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

[DaivRules]

Just now, Dreakon13 said:

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.

 

I'm not advocating for them "taking over" anything. I'm advocating for more choices and with the hardware Apple is putting in new iOS devices (and now Macs) and Android tablet and handset makers have access to, there's potential for so much more than Angry Birds and Candy Crush. You present a false binary of bigger and better versus simply more accessible. Things can be more accessible AND bigger and better.

 

I'll always advocate for more choices over justifying why things just have to be how they have been.

[Dreakon13]

8 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

 

I'm not advocating for them "taking over" anything. I'm advocating for more choices and with the hardware Apple is putting in new iOS devices (and now Macs) and Android tablet and handset makers have access to, there's potential for so much more than Angry Birds and Candy Crush. You present a false binary of bigger and better versus simply more accessible. Things can be more accessible AND bigger and better.

 

I'll always advocate for more choices over justifying why things just have to be how they have been.

 

I guess if you're taking money away from "the big 3" and shifting it over to iOS/Android development... I see that as taking money from the Ghost of Tsushima's and Last of Us 2's and putting it into smartphone/tablet apps.  There's potential for more than Angry Birds and Candy Crush but those are the games dominating that market, and more games will try to emulate that... and even if you could get experiences with the fidelity, depth and polish of those aforementioned Playstation games, is a phone or tablet even a preferable place to play them?

 

More choices is fine, but in a finite pool of resources you can't give to one without taking away from another.

Edited December 24, 2020 by Dreakon13

[darkrequiem7]

This topic started a few years ago, and since then Microsoft has bought a bunch of studios and will soon buy Bethesda. Lots of their new studios have made primarily single player games. I assume something opened Phil's eyes, like perhaps Sony smashing it with the PS4 and their huge single-player game successes.

[DaivRules]

13 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

but in a finite pool of resources you can't give to one without taking away from another

 

A lot of your argument seems to stem from this notion of a fixed, finite pool or resources.

 

If the pool of resources are fixed, how does the market grow every year? Because the resources aren't fixed, they grow to accommodate the demand.

 

You say that Angry Birds are dominating the market so more games will emulate that, but why won't new games also emulate Ghost of Tsushima or TLoU2? And with services like Stadia, hardware like Apple TV/Chromecast/Fire TV, the place to play them isn't fixed to just a phone or tablet. 

 

There is a LOT going on with "big" gaming development outside consoles and PCs and it looks like it's getting completely ignored by people who are stuck on the decades old model of video games.

[Xenoblast91]

15 hours 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. 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! 

 

I guess that when Xbox 360 lead the market back way in the mid 2000s and early 2010s, the multiplayer aspect was as revolutionary as well as intriguing for many players. It was the first approach to the competitive scene and make it solid for the e-Sports, which currently we know are a branch revenue for companies in gargantuan proportions. Of course, many other tournaments were held before the Internet, current era of video games. Since this very service was limited, but expanding quickly in those days I can assume that the value of playing with other people added a higher value to the experience. 

 

I understand too, that many people don't like the competitive, socializing or involvement with other players in certain or all types of games, but precisely this factor is what bring us today here. Microsoft dealt with another universally acclaimed feature from which we are enjoying right now: achievements. And honestly, that factor was decisive in their business model to sell consoles. Even though we disagree with the multiplayer per se aspect in-game of any title, we share our gaming experience through trophies. 

 

I don't want to sound like the devil's advocate here; I personally enjoyed and still do multiplayer games. Furthermore, I like to create connections, laughs, deep conversations or joking around with my friends or other players. But the stake that Spencer did back 3 or 4 years ago was complete non-sense. In order to a game be successful as a paid service as we know, they should abroad a lot of platforms, in order to be available to everybody and take advantage directly from that fact. Not every service like this works. Oh... and don't forget that you must pay for the online service to even start playing a F2P title: Xbox Live. So I can infer from his statement that by Xbox having P2W services, will indirectly affect the yield of XL service a whole, hence why he drove the narrative exactly to that spot. But tackling the fact about single player games... We all need those. Heck, I even started playing those solely back in the day and I still do. I love balance between both, but the Internet era, as bliss and thankful it has been obviously has brought it sidetrack and collateral damage as we have attested through the years with servers shutdowns and malfunctioning, crippled services. 

 

Edited December 24, 2020 by Xenoblast91

[kindajustin]

1 hour ago, Xenoblast91 said:

I understand too, that many people don't like the competitive, socializing or involvement with other players in certain or all types of games,

The 360 was awesome for getting into gaming online with all my friends from school and beyond, and then eventually killed online games for me. I really just enjoyed gaming with other people but grew exhausted with all of the hatred, shit-talking, etc. It just feels inescapable sometimes and I don't have the energy to put up with it. I'm slowly trying to give them another chance these days but strongly prefer more co-op centric multiplayer games.

[AJ_Radio]

On 12/24/2020 at 2:51 PM, Xenoblast91 said:

I guess that when Xbox 360 lead the market back way in the mid 2000s and early 2010s, the multiplayer aspect was as revolutionary as well as intriguing for many players. It was the first approach to the competitive scene and make it solid for the e-Sports, which currently we know are a branch revenue for companies in gargantuan proportions. Of course, many other tournaments were held before the Internet, current era of video games. Since this very service was limited, but expanding quickly in those days I can assume that the value of playing with other people added a higher value to the experience. 

 

I understand too, that many people don't like the competitive, socializing or involvement with other players in certain or all types of games, but precisely this factor is what bring us today here. Microsoft dealt with another universally acclaimed feature from which we are enjoying right now: achievements. And honestly, that factor was decisive in their business model to sell consoles. Even though we disagree with the multiplayer per se aspect in-game of any title, we share our gaming experience through trophies.

 

MMOs were some of the first games to really take forth the multiplayer aspect.

 

Back in 2004 - 2005 when I played World of Warcraft and Runescape semi regularly, interacting with people all across the world blew my mind. I met people from New York City, London, Amsterdam, Paris, Italy, Germany and several other countries and cities. I was only 16 - 17 years old, young, impressionable, still full of optimism. I used to scour gaming magazines back in the day and the idea of paying a subscription fee online to play with thousands of other players was something I couldn't turn down.

 

Xbox 360 made history by being the first popular console to have a multiplayer aspect. Games like Ratchet and Clank 3: Up Your Arsenal were playable online for the PS2, but multiplayer was vastly limited. Halo 2 was a very popular game to play online for the original Xbox, but again, there were a lot of limitations. Xbox 360 was the first console to really have a social networking system, the only real downside for me was the fact that I had to pay money for a Xbox Live Gold membership, which was required for online multiplayer. Playing Red Dead Redemption online as opposed to single player was a completely different experience for me.

 

Then as I got older, I grew more fed up with the hatred, the shit talking, the stalking of other peoples accounts, the attitude of an entire community. The last expansion for World of Warcraft that I really cared for was Cataclysm, it brought the introduction of the LFD and LFR tools which would hook you up to a PUG group, short for pick up group. Anyone here who played a lot of MMOs in the past who dealt with PUGs knows how volatile they can be. I've had people leave my group in the middle of a dungeon, I've had people block me because I didn't do exactly what they wanted me to do, I've had people shit talk me in general chat and clan chat. My guild went into disarray as some of the older players that were on my server had a wife and kids, which meant quitting the game to raise a family. Pretty soon I was paying $15 a month to mostly play by myself, which was grinding endlessly for better PvM and PvP gear. I quit years ago and never came back to WoW again.

 

I think much of what used to be a big deal for multiplayer just isn't all too appealing anymore. I've done a lot that is generally considered multiplayer. I've done PvM with friends and buddies, I've done a bit of casual PvP, I've done online first person shooters that had their share of cheaters, hackers and spawn campers. I want to play games on my own time, by myself without having other people ruin the gaming experience.

 

And as far as Dreakon13's comments regarding Angry Birds, Candy Crush and mobile gaming.... been there, done that. Spent more money on microtransactions and lootboxes than I care to admit, before even Star Wars Battlefront 2 shit the bed and gave the gaming world fits, including a certain Reddit post which is one of the most downvoted comments in Reddit history.

Edited December 27, 2020 by Spaz