By Xpike Go To Postisnt this because microsoft shoehorns multiplayer into every game because they think single player doesnt sellI think it's disingenuous to say one or the other why Scalebound got canceled. The internet revisionism with that game has been crazy, though. Every time it showed up at a Microsoft conference, everybody said it looked like trash. When it got canned, suddenly Microsoft was the bad guy.
look at Scalebound and that Phantom Dust reboot
I will say, I wonder how many copies Crackdown 3 has to sell to even come close to breaking even. It'll have been in development with three studios working on it for five years when it eventually releases.
By Suichimo Go To PostRemember when JRPGs and horror games were dead? Yeah… just make good single player games and watch them do well.Well, good games don’t always translate into good sales so it’s not that easy.
By Grimsat Go To PostWell, good games don’t always translate into good sales so it’s not that easy.
This. Like good games don't mean anything if
A) the genre is not popular amongst the GP and
B) It's not an established franchise that people recognize and doesn't immediately catch attention (sometimes due to marketing)
That thought process is so micro to a situation that is a lot more macro in complexities.
By Xpike Go To Postisnt this because microsoft shoehorns multiplayer into every game because they think single player doesnt sell
look at Scalebound and that Phantom Dust reboot
Well they invested in Ryse and it didnt sell, invested in Quantum Break and it took forever and did just ok. Whatever they had started with Obsidian they cancelled for the launch period which would have been single player I believe.
Sunset Overdrive has coop but it was mostly a single player focused game and it didnt sell either.
Recore wasnt good I guess and didnt sell.
Was Fable a huge seller? I dont remember the numbers but Fable 4 had pretty bad reception I believe which made them want to change the formula to MP (Dumb decision). It started to take too long and cost too much and they cancelled it.
Ori was a great game but did it sell?
There is a lot of evidence on the Xbox side to support that maybe most Xbox gamers just dont want single player games.
By rodeoclown Go To PostI think it's disingenuous to say one or the other why Scalebound got canceled. The internet revisionism with that game has been crazy, though. Every time it showed up at a Microsoft conference, everybody said it looked like trash. When it got canned, suddenly Microsoft was the bad guy.
I will say, I wonder how many copies Crackdown 3 has to sell to even come close to breaking even. It'll have been in development with three studios working on it for five years when it eventually releases.
One would have to assume that they'd need to sell millions of units to make Crackdown 3 profitable. It seems highly questionable whether or not the first two entries into the series were profitable.
However, there might be enough intrinsic value for the platform and for whatever other use-cases Microsoft sees. But, even then, it seems super unlikely that Crackdown 3 will be a business success either way you cut it -- it's unlikely to be profitable on its own, and it's unlikely to add any significant value to the platform.
I'd imagine so many proprietary engines being a driver in increasing budgets and dev times. So many games used UE3 last gen. Hopefully UE4 or some other engine is very popular next gen, that way a lot of the tech and asset creation costs decrease as well as dev time.
Yes, if it’s true crackdown 3 is being worked on by 3 studios then I can’t imagine it being a success after all these years (that is if it ever releases).
The hardcore PC/Console games market is not growing at a level that justifies the ballooning budgets on these AAA games. It's just simple math.
Take Two's done exceedingly well off of the back of GTA, but all this bullishness is predicated on the fact that the next Rockstar game will be just as successful as GTA V, and the one after that, and the one after that...
These are exceedingly precarious businesses.
Take Two's done exceedingly well off of the back of GTA, but all this bullishness is predicated on the fact that the next Rockstar game will be just as successful as GTA V, and the one after that, and the one after that...
These are exceedingly precarious businesses.
The game pass blurb is interesting. I'm guessing they plan to add the service into future negotiations with their publishing initiative for indies. Like after X amount of years we will put the game onto the service for a period of time type situation.
By UberTag Go To PostOf course, they also believe every GaaS venture they put out will become the next Destiny or Overwatch… and not the next Battleborn or LawBreakers.Yup, just like the MMO gold rush.
By Ayaismusikwhore Go To PostThis. Like good games don't mean anything ifThis is also true. If a game being quality guaranteed zillions of copies sold Bethesda should have been raking in the dough from titles like Doom, Dishonored 2, and Prey. A lot of other factors at play.
A) the genre is not popular amongst the GP and
B) It's not an established franchise that people recognize and doesn't immediately catch attention (sometimes due to marketing)
That thought process is so micro to a situation that is a lot more macro in complexities.
The big risk with this whole pivot to service games is that people's time and money are ultimately finite. I do think that we're already pretty much at the point where service games are a zero-sum affair: in order to make money, you have to get some of the Destiny/Overwatch/PUBG etc userbase to stop playing that game and start playing your game. If you can't do that at launch, then you're doomed. Ultra high risk, but ultra high reward.
From a GG dev on this matter:
GameSpot spoke with Guerrilla principal game designer Tim Stobo today at PAX Aus. He pointed out that some of the most highly rated games of 2017 have been purely single-player, listing off titles like his own Horizon: Zero Dawn, along with The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Middle-earth: Shadow of War.
"I think Horizon proves that there is a future for a really high quality single-player experience. [The upcoming story expansion Frozen Wilds] proves that again," Stobo explained. "We're really committed to delivering that high level, quality experience for players. It does seem like maybe there is a business shift in other parts of the industry. But at Guerrilla, we're just focused on telling amazing stories."https://www.gamespot.com/articles/horizon-zero-dawn-proves-that-single-player-games-/1100-6454406/?ftag=GSS-05-10aab8e
It is kinda of a weird thing to say when Cuphead just shifted over 2M units.
As pointed out it’s not “single player” that is in question per se, it’s super high budget highly linear action adventure games specifically, and even THEN the case is not clear at all.
As pointed out it’s not “single player” that is in question per se, it’s super high budget highly linear action adventure games specifically, and even THEN the case is not clear at all.
As a 30 year old man with little time to play any kind of videogame (I hate mobile freemium stuff, so that excludes me from that market) I hope single player experiences don't die. I use videogames to relax and to experience cool characters and stories, so a 24/7 online world filled with angry teenagers wanting to climb up in some ranking is not appealing to me at all (I don't think I liked the competitive scene even as a teenager). Hopefully the "tired, cranky old man" market can survive by adjusting those budgets. Hire good writers, focus on gameplay and I'll be happy with whatever graphics you can get for cheap.