Microsoft is shutting down Tango Gameworks, along with 3 other studios

[ruexnimbus]

"If you want to survive in this world, you need to consider in whom you place your trust." -Tatiana Gutierrez (Evil Within)

[ZombiJoel_Tlou3]

Spencer should answer for his crimes instead of the devs whose games they killed! Fuck them

[Cal]

"Hey you know that studio that made one of the best games of 2023?"

"Yeah what about them?"

"Shut them down now."

[JPtheNeurotic]

1 hour ago, TJ_Solo said:

This industry is fine

No it’s not . 
 

 

[CelestialRequiem]

2 hours ago, TJ_Solo said:

 

This industry is fine.

 

Definitely isn't fine. I'll explain some of the industry's issues as someone who is in and out of gamedev:

 

• Highest volume of releases in this medium's history when there is an attention deficit on top of stagnant player-base count
• Profit margins are shrinking, barely being in the black when the ROI is terrifying for releases that cost 200+ million
• Studios are closing where there is no other gamedev work available. Despite this being in tech, the industry is still slow to move to remote-work
• Most people who were laid off will never return to the industry, because the industry is now shrinking its releases because of the first mentioned issue

No offense, but you don't know what you're talking about.

[Eblait]

Microsoft has shut down more studios than it released games this year.

 

Let that sink in.

[Sendai-Horatio]

31 minutes ago, CelestialRequiem said:

 

Definitely isn't fine. I'll explain some of the industry's issues as someone who is in and out of gamedev:

 

• Highest volume of releases in this medium's history when there is an attention deficit on top of stagnant player-base count
• Profit margins are shrinking, barely being in the black when the ROI is terrifying for releases that cost 200+ million
• Studios are closing where there is no other gamedev work available. Despite this being in tech, the industry is still slow to move to remote-work
• Most people who were laid off will never return to the industry, because the industry is now shrinking its releases because of the first mentioned issue

No offense, but you don't know what you're talking about.

The player base count really isn't stagnant, if you're still reaching over 100 million people that's enough to generate sustainable income for a game release, PS5 is still selling in the tens of millions and has been growing. People will buy more than one game if  it appeals to them. The part that is actually stagnating and going into decline is the assorted subscription services because consumers are not finding enough value in them.

 

 

Edited May 8 by Sendai-Horatio

[CelestialRequiem]

1 minute ago, Sendai-Horatio said:

The player base count really isn't stagnant

 

Yes it is.

 

I mentioned volume of users, not just behavior of users.

[Sendai-Horatio]

Just now, CelestialRequiem said:

 

Yes it is.

 

I mentioned volume of users, not just behavior of users.

That's just statistics, meaning it's only true if you look at it through a very specific lens. It's not an all encompassing truth because we already know that other markets are being expanded into that were not before and they're too new to have any sufficient data on.

[CelestialRequiem]

1 minute ago, Sendai-Horatio said:

That's just statistics, meaning it's only true if you look at it through a very specific lens. It's not an all encompassing truth because we already know that other markets are being expanded into that were not before and they're too new to have any sufficient data on.

I think you're missing the point. It's the stagnant numbers that are conflicting with the rising costs of development. Even if it is "growing" in other ways like developing nations or newer forms of gaming experiences (VR), the cost of development isn't matching with the stagnation of the current-player base.

 

What you're talking about is valid, but not relevant to what I was discussing.

[Sendai-Horatio]

Just now, CelestialRequiem said:

I think you're missing the point. It's the stagnant numbers that are conflicting with the rising costs of development. Even if it is "growing" in other ways like developing nations or newer forms of gaming experiences (VR), the cost of development isn't matching with the stagnation of the current-player base.

 

What you're talking about is valid, but not relevant to what I was discussing.

Cost of development is tied to things like the overall economy, the cost will eventually go back down when inflation goes back down. Cost of living is currently very high but it won't keep rising and will eventually have to decline. It's a pretty large factor when talking about development costs. You could decentralize game development costs with remote work which reduces the need for people to live in expensive metropolitan areas and they could reduce their cost of living and have larger spending power by living in lesser populated areas. But these are all things that the companies themselves will have to decide to do.

[CelestialRequiem]

Just now, Sendai-Horatio said:

Cost of development is tied to things like the overall economy, the cost will eventually go back down when inflation goes back down.

 

This has literally never happened.

 

1 minute ago, Sendai-Horatio said:

Cost of living is currently very high but it won't keep rising and will eventually have to decline.

 

Ideally, yes. But we're at a record high with rent and mortgages/home prices because of black swan situations like foreign investments in real-estate, and companies like Black Rock buying homes outright (and building them) so that they can dictate the price. The idea is to make homes unaffordable, and rent barely affordable. It's a nice thought to have, but it won't happen in the free market, and I say that as a libertarian. Government intervention is needed to course-correct.

 

Which also is presently a problem, because to fix our economy, interests rates need to continue to go up, not down. We're delaying the recovery of our economy by doing that, as shitty as it is.

 

4 minutes ago, Sendai-Horatio said:

 You could decentralize game development costs with remote work which reduces the need for people to live in expensive metropolitan areas and they could reduce their cost of living and have larger spending power by living in lesser populated areas. But these are all things that the companies themselves will have to decide to do.

 

That, and new organizations would be formed every time a new game project is green-lit. Instead of having traditional studios, we may find ourselves in a situation where new companies are constantly being made for a new project, and then disbanded.

 

This may be the future, as how much the workforce has dramatically decreased in the past 2 years.

 

Make no mistake, it will get much worse before any of this gets any better.

[majob]

38 minutes ago, CelestialRequiem said:

 

Yes it is.

 

I mentioned volume of users, not just behavior of users.

That's an easily solved problem, make less expensive games. Sony has this ridiculous notion in their head that their games need budgets in the $200 million range when other studios are making best sellers with a fraction of the budget. Outside of the Big annual releases like COD and the odd game like Baldur's Gate, studios are throwing themselves into this pit out of their own volition for no reason other than their own stupidity

Edited May 8 by majob

[CelestialRequiem]

1 minute ago, majob said:

That's an easily solved problem, make less expensive games.

 

Making less expensive games isn't THE solution, but it can be a contributing factor.

 

Sony constantly attempted to experiment with less expensive releases, and it hasn't worked in favor of sustainability. It still doesn't do well enough to cover operations. The bigger investments in AAA keeps them in the black; making cheaper games would put them in the red, as much as many would appreciate it.

 

This is why they're investing heavily in GaaS, so they can have a golden goose egg to offset all operational costs and low profit margins on all non-GaaS titles. To say "make less expensive games" is tackling a symptom, not the virus.

[majob]

11 minutes ago, CelestialRequiem said:

 

Making less expensive games isn't THE solution, but it can be a contributing factor.

 

Sony constantly attempted to experiment with less expensive releases, and it hasn't worked in favor of sustainability. It still doesn't do well enough to cover operations. The bigger investments in AAA keeps them in the black; making cheaper games would put them in the red, as much as many would appreciate it.

 

This is why they're investing heavily in GaaS, so they can have a golden goose egg to offset all operational costs and low profit margins on all non-GaaS titles. To say "make less expensive games" is tackling a symptom, not the virus.

PlayStation's primary focus has been around third party releases, their first party portfolio was more for brand recognition than sustaining the division. Hence why as of late they were focusing heavily on polished titles that has ballooned out of control in terms of budget. You're right it wouldn't solve all of their problems but right now their biggest problem is that their games are selling well but not well enough in comparison to what was spent on them, Reigning in the budget would go a long way towards that and that honestly applies to just about every AAA studio right.

Edited May 8 by majob

[CelestialRequiem]

Just now, majob said:

PlayStation's primary focus has been around third party releases, their first party portfolio was more for brand recognition than sustaining the division. Hence why as of late they were focusing heavily on polished titles that has ballooned out of control in terms of budget. You're right it wouldn't solve all of their problems but right now their biggest problem is that their games are selling well but not well enough in comparison to what was spent on them, Reigning on the budget would go a long way towards that and that honestly applies to just about every AAA studio right.

 

And that's definitely what they're trying to do. The current CEO has mentioned how inefficient their own studios can be (especially Bungie). That should have been addressed much earlier, but here we are.

 

For what it's worth, I'm not here to defend Sony/PS. I barely care about their first-party lineup, I'm just observing this shit-show as someone has a stake in this industry.

[majob]

1 minute ago, CelestialRequiem said:

 

And that's definitely what they're trying to do. The current CEO has mentioned how inefficient their own studios can be (especially Bungie). That should have been addressed much earlier, but here we are.

 

For what it's worth, I'm not here to defend Sony/PS. I barely care about their first-party lineup, I'm just observing this shit-show as someone has a stake in this industry.

Oh I never meant to imply that, I just think the biggest problem the industry has right now, at least among the old established big players, is that they're spending hundreds of millions on game development then moping when said game sells only 7 million instead of 30 million. A game like Hollow Knight is considered a massive success at only 3 million sold while Square Enix's Tomb Raider was consider a disappointment at 14.5 million sold.

[CelestialRequiem]

Just now, majob said:

Oh I never meant to imply that, I just think the biggest problem the industry has right now, at least among the old established big players, is that they're spending hundreds of millions on game development then moping when said game sells only 7 million instead of 30 million. A game like Hollow Knight is considered a massive success at only 3 million sold while Square Enix's Tomb Raider was consider a disappointment at 14.5 million sold.

Definitely. It is worth noting that Hollow Knight was only made with 3 people, however -- so of course the disparity needs to be made clear with that information.

 

But indie devs rarely see that kind of success anyway. Hence, there are too many gamedevs right now for our current reality in the industry.

[SelectiveGamer]

Take this however you want... but I just don't play a lot of 'indie' games because it seems like/feels like 80 to maybe even 90% of them are soulslikes or roguelites which I feel are way too hard for me and none of them really 'interest' me honestly and then there's the issue of them not having physical releases which I feel is only further helping the mega corporate company greed of wanting an 'all digital future' and us not 'owning' our games anymore. So that's kind of the 'main' reason I don't play a lot of indie games.

 

There are exceptions obviously like Stray, Born of Bread, Bug Fables, the upcoming Gori Cuddly Carnage (cat brutally murders monsters on a skateboard that can transform in a Renji-from-Bleach-like weapon and it has a physical release?! Sure why not lol) and most of those are games I haven't yet played. I like watching others (YouTubers I guess) play the stuff like Lethal Company and Content Warning but those aren't really games for me and I don't have anyone to play Among Us or Goose Goose Duck with (the latter I don't own but does intrigue me but again I have no group to play it with)

 

So I'm sorry but I'd rather not have to be forced to go back to playing with rocks and sticks thank you very much. Hopefully things will eventually calm down and improve. Unfortunately these companies are likely never going to stop with this live service/GaaS garbage because they want the next Fortnite which is likely never going to happen.

 

I just hope things eventually calm down and we can still get good games.

[Mellenthin]

Aside from perhaps the Evil Within, nothing of worth was lost.🙂

[Slava]

Another thing probably forth mentioning in the context of the recent news is Xbox's next upcoming game - Hellblade 2. I see people are dividing into groups: one is "Buy this game to support Ninja Theory", the second is "I won't reward Microsoft", and the third is "Why would I pay $70 if it's day one on Game Pass". 

[TJ_Solo]

1 hour ago, majob said:

Oh I never meant to imply that, I just think the biggest problem the industry has right now, at least among the old established big players, is that they're spending hundreds of millions on game development then moping when said game sells only 7 million instead of 30 million. A game like Hollow Knight is considered a massive success at only 3 million sold while Square Enix's Tomb Raider was consider a disappointment at 14.5 million sold.

That's the difference between new, indie IPs and established multi-million dollar franchises. It isn't a gaming industry thing. Every industry would bet/risk more on known brands over new concepts. They known brand would be more likely to make back the investment and sell more, so why not invest more to begin with and more on the return. Again, not a gaming thing. Just business being business.

 

[SlippiThePippi]

55 minutes ago, Slava said:

Another thing probably forth mentioning in the context of the recent news is Xbox's next upcoming game - Hellblade 2. I see people are dividing into groups: one is "Buy this game to support Ninja Theory", the second is "I won't reward Microsoft", and the third is "Why would I pay $70 if it's day one on Game Pass". 

It almost feels like they’re trying to sink studios. Putting a game on gamepass then complaining about sales and shutting down studios as a result is bizarre. Gamepass is obviously a great deal for the consumer, but it seems to be a sinking ship of lost profits

[Slava]

 

Bruh, I'm losing my mind at these quotes. Link to the article if the tweet isn't embedded properly:

 

https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/8/24152137/xbox-hi-fi-rush-tango-gameworks-matt-booty

 

___

 

Also, Jason Schreier's latest article says Tango was about to pitch Hi-Fi Rush 2, and Arcane Austin was planning to return to immersive sim roots:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-08/xbox-studio-closures-microsoft-plans-more-cost-cutting-measures-after-layoffs

[Xillynoc]

God, this is why buyouts period should be illegal unless the company being purchased has already filed for bankruptcy or something. 99% of the time it just makes everything worse in the end.

7 hours ago, CelestialRequiem said:

 

Definitely isn't fine. I'll explain some of the industry's issues as someone who is in and out of gamedev:

 

• Highest volume of releases in this medium's history when there is an attention deficit on top of stagnant player-base count
• Profit margins are shrinking, barely being in the black when the ROI is terrifying for releases that cost 200+ million
• Studios are closing where there is no other gamedev work available. Despite this being in tech, the industry is still slow to move to remote-work
• Most people who were laid off will never return to the industry, because the industry is now shrinking its releases because of the first mentioned issue

No offense, but you don't know what you're talking about.

I, uh...I thought they were being sarcastic?