change anything about what I said to get it wrong.
I'm sure you know very little about how Switzerland is segmented but you are aware of the direct democracy antics of the country.
Ignorance of one thing does not preclude knowledge of another.
What I am repeating is a "fact" I've heard multiple times from multiple executives and I live half a world away, I've never been truly interested in what the various political systems are in Canada (or the US, or Mexico, or wherever) but I am acutely aware of different laws in those countries too.
For instance in some states in the US it is legal to turn right on red.
If I use the wrong terminology when referencing county or region then it has little bearing on the things I've actually heard.
I never claimed to be an expert on Canadian law, just that I had heard this anecdote and I'm trying to say as often as I can that I'm not an expert in law or Canada itself.
I understand your point, but it _is_ rather pedantic as it doesn't actually change anything about what I said to get it wrong.
I'm sure you know very little about how Switzerland is segmented but you are aware of the direct democracy antics of the country.
Ignorance of one thing does not preclude knowledge of another.
I'm guessing here but the Canadian gov't often subsidizes tech & other engineering companies, so the strategy may be "have the company avail itself of as many subsidies as possible" with subsidies that commit the company to continue operating in City X for Y number of years.
example tech subsidy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_and_Experi...
example tech subsidy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_and_Experi...
Ouch! This cuts deep because of how close to actual future it sounds. Especially
> Valve will quietly exit software development altogether, and pivot to building custom vanity knives using their hardware manufacturing experience.
> Valve will quietly exit software development altogether, and pivot to building custom vanity knives using their hardware manufacturing experience.
Sure, if you ate McDonald's every day you'd probably think that there are no good restaurants anymore.
My top 4 games by playtime in the last few years were Rimworld, Oxygen Not Included, Dwarf Fortress and WoW Classic. Honorable mentions go to Spelunky and Stellaris. It's to everyone's great regret that a single one of these titles was purchased by one of the shitty publishers you mentioned, fortunately it's the one that's on its last legs.
My top 4 games by playtime in the last few years were Rimworld, Oxygen Not Included, Dwarf Fortress and WoW Classic. Honorable mentions go to Spelunky and Stellaris. It's to everyone's great regret that a single one of these titles was purchased by one of the shitty publishers you mentioned, fortunately it's the one that's on its last legs.
This is the inevitable trend of gaming since the 90s.
Small team makes innovative and interesting game. Gets bought, makes a good sequel, then milks IP forever.
It's up to you to move on.
Small team makes innovative and interesting game. Gets bought, makes a good sequel, then milks IP forever.
It's up to you to move on.
Absolutely. It's fine for gamers to indulge in some nostalgia, too.
It'd be better for the industry if we all recognized that the job of a guy like Bobby Kotick is to eat a steak every so often, and then vomit it up for the next 25 years. Someone has to drive a garbage truck and there's nothing wrong with paying him for it.
It'd be better for the industry if we all recognized that the job of a guy like Bobby Kotick is to eat a steak every so often, and then vomit it up for the next 25 years. Someone has to drive a garbage truck and there's nothing wrong with paying him for it.
Have you watched Mythic Quest? There's a particular episode touching this, that doesn't really require the rest of the series and is very good.
Check it out if you can - it' "Dark Quiet Death" from Season one
Check it out if you can - it' "Dark Quiet Death" from Season one
Bingo! CoD, Quake, Doom, Civ, Madden, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, All of Nintendo... you can’t fault them for milking an IP though when fans vote with their wallets. I would love new stories, new hero archetypes, new consequences, in games and I think indie have done a decent job at showing it can be done. But even indie suffers from the “Hey! This worked! Let’s just keep doing this!” IP milkage. Game dev, like software dev, has gotten more and more complex. What was once a vision of unity and standards is now Unity3D or micro-fracture SDK’s of the same graphics pipeline concepts and a wasteland of bones from those who came before you.
I know from experience. The “I’ll write my own engine” bug bit me in 2005. I wrote Reactor3D on XNA in 2007. Worked with Bill Reiss while he masterminded XNASilverlight which eventually would become the basis for MonoGame, which we all love and adore.
What’s interesting is the non-mention of itch.io
I think if enough people want new and interesting games, it will get done. Dev’s are surprisingly open to ideas, it’s the publishers (money people) who have a problem with change.
I know from experience. The “I’ll write my own engine” bug bit me in 2005. I wrote Reactor3D on XNA in 2007. Worked with Bill Reiss while he masterminded XNASilverlight which eventually would become the basis for MonoGame, which we all love and adore.
What’s interesting is the non-mention of itch.io
I think if enough people want new and interesting games, it will get done. Dev’s are surprisingly open to ideas, it’s the publishers (money people) who have a problem with change.
Change = risk
If you want to build new IP and there isn’t established funding you can go start a Kickstarter campaign to raise money from gamers to go build the game.
If you want to build new IP and there isn’t established funding you can go start a Kickstarter campaign to raise money from gamers to go build the game.
That’s the crux of it right there. Funding. Studios that have funding secured (or don’t need it) should be the ones taking those risks. But yes, it’s risky to introduce new IP, the results can be disastrous. Cliff Bleszinski knows this.
To directly name some of games you seem to be implying are automatically bad; I'm personally very happy with Doom (2016), Doom Eternal, Breath of the Wild, and Mario Odyssey. I am glad that ID and Nintendo have been "milking" these IPs.
Not implying any sense of quality, just naming some IP's that have been milked.
I think there's a difference between continuing an IP and milking one.
When the same IP gets passed to a dozen different studios who each create vastly different experiences, that's milking and I generally don't like it. The whole point of an IP is that you know what to expect, and having different studios working on the same IP is contrary to that goal.
Nintendo does not milk IPs, IMHO. They actually put a lot of though into their games and ensuring the the experience is top-notch. Compare Nintendo Zelda games to the few non-Nintendo variants: they've all been trash. Which is exactly why Nintendo rarely outsources games.
When the same IP gets passed to a dozen different studios who each create vastly different experiences, that's milking and I generally don't like it. The whole point of an IP is that you know what to expect, and having different studios working on the same IP is contrary to that goal.
Nintendo does not milk IPs, IMHO. They actually put a lot of though into their games and ensuring the the experience is top-notch. Compare Nintendo Zelda games to the few non-Nintendo variants: they've all been trash. Which is exactly why Nintendo rarely outsources games.
> When the same IP gets passed to a dozen different studios who each create vastly different experiences, that's milking and I generally don't like it. The whole point of an IP is that you know what to expect, and having different studios working on the same IP is contrary to that goal.
I think a distinction is if the Publisher treats the individual development studies as functionally equivalent black boxes. With Activision's brutal management of Call of Duty as maybe the key example. Where CoD assigned studios often go bankrupt after a couple games, and several have spun off after great hardship and will presumably never work with Activision again given the choice.
One fun exception from the more "indy" side of things that comes to mind is the playfulness that resulted when Croteam and publisher Devolver let a bunch of indy developers play with the Serious Sam franchise and created some fun games in a variety of styles outside of the FPS the series is known for.
I think a distinction is if the Publisher treats the individual development studies as functionally equivalent black boxes. With Activision's brutal management of Call of Duty as maybe the key example. Where CoD assigned studios often go bankrupt after a couple games, and several have spun off after great hardship and will presumably never work with Activision again given the choice.
One fun exception from the more "indy" side of things that comes to mind is the playfulness that resulted when Croteam and publisher Devolver let a bunch of indy developers play with the Serious Sam franchise and created some fun games in a variety of styles outside of the FPS the series is known for.
> why Nintendo rarely outsources games
That's an overstatement: Nintendo co-develops a lot of titles with other studios, outsource a lot of their smaller IPs (mostly to Japanese studios), _and_ is being rather friendly to letting people do smaller spinoffs of their big properties.
Examples of third-party colaboration, in no particular order:
- Koei Tecmo co-developed Fire Emblem: Three Houses, did both Fire Emblem Warriors and Hyrule Warriors, which are franchise spin-offs using their Dynasty Warriors engine and gameplay, and Nintendo trust them so much that their next canon Zelda game will be a Breath of the Wild prequel developed by them, using the Hyrule Warriors label.
- Bandai Namco is more or less the main developer of Super Smash Bros since the Wii U/3DS iterations, with Sora Ltd being essentially just a consulting company run by Masahiro Sakurai. Bandai Namco is also co-developing the new Pokemon Snap, and developed Metroid: Other M.
- Capcom developed both Oracle of Ages/Oracle of Seasons and Minish Cap, two portable and very well regarded entries in the Zelda Franchise.
- On the Mario side, pretty much all of their Mario sport titles are handled by Camelot, with the exception of the Mario & Sonic Olympic series, which are published by Sega direcly, and their highly praised portable RPG series Mario & Luigi was developed by (sadly defunct) Alpha Dream.
- Then there was that time when they gave the Mario franchise to Ubisoft and they made a Rabbids-crossover, XCom-like game, which is just too goddamn funny to not put in here separately (especially since it was also fairly well received by critics).
- Good-Feel, another Japanese developer, made entries to both Kirby (Epic Yarn), WarioLand and more recently, Yoshi franchises (Wooly World/Crafted World).
- There is a metric shitton of Pokemon spinoffs (that's probably where you will find the worst offenders of bad outsourced games, to be quite honest, but even then there are series like Pokemon Mistery Dungeon, by Spike-Chunsoft, which are very well regarded).
- And as a another Zelda example, Cadence of Hyrule, made by the Crypt of the Necrodancer developers.
There are more examples, but overall a large part of their output nowadays is made by third-parties, with of course a lot of their projects - big and small - being handled by their in-house studios. That's not even counting the fact that some studios readily associated with Nintendo, like Intelligent Systems and HAL Laboratory, are actually independent (they just like working with Nintendo).
Sorry for the large response, I was bored.
That's an overstatement: Nintendo co-develops a lot of titles with other studios, outsource a lot of their smaller IPs (mostly to Japanese studios), _and_ is being rather friendly to letting people do smaller spinoffs of their big properties.
Examples of third-party colaboration, in no particular order:
- Koei Tecmo co-developed Fire Emblem: Three Houses, did both Fire Emblem Warriors and Hyrule Warriors, which are franchise spin-offs using their Dynasty Warriors engine and gameplay, and Nintendo trust them so much that their next canon Zelda game will be a Breath of the Wild prequel developed by them, using the Hyrule Warriors label.
- Bandai Namco is more or less the main developer of Super Smash Bros since the Wii U/3DS iterations, with Sora Ltd being essentially just a consulting company run by Masahiro Sakurai. Bandai Namco is also co-developing the new Pokemon Snap, and developed Metroid: Other M.
- Capcom developed both Oracle of Ages/Oracle of Seasons and Minish Cap, two portable and very well regarded entries in the Zelda Franchise.
- On the Mario side, pretty much all of their Mario sport titles are handled by Camelot, with the exception of the Mario & Sonic Olympic series, which are published by Sega direcly, and their highly praised portable RPG series Mario & Luigi was developed by (sadly defunct) Alpha Dream.
- Then there was that time when they gave the Mario franchise to Ubisoft and they made a Rabbids-crossover, XCom-like game, which is just too goddamn funny to not put in here separately (especially since it was also fairly well received by critics).
- Good-Feel, another Japanese developer, made entries to both Kirby (Epic Yarn), WarioLand and more recently, Yoshi franchises (Wooly World/Crafted World).
- There is a metric shitton of Pokemon spinoffs (that's probably where you will find the worst offenders of bad outsourced games, to be quite honest, but even then there are series like Pokemon Mistery Dungeon, by Spike-Chunsoft, which are very well regarded).
- And as a another Zelda example, Cadence of Hyrule, made by the Crypt of the Necrodancer developers.
There are more examples, but overall a large part of their output nowadays is made by third-parties, with of course a lot of their projects - big and small - being handled by their in-house studios. That's not even counting the fact that some studios readily associated with Nintendo, like Intelligent Systems and HAL Laboratory, are actually independent (they just like working with Nintendo).
Sorry for the large response, I was bored.
This is great! No apologies. Example of how Nintendo milks their IP’s too. To be aware of it. Nothing wrong with Mario or Zelda, but the innovation and creativity is lacking for the sake of business and monetization.
> The whole point of an IP is that you know what to expect, and having different studios working on the same IP is contrary to that goal.
Is that actually the point of an IP? I would argue that an IP is more like Star Wars where the games that can come from it can vary in format and mechanics. And less like Battlefront where the expectation is a specific set of mechanics and game modes. I would argue that if someone where to make a non RPG Mass Effect that would still be within the IP and wouldn’t go against the core concept of IP.
Is that actually the point of an IP? I would argue that an IP is more like Star Wars where the games that can come from it can vary in format and mechanics. And less like Battlefront where the expectation is a specific set of mechanics and game modes. I would argue that if someone where to make a non RPG Mass Effect that would still be within the IP and wouldn’t go against the core concept of IP.
Look at when Blizzard tried starting new a new IP with Overwatch, I'm sure they did okay but Overwatch doesn't have the same legendary luster that Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo have (or had).
My daughter became an overwatch pro-am (she’s in college now). So I have a slightly different take. Overwatch was extremely successful new IP.
Overwatch is definitely a big success - it's not the biggest competitive FPS on the market (probably fortnite if you count that - otherwise maybe CS:GO?) but it's up there. They also own Hearthstone which baffled me on release since it's so far out of their wheelhouse - but I believe they're making bucket loads of money off of that still... it's a literal collectable card game ><.
From a raw sales standpoint Overwatch has done better than most of those games. The only Blizzard game that beats Overwatch in terms of raw revenue is WoW. I find that tech people that used to game in the 90s tend to way overestimate how popular and successful those early foundational games were in comparison to modern games. Overall growth in the game industry (especially PC world wide) has been massive
Overwatch is pretty successful.
The “Small team makes innovative and interesting X. Gets bought” trend is hardly limited to gaming! Or the 90’s.
if they would just keep cranking out sequels at the same level of quality but no real innovation, I would be pretty happy. mass effect 1 was pretty good, me2 was great, me3 was still decent. why did they have to mess with the program for andromeda? similar with far cry. fc2 was great, but probably too unforgiving for the mainstream audience. they dumbed it down a bit for fc3, and fc4 was more of the same but with a couple pain points ironed out. then they had to mess everything up for fc5, why?
oddly enough, call of duty seems like a pretty good example of how to do a AAA franchise. they hit a winning formula with cod4, and they haven't really changed anything since. I'm not a huge fan of the series, but if you loved cod4, you'll love pretty much every game after that.
or an even better example: counterstrike. hardcore cs players will complain about subtle differences in the engine/hitboxes/netcode over time, but the core mechanics are exactly the same as in 1999. if it ain't broke...
oddly enough, call of duty seems like a pretty good example of how to do a AAA franchise. they hit a winning formula with cod4, and they haven't really changed anything since. I'm not a huge fan of the series, but if you loved cod4, you'll love pretty much every game after that.
or an even better example: counterstrike. hardcore cs players will complain about subtle differences in the engine/hitboxes/netcode over time, but the core mechanics are exactly the same as in 1999. if it ain't broke...
> why did they have to mess with the program for andromeda?
Obviously everyone has their opinions, but I thought Andromeda the strongest sequel to ME1 story content wise. Andromeda's failings weren't in the story or the content (ME "B-Team" or not, thanks to Anthem's black hole, they wrote most of the strongest story content in all four games), they were technical. EA absolutely should not have pushed BioWare to Frostbite without properly productionizing Frostbite as if it were Unreal/Unity with a dedicated team and possibly an honest attempt to sell it as a product outside of EA's walls, instead of leaving it as DICE's in house with BioWare struggling to keep up with forked changes. Almost all of the technical problems in DAI, MEA, and especially Anthem seem clearly the fault of this broken engine relationship between DICE and BioWare. If EA wants Frostbite to be the next Unreal (or even just an okay competitor to Unreal) it needs to learn (five years ago) the lessons from Unreal that you treat even first and second party games as if they were third party customers to get the best results.
Obviously everyone has their opinions, but I thought Andromeda the strongest sequel to ME1 story content wise. Andromeda's failings weren't in the story or the content (ME "B-Team" or not, thanks to Anthem's black hole, they wrote most of the strongest story content in all four games), they were technical. EA absolutely should not have pushed BioWare to Frostbite without properly productionizing Frostbite as if it were Unreal/Unity with a dedicated team and possibly an honest attempt to sell it as a product outside of EA's walls, instead of leaving it as DICE's in house with BioWare struggling to keep up with forked changes. Almost all of the technical problems in DAI, MEA, and especially Anthem seem clearly the fault of this broken engine relationship between DICE and BioWare. If EA wants Frostbite to be the next Unreal (or even just an okay competitor to Unreal) it needs to learn (five years ago) the lessons from Unreal that you treat even first and second party games as if they were third party customers to get the best results.
I didn't actually finish the game, so I can't speak too much to the story. for me it wasn't even about the bugs; I just thought the andromeda open world was the blandest of any I'd played at the time. it was like they looked at the lunar rover minigame from me1 and decided to make it the whole game. I wish they had just stuck to the traditional rpg level design of the previous games. I didn't much like the combat mechanics in andromeda either, but that could just be personal taste.
Well yeah, I loved the ME1 Mako and thought that very "Star Trek exploration" concept something strong about ME1 that I thought 2/3 deviated too far from, but I realize how much of a personal taste issue that becomes. MEA's open world could have used more time to bake (and still seems as much a restrictions caused by the Frostbite engine issue as anything, at least to my outside perspective). Also, yes, I find that for an FPS/3PS-focused engine, I don't entirely understand why Frostbite feels so bad at FPS/3PS combat mechanics, but I also have never played Battlefield/Battlefront games so I don't know if that is a BioWare/Mirror's Edge fork(s) specific problem or a general Frostbite problem.
And then there's franchises like Mega Man which have been going for over 30 years.
The trend is definitely moving away from many separate games and toward "living" games. Look at how many games these days end up just doing updates/DLCs over many years rather than releasing whole new versions of the game.
Look at Destiny, there was originally planned for Destiny 3, but now the plan is just to make Destiny 2 the only game for the next 10 years with constant content updates. Even now, Destiny 2 of today is a significantly different than Destiny 2 at release.
Microsoft/343 have indicated that "Halo: Infinite" is planned to be this way as well, a living game.
Even indie games like Astroneer and Don't Starve are going down this route of updating a single game over a long period of time.
I'm not sure if that should be considering "milking", but it's definitely a change from how things used to be done.
Look at Destiny, there was originally planned for Destiny 3, but now the plan is just to make Destiny 2 the only game for the next 10 years with constant content updates. Even now, Destiny 2 of today is a significantly different than Destiny 2 at release.
Microsoft/343 have indicated that "Halo: Infinite" is planned to be this way as well, a living game.
Even indie games like Astroneer and Don't Starve are going down this route of updating a single game over a long period of time.
I'm not sure if that should be considering "milking", but it's definitely a change from how things used to be done.
It makes a lot of sense for most games to work like this: once you have a core game, adding content to it is comparatively cheap. Which means that the ROI can be really high if a point release with new content causes a spike in unit sales.
This probably works better for indies than DLC because I do think people have developed an aversion to DLC due to the big publishers abusing it for cosmetic updates. Personally, I'm very likely to pick up something like Factorio at full price, knowing that the devs are going to be adding "free" content to the base game over the years. But I'll skip over games with "season passes" and just wait for the complete edition to be released.
This probably works better for indies than DLC because I do think people have developed an aversion to DLC due to the big publishers abusing it for cosmetic updates. Personally, I'm very likely to pick up something like Factorio at full price, knowing that the devs are going to be adding "free" content to the base game over the years. But I'll skip over games with "season passes" and just wait for the complete edition to be released.
> Look at Destiny, there was originally planned for Destiny 3, but now the plan is just to make Destiny 2 the only game for the next 10 years with constant content updates. Even now, Destiny 2 of today is a significantly different than Destiny 2 at release.
Destiny seems to have gone through a lot of different plans. The plan before Activision was seemingly to stop after 1 and make that the live service game, though the 1/2 break helped them hurdle a console generation gap so Activision might not have been wrong to push for 2 at least (but yeah was definitely trying to milk it with 3).
Destiny seems to have gone through a lot of different plans. The plan before Activision was seemingly to stop after 1 and make that the live service game, though the 1/2 break helped them hurdle a console generation gap so Activision might not have been wrong to push for 2 at least (but yeah was definitely trying to milk it with 3).
Not that they were trying to milk it, but that they are currently twisting 2 into something it wasn’t. The game was not originally written to support also being Destiny 3.
I'd argue that was always the Destiny plan to be a constantly shifting MMO and Destiny 1 is the real outlier at this point. The teething pains right now "twisting 2 into something it wasn't" seem to be more somewhere between "twisting 2 into what it was always meant to be" and "Bungie is still learning how to run and build an MMO the hard way by ignoring most of what worked for decades" (for instance, relying so much on streaming from the disc/hard drive over streaming from the server making it real hard for them to keep all zones active at the same time because they run against disc/hard drive size limits; that's Ancient MMO Trade-Offs 101 that Bungie seems dead set on doing the weirdest possible solutions, though to Bungie's credit they aren't the only ones in this current "live service" games era learning this old lesson the hard way as games like Fallout 76 and Sea of Thieves seem just as likely to hit the exact same wall if they try to expand much more).
From a historical preservation viewpoint I find this trend extremely disturbing. Along with online requirements this makes it more and more impossible to experience older games the way they used to be. Even for completely single player games, online content distribution platforms tend to only give you the latest version (except for a few games where the developers specifically set up legacy branches), often even refusing to launch an already installed game until available updates are downloaded. If updates were only bugfixes that would not be a problem, but it is not unheard of for post-launch changes to significantly change the core mechanics of games.
This is a significant step down from the old phsical media distribution model where any changes from the initial master were optional.
This is a significant step down from the old phsical media distribution model where any changes from the initial master were optional.
The "living game" approach has to do with the cost of the DLC and the difficulty at moving the price point of a game (while costs to build it go up).
This allows the studio to make money on the game based on the continued DLC which needs less development investment.
It isn't so much "milking" but rather "acknowledging a change in the way games are monetized because the price of the initial game isn't changing."
This allows the studio to make money on the game based on the continued DLC which needs less development investment.
It isn't so much "milking" but rather "acknowledging a change in the way games are monetized because the price of the initial game isn't changing."
No, the "living game" approach is because it turns out taking a "hat" asset that took an artist like 2 days to make (or you literally got for free from your fanbase!) and selling it for $5 to the 10 million people playing your game makes A FUCKLOAD of money. It's absolutely milking. Games make more money now when they are "Oh woe is me so expensive to make oh poor me feel pitty" then they ever dreamed of even when a game could be made by one person.
> there was originally planned for Destiny 3
That was Activision's plan. Bungie never wanted pop new destiny titles likes CoD. D2 also designed with content being constantly added in mind - main story is super short. It's easier to sell cosmetics to fund "big" dlcs with small seasons in between. At least, compared to convincing people to buy an entire $60(70?) new game and wait for all of your friends buy it as well.
That was Activision's plan. Bungie never wanted pop new destiny titles likes CoD. D2 also designed with content being constantly added in mind - main story is super short. It's easier to sell cosmetics to fund "big" dlcs with small seasons in between. At least, compared to convincing people to buy an entire $60(70?) new game and wait for all of your friends buy it as well.
Open source gaming is an option too - Cataclysm DDA as a thriving example, Nethack, so on.
Stellaris might be one of my favorite games in recent memory (granted, I don't play that much).
You make a good point to bring up indie development (WoW excluded), but I think looking at the storefronts is also important.
For these big conglomerates, the trendy thing is to have your own games store. Complete with exclusivity deals, privacy concerns, and plenty more.
That's not to say that every game on a store has these issues. However, I think the lesson from mobile app stores is: don't discount the impact that a storefront can have on what's allowed to succeed. Stores can exert their control with more than just removals.
Indies can't escape this. Even if they wanted to sell their game independently, not being on one of the big stores hurts visibility. Not all of them get the luxury to be able to expect their users to follow them to their own site/store/etc.
Right now, Steam is still the leader and obvious home for a lot of these otherwise-independent developers. Again, if the big conglomerates get what they want, this won't always be the case.
For these big conglomerates, the trendy thing is to have your own games store. Complete with exclusivity deals, privacy concerns, and plenty more.
That's not to say that every game on a store has these issues. However, I think the lesson from mobile app stores is: don't discount the impact that a storefront can have on what's allowed to succeed. Stores can exert their control with more than just removals.
Indies can't escape this. Even if they wanted to sell their game independently, not being on one of the big stores hurts visibility. Not all of them get the luxury to be able to expect their users to follow them to their own site/store/etc.
Right now, Steam is still the leader and obvious home for a lot of these otherwise-independent developers. Again, if the big conglomerates get what they want, this won't always be the case.
> Right now, Steam is still the leader
I wonder how they compare to Apple.
I wonder how they compare to Apple.
[deleted]
Apple probably doesn't have much revenue from the OS X desktop store, but if we're talking about total gaming revenue, Steam is around $5 billion/year and Apple is around $20 billion/year. Although I'm pretty sure Apple's # represents gross sales, not their 30% cut. I don't know if Steam's # is the revenue they receive after their cut, or if it's gross sales. If their # is the cut they take, they'd be far ahead of the App Store in terms of gross profit.
From a gamedev friend, there is no money on macOS. iOS and apple arcade is a viable option, but on Steam, the macOS sales are not worth the headache support and development gives you. Lots of quirks to work around with macOS, and more to come with the ARM transition as apple will surely blame developers for performance problems with x86 titles. Not to mention that the yearly developer fees that you have to pay to keep a game's long tail on the store. It eats into profits for Indies.
> but on Steam, the macOS sales are not worth the headache support and development gives you. [...] Not to mention that the yearly developer fees that you have to pay to keep a game's long tail on the store.
What yearly developer fees do you need to pay to keep a macOS game on Steam? Is it to Valve?
What yearly developer fees do you need to pay to keep a macOS game on Steam? Is it to Valve?
Nothing yearly for Steam, it's a one-off fee, I think about 100 USD these days (it changed over the years). For the macOS store it is a 100 USD a year or so, and of course they take their cut from your sales. I prefer Valve's way of doing business.
Oh, okay. You started talking about whether it’s worth releasing a Mac game on steam, and then brought up a yearly fee, so I was having trouble following where you transitioned.
The mobile gaming market and PC/console gaming are basically two distinct markets with very little overlap though.
> For these big conglomerates, the trendy thing is to have your own games store. Complete with exclusivity deals
How else are they going to get people to use these stores?
How else are they going to get people to use these stores?
Also the fact that the Epic Games Store exists is a step towards countering Steam's monopoly on mainstream titles.
People complain about the loss of functionality like screenshots or the in-game browser when using Epic. And there are exclusivity deals. Complaints against those things are valid, and the actual implementation of the storefront needs a lot of improvement, but I'm wondering if a Steam monopoly would have been any better for consumers and developers.
To me it sounds like a lot of consumers were happy with the monopoly and saw the exclusivity deals as disruptive as they had to migrate their friends list and set up a lot of things just to play that one hyped title. But when it comes down to the hard issue of staying afloat I can see how the money Epic offers to game studios is enticing.
People complain about the loss of functionality like screenshots or the in-game browser when using Epic. And there are exclusivity deals. Complaints against those things are valid, and the actual implementation of the storefront needs a lot of improvement, but I'm wondering if a Steam monopoly would have been any better for consumers and developers.
To me it sounds like a lot of consumers were happy with the monopoly and saw the exclusivity deals as disruptive as they had to migrate their friends list and set up a lot of things just to play that one hyped title. But when it comes down to the hard issue of staying afloat I can see how the money Epic offers to game studios is enticing.
The exclusivity deals were disruptive because they took games that were promised to come to steam and made them exclusive.
The customer has no benefit from the lower cut epic charges.
Epic doesn't treat everyone equally. Big games like Cyberpunk 2077 are allowed to also sell on other platforms, while smaller games either go exclusive or go with everyone else.
Competition is good, but I'd rather have GOG be that competition to Steam than Epic purely based on their anti-DRM stance.
The customer has no benefit from the lower cut epic charges.
Epic doesn't treat everyone equally. Big games like Cyberpunk 2077 are allowed to also sell on other platforms, while smaller games either go exclusive or go with everyone else.
Competition is good, but I'd rather have GOG be that competition to Steam than Epic purely based on their anti-DRM stance.
I don't much care for EGS, but Epic is paying small developers a lot for that exclusivity. In the current indie market, that chunk of change can be the difference between profitability and failure.
Or, as the above user put it, the difference between making a creative masterpiece or a clone made to exploit the system.
> Epic doesn't treat everyone equally. Big games like Cyberpunk 2077 are allowed to also sell on other platforms, while smaller games either go exclusive or go with everyone else.
There isn't a conspiracy here. Epic pays developers to make certain games (like Control) temporarily exclusive to EGS. Other developers, like CD Project RED, have not made such a deal, and thus Cyberpunk 2077 is available on many different PC game clients.
There are plenty of games on EGS--large and small--which are not and have never been exclusive. Examples include The Unfinished Swan, SuperHot, and Axiom Verge just to pick three off the top of my head.
There isn't a conspiracy here. Epic pays developers to make certain games (like Control) temporarily exclusive to EGS. Other developers, like CD Project RED, have not made such a deal, and thus Cyberpunk 2077 is available on many different PC game clients.
There are plenty of games on EGS--large and small--which are not and have never been exclusive. Examples include The Unfinished Swan, SuperHot, and Axiom Verge just to pick three off the top of my head.
I meant the case of DARQ, where the developer was specifically told to either go exclusive or every other store with no possibility of selling on EGS and other stores. [1] According to the article other indie games got similar offers, while the big budget ones can go to multiple stores.
[1] https://www.dsogaming.com/news/epic-games-wanted-darq-as-an-...
[1] https://www.dsogaming.com/news/epic-games-wanted-darq-as-an-...
To me, asking smaller games for exclusivity is just asking for commitment. One of the reason I don't buy games on GoG anymore is that the developers don't commit to updating their GoG version to keep parity with other versions of the game.
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/games_that_treat_gog_custo...
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/games_that_treat_gog_custo...
I didn't know that. Thanks for that list.
Should we also rail against Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo for paying developers to make games exclusive to their platforms?
No, because it's clear from the beginning what platforms their games will support. That wasn't the case with Metro Exodus [1] for example and one other indie game I can't remember the name off.
[1] https://www.tomshardware.com/news/metro-exodus-pulled-from-s...
[1] https://www.tomshardware.com/news/metro-exodus-pulled-from-s...
Yes
Steam has been good to me with their native Linux client, Linux client support, proton compatibility tools and community tool support (glorious eggroll proton version). Epic has nothing to offer me.
Furthermore, I know some gamedevs personally who release an early access level title with exclusivity deal on epic's playform just so that they gain access to further funding to finish the game and release on Steam for the actual shot at success. They take advantage of the money to fund their work, but have said that the numbers do not compare to that of Steam.
Furthermore, I know some gamedevs personally who release an early access level title with exclusivity deal on epic's playform just so that they gain access to further funding to finish the game and release on Steam for the actual shot at success. They take advantage of the money to fund their work, but have said that the numbers do not compare to that of Steam.
I began gaming for the first time (unless you count playing on my roommates' XBox in college) this past week, mostly for The Witcher 2/3--both on Linux. The Witcher 3 was never supposed to run on my platform, but somehow Steam and Proton/Wine made that not only possible but actually enjoyable.
I know technically they're doing it to make money, but I can't help like feel it's also something of a labor of love as well. It would have been much easier to leave people in my (our?) position behind, so I appreciate the heck out of Valve for putting in the effort. I imagine they're going to have my goodwill for a long time as a result.
I know technically they're doing it to make money, but I can't help like feel it's also something of a labor of love as well. It would have been much easier to leave people in my (our?) position behind, so I appreciate the heck out of Valve for putting in the effort. I imagine they're going to have my goodwill for a long time as a result.
If you want to be cynical, Proton was made from the scraps of a contingency plan that was the Steam Machine. When they realized that Microsoft wasn't going to force their platform onto users, they gave up on Steam Machines and I guess they leveraged the tech to something else.
I think that it is a bit more complex than that. Their original plan was for native[1] gaming on Linux.
When it proved hard to bootstrap that and seeing that the Steam Machine itself they started looking for options. Wine was already pretty good but DX11 support was bad. I do not know if it was serendipity that DXVK started showing promises around they same time they started looking into wine or whether it was the reason for them focusing into wine in the first place.
The rest is history, although the side effect is that it pretty much killed native ports for AAA games on Linux [2].
[1] for some values of native. Many, most, ports are based on internal close source equivalent of wine.
[2] I do not really care about native vs proton, but it would be nice if game companies did officially support proton.
When it proved hard to bootstrap that and seeing that the Steam Machine itself they started looking for options. Wine was already pretty good but DX11 support was bad. I do not know if it was serendipity that DXVK started showing promises around they same time they started looking into wine or whether it was the reason for them focusing into wine in the first place.
The rest is history, although the side effect is that it pretty much killed native ports for AAA games on Linux [2].
[1] for some values of native. Many, most, ports are based on internal close source equivalent of wine.
[2] I do not really care about native vs proton, but it would be nice if game companies did officially support proton.
That's not being cynical - that's just facts on how and why SteamOS was conceived and developed
Yep, and Post-Its were made from the scraps of what was supposed to be a really strong adhesive.
It speaks more to me that they released Proton rather than shelving it after losing the original motive.
It speaks more to me that they released Proton rather than shelving it after losing the original motive.
... and unrelatedly, on the other side, the latest appeasing thing called WSL was made from leftovers of a plan to run Android on Windows Phones, which was dropped when Google refused to allow Play Services run there.
Phoenix Point was a game I cared about a lot. Then one day, they announced they would not be making a Linux version. Not long after they announced it will be Epic exclusive for a year.
Is it fair to blame the developers or blame Epic?
Personally I think at the very least the developers deserve equal blame for accepting the bag of money from Epic.
Money is a strong motivator but the Phoenix Point devs chose to break promises from crowdfunding to accept it. I think that reflects worse on them than it does Epic personally.
Personally I think at the very least the developers deserve equal blame for accepting the bag of money from Epic.
Money is a strong motivator but the Phoenix Point devs chose to break promises from crowdfunding to accept it. I think that reflects worse on them than it does Epic personally.
I feel ya, I dropped it so hard I even forgot the game until reading your post.
> Steam has been good to me with their native Linux client, Linux client support, proton compatibility tools and community tool support (glorious eggroll proton version)
Reminder: Valve was forced to double-down on SteamOS/Linux by Microsoft's then-intention to shutdown 3rd-party storefronts on Windows. I have a complicated relationship with both Steam (as a Proton user) and Epic (for pulling Linux support on a multiplayer game I already own!), but I still appreciate more competition in the arena: GOG alone won't cut it.
Reminder: Valve was forced to double-down on SteamOS/Linux by Microsoft's then-intention to shutdown 3rd-party storefronts on Windows. I have a complicated relationship with both Steam (as a Proton user) and Epic (for pulling Linux support on a multiplayer game I already own!), but I still appreciate more competition in the arena: GOG alone won't cut it.
Yes, but they have been owning that decision ever since. If that ever changes, I will reconsider. Until then they have me as a customer.
>if a Steam monopoly would have been any better for consumers and developers.
Well steam runs on and is actively supported on linux, Epic takes games that used to support linux then removes linux support and makes the games exclusive to their store.
So for me personally, a steam monopoly would be better. The epic game store's existence has actually caused games to be removed from the platform I use. It's taken away choice from me. If it stopped existing, I'd be happy.
Well steam runs on and is actively supported on linux, Epic takes games that used to support linux then removes linux support and makes the games exclusive to their store.
So for me personally, a steam monopoly would be better. The epic game store's existence has actually caused games to be removed from the platform I use. It's taken away choice from me. If it stopped existing, I'd be happy.
Now I'm curious, what title previously destined to have linux support and distribution on multiple storefronts did Epic do this to?
This was the high profile one a few months ago.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/23/21078989/rocket-league-ma...
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/23/21078989/rocket-league-ma...
I have one particular example of this I love since it happened right on the borderline. I own Anno 1800 on steam, but if you don't you can't (at least for the foreseeable and likely future) - Ubisoft pulled Anno from the steam storefront shortly after launch but! Probably due to some contract shinnanegans with steam, they continue to offer expansions + DLC to users who own Anno already on steam while new users remain locked out from buying it anywhere except UPlay + EGS. Ubisoft has moved a few things over to EGS but I love the Anno example because it landed just as EGS was gaining fame so it sits in the weird middle ground of technically being on steam but not really.
Be a bit mindful blaming ubisoft for stuff vanishing from Steam.
A significantly large part of why Ubisoft started cozying up to Epic was not because of the 5% stake tencent has in it.
It was because Steam pulls all kinds of nasty shenanigans but ubisoft will not state any of it publicly because it would hurt their relationship.
Steam has outright pulled all ubisoft games before, and ubisoft took the blame. People assumed it was because ubi wanted to push uplay; but it was all about someone at valve deciding that we'd violated some rule about content distribution.
We gave UK players of AC:Syndicate a country specific hat which wouldn't have made sense to the global market.
They didn't warn, we woke up to see that kotaku[0] had run an article about it before we even knew ourselves.
This is not an isolated incident, just a dramatic one that I remember as my own personal shifting point w.r.t. steam, because I'd only just started working at Ubisoft and was hating on uplay and was quite fond of steam.
[0]: https://kotaku.com/ubisoft-pulls-big-games-from-steam-165567...
A significantly large part of why Ubisoft started cozying up to Epic was not because of the 5% stake tencent has in it.
It was because Steam pulls all kinds of nasty shenanigans but ubisoft will not state any of it publicly because it would hurt their relationship.
Steam has outright pulled all ubisoft games before, and ubisoft took the blame. People assumed it was because ubi wanted to push uplay; but it was all about someone at valve deciding that we'd violated some rule about content distribution.
We gave UK players of AC:Syndicate a country specific hat which wouldn't have made sense to the global market.
They didn't warn, we woke up to see that kotaku[0] had run an article about it before we even knew ourselves.
This is not an isolated incident, just a dramatic one that I remember as my own personal shifting point w.r.t. steam, because I'd only just started working at Ubisoft and was hating on uplay and was quite fond of steam.
[0]: https://kotaku.com/ubisoft-pulls-big-games-from-steam-165567...
Having bought a Ubisoft game on Steam and having to sit there for minutes while uplay updates itself when I just wanted to play for 10 minutes or so, I have very little sympathy for you.
> We gave UK players of AC:Syndicate a country specific hat which wouldn't have made sense to the global market.
So Valve makes sure that players from different countries get the same content? As a UK expat that's something I'm glad of.
> We gave UK players of AC:Syndicate a country specific hat which wouldn't have made sense to the global market.
So Valve makes sure that players from different countries get the same content? As a UK expat that's something I'm glad of.
Better customer service, user experience, and game selection. All these various online game stores should be required, by law, to allow any publisher to put their games on the platform for a standard publishing rate. No exclusivity, no special rate setting. Those are classic anti-competitive tactics, and this is yet another front to fight that battle on.
I also quite like a lot of the blockbuster games as well as the indie games. An indie dev will never release a game like Red Dead 2, for one example. I definitely play more indie games, but I would rather the blockbuster market be healthy too.
I feel the same about the movie business. Indie films can be awesome, but some kinds of movies are hard to do without a large budget.
Pyramids are hard to build without a super-feudal economy and society. But we got rid of that, losing the practical ability to make pyramids in the process, because we value other things like democracy higher.
Uhh we still build things like pyramids all the time - Three Gorges Dam, Burj Khalifa, One World Trade Center - it's just we don't build pyramids themselves anymore.
I don't think the Three Gorges Dam was built by something most would call a democracy.
Hm. The pyramids were an architectural and supply chain genius stroke considering when they were made. It also took fantastic human sacrifice to achieve that. One world trade center was built with the assistance of trains and semi trucks brining ore to smelters and steel to the construction site, electricity, cranes etc.
Minus the slavery, have we really expended that much human effort and equivalent wealth and time on something in the modern era? The only thing I can think of is Free software products, shit like Linux.
Minus the slavery, have we really expended that much human effort and equivalent wealth and time on something in the modern era? The only thing I can think of is Free software products, shit like Linux.
This is only tangentially related, but because you are all leaning on this pyramid analogy so hard, I thought I would mention that many scholars now believe the pyramids to have been built by some type of salaried (and very skilled) labor. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_constructio...
Pretty sure Appolo or Space Shuttle both were more expensive projects than the pyramids, even adjusted for inflation.
The Large Hadron Supercollider?
> Pyramids are hard to build without a super-feudal economy and society
[citation needed]
The 10th-tallest pyramid was built in Memphis, TN 30 years ago [0] and it's now used as a Bass Pro shop. Say what you will about working conditions in the US in the 90s, but I don't think it'd be fair to call it "a super-feudal economy and society".
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis_Pyramid
[citation needed]
The 10th-tallest pyramid was built in Memphis, TN 30 years ago [0] and it's now used as a Bass Pro shop. Say what you will about working conditions in the US in the 90s, but I don't think it'd be fair to call it "a super-feudal economy and society".
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis_Pyramid
Call me skeptic, but I’m not really sure that pyramid would be able to stand in place 4500 years. Same shape, way less durability.
Yea building a pyramid is easy, you just need to invent the internal combustion engine first.
That said, pyramids seem to have been built with hired labor so the point is pretty muddy regardless.
That said, pyramids seem to have been built with hired labor so the point is pretty muddy regardless.
Huh? Pyramids exist because they are the easiest comparably thing to make. no one makes them because they have better skyscraper designs now and no one cares about making a 4000yr old tomb.
You know what's today's 4000yr long monument to vanity? Elon Musk's orbiting Tesla
You know what's today's 4000yr long monument to vanity? Elon Musk's orbiting Tesla
> Right now, Steam is still the leader and obvious home for a lot of these otherwise-independent developers.
HN: TEAR DOWN THE APPLE STORE MONOPOLY! Also HN: Steam is cool and pulls 30% from developers.
HN: TEAR DOWN THE APPLE STORE MONOPOLY! Also HN: Steam is cool and pulls 30% from developers.
It's worth drawing the distinction that Steam, as opposed to Apple and their app store, does not hold an exclusive monopoly and cannot dictate where users can install software from. If a Dev doesn't like Steam, there are other publishers and store fronts that they can peddle their wares through. Similarly users can go elsewhere to buy and install, even direct from the manufacturer.
Steam being the de facto choice is another issue entirely, and yet another discussion for their fee structure.
Steam being the de facto choice is another issue entirely, and yet another discussion for their fee structure.
Also, steam is not as controlled as the apple store.
I bet, if nvidia wanted to, they could publish geforce now there, for example.
I bet, if nvidia wanted to, they could publish geforce now there, for example.
Steam does not control Windows, does it?
You could make the argument that because of Steam having such reach / monopoly on the PC gaming market, Steam (and by extension Valve) is effectively the publisher of games like that, and a very large one at that. There's GoG that mostly focuses on vintage games, and Epic that spends tons of money to get (timed?) exclusives on indie games + free handouts, but I'm not sure how well it's working for them to get market share.
But granted, the indie game market (and mid-sized publishers like Paradox) are super important right now to fight against the AAA / massive budget game devs and publishers.
Mind you, ID has been a bit of an underdog for a long while; their games are / were good, but did not become crazy big like their EA / Activision counterparts; the 2009 Wolfenstein sold poorly ("only" 100K units in the first month); The New Order, its sequel, did a lot better (400K sold in about a month and a half), and Doom 2016 was a hit.
But granted, the indie game market (and mid-sized publishers like Paradox) are super important right now to fight against the AAA / massive budget game devs and publishers.
Mind you, ID has been a bit of an underdog for a long while; their games are / were good, but did not become crazy big like their EA / Activision counterparts; the 2009 Wolfenstein sold poorly ("only" 100K units in the first month); The New Order, its sequel, did a lot better (400K sold in about a month and a half), and Doom 2016 was a hit.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was id actually involved in the 2009 Wolfenstein or in New Order? I think not. However, they did develop Doom 2016...
Wolfenstein was made by Machinegames. Though there is quite a bit of overlap between the two studios during production.
They are involved for the technical aspects beyond merely MachineGames using id engines. MachineGames in a lot of ways acts like another id software studio, but it is free to form its own flavor.
MachineGames also has (uncredited?) work on Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal.
MachineGames also has (uncredited?) work on Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal.
2009 - they were producers, but the development was done by Raven Software and published by Activision. So not really involved other than owners of IP?
New Order - not at all, maybe as engine developers. Right for that IP were transferred to MachineGames in 2010 right after ZeniMax got hold of them.
As for Doom 2016 - they enlisted a lot of outside help after Doom 4 was scraped. Bethesda's game directors helped them a lot because they already figured how to make "old ip" to sell well with modern gamers (see Fallout 3).
side note:
I don't think id managed to get deliver a lot of good games since John Romero left. (just like John Romero didn't deliver many good games since the separation)
John Romero and John Carmack were like a dream team, but without each other it was meh.
New Order - not at all, maybe as engine developers. Right for that IP were transferred to MachineGames in 2010 right after ZeniMax got hold of them.
As for Doom 2016 - they enlisted a lot of outside help after Doom 4 was scraped. Bethesda's game directors helped them a lot because they already figured how to make "old ip" to sell well with modern gamers (see Fallout 3).
side note:
I don't think id managed to get deliver a lot of good games since John Romero left. (just like John Romero didn't deliver many good games since the separation)
John Romero and John Carmack were like a dream team, but without each other it was meh.
GoG does have a bunch of new games though. And IIRC they are owned by CD Project Red who are doing some big games now :)
Both CD Projekt Red and GOG are actually just subdivisions of CD Projekt.
Yeah GOG hasn't "focused" on vintage games for at least half a decade now (and the switch from GoG and the original acronym to branding wise it's just GOG and its own "word" these days) and while back compat remains a core strength (though one as much exported at this point as most Publishers have paid attention to what GOG was doing and released many of the same games with the same tricks [ScummVM, DOSBOX, etc] on Steam and other platforms) has kept up with Steam (and Epic) on every major AAA release and a large swath of Indies so long as the publisher will allow a DRM Free release. Plus of course CD Projekt Red's own AAA releases (Witcher series, Cyberpunk) as obviously they want DRM Free publishing where available.
I'm not certain if you enjoy remakes or not - but I think GOG is pretty much single handedly responsible for making them a thing. Things like AoE2 (Age of Empires) HD & DE probably wouldn't exist if AoE and AoM (Age of Mythology) didn't get a bunch of surprise sales on GoG. I'm hoping it'll also lead to some of the older IPs that died off with the likes of SSI getting resurrected into new titles - Imperialism 1 & 2 were pretty amazing games long before the likes of Victoria 2 came about.
id Software -- the makers of Doom 2016 -- is owned by ZeniMax Media, which has been acquired by Microsoft as per the featured article we are discussing
FYI the 'id' in 'id Software' is lowercase. It's a word (not an initialism or acronym) so 'Id' would be more grammatically correct, though the name of the company is nevertheless lowercase.
I've been playing a lot of great retro-inspired shooters from the new 3D Realms and New Blood. Plenty of great indie stuff on PC.
My kids love Nintendo and Minecraft, but they also love Untitled Goose Game, Factorio and Frog Detective. Indie games are probably more available now than ever.
The absence of civ6 is lamentable, but then we do only have so much time to find to pursue hobbies like work and careers.
There are a lot of great Indie titles, and you can get a lot of them DRM free on Humble or Gog.
I've loved a lot of Devolver's stuff. The Red String Club, Hotline Miami I/II, Katana ZERO .. all super incredible games with gameplay and story that's just as fun as the any of the big AAA shops.
I've loved a lot of Devolver's stuff. The Red String Club, Hotline Miami I/II, Katana ZERO .. all super incredible games with gameplay and story that's just as fun as the any of the big AAA shops.
Focus Home Interactive publishes some great AA games. I'm very glad publishers like them continue to exist.
I'm loving Annapurna Interactive, games like What Remains of Edith Finch and Outer Wilds have been amazing.
'What Remains of Edith Finch' feels like a (shorter) AAA title, no compromise in production values whatsoever.
Devolver is astounding, they really keep snapping up indie projects that do exceptionally well - don't forget Reigns in that list it's definitely on the lighter end but it's very well put together.
Same, Devolver is phenomenal. Enter the Gungeon and Fall Guys are both smash hits too
> Sure, if you ate McDonald's every day you'd probably think that there are no good restaurants anymore.
Brilliantly put.
Brilliantly put.
There's no end to enjoyable ways to waste your time when it comes to enjoyable games across time and genre, plenty of fish. Games media like all media loves hyperbole. Who cares about Caves of Qud if you can get MAD about a GIRL fighting in WW2? Fallout 75! For all I care the AAA industry can cannibalize itself until there's only 1 studio left slaving away in the Call of Duty mines. Games are made by people. There will always be more games released every year by middling and small studios than you have time. Now more than ever if someone has thousands of hours to burn on an autistically singular interest, we'll always have good games. As I get older and the world sinks into a fervor of self-preservation and tribalism, I realize the number of fucks I have for Bobby Kotick or loot boxes has dwindled to none. In fact, I'm running out of those real quick in general. So congratulations on joining the Microsoft family Bethesda, I'm sure your children will have non recessive genes and normal sized heads.
Deadcells ?
I actually feel compelled to express an opinion regarding WoW classic:
It's a garbage money grab.
The idea that there is a huge nostalgia fueled demand for the original experience doesn't absolve a multi-billion dollar developer from a complete lack of support or quality of life improvements to the game.
There is just too much overlap with the fact that they can literally re-release a game with practically zero development costs.
It's a garbage money grab.
The idea that there is a huge nostalgia fueled demand for the original experience doesn't absolve a multi-billion dollar developer from a complete lack of support or quality of life improvements to the game.
There is just too much overlap with the fact that they can literally re-release a game with practically zero development costs.
That's not fair...
1) Costs were not zero for the re-release. The only version of the game data (stats, items, enemy spawns etc.) was in the form of an original database backup (from an old employee's personal stash!). Classic runs on the modern WOW engine, so work was required to shoehorn the old data in and reimplement systems and interfaces which don't exist in the current WOW engine.
2) Before Classic's release, by far the most vocal crowd making demands of Blizzard were shouting their slogan "NO CHANGES". I really don't find it surprising that Blizzard has not made major changes since the majority of the player base requested as such...
1) Costs were not zero for the re-release. The only version of the game data (stats, items, enemy spawns etc.) was in the form of an original database backup (from an old employee's personal stash!). Classic runs on the modern WOW engine, so work was required to shoehorn the old data in and reimplement systems and interfaces which don't exist in the current WOW engine.
2) Before Classic's release, by far the most vocal crowd making demands of Blizzard were shouting their slogan "NO CHANGES". I really don't find it surprising that Blizzard has not made major changes since the majority of the player base requested as such...
Fair points, but do you have a source? I'm skeptical that previous versions of the game were discarded.
In terms of audience demographics, I've experienced nostalgia, but frankly I think the president had a point when he made his infamous comment. But I haven't seen any data to support any claims, beyond the existence of private servers.
In terms of audience demographics, I've experienced nostalgia, but frankly I think the president had a point when he made his infamous comment. But I haven't seen any data to support any claims, beyond the existence of private servers.
Blizzard did not charge for WoW Classic. It merely requires an active subscription to the regular game. There's no additional purchase or subscription.
The company invested significant development into Classic. The project started as a fork of Legion, in order to benefit from a decade of anti-bot measures, compatibility fixes, and Battle.net integration (auth and chat). They then ported the original game forward and added "layering" to avoid crashes that plagued the original game in 2004 and 2005.
The company invested significant development into Classic. The project started as a fork of Legion, in order to benefit from a decade of anti-bot measures, compatibility fixes, and Battle.net integration (auth and chat). They then ported the original game forward and added "layering" to avoid crashes that plagued the original game in 2004 and 2005.
> Blizzard did not charge for WoW Classic. It merely requires an active subscription to the regular game. There's no additional purchase or subscription.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, in my experience a massive chunk of the players don't play 'retail'. So the cost is just that, $15 a month.
Beyond that, do you have a source? It's not clear that any of these things they've been developing had significant costs in replicating for Classic.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, in my experience a massive chunk of the players don't play 'retail'. So the cost is just that, $15 a month.
Beyond that, do you have a source? It's not clear that any of these things they've been developing had significant costs in replicating for Classic.
If you think wow classic had "practically zero development cost", you don't know what you're talking about.
Care to elaborate? How many lines of code do you think were written for the release of WoW classic compared to the original release?
Blizzard shut a "wow classic" style private server down because they are the owners of WoW but then they left lots of people who wanted the classic experience stranded and decided to give them an official way. It's not a money grab.
Indy is great if you like one of the genres where they excel (e.g. rogue like, deck builder, walking simulator, retro, traditional RPG, etc.). However, if you are into genres like modern FPS or open world action adventure then good indy games are difficult to come by.
It doesn't take many to saturate those markets though.
If you're looking for a good indie shooter, look at Diabotical[0]. It's more Quake than Quake Champions was, or even Rocket Arena for that matter. There's plenty of pro-level gameplay on Zoot's stream[1] as well.
0: https://www.diabotical.com/
1: https://www.twitch.tv/thisiszoot
If you're looking for a good indie shooter, look at Diabotical[0]. It's more Quake than Quake Champions was, or even Rocket Arena for that matter. There's plenty of pro-level gameplay on Zoot's stream[1] as well.
0: https://www.diabotical.com/
1: https://www.twitch.tv/thisiszoot
Maybe not "indie," but you don't have to look to the big 4 publishers for the best FPS and open-world action games these days.
Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077 came out of CDProject Red. My favorite FPS of the last few years (Hunt: Showdown) came out of Crytek.
Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077 came out of CDProject Red. My favorite FPS of the last few years (Hunt: Showdown) came out of Crytek.
Cdproject costs some 4 billion more than Microsoft paid for Zenimax.
Yeah, open world games generally take a large team to create tons of content and a large tools/pipeline team to get said content in engine. So yeah, I doubt we'll see them dominating that space any time soon.
I can't think of a good reason though that there aren't a few very successful indie shooters though.
I can't think of a good reason though that there aren't a few very successful indie shooters though.
Mount & Blade series is an interesting counterexample to that, although I'm at a loss as to how define the genre ("feudalism sandbox"?). The first games were very clearly indy, but they capitalized on that success, and Bannerlord is a much more ambitious and polished game.
M&B is actually published by an arguably large company? I don't know where folks put Paradox in the ranking but they're certainly raking in the money with both internal dev & publisher only projects.
And they're making a new World of Darkness RPG for the first time in forever.
And they're making a new World of Darkness RPG for the first time in forever.
It was originally self-published indy, Paradox picked it up sometime during their betas. In 2015, TaleWorlds decided to return back to their indy roots, and got the publishing rights (for all already-released games, as well as M&B2: Bannerlord) back.
[deleted]
Open world as in sandbox? Sandbox is a very big genre among indie games.
Stellaris wins hands down for me in most time played. Honestly such a good game.
Dead Cells, Enter the Gungeon, Binding of Isaac, Papers Please, Return of the Obra Dinn, Spelunky 2
All fantastic games better than most major studio titles.
All fantastic games better than most major studio titles.
Excellent taste in colony survival titles!
Give Factorio a try
Well, not everybody has the same tastes. I mostly don't like the aesthetics of indie games, especially not the "indie feel" or any kind of pixelated or animation-style graphics. I will not play anything that reeks of "design".
Instead, I prefer realistic-looking graphics, with moving trees and clouds. I've more often than not spent too much money on new AAA just to look at the graphics and barely play. Unfortunately, games with AAA-graphics with a good story and great original gameplay (no sequels!) seem to get rarer, and the disappearance of independent top-notch game studios could be a reason for that.
Instead, I prefer realistic-looking graphics, with moving trees and clouds. I've more often than not spent too much money on new AAA just to look at the graphics and barely play. Unfortunately, games with AAA-graphics with a good story and great original gameplay (no sequels!) seem to get rarer, and the disappearance of independent top-notch game studios could be a reason for that.
Realistic graphics are no more AAA than well done "indie feel" graphics. Realistic-looking games can just as much "reek of design" as you put it. Many of those indie games have AAA-graphics with good story and original gameplay.
This is absolutely right. The best games now are from independent developers who are themselves barely making it. The games you listed were some of the breakout successes of indie games but there are a ton of fun, interesting indie games out there that are dying from lack of revenue.
There seems to be an overall issue now where the quality of the good produced and the benefit to the consumer is divorced from the value extracted by the producer.
For instance, you can make a mobile game company that aggressively monetizes re-hashed bubble-poppers or match three games. With that, you focus not on innovation of pleasing the customer but on making the most money per customer so that you can feed it back into your marketing. The most exploitative game wins.
This is a more profitable strategy than simply trying to make a fun game that people want to play.
With most consumer markets, we find similar stories of customer exploitation being a better play than simply making a great product. This is not as much the case in B2B.
How do we reign back in the markets? It doesn't seem like consumer choice is working out very well.
Maybe marketing is at the core of all of this malignment.
There seems to be an overall issue now where the quality of the good produced and the benefit to the consumer is divorced from the value extracted by the producer.
For instance, you can make a mobile game company that aggressively monetizes re-hashed bubble-poppers or match three games. With that, you focus not on innovation of pleasing the customer but on making the most money per customer so that you can feed it back into your marketing. The most exploitative game wins.
This is a more profitable strategy than simply trying to make a fun game that people want to play.
With most consumer markets, we find similar stories of customer exploitation being a better play than simply making a great product. This is not as much the case in B2B.
How do we reign back in the markets? It doesn't seem like consumer choice is working out very well.
Maybe marketing is at the core of all of this malignment.
> The best games now are from independent developers who are themselves barely making it.
I wish it was true, at least for my favorite genre. Technically speaking, a small team of developers can create excellent games when it comes to creativity, design, playability etc. but for some titles there is need for a good story, then turning it into acceptable animations, large worlds, complex graphics etc. that's where probably only a major game house can deliver because of the number of writers, developers, designers, actors needed. My favorite games of all time were the Mass Effect trilogy; they were technically great, but the writing, character development, voicing and direction was their point of excellence. I would take ME1-3 story arc over most recent titles. Unfortunately many game studios think only in terms of FPS and technical trivialities that cannot turn a dull story plastered with FPS scenes into something that one still remembers after 10 years. Not been a gamer for a while, so I may have missed a lot lately and would love to be proven wrong (details welcome!).
I wish it was true, at least for my favorite genre. Technically speaking, a small team of developers can create excellent games when it comes to creativity, design, playability etc. but for some titles there is need for a good story, then turning it into acceptable animations, large worlds, complex graphics etc. that's where probably only a major game house can deliver because of the number of writers, developers, designers, actors needed. My favorite games of all time were the Mass Effect trilogy; they were technically great, but the writing, character development, voicing and direction was their point of excellence. I would take ME1-3 story arc over most recent titles. Unfortunately many game studios think only in terms of FPS and technical trivialities that cannot turn a dull story plastered with FPS scenes into something that one still remembers after 10 years. Not been a gamer for a while, so I may have missed a lot lately and would love to be proven wrong (details welcome!).
take a look at Nier: Automata or Dragon Age (1-2, and/or Inquisition). Both easily enjoyable if you like ME.
These are all great games with huge art budgets. Nothing remotely indie about them.
Seconding Nier: Automata. Rarely have I been as blown away by a game as I was with that one.
Thirding (?) this. The integration of gameplay elements into the story and the story itself are simply amazing. It is similar to Undertale, in that the gameplay is relatively shallow, but is paced perfectly with the story.
Fourthing.
I hate fighting games. I especially despise melee action games. I don't love 3rd person perspective. I haven't really played JRPGs.
Nier:Automata jumped at the top of my list and kept getting better. Even my (non-gaming) wife watched me playing because she was curious and the art and story were fantastic.
A unique experience that is difficult to put into a review. FWIW, my other favourites are Mass Effect, Deus Ex, lots of Sierra & Lucasarts point & click games, etc.
Story telling and surprises (and style) in NieR:Automata were just top notch.
I hate fighting games. I especially despise melee action games. I don't love 3rd person perspective. I haven't really played JRPGs.
Nier:Automata jumped at the top of my list and kept getting better. Even my (non-gaming) wife watched me playing because she was curious and the art and story were fantastic.
A unique experience that is difficult to put into a review. FWIW, my other favourites are Mass Effect, Deus Ex, lots of Sierra & Lucasarts point & click games, etc.
Story telling and surprises (and style) in NieR:Automata were just top notch.
Platinum Games is not an indie studio.
Artistism gap between indie and AAA isn't as big in Japan as in USA, AAA gets more polygons but that's about the only difference.
This, weeb games for the win.
Many indie developers are barely making it. Some are killing it. New ideas come from indies, but sometimes from big companies too. Big companies depend on distribution and marketing, small companies depend on innovation. I have been in video games for twenty five years. It has always been like that.
Where it seems to have broken down is via vertical integration.
When publishers were publishers and developers were developers (80s and 90s), it seemed like there was healthier competition. Even if there were a lot of abusive deals struck.
Now that we have giant, integrated publisher + development conglomerates, there's zero incentive to step out of that structure to publish a popular indie game.
It feels like news sites prohibiting links to external sites, and the world's the poorer.
When publishers were publishers and developers were developers (80s and 90s), it seemed like there was healthier competition. Even if there were a lot of abusive deals struck.
Now that we have giant, integrated publisher + development conglomerates, there's zero incentive to step out of that structure to publish a popular indie game.
It feels like news sites prohibiting links to external sites, and the world's the poorer.
I strongly disagree. No publisher or developer conglomerate dominates today more than Sega, Nintendo, or EA did at different times 25- 30 years ago. The past always looks great in retrospect. Today's ecosystem is so much more diverse.
It feels like the video games industry has done the reverse of Hollywood.
Hollywood went from a vertically integrated system that handled production, distribution, and exhibition by a single entity to a system where production, distribution, and exhibition were done by separate entities.
It feels like game development went the reverse way.
Hollywood went from a vertically integrated system that handled production, distribution, and exhibition by a single entity to a system where production, distribution, and exhibition were done by separate entities.
It feels like game development went the reverse way.
It's important to note that the only reason that Hollywood went from a vertically integrated system to a disaggregated one is because the US Government filed an antitrust suit that forced the disaggregation [1]. And now that that antitrust pressure is gone, we see Hollywood slowly returning to a vertically integrated system, where studios, distribution networks and theaters are all operating in close conjunction to push movies that "ought" to be profitable [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
[2]: https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-slow-death-of-hollywo...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
[2]: https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-slow-death-of-hollywo...
Someone can correct me, but I'd put blame for the trend on EA / Madden NFL (~1990?).
It showed what kind of profits you could make off yearly refreshes of software, while minimizing development costs.
Why would an MBA take a chance on new IP when they have the above as an option?
It showed what kind of profits you could make off yearly refreshes of software, while minimizing development costs.
Why would an MBA take a chance on new IP when they have the above as an option?
Yes and no. Big companies do development, but they don't necessarily do more development than they used to. EA and Activision actually probably develop fewer titles than they did twenty years ago. They just spend a lot more on each title.
But again: Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Nintendo have always been vertically integrated. This is not new.
But again: Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Nintendo have always been vertically integrated. This is not new.
Might be apocryphal, but legend has it Bethesda escaped bankruptcy by taking massive chances with Morrowind. They wanted to go out with a bang, and, creatively, the result was amazing.
That success and the fortune they now had to protect seemed to hemorrhage their creativity or vision or concern. After that, we got Oblivion and Skyrim. Nice but very safe and uninspired games. And the best Fallout was the one from Obsidian Entertainment, not Bethesda Game Studios.
Success kills? Money kills?
That success and the fortune they now had to protect seemed to hemorrhage their creativity or vision or concern. After that, we got Oblivion and Skyrim. Nice but very safe and uninspired games. And the best Fallout was the one from Obsidian Entertainment, not Bethesda Game Studios.
Success kills? Money kills?
Squaresoft did the same thing. Their big creative "here goes the company" game was to be their final project. Final Fantasy.
With limited resources, bad ideas are ruthlessly trashed.
With limitless resources, all ideas are valid.
With limitless resources, all ideas are valid.
That's not it. When you have a profitable IP, the expected value is so high that variance offers you nothing, and hurts. When you have nothing, expected value is so low that high variance ideas are the best -- bankruptcy takes away the sting of negative income.
How do we reign back in the markets? It doesn't seem like consumer choice is working out very well.
Even without the mobile market, The story isn't much different. You either throw yourself out there in a sea of indie games, or you find a publisher to pitch and give your IP rights to in exchange for stability. The latter is just harder to do nowadays
If we're willing to regulate gambling (which we are, because we do regulate it), then I don't think we can simply wave our hands at mobile games and say "bah, consumer choice. They play the games, don't they?"
For what it's worth, the "Free to Play" sector that dominates a lot of market share isn't just the gambling-lite, pay-to-win mobile sector anymore. We're talking about major titles like Fortnite, League of Legends, DOTA2, Rocket League, Hearthstone, and Valorant, which have millions of concurrent players, dominate streaming services, and often have high-production e-sports events. Even the latest title in the Call of Duty franchise offers a Free to Play Battleground mode.
The issues with gambling are nothing to do with the arcana of business structures and everything to do with gambling itself.
Gambling ruined games like porn ruined movies -- it didn't. It's just a different partially similar thing.
Gambling ruined games like porn ruined movies -- it didn't. It's just a different partially similar thing.
However gambling did ruin many areas of entertainment. E.g. Live music suffered immensely in my home country as pubs preferred to fill the stages with pokies as they made more money from gambling addicts then they did from having a live band around.
Same deal with games, many previously good IPs are now stuffed with gambling mechanics as the producers controlling it push for it.
Same deal with games, many previously good IPs are now stuffed with gambling mechanics as the producers controlling it push for it.
Some people enjoy gambling, I guess? That doesn't necessarily mean that they're being exploited or that they're "ruining" games.
I too dislike gambling elements in computer games. I simply choose not to buy such games. If there was a shortage of good games without gambling mechanics, I could see your point. But clearly there's not.
I too dislike gambling elements in computer games. I simply choose not to buy such games. If there was a shortage of good games without gambling mechanics, I could see your point. But clearly there's not.
You're spot on and I wish we knew what to do about it. I think there's a very good parallel between music and games, in both industries it's possible to create great works with innovation, creativity and not much capital. Unfortunately the greatest works don't necessarily bubble up to the top, because the money isn't in producing them, it's in controlling the channels of distribution.
There was great optimism 20+ years ago that the Internet would change this with music, artists would have direct access to their fans, the middle man would be eliminated, and the major labels would crumble. That's not what we got, we just ended up with a new group of megacorps like Apple and Google and Spotify duking it out with the old majors for control of distribution.
To have watched these dreams die in the music industry and see a very similar dynamic unfolding in the digital native industry of games makes me think that maybe this isn't a technology issue, maybe it's something that runs deeper in society and the way people are wired. Then again if we go way back we can argue that the problem was created by technology in the first place (monopolies on music distribution were impossible back when everything was live, they only emerged once we devised technology for recording and copying audio!).
There was great optimism 20+ years ago that the Internet would change this with music, artists would have direct access to their fans, the middle man would be eliminated, and the major labels would crumble. That's not what we got, we just ended up with a new group of megacorps like Apple and Google and Spotify duking it out with the old majors for control of distribution.
To have watched these dreams die in the music industry and see a very similar dynamic unfolding in the digital native industry of games makes me think that maybe this isn't a technology issue, maybe it's something that runs deeper in society and the way people are wired. Then again if we go way back we can argue that the problem was created by technology in the first place (monopolies on music distribution were impossible back when everything was live, they only emerged once we devised technology for recording and copying audio!).
> The best games now are from independent developers
Some Indie games are great, but there are still lot of really great big budget story based games being made that an Indie studio just couldn't produce.
>This is a more profitable strategy than simply trying to make a fun game that people want to play.
Still loads of high quality, very profitable, games being made e.g. RDR2, TLoU2, HZD, Ghost of Tsushima, Uncharted, Spiderman, Doom, Gears, Halo, Ratchet & Clank, Cyberpunk2077 (CDPR can't be considered indie anymore), Forza, Gran Turismo etc.
Sony in particular is really delivering with their single player story based, big budget games.
Some Indie games are great, but there are still lot of really great big budget story based games being made that an Indie studio just couldn't produce.
>This is a more profitable strategy than simply trying to make a fun game that people want to play.
Still loads of high quality, very profitable, games being made e.g. RDR2, TLoU2, HZD, Ghost of Tsushima, Uncharted, Spiderman, Doom, Gears, Halo, Ratchet & Clank, Cyberpunk2077 (CDPR can't be considered indie anymore), Forza, Gran Turismo etc.
Sony in particular is really delivering with their single player story based, big budget games.
To use cyberpunk as an example because it's one of my favorite genres, I wonder how many of the people who buy Cyberpunk2077 will have ever even heard of Shadowrun Dragonfall by Harebrained Schemes, or Technobabylon by Wadjet Eye Games. I'm pretty sure that while CP2077 has a vastly larger budget for art, code and Keanu Reeves, it won't even come close to these games in terms of narrative, atmosphere etc.
> Maybe marketing is at the core of all of this malignment.
Just a thought: You got these big "movie budget" games. They need to make that budget back, so they use (a large part of the budget for) marketing, in order to sell way more games. This then consumes a very large part of the market. Problem now is that a large chunk of the money made in the majority of the market is spent on marketing. And this chunk of money is locked in with the industry giants, the indies and smaller devs can never get to it. Marketing ate part of the gaming industry.
Just a thought: You got these big "movie budget" games. They need to make that budget back, so they use (a large part of the budget for) marketing, in order to sell way more games. This then consumes a very large part of the market. Problem now is that a large chunk of the money made in the majority of the market is spent on marketing. And this chunk of money is locked in with the industry giants, the indies and smaller devs can never get to it. Marketing ate part of the gaming industry.
> The best games now are from independent developers who are themselves barely making it.
That's a highly subjective statement, and a blanket one at that.
You could also say that the worst games are made by independent developers and that would also be true at the same time, because "independent developers" is far from being a consistent group.
That's a highly subjective statement, and a blanket one at that.
You could also say that the worst games are made by independent developers and that would also be true at the same time, because "independent developers" is far from being a consistent group.
> The best games now are from independent developers who are themselves barely making it.
....yayy?
....yayy?
For anyone into games like this, I also highly recommend Cataclysm: DDA
Not to mention the biggest gaming phenomenon at the moment is Among Us, which was made by one developer and one artist.
River City Girls (WayForward), Factorio, Two Point Hospital, FTL.
Plenty of games out there, no reason to keep buying the same 3d-action RPG formula from the AAA-studios unless that's a thing you like.
Plenty of games out there, no reason to keep buying the same 3d-action RPG formula from the AAA-studios unless that's a thing you like.
Europa Universalis 4 is way better than Stellaris, friend.
It's interesting - they're very different. The historical setting and investment into events to try and keep things on a historical path add a lot to the game IMO by allowing a mostly balanced but asymmetrical game - France can usually ROFLstomp everyone but an overly aggressive France can easily be ROFLstomped themselves. That said, I think EU4 still falls on its face in the late game with mechanics like Absolutism absolutely pulling the breaks off the train and making Ulm WCs possible - in fact EU4 is sorta confusing for that reason, there are essentially two (maybe three if you want to count the reformation+counter reformation) games there and a portion of that playthrough may be more or less appealing to individual players. Stellaris definitely has some distinct phases but without trying to railroad players the mechanics flow from one phase to the next in a much smoother manner.
Isn't WoW Classic published by ActivisionBlizzard?
I wonder what Lucas Pope is up to. There have been no press since Return of the Obra Dinn.
You should try Factorio!
Ha, in Demolition Man every restaurant became a Pizza Hut after the corporate wars.
> My top 4 games by playtime in the last few years were Rimworld, Oxygen Not Included, Dwarf Fortress and WoW Classic.
I had a similar experience with Cosmoteer. And the darn thing is not even released yet! :)
I had a similar experience with Cosmoteer. And the darn thing is not even released yet! :)
[deleted]
In just a generation we will have our own version of zaibutsu and chaebols, isn't that exciting !
Microsoft and EA have some deal now revolving around Game Pass Ultimate which grants you access to EA Play also.
We still have large, amazing, original games coming out of small studios. Kingdom Come: Deliverance is an excellent example.
We may get to a point where there are practically no "medium-large" developers and only "massive" ones like Microsoft, but I'm confident we'll still get great games from outside the massive groups.
We may get to a point where there are practically no "medium-large" developers and only "massive" ones like Microsoft, but I'm confident we'll still get great games from outside the massive groups.
If Epic is successful in their lawsuit against Apple, then I think it's only a matter of time before the consoles will have to allow alternate stores as well.
The hardware-is-sold-at-a-loss argument that people like to use to defend closed console stores isn't as convincing when the console makers also own the biggest money making game studios as well.
Go Epic, go!
The hardware-is-sold-at-a-loss argument that people like to use to defend closed console stores isn't as convincing when the console makers also own the biggest money making game studios as well.
Go Epic, go!
Following from alternate stores on consoles, we're not far away from Valve's SteamBox, i.e. prebuilt PCs marketed for living room play. I'm disappointed the idea never took off.
I would love the game industry to fully embrace Linux. If cloud gaming gains more traction, the industry might just do that. Why develop games to run on custom-built blades in a data center when generic blades exist?
I would love the game industry to fully embrace Linux. If cloud gaming gains more traction, the industry might just do that. Why develop games to run on custom-built blades in a data center when generic blades exist?
> prebuilt PCs marketed for living room play
That's been a dream for a long time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSX
That's been a dream for a long time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSX
> I would love the game industry to fully embrace Linux.
Take a look at what all linux games are lacking and what nearly all AAA game that aren't on linux have.
...
DRM and Anti-Cheat.
Let's forget that DRM is trash. Publishers want to have it, and they don't care about our opinion of it. You can't really "port" DRM, you have to develop a whole new one for Linux and figure how to prevent easy-peasy eBPF programs to make cracking it easy.
Anti-Cheat is another story. Valve and Easy Anti-Cheat are currently working on bringing it to Linux. You need that and you want that for any online game. Probably not as hard as DRM, but still requires a lot of linux specific work.
Take a look at what all linux games are lacking and what nearly all AAA game that aren't on linux have.
...
DRM and Anti-Cheat.
Let's forget that DRM is trash. Publishers want to have it, and they don't care about our opinion of it. You can't really "port" DRM, you have to develop a whole new one for Linux and figure how to prevent easy-peasy eBPF programs to make cracking it easy.
Anti-Cheat is another story. Valve and Easy Anti-Cheat are currently working on bringing it to Linux. You need that and you want that for any online game. Probably not as hard as DRM, but still requires a lot of linux specific work.
> The hardware-is-sold-at-a-loss argument
Kind of ironic how bad an argument that is when discussing anti-trust. It's a form of dumping to distort the market. It prevents new competitors becoming viable purely by selling hardware.
Kind of ironic how bad an argument that is when discussing anti-trust. It's a form of dumping to distort the market. It prevents new competitors becoming viable purely by selling hardware.
It's not a form of dumping, it's loss-leading. Loss-leading can be part of a dumping campaign, but is not necessary or sufficient for one.
Loss leading itself is illegal in some EU countries and half of the US states.
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/us-submi...
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/us-submi...
I think Sega is also a major player, they have bought up many studios in recent years including Relic, Creative Assembly and Amplitude.
A lot of people claim that this is reducing competition but the gaming industry seems to be much less consolidated than many others.
How did you leave out Nintendo? :(
I find that funny when Among Us (indie) and Fall Guys (also indie) are some of the highest-trending games at the moment.
Both of them are free, though. The former one only got this push due to streamers suddenly playing it together. These are kind of "meme of the moment" games more than anything, in the same way VR Chat was a bit ago, or Five Nights at Freddy's.
On what platforms are they free? They're paid games on all the platforms I know of.
Fall Guys was "free" on PS4 at launch in the sense that it was included in PS+.
Among Us is just really cheap (free to play on its original mobile platforms, I believe, but that's not really the source of its current moment of popularity).
Among Us is just really cheap (free to play on its original mobile platforms, I believe, but that's not really the source of its current moment of popularity).
Being included as part of a paid service seems a like a liberal use of the word "free".
Well, hence my quotation marks.
Plus is a strange case because you need it for online play and some other PS features like cloud saves, so many people have it regardless of what games are on offer. Let's just say that a large number of PS4 players got it at no marginal cost.
Plus is a strange case because you need it for online play and some other PS features like cloud saves, so many people have it regardless of what games are on offer. Let's just say that a large number of PS4 players got it at no marginal cost.
[deleted]
The barrier between what indie studios and big studios can produce is increasingly shrinking. I'd say the market has never been healthier. The sheer amount of content is still constrained by some linear function of man hours but there's enough crowdsourcing business models like kickstarter and early access releases that even small shops can afford to show a cool concept and get funded for its completion.
Where can I preorder the butterfly cloud9 knife?
I don't think it's fair to include Microsoft in that list. They buy game studios so they can close them and shelve their IP after several attempts to turn beloved franchises into GAAS products. They're less of a game studio conglomerator and more of a recycling bin.
Depends on which era of Microsoft Game Studios / Xbox Game Studios you are talking about. Also, Microsoft has never really shelved IP ever, even Flight Simulator is back out of retirement! They've sold IP back to (nearly) the original developers, which is somewhat unheard of outside of Microsoft (Fasa's BattleTech/Mech Warrior and Shadowrun IP brands are back in the "indy space" because Microsoft sold it back; you rarely hear of an Activision or EA IP getting sold back to small developers). Even Microsoft's worst turnover period of developer subsidiaries had some interesting mitigating circumstances: Bungie wanted to be independent again (and again that's a weird case where you'd be surprise to see a developer like Bungie spin back out of an Activision or an EA; Bungie themselves had to do a ton of work on their publishing contracts to avoid being swallowed up by Activision with Destiny), and rumors are that whatever happened to Lionhead may have been a suicide, though who knows if the story will ever be substantiated one way or the other (and Lionhead's IP hasn't been "shelved" for long either with Playground Games working on a new Fable).
This - only if Activision returned Infocom to an indie or sent it to the public domain!
As long as no one buys From Software everything will be ok. Praise the Sun.
There's been already 2 Playstation exclusives from From Software, Bloodborne and Demon's Souls (original and remake), so you never know.
Fear the Old ~~Microsoft~~ Blood.
Embrace, extend, extinguish but for games!
Bobby Kotick is on Jeffrey Epstein's list. He also lost a sexual harassment case against a flight attendant from one of his private flights.
Miss Ukraine 1996 married Bobby Kotick's dad, Charles Kotick (for 2 years, before he passed away).
Miss Ukraine 1996 married Bobby Kotick's dad, Charles Kotick (for 2 years, before he passed away).
Godot, Blender, itch.io, Krita. Nobody forces you to use walled gardens. Games are entertainment, not something mandatory, so I wouldn't worry too much. If there's too much of an lock-in from the major vendors, it will simply cause the indie scene to explode.
If you think Valve will exit software development, then you don't understand the market. Valve did do that and had this luxury when they were the only big game platform on PC. Unfortunately for them, there's GOG, EPIC, and MS Game Pass now. They need exclusives and the best way to do that without going the EPIC route is by developing their own games.
I'd argue that Valve doesn't need exclusives just yet. By virtue of being the default PC store they get plenty of games that are not on any other store. But this will change.
Alyx wouldn't exist if you were right. GOG and EPIC are credible threats.
That's how every maeket works, sooner or later, things will be in a few hands.
At least indoe games still have a chance. (among us for example)
At least indoe games still have a chance. (among us for example)
Lol, you're probably not far off :D
RIP Bethesda.
Honestly it is hard for me to see how Microsoft can ruin Bethesda any worse than ZeniMax was already....
the new Doom was ok, but the new Fallout was TERRIBLE, as with many other recent Bethesda ventures...
the new Doom was ok, but the new Fallout was TERRIBLE, as with many other recent Bethesda ventures...
It's not looking good for another TES or FO game unless they're already very well under development.
EA has taught the industry that mega corps are where IP goes to die a long, slow, cash-cow squeezing death. I'm actually more disappointed in ZeniMax/Bethesda. In my mind, there is absolutely no possibility that Bethesda will ever produce another game on the level of FO3/NV now because corps do what corps do which is A/B test and second guess every decision until the product is a flavorless lump.
EA has taught the industry that mega corps are where IP goes to die a long, slow, cash-cow squeezing death. I'm actually more disappointed in ZeniMax/Bethesda. In my mind, there is absolutely no possibility that Bethesda will ever produce another game on the level of FO3/NV now because corps do what corps do which is A/B test and second guess every decision until the product is a flavorless lump.
I would say the new Doom was much more than okay. One of the best playing FPS's I've played. And everything that Arkane makes is gold.
To add to the parent here, Doom was made by id Software, which generally has a huge history of making very good FPS games. I'm certain they were given a lot of leeway from the producer.
Arkane's 2016 Prey was just amazing... shame so few immersive sims get made anymore.
Arkane's 2016 Prey was just amazing... shame so few immersive sims get made anymore.
One thing that confused me, is the Announcement says MS is acquiring Doom IP, but from what I can tell they are not acquiring id Software, so how is that going to work?
Are you joking? What could Microsoft ever do that's as bad as Fallout 76?
I'm still buying PS5 :)
Incredible that Fallout and Obsidian are now under the same roof again. The Outer Worlds was fun, and I want to see Obsidians efforts continue. Still, new Vegas 2 would be fine too.
How is The Outer Worlds? I heard it is basically space Fallout, which if that is half as good as it sounds I am all over it.
It's Fallout: Firefly. Space western fallout game with quirky characters, hard moral dilemmas, and no one telling you what's right/wrong.
So it is a Lifesimulator?
It's fun, but it's pretty much on rails. It's not open world.
In terms of game area progression it's more like Borderlands than Skyrim/Fallout. You can't just wander around the map to a random town and possibly spend a whole game mucking around in that area.
But the quests are more like Fallout NV.
In terms of game area progression it's more like Borderlands than Skyrim/Fallout. You can't just wander around the map to a random town and possibly spend a whole game mucking around in that area.
But the quests are more like Fallout NV.
For me, The Outer Worlds was right there with Witcher 3 as one of the best games this generation. It really does feel like Fallout, but perhaps somewhat less open world when you're actually on a planet b/c of map boundaries and enemies too dangerous for your level to keep you on track. The diverging story lines and open space travel (once you get the requisite navkey to be able to land) compensate for that somewhat.
While it IS a great game, it's REALLY short. I've been hoping for a surprise DLC to expand the content. (There are several other planets in the galaxy map you can't travel to. Hint, hint.) I hope the game did well enough to get a larger treatment in Outer Worlds 2.
Yeah, definitely looking forward to some DLC content. Did you try it on Supernova difficulty? I beat it pretty easily on the Hard setting, but had to completely change my playing style to get anywhere on Supernova. Went from going in guns blazing to a stealth run.
It does feel more like a tech demo than a complete game.
I thoroughly enjoyed it none-the-less.
I thoroughly enjoyed it none-the-less.
Have you seen this one https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/the-outer-worlds-peril-on-... ?
NO! I didn't know this existed! Thanks for the heads up. Turning on the PS4 to buy this right now...
I really enjoyed it, highly recommend.
I did two play throughs and was very entertained both. The stories and humor is excellent and I like the combat system. You can definitely chose play style, whether you're the creepy sniper, rambo or hammer-in-the-head. It's just a solid fun game.
I enjoyed the character writing a lot and the overall story arc was interesting. The quests could be challenging without being too grindy or obscure, but the moment-to-moment gameplay was... just ok? It felt even clunkier than Fallout 4 in terms of how an FPS plays..
The maps and environments looked good but were pretty generic in terms of layout and variety.
I don't regret buying it (on sale), but I haven't picked up the DLC, and probably won't.. I had my fill with the base game.
The maps and environments looked good but were pretty generic in terms of layout and variety.
I don't regret buying it (on sale), but I haven't picked up the DLC, and probably won't.. I had my fill with the base game.
I don't like combat in RPGs anyway, but it did feel like less of a chore than combat in Fallout games. Maybe they just got the "grind/success" ratio closer to what I prefer.
I'm with you on that, but I still find the game forced enough combat on you (especially the end game) and it didn't feel good.. I felt like a lot of my deaths weren't due to my mistakes but to the gameplay being janky.
But of course I'd say that. ;-)
But of course I'd say that. ;-)
About 1/100th of the content that New Vegas has. The map is deceptive at the start making you think theres so much left to do when in reality there is about 2 total worlds. The rest of the planets are pretty tiny maps. It is a good game but its incredibly short, especially when your expectations are not managed.
I was definitely surprised by the cue for the ending arc to begin. I have gotten a fair bit out of the sidequests though, so I've still got lots to do.
Great game, but it's a 3+-hours-at-a-time kind of game. Hard to play with lots of time constraints on your sessions.
Huh, I kind of disagree with that. It's like Fallout in that you can pop in and make some decent progress on a side story or just poke around if you have limited time. I definitely didn't do very many 3 hour sessions when I played it.
I get sucked in pretty easily and play for ages. I don't feel satisfied if I only play for a short while, as I feel like I've just completed a task rather than immersed into a world.
I am not sure it is half as good as it sounds. Played through a few first quests, and got more Borderlands feeling from it, than Fallout. It was so gimmicky, I did not continue to play.
It feels like a 10-15 years old game, has no replayability (unlike Fallout 3/4) but it's an unusual/interesting experience.
I think it has a few replays in it, there's heaps you can do differently but I guess the question is would you want to? I think it'll be a game I revisit, just not right away.
The writing (and especially the 'humor') was completely miss for me, some of the visual was just ok and the gameplay was so-so. Of course to each his own, you might enjoy it more than I.
It’s ok. It scratched that “Bethesda fallout” itch better than Bethesda did, but ultimately I found it got a bit monotonous and dull after a little while. It’s not a bad game, but it’s no masterpiece.
Yeah, I didn't like it either. The graphics are good, but there was nothing that made me want to keep going; the writing just wasn't good. It's one of the best games ever since I wasn't tempted to play for just "5 more minutes". No loss in productivity.
I played a good chunk and then I decided to see what would happen if i just shot everyone. I mean literally everyone, civilians, guards, everyone. I was disappointed to see that this tactic could actually have carried me to the end (I played a good 20% of the game like this to see how far I could push it and... I just didn’t hit any major resistance so in the end got bored and gave up — a little bit after deorbiting the ship, for context. It’s my understanding that’s reasonably close to the end although I can’t be sure since I didn’t continue)
It's definitely a spiritual successor to New Vegas, but overall it's much smaller in scope and (in my opinion) has a less satisfying progression system.
Pros: 1. Solid Writing: I found the story to be interesting and engaging. There's great ambient world building via notes you find and the main story is fairly interesting with lots of branching paths. 2. Flexible playstyles: they really committed themselves to allowing you to play how you want to. There are the standard melee and ranged playstyles, but stealth and speed are also completely viable for the entire game as well. 3. Combat: Combat is actually pretty good. They replaced VATS with a time dilation mechanic that is basically bullet time/slowmo. I played a ranged character so it felt cool to slow down time and get headshots, etc. Maybe it feels less good with melee characters, I don't know.
Cons: 1. Limited loot: This was a big dissapointment. There were only 2-3 weapons per category, plus a few special weapons thrown in. I felt like I basically had 2 guns for the entire game, which was a bit of a let down. It was disappointing to get the same generic gun again and again from enemies, especially compared to the huge variety of guns in NV. 2. Less exciting progression: They changed the perk system to be much simpler and there are many fewer perks to choose from. Around the mid game I basically had selected all the good perks and felt like there was no point in selecting new ones. You also get perks from leveling up skills but I found that those weren't well balanced and frequently the first tier of perk unlocks were way better than the later tiers, which didn't incentivize much specialization. 3. Setting: This one definitely comes down to personal preference but I was not a big fan of the aesthetic. They swapped 1950s nuclear age with 1920s art deco. Some of the environments and costumes look cool, but generally I found it to be less compelling and exciting than Fallout. This is arguably an unfair comparison because they had a big body of existing Fallout lore to build on for NV but IMO it's a much weaker universe - I can't see it being as interesting even after they make a few games in this setting.
Pros: 1. Solid Writing: I found the story to be interesting and engaging. There's great ambient world building via notes you find and the main story is fairly interesting with lots of branching paths. 2. Flexible playstyles: they really committed themselves to allowing you to play how you want to. There are the standard melee and ranged playstyles, but stealth and speed are also completely viable for the entire game as well. 3. Combat: Combat is actually pretty good. They replaced VATS with a time dilation mechanic that is basically bullet time/slowmo. I played a ranged character so it felt cool to slow down time and get headshots, etc. Maybe it feels less good with melee characters, I don't know.
Cons: 1. Limited loot: This was a big dissapointment. There were only 2-3 weapons per category, plus a few special weapons thrown in. I felt like I basically had 2 guns for the entire game, which was a bit of a let down. It was disappointing to get the same generic gun again and again from enemies, especially compared to the huge variety of guns in NV. 2. Less exciting progression: They changed the perk system to be much simpler and there are many fewer perks to choose from. Around the mid game I basically had selected all the good perks and felt like there was no point in selecting new ones. You also get perks from leveling up skills but I found that those weren't well balanced and frequently the first tier of perk unlocks were way better than the later tiers, which didn't incentivize much specialization. 3. Setting: This one definitely comes down to personal preference but I was not a big fan of the aesthetic. They swapped 1950s nuclear age with 1920s art deco. Some of the environments and costumes look cool, but generally I found it to be less compelling and exciting than Fallout. This is arguably an unfair comparison because they had a big body of existing Fallout lore to build on for NV but IMO it's a much weaker universe - I can't see it being as interesting even after they make a few games in this setting.
I bought xbox game pass just to play The Outer Worlds. Best fun I've had playing a game since FNV and watching Firefly. If they pooled the resources for their studios it would be amazing.
A lot of people dislike Bethesda's management, is there now any risk of ex-Bethesda managers or executives poisoning the other game studios Microsoft owns?
Bethesda/Zenimax as a whole has had a very rough time of it recently, but their IPs alone are ridiculously valuable and id Software has been killing it lately. I wonder how much Microsoft intends to shake things up.
Also, if MS just wants development studios and IPs, I imagine a lot of the publishing arm of the company will be redundant. I wonder what MS intends to do about the publishing staff.
Also, if MS just wants development studios and IPs, I imagine a lot of the publishing arm of the company will be redundant. I wonder what MS intends to do about the publishing staff.
I really hope that they move away from the ESO/MMO format that they've focused on the last few years in regards to Elder Scrolls. I'm a huge fan of that series, but I just have zero interest in playing MMOs, and it's clear that they've been trying to push further into that space as opposed to shipping high-quality single-player games.
The team that works on the mainline Elder Scrolls games hasn't so much as touched MMO or GAAS games - they've been working on Starfield which we know next to nothing about, but there's been no indication it's an online game. Even before that they made Fallout 4 which was a traditional singleplayer game.
ESO is by ZeniMax Online Studios and FO76 is by a separate studio inside Bethesda Game Studios. Nothing to do with the team that works on mainline TES and FO games.
ESO is by ZeniMax Online Studios and FO76 is by a separate studio inside Bethesda Game Studios. Nothing to do with the team that works on mainline TES and FO games.
All of these consolidations of power are nuts. Feels like we need another round of trust busting in the next 10/20 years to help introduce real competition back into the markets.
What makes you believe this is a consolidation of power? Some of these companies may not be able to survive a long term recession.
For now I think we'll wait and see; while the big companies slowly poison the well with microtransactions and live services, ruining games to push for sales, the indie market is massive, turning single developers pottering around in their proverbial basements into millionaires and spawning franchises left and right.
I mean Minecraft started off like that. Terraria is following behind it. Among Us, a $4 game on Steam released in 2018, suddenly became a meme and huge out of nowhere. Fall Guys, made by a small studio that mainly did web, Flash, Facebook and mobile games for most of their existence, came out of left field and created the top game of last month, which (if played right) is an instant brand because of their simple yet infinitely customizable cute characters.
There is still real competition because the big publishers cannot stop the small developers.
I mean Minecraft started off like that. Terraria is following behind it. Among Us, a $4 game on Steam released in 2018, suddenly became a meme and huge out of nowhere. Fall Guys, made by a small studio that mainly did web, Flash, Facebook and mobile games for most of their existence, came out of left field and created the top game of last month, which (if played right) is an instant brand because of their simple yet infinitely customizable cute characters.
There is still real competition because the big publishers cannot stop the small developers.
Normally I would 100% agree, but the barrier for entry is so low that I'm not sure that consolidation in the video game market. There are plenty of issues which plague the video game market (software ownership rights, anti-competitive exclusivity deals, workforce abuse, literal gambling for children, pre-order "culture", etc), but I don't think this is one of them.
That said, I don't know if this is necessarily a good thing either. Strictly as a video game publisher, Microsoft has been doing pretty well for themselves over the last five years. They've definitely stood out as one of the more consumer-friendly publishers, but the market is full of notoriously bad publishers (Bethesda included) so being one of the better ones isn't very praiseworthy.
Microsoft also has their own jaded publishing history which includes some pretty bad moves at the end of the 360 generation and beginning of the Xbox One generation. The Kinect was a very high-profile failure. The original Xbox One was met with a strong backlash for lacking support for physical media. They played a significant role in the integration of "microtransactions" into full priced video games. Although they have done many great things over the last few years, I'm still weary of them as a publisher.
I think the jury is still out on whether this is a net positive for the video game market, but it will definitely make the upcoming console generation very interesting.
That said, I don't know if this is necessarily a good thing either. Strictly as a video game publisher, Microsoft has been doing pretty well for themselves over the last five years. They've definitely stood out as one of the more consumer-friendly publishers, but the market is full of notoriously bad publishers (Bethesda included) so being one of the better ones isn't very praiseworthy.
Microsoft also has their own jaded publishing history which includes some pretty bad moves at the end of the 360 generation and beginning of the Xbox One generation. The Kinect was a very high-profile failure. The original Xbox One was met with a strong backlash for lacking support for physical media. They played a significant role in the integration of "microtransactions" into full priced video games. Although they have done many great things over the last few years, I'm still weary of them as a publisher.
I think the jury is still out on whether this is a net positive for the video game market, but it will definitely make the upcoming console generation very interesting.
I think you're right from a "person looking to play a good video game" perspective but what's easily overlooked is the data to be gained and who gains that data.
Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon have unprecedented insight into user behavior and that is power, and that continues to consolidate.
Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon have unprecedented insight into user behavior and that is power, and that continues to consolidate.
That is orthogonal to gaming.
They are accumulating data through many other devices and applications from a wider user group, I doubt gaming makes all that much of difference.
Barring MS none of the others actually have any presence in gaming
FB and Google efforts in engaging the gaming community has not scaled. Stadia or Oculus is not mainstream yet. Amazon has even smaller presence with just some products on AWS. Apple is just interested in taking their 30% cut and done nothing really in this space.
They are accumulating data through many other devices and applications from a wider user group, I doubt gaming makes all that much of difference.
Barring MS none of the others actually have any presence in gaming
FB and Google efforts in engaging the gaming community has not scaled. Stadia or Oculus is not mainstream yet. Amazon has even smaller presence with just some products on AWS. Apple is just interested in taking their 30% cut and done nothing really in this space.
One weird thing is that Deathloop and Ghostwrite are timed exclusives on PS5. I'm assuming that'll still happen because of contracts, but I wonder if there will never be another Bethesda game on PlayStation afterwards.
Damn, I really wanted to play Skyrim on the PS6. At least GTAV will be on it.
I was looking at my list of favorite games when I realized that all my favorite games are indi, except for Fallout/Elder scrolls. KSP, Subnautica, factorio, minecraft, papers please, FTL, EVE, x-plane, city skylines ... they all at least started as indi titles. Then I look at fallout and oblivion, the only non-indi games I've really enjoyed in the last 10+ years. There is something difference about them. So when I see microsoft buying Bethesda, I worry.
Coincidentally, they're all games that work very well on Linux.
True. And another reason to worry. Microsoft at large may be less linux-hating than it once wase, but Microsoft games have never been linux-friendly and show no substantial moves in that direction of late.
The year is 2040.
Gigaconglomerates Tencent, Activision Blizzard Ubisoft (ABU), Microsoft and Apple gatekeep the entire gaming industry.
Rebel guerilla groups of small publishers and indie developers rise up to take control of their encampments.
Gigaconglomerates Tencent, Activision Blizzard Ubisoft (ABU), Microsoft and Apple gatekeep the entire gaming industry.
Rebel guerilla groups of small publishers and indie developers rise up to take control of their encampments.
2040 huh?
I'd have guessed Tencent (incl subsidies Facebook, Oracle, Microsoft, in order of acquisition) and Alphabet Activision share the market 75%/25%, with Apple still commanding a 30% sales tax in certain spaces.
I mean this is the future described in Cyberpunk novels. United States of Coca Cola, Republic of Microsoft. Mega Corporations will replace states in an era of neocorporatism (AKA something else...), that's inevitable.
Every day we draw closer to the world described in Snowcrash and Neuromancer.
Once we have cheap, ubiquitous VR, all we're missing is Kouriers, skateboards with those cool wheels and a cult based on a dead language.
Once we have cheap, ubiquitous VR, all we're missing is Kouriers, skateboards with those cool wheels and a cult based on a dead language.
I'm sure Disney will be there too. After they acquired Star Wars it's been a looming presence ready to swallow and regurgitate forever any entertainment properties.
NinDisney will be a thing.
I'm astonished Disney hasn't yet acquired Nintendo.
I'm astonished Disney hasn't yet acquired Nintendo.
I am not sure Nintendo would be up for sale to Disney. They have pretty unique culture in the industry.
Sony Entertainment would be the better fit, however after buying Fox properties it may be difficult to sell the merger of another major studio into Disney.
Sony Entertainment would be the better fit, however after buying Fox properties it may be difficult to sell the merger of another major studio into Disney.
I think you severely underestimate the piles of money Nintendo is sitting on if you don't think they'll make it to 2040. Sony is also big enough, diverse enough, and well-established enough that I doubt they would have trouble weathering one or two bad console generations back-to-back.
And let's not forget 2K, 505 Games, Chucklefish, Bandai Namco, Capcom, Deep Silver, Devolver Digital, EA, Epic Games, Focus Home, Gearbox, Koei Tecmo, Paradox, Sega, Stardock, Square Enix, Take-Two, Team17, THQ Nordic, Valve, Warner Bros, and hundreds of other publishers that I can't even begin to list here.
2040 is definitely too soon for the dystopian future you're talking about. Maybe 2042.
And let's not forget 2K, 505 Games, Chucklefish, Bandai Namco, Capcom, Deep Silver, Devolver Digital, EA, Epic Games, Focus Home, Gearbox, Koei Tecmo, Paradox, Sega, Stardock, Square Enix, Take-Two, Team17, THQ Nordic, Valve, Warner Bros, and hundreds of other publishers that I can't even begin to list here.
2040 is definitely too soon for the dystopian future you're talking about. Maybe 2042.
Totally agree. I mean, it was a joke and wasn't really evaluating any company, but yeah, agreed.
And a shit ton of smaller studios and indie devs
Where's Sony/Playstation in this?
Is there any chance future Fallout/Elder Scrolls game become XBox exclusives that do not get ported to PC?
I would hope this would not be the case - in the past few years Microsoft have gone out of their way to build bridges with the PC gaming community, bringing their traditional first party titles (Forza, Halo, etc) to PC.
With Fallout and The Elder Scrolls’ history as PC only titles in their early iterations I would suspect this bridge building will continue
With Fallout and The Elder Scrolls’ history as PC only titles in their early iterations I would suspect this bridge building will continue
I doubt this. Microsoft has spent last years integrating PC gaming under XBOX brand too. E.g. XBOX Game Pass for PC, or adding controller support etc.
They even promote so called "Xbox Play Anywhere", and tried to make it normal for the new XBOX so that you can buy a single game and play it on PC and XBOX. However the gaming studios haven't yet to my knowledge approved it fully so they want to sell you the game twice.
After all the PC gaming benefits Microsoft too.
They even promote so called "Xbox Play Anywhere", and tried to make it normal for the new XBOX so that you can buy a single game and play it on PC and XBOX. However the gaming studios haven't yet to my knowledge approved it fully so they want to sell you the game twice.
After all the PC gaming benefits Microsoft too.
Visiting that site without JS enabled just triggers a constant refresh loop!
Bethesda Games are not going not be exclusive to Xbox -- Confirmed by Todd Howard:
>Like our original partnership, this one is about more than one system or one screen. We share a deep belief in the fundamental power of games, in their ability to connect, empower, and bring joy. And a belief we should bring that to everyone - regardless of who you are, where you live, or what you play on. Regardless of the screen size, the controller, or your ability to even use one.
https://bethesda.net/en/article/4IwKWIj174Cb2QNTTtBAEb/todd-...
>Like our original partnership, this one is about more than one system or one screen. We share a deep belief in the fundamental power of games, in their ability to connect, empower, and bring joy. And a belief we should bring that to everyone - regardless of who you are, where you live, or what you play on. Regardless of the screen size, the controller, or your ability to even use one.
https://bethesda.net/en/article/4IwKWIj174Cb2QNTTtBAEb/todd-...
With Doom and Quake, it would be a shock if that were the case.
While statements like these are common when mergers/buyouts happen, the final decision down the line will not be his to make. Not saying that things will not happen as he states, but it shouldn't be seen as a certainty.
Xbox won't even mean the same thing then as it does now.
Would a platform agnostic game only available on the Xbox online store count as "exclusive to xbox?" What if it required an Xbox Live/GamePass subscription for significant features - but not everything? Or they introduced super-skewed pricing ($100 for ES6 w/ no sales vs. included with GamePass)?
My concern isn't that this won't be true (at the very least, they release everything for Xbox on PC anyway), it's that the platform will evolve so much that console lock-in won't matter, so the promise will elide the real concern.
Would a platform agnostic game only available on the Xbox online store count as "exclusive to xbox?" What if it required an Xbox Live/GamePass subscription for significant features - but not everything? Or they introduced super-skewed pricing ($100 for ES6 w/ no sales vs. included with GamePass)?
My concern isn't that this won't be true (at the very least, they release everything for Xbox on PC anyway), it's that the platform will evolve so much that console lock-in won't matter, so the promise will elide the real concern.
When Facebook bought Oculus, Palmer Luckey said that a Facebook login would never be required to use Oculus products. The Oculus Quest 2 that comes out in October will require a Facebook login.
https://www.roadtovr.com/oculus-guarantee-promise-facebook-l...
https://www.roadtovr.com/oculus-guarantee-promise-facebook-l...
to be fair, Microsoft has been loosening up on exclusives as of late. Minecraft is supported on all platforms, with the dungeon side game coming to all consoles. Psychonauts 2 is still slated to come to PS4 and Switch. Ori's 2 games are multiplat (the sequel just now releasing on Switch).
I don't doubt there will be timed exclusives, but at the current moment it seems like they aren't opposed to publishing on non-MS platforms.
I don't doubt there will be timed exclusives, but at the current moment it seems like they aren't opposed to publishing on non-MS platforms.
Yes. When Epic bought Psyonix for Rocket League there was plenty of reassurance linux would remain supported. After waiting the absolute minimum time for people to stop paying attention Epic removed linux support and steam distribution.
Why would they limit there revenue to a single platform? That doesn't make sense to me. But I don't play videogames, haven't since my kids were teenagers, think Call of Duty. I have sold software to corporate, and I can say the revenue from software sales far outweigh hardware revenues.
Targeting all platforms means the Zenimax division within Microsoft will make more money.
Targeting only Xbox means more Xbox will be sold, so Xbox division will make more money.
It's not clear which one is a better deal for MS.
It's not clear which one is a better deal for MS.
They promised with last-gen Xbox One, and have followed it up, that all first-party games that launch for Xbox will also launch for PC. (Originally this extended to all games, but some late releases were xbox-only.) There are no xbox-only games for Xbox Series announced, from any publisher, that are not available for PC.
Microsoft's Xbox+PC strategy is pretty much taken for granted now, "exclusivity" between Microsoft and Sony now means "just Xbox and PC" or "just Playstation (and sometimes PC)."
I think the multi-device strategy is a clear winner. The lifetime value of a console itself is probably not terribly high. After all, most game companies do not sell hardware at all and a few who have eventually gave up (Sega, Atari).
Plus, the PC, Switch, and iPad markets are largely orthogonal to the XB/PS ones. Content for the former probably doesn't compete with the latter, so it makes sense to sell in those markets. And lastly, could you imagine how Sony execs would feel if their best selling PS titles all came from MS studios? That would certainly put them in an awkward position to suddenly be financially dependent to some degree on MS.
Plus, the PC, Switch, and iPad markets are largely orthogonal to the XB/PS ones. Content for the former probably doesn't compete with the latter, so it makes sense to sell in those markets. And lastly, could you imagine how Sony execs would feel if their best selling PS titles all came from MS studios? That would certainly put them in an awkward position to suddenly be financially dependent to some degree on MS.
Its not about selling Xboxs anymore. Its about Game Pass subscribers.
Of course, it won't be his decision. It will be Microsoft's decision.
Yep. Don't make promises when the outcome is not up to you. See [1] for many examples of acquired companies going back on such statements.
[1]: https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/
[1]: https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/
It also begs the question what MS has to gain by buying Bethesda/ZeniMax besides exclusivity. Given the fact that they own the XBox/Windows gaming platform, would the revenue they get selling Doom on PlayStation really be enough to outweigh the potential of making it exclusive to drive more people to their platform?
This reminds how the Oculus founder said that logging into Facebook to hop on VR would never be required.
They will definitely also release on Windows PCs. But that meaningless corporate speak doesn't really confirm that they will stay true multi-platform and release games on PlayStation and Switch as well.
From now until acquisition, the language internally will be 'we have our own identity within Microsoft' and then 3 to 6 months later, there will be these offhand remarks from senior management about how nameless other employees are confused about their place in the company. Then within 1 year, there will be an email about how the CEO has decided to eleviate the confusion among the staff and unite the company under one name. And that name surely won't be Bethesda.
You're right that can happen in most cases, but look at Microsoft's recent acquistions: LinkedIn, GitHub, Xamarin, and game studios like Mojang, Double Fine, Obsidian, and inXile. All well-established brand names that have continued to maintain their own identity and team culture, albeit like any culture I'm sure they've evolved over time.
Lol, basically exactly what happened to the Palm group at HP. Except, I believe they ended up firing the whole palm group.
Todd has zero power to make that promise. In my opinion it’s irresponsible to make the claim.
Given Todd's history on, well, anything the past decade... why would anyone believe literally a word out of his mouth?
As a Playstation gamer, anything Todd Howard related can stay on Xbox for all I care. What I will potentially miss are games like Wolfenstein and Doom.
As a Playstation gamer, anything Todd Howard related can stay on Xbox for all I care. What I will potentially miss are games like Wolfenstein and Doom.
And as proof of why you should never listen to Todd Howard.
https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1308062702905044993...
https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1308062702905044993...
You're right. They won't be just on Xbox. They'll be on Xbox and Windows 10.
In other news, the only 3D API that matters now for gaming is DirectX. Which was kinda always the case, except now OpenGL and VK fanboys can't go "but... idTech!"
In other news, the only 3D API that matters now for gaming is DirectX. Which was kinda always the case, except now OpenGL and VK fanboys can't go "but... idTech!"
I think this will be one of the most interesting fallout effects of this whole acquisition. Bethesda’s tech stack, as a developer, is basically worthless. But Id has plenty of tech, both tooling and engine, that are viable going into PS5/Xbox/new gen GPUs. If Microsoft does intend to push heavily for Xbox/Windows exclusives from all the acquired components the impact on DirectX as the standard 3D API is going to be pretty large. Also the internal transitions from current tooling and API will probably be prioritized to get early day titles ready for spring 2021 sales season (but surely for the holiday 2021 rush).
I don’t know why anyone would think Microsoft would be against publishing on competing platforms. Minecraft is available on Switch and PlayStation. It’s all about that $$$
Why do you think platform exclusives exist then?
That's merely rhetoric. Reading between the lines, it's clear Howard is saying "we're going to release Skyrim on XBox Series X on launch day".
They wouldn't; most of their games are PC games first and foremost, with ports to other platforms. Sometimes painfully complicated ports, like Skyrim's to the PS3 (due to memory constraints).
I believe that he is talking about diversity of Microsoft's platforms here and nothing else.
Specifically:
> Regardless of the screen size, the controller, or your ability to even use one.
"your ability to even use one" is clearly a reference to Xbox Adaptive Controller
Specifically:
> Regardless of the screen size, the controller, or your ability to even use one.
"your ability to even use one" is clearly a reference to Xbox Adaptive Controller
This is a typical, vague PR statement that can mean anything and nothing at all.
Microsoft has decided that all their exclusives will also come to PC anyway. So Windows, Xbox consoles and Xcloud (streaming service) are a given.
This doesn't promise in any way that games will come to PlayStation.
Microsoft has decided that all their exclusives will also come to PC anyway. So Windows, Xbox consoles and Xcloud (streaming service) are a given.
This doesn't promise in any way that games will come to PlayStation.
I don't read that as saying Bethesda Games aren't going to be exclusives. Or maybe it'll be xbox plus windows. Meanwhile, there's this quote from Satya Nadella from press release at the bottom of OP, speaking about this acquisition:
> Quality differentiated content is the engine behind the growth and value of Xbox Game Pass—from Minecraft to Flight Simulator.
"Differentiated content" sounds to me like exclusives.
> Quality differentiated content is the engine behind the growth and value of Xbox Game Pass—from Minecraft to Flight Simulator.
"Differentiated content" sounds to me like exclusives.
Exclsuive to Xbox doesn't make sense given what Microsoft's strategy these days but games might be exclusive to Xbox and Microsoft Store on Windows.
Given how many times Todd has lied it went back on his word, I don’t put any weight in anything he has to say.
Ask Fallout fans what they think of Todd Howard and how he disrespected gamers through the launch of Fallout 76. Better yet see it in full comedic affect in an internet historian video [1].
[1]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kjyeCdd-dl8
[1]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kjyeCdd-dl8
>Bethesda Games are not going not be exclusive to Xbox
The biggest problem that Microsoft has with the Xbox is lack of AAA exclusives. If the next Elder Scrolls game is going to be released for Xbox and PS5 - what's the point of this exercise?
The biggest problem that Microsoft has with the Xbox is lack of AAA exclusives. If the next Elder Scrolls game is going to be released for Xbox and PS5 - what's the point of this exercise?
"Not exclusive to XBox" could just be PC as well.
Yeah, you may be right. This may be the "sleight of hand" happening here.
> Bethesda Games are not going not be exclusive to Xbox -- Confirmed by Todd Howard
eh, I read this as games will still come out on PC and probably the odd token Nintendo switch release here and there.
I doubt there will be PS5 releases of Bethedsa games.
eh, I read this as games will still come out on PC and probably the odd token Nintendo switch release here and there.
I doubt there will be PS5 releases of Bethedsa games.
No way this stands
Bethesda has become formulaic, with the elements of gameplay virtually the same amongst titles. Same across the board really, not much genre-defying for quite a while.
Outer Worlds, Fallout, and so on just differ by visuals and story, the general jist is all samey samey. No innovation. No just single series but across the estate. Nothings been as good as Fallout 3 & Skyrim, just repetitions and echoes of greatness.
Is this a good purchase for MS? Maybe, if it's for tech, IP, and bringing talent on board. Hopefully they'll add some originality in game play elements, not just reskinning.
Outer Worlds, Fallout, and so on just differ by visuals and story, the general jist is all samey samey. No innovation. No just single series but across the estate. Nothings been as good as Fallout 3 & Skyrim, just repetitions and echoes of greatness.
Is this a good purchase for MS? Maybe, if it's for tech, IP, and bringing talent on board. Hopefully they'll add some originality in game play elements, not just reskinning.
Bethesda also includes id and Arkane. Arkane's games in particular are incredibly unique and well designed. There's still a lot of innovation happening under the Bethesda umbrella, even if Fallout and Elder Scrolls are stale.
The Outer Worlds was by Obsidian (founded by former Black Isle developers), and was unrelated to Bethesda’s games.
Now of course with this announcement Obsidian and Bethesda are sister studios.
Now of course with this announcement Obsidian and Bethesda are sister studios.
Really? I can hardly tell the difference in gameplay elements, so I thought them to be the same.
We are going to a world of very big corporations dominating the industries. Market tendency is to concentrate capital. And I'm not sure this is a good thing.
The upside being that in the game industry overall, it's never been easier to get started and to reach a wide audience.
So while the inevitable trajectory of AAA gaming is consolidation, we are still seeing more and more indie developers break out and succeed at a larger scale, and there's no reason why that phenomenon shouldn't continue (or even grow).
So while the inevitable trajectory of AAA gaming is consolidation, we are still seeing more and more indie developers break out and succeed at a larger scale, and there's no reason why that phenomenon shouldn't continue (or even grow).
_Laugh in cyperpunk_
tiktok didn't work out and they had to do something with that money...
Nooooooooo!
Not Bethesda.
Why?
I still have bad memories regarding Rare and Lionhead.
Although Rare redeemed itself with Sea of Thieves.
That's funny, I watched Bethesda's history documentary by noclip[1] last night. Bethesda studio is/was owned by ZeniMax[2], which in recent history purchased/hostile-takeovered a bunch of studios. ZeniMax's CEO is a lawyer, hence their long history of litigation tactics. And according to the article, Microsoft bought ZeniMax, so in theory it just bought a basket of gaming studios.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKn9yiLVlMM [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethesda_Softworks
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKn9yiLVlMM [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethesda_Softworks
Hmm, MS buying Obsidian was sad news, mainly because their titles became inaccessible on Mac/Linux.
This, not so much. Fallout 3 was the last great Bethesda title. Well and New Vegas but that was Obsidian.
Completely lost interest in them with Fallout 76.
Edit: Oh wait, there's also Dishonored since Arkane is owned by ZeniMax. But that was never available on non-windows OSes so it's not much of a loss.
This, not so much. Fallout 3 was the last great Bethesda title. Well and New Vegas but that was Obsidian.
Completely lost interest in them with Fallout 76.
Edit: Oh wait, there's also Dishonored since Arkane is owned by ZeniMax. But that was never available on non-windows OSes so it's not much of a loss.
It's interesting. Despite all the money that these studios have, my favorite games of the past few years have all been indie games (Rimworld, Factorio) or smaller studios (Paradox Plaza games such as EUIV, Stellaris). I understand that the majority of the industry's revenue is generated from these bigger studios, but acquiring first party developers doesn't make me as too concerned.
What I'm concerned about is distribution is controlled by a few parties to a higher degree on desktop, like it is on mobile.
Paradox are an absolute gem. My god, these people owe me hundreds of hours of my life! And I'm not really into games.
waiting for announcement that facebook or netflix is buying valve for an undisclosed $30b
This is an attack on Vulkan, since Bethesda were very strongly pushing it. Guess what MS will tell them to do now. No doubt more Xbox and DX-only stuff.
So it's a lock-in move and again something that should have been stopped by anti-trust, but of course, it's non existent these days.
So it's a lock-in move and again something that should have been stopped by anti-trust, but of course, it's non existent these days.
Is the entire world to be run by a few companies? Amazon Alibaba Microsoft Huawei Apple Tencent?
[deleted]
This just further confirms that my energy and money is going to the indie space. The level of enjoyment I get out of Factorio, Cuphead, Cogmind, Crusader Kings III, Curious Expedition 2, EXA Punks, Elite Dangerous, Kenshi, etc is so much greater than any AAA title I've touched in the past 5 years, yet these games are cheaper and most can run on a potato. I want to play games, not interactive movies.
Paradox isn’t exactly an indie
Yeah Paradox is a publisher so there are indie paradox games (e.g. cities skyline) but CKIII is from one of their internal studios so… not indie.
What does it mean to be an indie game developer? If you're releasing with the help of a publisher you're no longer independent.
> If you're releasing with the help of a publisher you're no longer independent.
Dear diary, I was today years old when I learned that Stardew Valley is not an indie game.
> What does it mean to be an indie game developer?
There's no hard-and-fast rule, but generally speaking it means the devs are not subordinate to the publisher.
There are games for which the publisher contracts a studio, therefore the publisher decides and has the last word, these are not indies.
There are others where the publisher provides funding and / or assistance (e.g. managing distribution channels), but doesn't take much or any active part in the development process. These are generally considered indie games.
There are also games which are entirely self-published. These are also, obviously, indie games.
Super Meat Boy, Shovel Knight, or The Witness are self-published indie games. Fez[0], Stardew, or Bastion are not (published respectively by Trapdoor, Chucklefish, and Warner).
Hell, World of Goo ultimately self-published because they didn't manage to convince a publisher, would that have made them "not indie"?
[0] literally one of the subjects of Indie Game: The Movie
Dear diary, I was today years old when I learned that Stardew Valley is not an indie game.
> What does it mean to be an indie game developer?
There's no hard-and-fast rule, but generally speaking it means the devs are not subordinate to the publisher.
There are games for which the publisher contracts a studio, therefore the publisher decides and has the last word, these are not indies.
There are others where the publisher provides funding and / or assistance (e.g. managing distribution channels), but doesn't take much or any active part in the development process. These are generally considered indie games.
There are also games which are entirely self-published. These are also, obviously, indie games.
Super Meat Boy, Shovel Knight, or The Witness are self-published indie games. Fez[0], Stardew, or Bastion are not (published respectively by Trapdoor, Chucklefish, and Warner).
Hell, World of Goo ultimately self-published because they didn't manage to convince a publisher, would that have made them "not indie"?
[0] literally one of the subjects of Indie Game: The Movie
> Dear diary, I was today years old when I learned that Stardew Valley is not an indie game.
The snark was unnecessary... Thanks for the rest though.
The snark was unnecessary... Thanks for the rest though.
On the other hand Paradox publishing parts grew out of distributing their own games using IP that they have developed themselves all the way back from the late 90s.
I was initially saying I'm done with AAA... I know Paradox Studios isn't exactly indie, but these games are not $100m+ affairs and are relatively niche titles.
Speaking of punk and non-AAA, I'll throw in Frostpunk.
Now, speaking of winter survivals (and non-AAA), The Long Dark is also a masterpiece.
Speaking of Frostpunk, I would love to see more games set in that world. I would love a Frostpunk RPG for example, something a bit like Divinity Original Sin, or maybe Disco Elysium, but in the Frostpunk world. Or maybe a Life is Strange style story game.
I recently got Frostpunk and love it. Beautiful, stressful game
Love Frostpunk too... so many great games I could list.
I'm not sure why we can't have both. Indies aren't going away.
> Crusader Kings III
Excellent game that is actually on GamePass right now. Microsoft has actually been really great to smaller/indie games with GamePass.
Excellent game that is actually on GamePass right now. Microsoft has actually been really great to smaller/indie games with GamePass.
Another example of capitalism tending towards monopoly.
No mention of playstation says a lot...
Microsoft is just trying to recreate console lock-in without having to subsidize hardware so much.
(1) Microsoft is trying to expand their gaming division, but struggle with first-party games. This acquisition is an acknowledgement that MSFT needs Bethesda creatives.
(2) Microsoft's big strategy right now is to build their Xbox ecosystem - they're pushing GamePass, Xcloud, etc. heavily, and trying to become Netflix for games.
I'd guess they're basically buying Bethesda's key franchises to drive GamePass subs. They'll build them quick, lock you in with a $10/month sub, and let Bethesda slowly merge with the mothership.
Short term, I'm excited because I want these new games! Long term, I fully expect Bethesda to get hollowed out.
(1) Microsoft is trying to expand their gaming division, but struggle with first-party games. This acquisition is an acknowledgement that MSFT needs Bethesda creatives.
(2) Microsoft's big strategy right now is to build their Xbox ecosystem - they're pushing GamePass, Xcloud, etc. heavily, and trying to become Netflix for games.
I'd guess they're basically buying Bethesda's key franchises to drive GamePass subs. They'll build them quick, lock you in with a $10/month sub, and let Bethesda slowly merge with the mothership.
Short term, I'm excited because I want these new games! Long term, I fully expect Bethesda to get hollowed out.
What's your take on the potential long-term success of Game Pass?
Definitely a winning move. Netflix beat Blockbuster, TiVO, AND cable's on-demand video services with a worse content library and harder UI (initially - those boxes sucked) - because it was cheap, easy, and felt free. GamePass recreates that, at least for casual gamers.
Plus, GamePass locks you in like consoles once did. That stickiness in recurring revenue is hugely valuable in itself, and because it has a network effect (this was basically the reason for the ongoing console wars).
Combine that with cloud gaming, and the lock-in and UX just gets better.
Their main barrier is good content. Thus the splashy buy.
Plus, GamePass locks you in like consoles once did. That stickiness in recurring revenue is hugely valuable in itself, and because it has a network effect (this was basically the reason for the ongoing console wars).
Combine that with cloud gaming, and the lock-in and UX just gets better.
Their main barrier is good content. Thus the splashy buy.
I've been using Game Pass for roughly 18 months. Really like it so far, though I've gotten it for "free" through MS Rewards. I'd probably have a different opinion if I actually paid for it monthly.
The thing that is missing are the huge AAA games, but I honestly can't see most of those coming to Game Pass. They may come but like 1-2 years after initial release.
Minus like the Forza and Halo series, most of the MS owned studios developing games are fairly shorter in length. Don't take that the wrong way though, even though they are shorter some are real gems. Just don't expect to play every game on there for 20+ hours or anything.
The thing that is missing are the huge AAA games, but I honestly can't see most of those coming to Game Pass. They may come but like 1-2 years after initial release.
Minus like the Forza and Halo series, most of the MS owned studios developing games are fairly shorter in length. Don't take that the wrong way though, even though they are shorter some are real gems. Just don't expect to play every game on there for 20+ hours or anything.
I don’t see how $10/mo is at all profitable with them adding all these AAA games to it.
1 - They'll break the sub out into tiers.
2 - Netflix is around the same price - a big enough market smooths it out.
3 - The press release defines their market as 3B people. I wouldn't be surprised at all if their internal business cases target 1B+ people.
2 - Netflix is around the same price - a big enough market smooths it out.
3 - The press release defines their market as 3B people. I wouldn't be surprised at all if their internal business cases target 1B+ people.
I'd be curious to know what kind of impact that $10/mo/user would have compared to the traditional game sales cycle from a revenue stream perspective.
Say that the system has a current-gen lifespan of 5 years and users run their subscription throughout the duration of the service, that's $600 per user assuming no price increases. I don't game nearly as much as I used to, so that would cost me way more than I've spent the last several years on games.
The shitty thing about a model like this is that I can't just power the system on after 6 months and just play without turning the subscription back on.
Say that the system has a current-gen lifespan of 5 years and users run their subscription throughout the duration of the service, that's $600 per user assuming no price increases. I don't game nearly as much as I used to, so that would cost me way more than I've spent the last several years on games.
The shitty thing about a model like this is that I can't just power the system on after 6 months and just play without turning the subscription back on.
Netflix has something like 150,000,000 subscribers. $10-15/mo adds up quickly.
Think of how many people have Netflix that don't even use it. They want to get Game Pass to the point where it's a de facto standard that a gamer has Game Pass.
Maybe $10/mo towards games from studios they own is more profitable than $10/mo towards games from elsewhere?
Microsoft has hinted that it's a financial success already.
It's probably the gym membership model. Developers get money for actual time played. The market of users that just play from time to time and don't really care about the 10$s is probably substantial.
I fall into this category. I only really get an urge to play every few months. And unless there is some specific game I'm interested in, I just pick something from the Gamepass catalogue, which is already pretty substantial. (it has/had great games like RDR2, GTAV, Witcher 3, Subnautica, No Mans Sky, ...)
While cancelling the subscription and then re-subscribing when needed is actually pretty smooth (re-subscribing takes just 2 button presses), I don't care enough to do it.
And all the "idle" revenue probably allows Microsoft to play decent rates to publishers, so they actually incentivized enough to put their games on the service.
It's probably the gym membership model. Developers get money for actual time played. The market of users that just play from time to time and don't really care about the 10$s is probably substantial.
I fall into this category. I only really get an urge to play every few months. And unless there is some specific game I'm interested in, I just pick something from the Gamepass catalogue, which is already pretty substantial. (it has/had great games like RDR2, GTAV, Witcher 3, Subnautica, No Mans Sky, ...)
While cancelling the subscription and then re-subscribing when needed is actually pretty smooth (re-subscribing takes just 2 button presses), I don't care enough to do it.
And all the "idle" revenue probably allows Microsoft to play decent rates to publishers, so they actually incentivized enough to put their games on the service.
> re-subscribing takes just 2 button presses
It always does. What about cancelling?
It always does. What about cancelling?
If i remember correctly: about 5. button presses, and clicking a email confirmation link.
Nothing egregious. I did have to use Google to figure out where to go in the app, though...
Nothing egregious. I did have to use Google to figure out where to go in the app, though...
I would assume there are more people who would pay $10 a month ($120/year) for access to all of these AAA games than there are people who buy >2 new AAA games a year (~$120/year).
Thus, roughly speaking, it should be profitable. There is ~0 marginal cost for a customer playing a new game
We'll never get a Doom game or any other games for that matter to be first-class supported titles on Linux then. It'll have to be Proton and Valve funding this and the community. I don't like this.
I got the impression that Bethesda was going full cash grab from here on out ... I'm hopeful this opens a window to them stepping back from that.
This (that Bethesda are selling, not that Microsoft are the buyer) isn’t really a surprise. It seems that everything they’ve been doing for a few years now was to align themselves with a sale.
This YouTube video predicting that’s what they were doing springs to mind: https://youtu.be/qJt_i2_vsSw
This YouTube video predicting that’s what they were doing springs to mind: https://youtu.be/qJt_i2_vsSw
How will this affect VR?
We all know this was just because Todd Howard wanted Skyrim on MORE platforms.
Next week: "Now you can play Skyrim on your Android phones via xCloud!"
Next week: "Now you can play Skyrim on your Android phones via xCloud!"
For context: $3B more than Dismay paid for Star Wars.
Microsoft bought Bungie in 2000.
-(Halo was going to be for mac, and demoed by Steve Jobs who I guess made it look so great Bungie sold.)
released a bunch of very successful games as xbox exclusives.
7 years later Bungie left microsoft as its own company again. (not sure how that happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungie
released a bunch of very successful games as xbox exclusives.
7 years later Bungie left microsoft as its own company again. (not sure how that happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungie
> 7 years later Bungie left microsoft as its own company again. (not sure how that happened.
My guess is Microsoft got to keep what it really wanted, the Halo brand.
My guess is Microsoft got to keep what it really wanted, the Halo brand.
Practically sold the xbox by itself.
By 2007 Bungie had been fully absorbed into Microsoft. Microsoft retained the rights to Halo and held a minority stake in the "new" Bungie, LLC. I assume by 2007 any vesting periods were over and MS came to a mutual agreement with the Bungie shareholders to allow them to spin off.
Also note they Microsoft mismanaged the Halo property royally. The most recent failure the delay of Halo Infinite, that allegedly has been in development for over 4 years and will miss the launch of the new Xbox console due to poor quality. Microsoft also run Rare almost into irrelevancy after the acquisition. Not the greatest track record there.
Honestly Halo started to go off the rails at Halo 2 and that silly cliffhanger ending. And I'm still not sure I understand the plot of Halo 3.
So I don't know if you can pin the blame for what happened to the Halo franchise on MSFT.
So I don't know if you can pin the blame for what happened to the Halo franchise on MSFT.
Something I'm curious about here is if MS will put in the effort to fix the relationship with Carmack. Bethesda and he have been on bad terms since he left fully to go over to Occulus.
"It's obvious that the current trend is creation of the one single worldwide company owning all the businesses and all the countries."
Vladimir Lenin, 1915.
Vladimir Lenin, 1915.
The East India Company was founded in 1600 and had its own army before it was nationalized. So it is not like big companies is something that never happened before. And as we can see in the US, the state can easily control, cooperate with and even destroy companies, no matter how big they are.
> But the key point is we’re still Bethesda.
Day one post acquisition? For sure!
A month later? Of course.
6 months later? Yes, ok.
1 year later? Maybe?
3 years later? Never!
Day one post acquisition? For sure!
A month later? Of course.
6 months later? Yes, ok.
1 year later? Maybe?
3 years later? Never!
From Betheasda news press release: "And, we have a long history of working with Microsoft. Our companies share many of the same basic principles. We believe in a culture that values passion, quality, collaboration, and innovation."
Last week Microsoft was thanking Trump from giving them a chance to acquire TikTok. It did not go well.
Last week Microsoft was thanking Trump from giving them a chance to acquire TikTok. It did not go well.
This acquisition has interesting timing given that they acquired Obsidian not long ago and we know Obsidian is developing a first person fantasy RPG (Bethesda's bread and butter). Have to imagine M$ execs will be thinking about further consolidation.
I genuinely think this is an amazing acquisition.
Bethesda/Zenimax has arguably the longest lineup of critically acclaimed franchises in the video game world. Additionally, almost every franchise still feels fresh and has pulling power, unlike ones like Halo and Assassins creed which have slowly lost their thunder.
Additionally, Bethesda had no idea what they were doing with their 2 biggest properties - Fallout and Elder scrolls. Hopefully with the MSFT acquisition, both will get some direction.
For those that work at Obsidian and MSFT owned game studios, is the Work-life-balance still terrible like most video-game studios or is it more in line with the 'family frendly' pace at proper MSFT ? Am I too naive to think that this might be a good thing for the employees and their sanity.
Bethesda/Zenimax has arguably the longest lineup of critically acclaimed franchises in the video game world. Additionally, almost every franchise still feels fresh and has pulling power, unlike ones like Halo and Assassins creed which have slowly lost their thunder.
Additionally, Bethesda had no idea what they were doing with their 2 biggest properties - Fallout and Elder scrolls. Hopefully with the MSFT acquisition, both will get some direction.
For those that work at Obsidian and MSFT owned game studios, is the Work-life-balance still terrible like most video-game studios or is it more in line with the 'family frendly' pace at proper MSFT ? Am I too naive to think that this might be a good thing for the employees and their sanity.
> Bethesda/Zenimax has arguably the longest lineup of critically acclaimed franchises in the video game world
Let me introduce you to a little company called Nintendo.
Let me introduce you to a little company called Nintendo.
I am kicking myself right now.
I knew I should have added 'cross-platform'. You're correct Nitendo certainly counts. Naughty dog would probably want to contend my claim too.
I knew I should have added 'cross-platform'. You're correct Nitendo certainly counts. Naughty dog would probably want to contend my claim too.
I worked at Turn 10 (the Xbox studio which makes Forza) about a year and a half ago. Work life balance was amazing. The tech director of the studio made it a huge point that staff get adequate time off. He brought it up in almost every dev team meeting, "Let me know if you don't feel like you can take time off". He also made a huge point about having a sustainable team.
I don't know that this is a characteristic of all Microsoft studios. Departments in Microsoft can almost be like little companies all of their own. It _did_ leave a positive impression on me though and I can see myself working at Microsoft again in the future.
I left on good terms to see what it was like to work at startups.
I don't know that this is a characteristic of all Microsoft studios. Departments in Microsoft can almost be like little companies all of their own. It _did_ leave a positive impression on me though and I can see myself working at Microsoft again in the future.
I left on good terms to see what it was like to work at startups.
That's really interesting. Thanks for sharing your experience.
[deleted]
Heh they’re our biggest customer. I sure hope MS doesn’t force them to use MS software instead cue I’m in danger meme
It's unfortunate that the Xbox Series X and PS5 are so, so, so similar. It seems stupid to have to purchase 2 nearly identical boxes. It's not just the console. You then need multiple controllers for each, and possibly other accessories (Sony has a PS5 specific headset, camera, charger, will have a PS5 VR etc.)
I've historically preferred PS exclusives (Uncharted, Spiderman, God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn), and the cross platform stuff, was a little worse than Xbox in the PS3 days, and a little better in the PS4 days (at least prior to XoX). Speaking as a biased PS4 owner, I'm happy with current layout of PS exclusives and cross platform stuff. Each new announcement like this sucks. I like DOOM and Dishonored. I liked being able to get them on PS4 and expected to get them on PS5. I don't think this will make me get an Xbox, but it sucks I'll likely be missing out on these games. I suppose what Microsoft hopes is that people like me get a PS5 and a cheaper Xbox Series S with Gamepass.
I love that the Nintendo Switch exists. It's completely different, and doesn't really compete with Playstation/Xbox. As a gamer, it makes sense to purchase a Nintendo Switch and one of either the Playstation/Xbox. I wish Xbox/Playstation differentiated somehow. I suppose Microsoft tried to do that with Kinect, but failed/gave up.
I've historically preferred PS exclusives (Uncharted, Spiderman, God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn), and the cross platform stuff, was a little worse than Xbox in the PS3 days, and a little better in the PS4 days (at least prior to XoX). Speaking as a biased PS4 owner, I'm happy with current layout of PS exclusives and cross platform stuff. Each new announcement like this sucks. I like DOOM and Dishonored. I liked being able to get them on PS4 and expected to get them on PS5. I don't think this will make me get an Xbox, but it sucks I'll likely be missing out on these games. I suppose what Microsoft hopes is that people like me get a PS5 and a cheaper Xbox Series S with Gamepass.
I love that the Nintendo Switch exists. It's completely different, and doesn't really compete with Playstation/Xbox. As a gamer, it makes sense to purchase a Nintendo Switch and one of either the Playstation/Xbox. I wish Xbox/Playstation differentiated somehow. I suppose Microsoft tried to do that with Kinect, but failed/gave up.
They're both basically a great value gaming PC at this point. With a handful of hardware-level optimizations making them cheap and powerful for the price.
One really refreshing thing is that the Xbox Series S/X are compatible with Xbox One controllers.. so you won't have to buy a bunch of new controllers for it.
That always drove me nuts. Controller design hasn't changed that much since the mid 2000's.. there's zero reason for breaking backwards compatibility other than to sell you more hardware.
That always drove me nuts. Controller design hasn't changed that much since the mid 2000's.. there's zero reason for breaking backwards compatibility other than to sell you more hardware.
I've been a Playstation gamer since the PS2. I have multiple PS4s and a library of over 1000 games in my digital account.
With that context laid out that I am a big-time PS user, looking at the XBOX game pass subscription model where you get the console for free is REALLY tempting.
In every market I've looked at, there is a deal that works out to about $30 a month for two years. They give you the console, instant access to hundreds of really good games, day one access to all microsoft first-party games included in the price, many new release games from other publishers (for example EA ACCESS titles). Free monthly titles on PC.
AND all of that is actually CHEAPER than buying the console with the two years of subscription.
Plus the XBOX is going to have a number of new features related to second-screen-game-streaming that are also really exciting.
I'm really torn here right now. I might move away from playstation for this next generation - the XBOX is looking like it is going to be a big deal this time round.
OTOH - I really want to play the Miles Morales spider-man ... so there are arguments on both sides. To say nothing of the third option involving an Nvidia RTX3080...
I honestly don't know what I'm going to do yet.
With that context laid out that I am a big-time PS user, looking at the XBOX game pass subscription model where you get the console for free is REALLY tempting.
In every market I've looked at, there is a deal that works out to about $30 a month for two years. They give you the console, instant access to hundreds of really good games, day one access to all microsoft first-party games included in the price, many new release games from other publishers (for example EA ACCESS titles). Free monthly titles on PC.
AND all of that is actually CHEAPER than buying the console with the two years of subscription.
Plus the XBOX is going to have a number of new features related to second-screen-game-streaming that are also really exciting.
I'm really torn here right now. I might move away from playstation for this next generation - the XBOX is looking like it is going to be a big deal this time round.
OTOH - I really want to play the Miles Morales spider-man ... so there are arguments on both sides. To say nothing of the third option involving an Nvidia RTX3080...
I honestly don't know what I'm going to do yet.
I don't think there's any payment plan that nets you the console for free? The payment plans are good on their own right, because you aren't paying much more (or slightly less) if your plan was to get a Series S + Gold + Game Pass (Gamepass Ultimate). But there's no plan where you get it for free.
Please please please tell me this doesn't mean ES6 will be an Xbox exclusive!
Unfortunately, it probably does mean that you won't be playing ES6 on your PS5
It'll be on PC certainly, probably not on PS5...
Great. Now that you have vast resources to work with start making a new Quake based on Quake 1's themes.
This seems like an attempt to address the "Playstation has better exclusives" argument.
Still buying a PS5, not an Xbox Series X. I can (hopefully?) play all Microsoft exclusives on PC.
Still buying a PS5, not an Xbox Series X. I can (hopefully?) play all Microsoft exclusives on PC.
smart move by microsoft. sony has been acquiring IP. microsofts failure to get exclusives is whats hurting their xbox.
Here's hoping Microsoft can force Bethesda to make a good Fallout game again
Nvidia buys ARM, Microsoft buys Zenimax and eats Bethesda. Next thing: Tesla buys Intel.
Great, yet another acquisition. So eventually everything will become one company or what?
I like free markets, at least the idea of competition. I hate conglomerates. Am I contradicting myself?
That depends on your definition of free market, but I think everyone likes the golden-years of a free market. The long tail of unhindered capitalism has some rough edges, we have some laws to help but they're not much use if no-one uses them.
Good move, Sony had up to now more exclusive titles for their Playstation lines. Many people wrote off the new XBox because there were not enough exclusive titles. Now perhaps next Doom etc. will be time limited exclusive for the Xbox.
This is honestly better acquisition than tiktok!
Every time I see these posts, I think of Demolition Man:
> Now all restaurants are Taco Bell. Taco Bell was the only restaurant to survive the franchise wars.
Out of all the dystopian sci-fi movies, who would have thought Demolition Man would have it right?
> Now all restaurants are Taco Bell. Taco Bell was the only restaurant to survive the franchise wars.
Out of all the dystopian sci-fi movies, who would have thought Demolition Man would have it right?
> Now all restaurants are Taco Bell
Or was it Pizza Hut?[1]
[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/alternateversions
Or was it Pizza Hut?[1]
[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/alternateversions
Or was it a combination pizza hut and taco bell?
https://youtu.be/EQ8ViYIeH04
https://youtu.be/EQ8ViYIeH04
People are forgetting that the original Zenimax Studios is not exactly the most pro-gaming group of shareholders. Their original motivations were to increase shareholder value (I imagine that Fallout 76 decision was a factor among this).
I think Microsoft’s gaming vision aligns well with Bethesda’s and they probably have a better vision compared to Zenimax board of directors.
I think Microsoft’s gaming vision aligns well with Bethesda’s and they probably have a better vision compared to Zenimax board of directors.
Cool and if Im not mistaken Zenimax Online's headquarters is down the street from me in Hunt Valley, MD. Nice area with nice housing that isn't crazy expensive, especially right on the border of MD/PA.
Any other Hacker Newers live close to there too?
Any other Hacker Newers live close to there too?
So this is it! Bethesda is officially dead. ESO was the early prognosis and 76 was the death rattle. This is the funeral.
Morrowind was a masterpiece of a game. Oblivion was amazing. Skyrim was quite special and carried the genre forward but left behind important bits from morrowind. The job of making the spiritual successor to oblivion and morrowind is now officially open to anyone because Bethesda will never do it.
Morrowind was a masterpiece of a game. Oblivion was amazing. Skyrim was quite special and carried the genre forward but left behind important bits from morrowind. The job of making the spiritual successor to oblivion and morrowind is now officially open to anyone because Bethesda will never do it.
The other end of this consolidation is that there is an uncountable firehose of great indie games released all the time.
I did the math - that is approximately 293,164 dump trucks full of $100 bills.
Serious question... have we just given up on modern anti-trust?
We're going to have the US as one large corporation now? No competition?
We're going to have the US as one large corporation now? No competition?
I believe it was in the 80's when they changed the interpretation of monopoly to only be illegal if it can be proven that the consumer suffers. So in a way, yes we have given up.
Does this mean that future versiona of Fallout will showcase Pip-Boys runnig Microsoft Windows?
Having just watched Netflix vs. the World documentary (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8407418/) last week, this acquisition seems to be inevitable as game streaming is taking off and will eventually become the defacto means of playing video games.
Microsoft's endgame is to increase the subscribers to its GamePass subscription so akin to Netflix's insatiable appetite for video content, Microsoft's will be for video games. But since IP development for games is expensive, time-consuming and hard to break into, it's arguably easier to acquire game studios entirely.
The impact is so wide-ranging: what becomes of Google Stadia and Nvidia GeForce Now? Same goes for Sony and Nintendo. The most interesting one could be Apple, who clearly does not want game streaming to be the norm.
Microsoft's endgame is to increase the subscribers to its GamePass subscription so akin to Netflix's insatiable appetite for video content, Microsoft's will be for video games. But since IP development for games is expensive, time-consuming and hard to break into, it's arguably easier to acquire game studios entirely.
The impact is so wide-ranging: what becomes of Google Stadia and Nvidia GeForce Now? Same goes for Sony and Nintendo. The most interesting one could be Apple, who clearly does not want game streaming to be the norm.
I don't see how both game streaming and high resolution/high refresh rate displays can both be the future. The bandwidth requirements will keep going up and high resolution particle effects can create terrible compression artifacts.
Local processing power is also not standing still in time, the capability a given price purchases is increasing year upon year. Do you imagine a future where people have limitless bandwidth, with low latency, and only use incapable thin clients?
Local processing power is also not standing still in time, the capability a given price purchases is increasing year upon year. Do you imagine a future where people have limitless bandwidth, with low latency, and only use incapable thin clients?
Agreed that bandwidth and latency remains a challenge for most people today, especially for non-urban dwellers. For streaming to be the norm, there has to be a fundamental change in how ISPs treat internet connectivity and how the government regulates it. Maybe I'm overly optimistic in how things will play on in this front - in addition to newer technologies like SpaceX's Starlink platform.
The main point is that Microsoft is pivoting its gaming approach to the "gaming-as-a-service" and selling subscriptions, rather than the previous one of selling hardware and individual games. The digital-only editions of both the upcoming new Xbox and Playstation underscore this - plus you can even buy a subscription bundled with a console. Buying up studios help them achieve this vision.
The main point is that Microsoft is pivoting its gaming approach to the "gaming-as-a-service" and selling subscriptions, rather than the previous one of selling hardware and individual games. The digital-only editions of both the upcoming new Xbox and Playstation underscore this - plus you can even buy a subscription bundled with a console. Buying up studios help them achieve this vision.
Technology will catch up. Also inputs will be pre-processed and rendered so latency can be minimized.
That's not streaming.
Can we now have Obsidian and inXile work on Fallout?
Now both Obsidian and Bethesda are under the same roof again. Interesting turn of events.
This acquisition is good news for investors after publicly losing to Oracle on the TikTok deal.
For investors maybe, but probably not for consumers. It seems likely this will result in people having less choice about how and where they can play the games they enjoy.
I find it troubling that good news for the former group seems to trump bad news for the latter.
I find it troubling that good news for the former group seems to trump bad news for the latter.
Bethesda was already trending this way however this has deep implications. Ultimately I think it's going to slowly kill the core of the modding community as modding is forced into the platform and new users are displace the modding culture.
The modding will no longer be able to truly edit the engine itself through some reverse engineering and be forced to utilize the APl/scripting framework. Third-party tools will be locked out. Obviously this has happened already on the console platform. There's still the PC platform but that could be locked down further as well.
Think about the time and fostered talent that it took to make some of the communities amazing tools. For example script extenders for elder scrolls series. As mods are now centralized in official 'the store' the community grow around which will never allow mods like the script extender for developers to make advanced innovative mods. Even if other modding communities like the Nexus allow for that It's going to continue to fragment the community and the talent which is foster within the community. Then you throw paid mods into the picture... Thus begins the death of the open source pillar in modding.
The modding will no longer be able to truly edit the engine itself through some reverse engineering and be forced to utilize the APl/scripting framework. Third-party tools will be locked out. Obviously this has happened already on the console platform. There's still the PC platform but that could be locked down further as well.
Think about the time and fostered talent that it took to make some of the communities amazing tools. For example script extenders for elder scrolls series. As mods are now centralized in official 'the store' the community grow around which will never allow mods like the script extender for developers to make advanced innovative mods. Even if other modding communities like the Nexus allow for that It's going to continue to fragment the community and the talent which is foster within the community. Then you throw paid mods into the picture... Thus begins the death of the open source pillar in modding.
I'm not sure where this came from. Are you saying that Microsoft is opposed to modding?
Best thing to ever happen to Bethesda Softworks and id. Zenimax is a mess of a parent company and has underinvested in id and hasn’t gotten beyond letting Todd Howard keep going further and further off target from what people want.
More games to gamepass, I see it as an absolute win...
Today I learned:
Microsoft is buying Bethesda
Bethesda is owned by a company called ZeniMax Media
It's actually Bethesda Softworks
Bethesda is a place in Maryland
Microsoft is buying Bethesda
Bethesda is owned by a company called ZeniMax Media
It's actually Bethesda Softworks
Bethesda is a place in Maryland
I for one look forward to playing/streaming the next fallout over a cold beer and microsoft teams.
Elder scrolls 6 literally when?
Where's the money? Wherever I look I can only find revenue for the gaming industry but I can't find any profit forecasts. Example: https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/02/superdata-games-hit-120-1... or https://variety.com/2019/gaming/news/video-games-300-billion...
Does anyone have better data?
Does anyone have better data?
is no one else concerned that microsoft has been acquiring literally everything?
First EA Games then this, BEST VALUE in gaming hands down for Game Pass!
Good news: it is not Facebook. I'd rather use a MS account rather than FB account to play games.
And as a fan of the acquired franchises, I'm confident about their future. MS has a good track record of handling game franchises.
And as a fan of the acquired franchises, I'm confident about their future. MS has a good track record of handling game franchises.
What was the last good game Bethesda made? I think they burned out BioWare style.
> Great! I think Microsoft has been a good parent company for gaming IPs, and they don’t have a grudge against me, so maybe I will be able to re engage with some of my old titles.
https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1308069857913720832...