Jump to content

Phil Spencer: single player narrative focused games are too risky, supports microtransactions


madbuk

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Ratchet said:

I think that's the biggest issue with these console upgrades. For every PS4 Pro out there there are dozens of standard PS4 and PS4 Pro owners. As a result of that developers are developing their games for the lowest common denominator. I own a Pro and while the graphical enhancements are nice they are by no means mind blowing. I'm just as amazed at how Horizon looks on my Pro as I am looking at my little brother play Horizon on his standard PS4.

 

Better graphics don't seem enough of a reason to justify a new system. You actually need exclusives to push a new platform, and I think that will ultimately be Scorpio and the Pro's downfall. Nothing is harder than marketing a system to consumers that plays all the same games that their current PS4 or Xbox One plays.

 

 

This is a PS4 Pro ad. Here is the problem with this ad. They are trying to sell consumers on the Pro by showing them a game that they can play on their current PS4. When the PS4 Pro was announced I used to constantly say this is going to turn into a marketing nightmare for Sony, and chances are Scorpio will be a marketing nightmare for Microsoft as well.

 

Unless Microsoft is going to go back on it's promise of all Xbox One games being available on Xbox One and Scorpio I just can't see Scorpio doing well. They could have Halo 6 be their killer app for Scorpio and it wouldn't matter since Halo 6 will also be available on the original Xbox One. 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah I agree on every account stated in your post.

 

And I think that would be a PR death sentence if Scorpio or the Pro got their own exclusive games, ironically, it's also the best thing for them as in people would then have to buy them. Like you said it's a lose-lose situation for both of these systems.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now.  Here's my two cents.  First, I think he's just another corporate douche pandering to the investors.  You can pander to the investors all you want.  Investors don't buy games.  Plain and simple.  Second, although I disagree with his blanket statements on the gaming industry as a whole, I think this might be the direction that Xbox is headed considering that platform is mostly focused on online mp already.  Thirdly, I think this is Phil's and Microsoft's version of "predictive programming" regarding the XBox's future.  He is, in no uncertain terms, telling everyone where he either SEES Xbox (and - God forbid - the gaming industry as a whole) going OR he outright WANTS it to go this way.  I, like many have already stated here, am a primarily single player gamer.  Multiplayer never really attracted me.  Never has and never will.  If a game's mp is REALLY good, I will partake in it and will even sink tons of hours into it e.g. Killzone: Shadow Fall for its platinum.  But, overall, I'm a single player gamer and if what he envisions comes to pass across the entire gaming industry i.e. a wasteland of online mp games with tons of the stereotypical snotty 12 year olds to deal with and countless ca$h-grab microtransactions so you can pay to win then count me out.

 

EDIT:  In addition, basically what he's saying is it's not enough that we pay $60 to $120 (collector's editions, etc., etc.) on day one for games whether they're primarily single player or multiplayer, but that we should just support these corporations and their top-notch execs' bloated paychecks and bonuses with continuous microtransactions.  Mark my words:  Like everything else, greed (in this case, corporate greed) is going to be the death of gaming.  

Edited by Spider-Man916
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2017 at 4:48 AM, madbuk said:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/27/xbox-chief-netflix-video-games-episodes-subscription-downloads-phil-spencer

 

On single-player narrative-driven games:

On micro-transactions:

 

So basically what I'm getting from this is that you can forget about seeing any games like Sunset Overdrive 2, Horizon or Scalebound on Xbox anymore. The most you'll see of single-player experiences are going to be indie-budget low risk titles.

This "Games as a service" model that seems to be popular recently is nonsense imo. The day that single-player dies out is the day that I no longer bother buying new games at all and stick solely to older consoles, hopefully Sony and Nintendo never buy into this ridiculous mindset.

Also in regards to micro-transactions, it sounds like he's saying it's not OK for single-player to be a pay2win, but it's perfectly fine for multiplayer to be pay2win? What on earth?

 

Maybe, maybe not. Spencer is making the classic mistake of comparing apples to oranges. Sure - service-based microtransaction games have captured the casual element that one had no other options but to play on console. Nintendo has suffered heavily because of this (since so much of its user base is of a casual nature). 

 

But on the flip side, the tastes of casual fans are about as constant as the moon, and a massive jump by these studios into this could (and almost certainly would) prove disastrous. 

 

I think Spencer's comments can be qualified by considering mega-budget story-driven games. Budgets on games have just gotten out of control, and the era of large-budget games like Final Fantasy is probably over. They just can't cover their costs anymore. But once budgets are brought under control again, story-driven games will continue to provide the most consistent fan support of any genre, and ignoring your base is always a bad idea.

14 hours ago, Spider-Man916 said:

Well now.  Here's my two cents.  First, I think he's just another corporate douche pandering to the investors.  You can pander to the investors all you want.  Investors don't buy games.  Plain and simple.  Second, although I disagree with his blanket statements on the gaming industry as a whole, I think this might be the direction that Xbox is headed considering that platform is mostly focused on online mp already.  Thirdly, I think this is Phil's and Microsoft's version of "predictive programming" regarding the XBox's future.  He is, in no uncertain terms, telling everyone where he either SEES Xbox (and - God forbid - the gaming industry as a whole) going OR he outright WANTS it to go this way.  I, like many have already stated here, am a primarily single player gamer.  Multiplayer never really attracted me.  Never has and never will.  If a game's mp is REALLY good, I will partake in it and will even sink tons of hours into it e.g. Killzone: Shadow Fall for its platinum.  But, overall, I'm a single player gamer and if what he envisions comes to pass across the entire gaming industry i.e. a wasteland of online mp games with tons of the stereotypical snotty 12 year olds to deal with and countless ca$h-grab microtransactions so you can pay to win then count me out.

 

EDIT:  In addition, basically what he's saying is it's not enough that we pay $60 to $120 (collector's editions, etc., etc.) on day one for games whether they're primarily single player or multiplayer, but that we should just support these corporations and their top-notch execs' bloated paychecks and bonuses with continuous microtransactions.  Mark my words:  Like everything else, greed (in this case, corporate greed) is going to be the death of gaming.  

 

No, this is false, too. There are good reasons to look at the current model of gaming and shake your head. Big budget flops are increasingly becoming the norm. There is nothing wrong with requiring that games make money, and many simply do not. There's nothing wrong with asking why. 

 

Investors are important in gaming, unless you envision some world where every game must be crowdfunded (and that world is a true nightmare). And yes - certain amounts of pandering are necessary. That being said, I'm surprised that investors would be super happy with these answers, unless my belief was that MS should be out of the console business altogether (because I just don't think that microtransactions are sustainable in a console environment).

Edited by starcrunch061
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ٣٠‏/٤‏/٢٠١٧ at 1:54 AM, Death_Ninja said:

Really used to like Phil...until I realized he says the same shit every single year (especially on Twitter) and nothing changes for the Xbox brand as far as games go. It's getting to the point where I think that MS is using him for PR while calling the shots over him. Really questioning the length of Phil's control over the brand.

 

They have some fantastic ideas over at Xbox with the features they put into the console and such, but it boggles my mind on why they can't translate that into first party game development. His whole stance on "single player experiences are too risky" seems like a cop-out excuse for his shortcomings in that area.

 

I want to say that they should be announcing new IPs this E3, but with nearly the entire E3 2014 conference cancelled (Phantom Dust reboot *not the remaster that's coming out*, Fable: Legends, and Scalebound) I can safely say that I can't trust them until the games are actually out.

 

If they definitely are planning on finally buckling down and giving deep thought to first party development instead of holding onto Forza, Halo, and Gears like a damn pacifier, then by all means I will take everything I said back. I just think it shouldn't have taken them this long to finally realize this.

 

don't forget, Microsoft also rejected Rime on the XBONE which was supposed to be an XBONE exclusive at the time for the same reasons, because the game have no multiplayer mode nor having any online features then Sony steps in and paid the whole crowd funding money for a ps4 port before it became a complete ps4 version.

 

I guess after the game been shown on ps4, everyone liked what they saw and Xbox users who didn't know the whole story got really mad why they can't have something artistic like that on XBONE, I think someone at Microsoft have shown a sign of life in there and did whatever it takes to bring the game back to Microsoft platforms after the developers got the rights to own Rime.

 

I really hope this game will do great when it's released just to see the looks on the people face at Microsoft who rejected it on the first place.

Edited by yellowwindow7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are "rare" only on Xbox =P SONY has tons of those games and we love thems, just look at the "flop" that Persona 5 is, even after being released months ago on Japan.

 

Paywalls and microtransactions already exist on mobile gaming, and we do not need more of that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2017 at 6:53 AM, Azaan60 said:

Lmao no wonder Xbox is getting thumped so hard. They need good exclusives and the Xbone is severely lacking in that department. This statement doesn't really bring hope that'll change. 

 

What's funny is that here in Washington State my sister's husband actually works for Microsoft, in the Xbox One Department. Seattle and the surrounding area is home to Microsoft.

 

They need exclusives. It's as simple as that. But instead Microsoft dances around the notion that "single player games are dead", when lo and behold they're not. Heck I still buy Playstation 3 games (only because they're not available on PS4 and I'm not spending money on PS Now) that are single player. The Xbox One had Quantic Dream but that game left a lot to be desired.

 

But then you know, Microsoft could just as well port some of their games over to Steam because Steam is also based in the State of Washington. I'm sure Microsoft and Steam have strong ties to one another, and Microsoft first and foremost made games for the PC, Age of Empires being a good example.

 

Gears of War and Halo just doesn't cut it anymore. Those games did great a decade ago, but tastes have changed. I think the reason the Xbox 360 did as well as it did is because the Playstation 3 had a horribly slow start the first two - three years. Then when games like Uncharted 2 and God of War 3 came around the tides started to change, even though a lot of people still stuck with Xbox Live. But when 2013 came by, Microsoft screwed themselves.

 

The only real good single player games you're going to find are indie titles like Hotline Miami and the like. But then you can just as easily play those games on Steam, or if you prefer consoles and is a trophy hunter like myself, the Playstation 4.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

While I disagree with his comments regarding single players games, I don't see why so many are in their feelings over his opinion. Not agreeing is one thing but calling him all sorts of names because of it, kinda shit is that? 

 

As for games as a service, I'd argue that when done right its a good thing for the industry. Games like destiny 2, rainbow six siege and division 2 are great examples of that. They've been supported with so much content despite coming out a couple years ago where its to the point you can easily invest hundreds of hours into them, the same can't really be said for single player narrative games.

Edited by BrandedBerserk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil Spencer is a lying, cancerous, millionaire.  Simple as that.

 

He is only there to make as much money as possible while putting out as little as possible.  

 

Halo 5, Halo Wars 2, Gears of War 4 and 5, Forza Motorsport 5, 6, and 7 all have had loot boxes in them.  Once outcry cam out, they changed Gears 5 and FM7 from lootboxes to direct purchases.  But Gears shifted to a grindy materials system, on top of overpriced skins.

 

Xbox is detrimental to gaming.  Period.  They have brought in, or supported several anti-customer trends.  Paid online, paid skins (Horse armor), paid dlc (Left 4 Dead), and loot boxes.  Fuck Xbox

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a merry go round every few years the big execs hop over the line. One second console gaming is dead the next second its not. One second single player is dead, next second it's not. One second portable gaming is dead, next second it's not lol. Flip a coin and that's what the big talking heads will decide is their opinion until it's proven wrong again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrandedBerserk said:

While I disagree with his comments regarding single players games, I don't see why so many are in their feelings over his opinion. Not agreeing is one thing but calling him all sorts of names because of it, kinda shit is that? 

Probably because of his position.   His opinion isnt "just his opinion" - what he says and does has the potential to affect many, many people.

 

If your boss says something is bad, and the yes-men repeat it, it cant potentially poison and eventually kill off said "bad thing"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I restarted my account a while back to replay games for fun as I waited for new games to come out. Most new games at the time were Multiplayer games and I really have very little interest in those, so I went back and played as many single player games as I could. In the end, I had so much fun replaying some of my favourite titles I ended up moving over to this account entirely. Single player games are way more important to me and if the industry went exclusively Multiplayer, I would be pretty devestated! I suppose Phil would say that single player games are not important because Xbox hasn't really got a title worth championing to the quality of games like Horizon, Spider-Man or God of War! I still play a few games with multiplayer for sure, but I make sure I can boost that aspect of the game very quickly with friends, so that I can get it out of the way and enjoy the single player experienced! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, AJ_-_808 said:

Probably because of his position.   His opinion isnt "just his opinion" - what he says and does has the potential to affect many, many people.

 

If your boss says something is bad, and the yes-men repeat it, it cant potentially poison and eventually kill off said "bad thing"

"Narrative games are risky" how will that affect anyone in any way whatsoever regardless of his position? 

 

To me personally this is just another case of people getting angry over nothing. Whether dude thinks those games are lucrative or not, single player games will continue to be made for many years to come so his comments ain't detremintal at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Bionic-Spencer said:

I restarted my account a while back to replay games for fun as I waited for new games to come out. In the end, I had so much fun replaying some of my favourite titles I ended up moving over to this account entirely. ...  I still play a few games with multiplayer for sure, but I make sure I can boost that aspect of the game very quickly with friends, so that I can get it out of the way and enjoy the single player experienced! 

Off-topic but I have to say, I did not expect someone with a recently restarted account to have games like Arkham Origins, Dantes Inferno, Dead Space 3 and Friday the 13th 100%ed on it. You probably cut it close with a few of those, server wise, but good job. Most people would have avoided adding games with such an old online component to their new account.

Edited by bikeman223
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrandedBerserk said:

"Narrative games are risky" how will that affect anyone in any way whatsoever regardless of his position? 

Atbthe time, his position in the company and whatever clout/influence it comes with could easily lead to single player games taking a back seat or getting low priority, which could shift developers away from making those types of games, which would, in turn, effect all xbox users 

 

Of course, that would only matter if xbox was dominating the market and they maintained that stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bikeman223 said:

Off-topic but I have to say, I did not expect someone with a recently restarted account to have games like Arkham Origins, Dantes Inferno, Dead Space 3 and Friday the 13th 100%ed on it. You probably cut it close with a few of those, server wise, but good job. Most people would have avoided adding games with such an old online component to their new account.

 

I actually wasn't aware of the Dantes Inferno closure and simply just played it because I liked it. Arkham had been earmarked for so long, I knew I was ok! I still try to check before I play just incase, as I am trying to keep this account as close to a 100% account as possible! ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bionic-Spencer said:

 

I actually wasn't aware of the Dantes Inferno closure and simply just played it because I liked it. 

Apparently they went down and then came back after a month so they can't be very stable. Plus the DLC has been delisted, so really fortunate that you were in a position to complete it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BrandedBerserk said:

"Narrative games are risky" how will that affect anyone in any way whatsoever regardless of his position? 

 

To me personally this is just another case of people getting angry over nothing. Whether dude thinks those games are lucrative or not, single player games will continue to be made for many years to come so his comments ain't detremintal at all. 

The head of the department running the console division for one of only 3 companies making home consoles, and he decides that SP games are dead? Really you don't think that would impact many people?

 

I think it's telling that many of the biggest games of the last few years, most of which were Sony exclusives, were all SP heavy games. Arguably the lack of console exclusive, single player games is probably at least part of the reason why Xbox did so poorly last generation. In terms of the overall service Microsoft created, it is better than Sony in many ways. They just lack the games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If statements like this drive more people away from the Big 3 gateway keeper console makers to take their talents to iOS/Android development or any of the massive gaming market outside them, then we all win. It spreads that talent out to reach even more people and provide even more options. We've never had more platform options for developers to choose from in the history of video games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Single player is riskier because a successful single player game will never be as big as a successful games as service title.  And if a single player game flops, there's not really any great way to revive it or monetize it like games as service games can, with new content being relatively easy and cheap to make and slick marketing generally being able to incentivize people try it or come back.  They last for years, instead of maybe a few playthrough's and you're done.

 

He's saying things a lot of people don't want to hear, but it all makes sense.

 

 

53 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

If statements like this drive more people away from the Big 3 gateway keeper console makers to take their talents to iOS/Android development or any of the massive gaming market outside them, then we all win. It spreads that talent out to reach even more people and provide even more options. We've never had more platform options for developers to choose from in the history of video games. 

 

iOS and Android taking over any of the gaming market sounds terrible IMO.  For anyone that wants games to get bigger and better, versus simply more accessible anyways.  Not to mention pumping Apple or Google's tires doesn't exactly solve the problem of big business gatekeepers.

Edited by Dreakon13
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...