Richard Bailey Jr. of The Koalition writes:
This past weekend, gamers from around the world received an onslaught of industry news from both the The Game Awards show and Sony’s impressive PlayStation Experience event in Las Vegas. Brand new gameplay footage from Uncharted 4 and the official confirmation that Street Fighter V will be a PlayStation 4 console exclusive easily overshadowed everything and had diehard Sony supporters on cloud nine. Shortly after all this news was revealed, many analysts and fanboys turned their attention to Microsoft and begin to question if the Xbox One was still capable of competing with both the PS4 and Wii U. I personally think the console is more than capable of doing so and wanted to express my candid thoughts on what Microsoft will do now to reach this goal.
Does it still hold up in 2024?
We've still got a few months to go, but October marks the 10-year anniversary of this Insomniac Games title, with the developer having since moved on to work on the Marvel's Spider-Man games for PlayStation. It was assumed that Sunset Overdrive might make its way to other platforms eventually, but that hasn't happened as of yet.
So beloved that it sold so well that there's a sequel and Insomniac never had the opportunity to go back to Sony to develop games exclusively for Sony.
ngl, I was low-key expecting Sunset Overdrive to migrate to PS as well along with Hi-Fi Rush and SoT
I think that would require Insomniac going back to work on it to port it over, probably why that's not happening.
I think only in so far as they support every piece of software heading their way? They have that team who specializes in helping people port games, not just SoT, and then the one team that takes PS5 games and ports them to PC (that's their full time job essentially). But that team, the former mentioned one, doesn't do all the work, just help out with how to best do things. So, that team wouldn't port a whole game like Sunset Overdrive.
Ok I thought you meant Insomniac reluctant/Sony not permitting them to go back and work on Overdrive. Hence I added the participation from Sony's side.
But yea, In actuality its Insomniac not having spare dev time to get involved in the port work, atm.
*** But yea, In actuality its Insomniac not having spare dev time to get involved in the port work, atm. ***
Definitely this. They're working on two major IPs as it is and Sony forced them to layoff some people at the end of last year as well. So, likely not capable of sparing the time because resources are being fully utilized.
There was an article awhile back talking about the situation with SSoD. Insomniac does own the IP and Sony now owns it after they bought Insomniac but the publishing right for SSoD is owned by MS - at least the 1st game still is. MS has to sell the publishing rights like they did with the first Mass Effect game to EA after EA bought Bioware before Sony can do anything with the IP.
Nobody cares about Sunset Overdrive, except all the xbox fanboys who didn't buy it but like to come into articles about the game and try to act like it's somehow Sony's fault for whatever reason.
there was supposed to be a sequel. IG had it all planned but MS said no. And Sony wont greenlight a sequel if they cant get the first one away from MS. Plus... IG has other projects they moved on to anyways so...... yeah.
Well, with the recent change in policy towards exclusivity, I imagine Sony could get MS to port it over.
I mean, it's also not a highly rated game, not even in Insomniac's top ten or even top ten on Xbox that year. With this logic, any game can be beloved and so throwing around the word beloved means absolutely nothing. Doesn't have to sell or have great critical reception, just a handful of people need to love it.
You guys are so starved for games you reminiscing about a decade old game made by a now Sony studio. Of course it never sold 10 million, the vast majority of people bought a PS4.
A game not played by many can still be beloved by those who played it, yeah.
Only making a profit of $567 after 10 years shows that it was not as beloved as it should have been though. That's really bad.
As much as people complain about AAA games not being unique or having fun ideas or bringing in new IP, a lot of gamers don't show up for them. Even less people seem to have played Hi-Fi Rush.
It was okay when I played it on PC, idk if I'd consider it one of the more beloved games of that generation.
I mean, it sounds like you're just hating on the game - but, I loved it. It was one of my favorite games of it's time and that generation. Replayability could have been better, but I still managed to play it several times. I would have greatly appreciated a sequel and definitely would have been in line to pick it up..
Things happen.
***I mean, it sounds like you're just hating on the game***
No, that's all the people who refused to accept that this game was beloved and never even bought it. I, on the other hand, bought, played it, thought it was 'okay' and moved on.
Now, what hate did you see in my post other than listing the fact that it's not as beloved as the few who liked it? This and Days Gone get way more love in online discussions than they do in sales and support, I find. Both are okay games, not much more. But for some **unknown** reason, people prop them up often as more than they are.
It's in noabs land unfortunately as Microsoft own the publishing rights to sunset overdrives original game while insomniac own the IP.
So Microsoft would have to be onboard with publishing this game on PlayStation systems with the understanding the would not profit from any subsequent games in the franchise unlike the games they are currently releasing on ps5 to get players into their franchises this would be a small cash injection build a fanbase around a game they no longer own then nothing.
I really don’t get the love for Sunset Overdrive. It’s one of the few games I bought, played a few hours, gave up, and never returned.
Not beloved enough for Xbox owners to buy it apparently, Xbox was the worst possible audience for that game.
Sony couldn´t give a f* about Insomniac´s freedom of creativity, that´s why you don´t have a port for that game and will not be getting a sequel either!
That franchise wil probably never make a comback thanks to Sony´s greed for money, which have turned Insomniacs into a Marvel´s slave factory until 2030.
It´s sad, but it is what it is.
I didn't know that Ratchet and Clank were part of the Avengers of Marvel? Hidden in the ending credits of Guardians of the Galaxy or something? Captain Marvel?
Beyond the "cry me a river" of your comment that these Marvel games aren't on Xbox, it was Insomniac that was approached by Sony to work with Marvel to make a game. And let them decide what character they wanted to develop. They chose Spider-Man. Must be highly profitable for them. Wolverine is a profitable, recognizable character. And the X-Men definitely are a hot property that gamers would love as a story based videogame. Being that X-Men 97 brings back a popular Saturday morning cartoon and the introduction of the X-Men into the MCU movies coming up.
It was Microsoft's continued incompetence in cancelling the Marvel MMO game and turning down Marvel in making a super hero game as they were asked first.
Keep the tears flowing. It's not greed. It was smart business to say yes. And maybe Insomniac wants to make these games. And not a game that didn't sell well to an audience that doesn't buy games.
Neither does Microsoft either, based on your own argument here. Microsoft denied the sequel, not Insomniac/Sony. There's also no sign that Microsoft is allowing a port. They control the next two games in the IP and any DLC or the like for the first. But, nothing.
What's sad is people trying to use this game to blame businesses for doing business things that they are both doing as some way to make them look worse. Microsoft wants to use Insomniac to make a good IP that sells their platform and Sony wants to use Insomniac to make a good IP that sells their platform. But, no, Sony bad!
Don't know why the truth that these companies are very much alike is so hard for people to accept.
Your comment literally contradicts itself but troll statements typically do. If Sony is so greedy for money as you proclaim than wouldn't it behoove them to not only release the first game on their console but a sequel as well, as that would be a way for them to make profit and that's apparently their focus according to you? Speaking of profit and greed, I suppose Microsoft bought all those Developers and Publishers in hopes that they wouldn't make any money from it, right? Your ability to troll on this site with impunity is whats sad, but it is what it is.
Insomniac: “We went with Microsoft because we want to own the IP so it’s ours”
Microsoft: *owns publishing rights preventing the studio to re-release the original game, make a remaster, remake, any DLC, massive expansions and multiple sequels on other platforms*
The logic is just…I never got it
Owning the IP was Insomniacs main defence when they announced they were making a game exclusively for MS and yet they’ve ended up “owning” an IP they can’t do anything with.
If they went with Sony like normal you might have seen a sequel by now.
The winner of the Logic Cake has to be Bungie, though.
Wanted to be free from Halo and MS, so they buy themselves out, only to partner up with Activision, in the same timeframe as Activision ousting the heads of Infinity Ward, for a full decade with Destiny.
... And then things start falling apart in that relationship almost immediately, whodathought!
Hey, when Sony offers to overpay you for your services and signs a contract that says they won't force you to do anything you don't want, who would say no? Such an overpriced purchase from Sony. Poor business, IMHO. But, honestly, I'm not a business person. But, still, I don't understand it.
...and it seems this conundrum is also why the game cannot receive any sort of FPS boost patch for Series consoles. IG wont make it, and Ms can't get another team to do it without consent from IG. I liked it on XBO, but now I also have this on PC and I can tell ya... it definitely benefits from a 60fps frame rate.
been playing it at 1080p144fps on my modest pc. not the hardest game to max out and yeah this game definitely needs to be played at high fps considering all the actions
Sadly this may never get the proper fps update it deserves on XB (or even PS) but I now play it on steam and it definitely feels better at 60fps than it did at 30. Its a fast paced game... you need that 60fps in this one.
For those who don't have time for massive open worlds or role-playing games with epic tales, these 15 games are worth checking out.
The Ori and the Blind Forest studio CEO has asked the fans to purchase the game instead to completely support it.
I've been told that this is an outlier and 99% of devs feel the opposite of what moon studios is saying right here.
"It can be? If you're a smaller dev and get an upfront fee to put your game on gamepass and it blows up, that's great.
I merely pointed out that Moon would make no money at this point from people playing Ori on gamepass - so not the best way to support us!" - Thomas Mahler, Moon Studios
"This is the exact argument people have been saying about GP for years now"
It's not. Moon studios had no say in their game going on GamePass, because it's a 2nd party game and Microsoft own the Ip and games. Moon was paid for developing the games and presumably get a cut of sales, GamePass is hurting their sales but this is a different situation.
They make no money because they were already paid an upfront fee. So they MADE money, but make no additional money.
yeah of course because people renting games and not buying them is so much better for studios.
Microsoft has conditioned people not to pay for their hobby or at least not to pay to own anything
@GamerRN
"They make no money because they were already paid an upfront fee. So they MADE money, but make no additional money."
So it's a good thing that they make no additional money despite their game having continued success well after the initial payment?
@Lightning77
"Because it is. You can name on one hand the studios GP doesn't help."
Just in the past few months we have had statements from Larian, 2k and now Moon Studios (as well another indie studio that released it's game pass but I can't remember who it was) have made similar statements recently about the effect of subscriptions on sales and profitability.
Heck you recently saw in Insomniac's leaked slides that after games were put on subscriptions the sales of the games almost totally dried up, which is something they have publicly been saying for years. And on top of that even though xbox fans constantly deny it, Microsoft leaks as well as their own statements and actions (like putting thier games on rival platforms) clearly show that putting games on subscriptions lowers the potential profit of a game.
It's time to accept the reality that the long term effect of subscriptions has been lowered revenue and profit for game sales almost universally across the board.
Credible research and information keeps showing that people don't buy games that are on subscriptions and more and more people don't buy games they suspect are coming to subscriptions.
Look into Outriders situation, unless you are a very small indie dev, gamepass loses money for everyone involved, including Microsoft.
"oh really. The Microsoft /Game Pass Dream Bubble is bursting, eh?"
I don´t think Sony agrees, because they´ll continue and release yet another brand new MBL game on Gamepass day one for the fourth time in a row!
@Crows90
"Because they have a choice right?"
Yes they do. They could say no. Nobody is forcing Sony to make MLB games to Xbox at gun point, especially day one on Gamepass.
Christopher
"That's not by Sony's choice..."
Of course, it´s their choice. They could just said *no* to MLB and made their own baseball game just like EA did.
Besides, It´s a GaaS title after all and one of the most played on Xbox. So it´s not really hurting Sony in any way, and I´m 100% positive that they relly love those fat checks from MS.
"This is a poor argument."
You can say that, but, the Interesting and undeniable fact is that after four years making MBL games available on Gamepass day one, nobody from San Diego studio got fired in Sony´s recent wave of layoffs.
Just food for the brain.
That's not a business choice that was decided by Sony, that decision was decided by the MLB. Sony will reap the rewards only because Sony's first party developers (Sony San Diego Studios) develops The Show. If it wasn't for the MLB licensing contract of The Show the game would still be exclusive to PS.
"Of course, it´s their choice. They could just said *no* to MLB and made their own baseball game just like EA did."
Well this isn't EA, they lost the license to Fifa, not Fifpro, or the premiere league or champions league or the euros.
MLB I'm guessing (i don't play baseball) is the only licence to it. They have no choice, indeed. American gamers will want authentic teams im sure.
@christopher: “That's not by Sony's choice... This is a poor argument.”
Have you see him have a rich valid argument when it comes to Sony. 🤷🏿
@obscured: “Yes they do. They could say no. Nobody is forcing Sony to make MLB games to Xbox at gun point, especially day one on Gamepass.”
Sure buddy whatever keeps you happy same as no one is forcing Xbox to now and in the future release their games on PlayStation and Nintendo oh btw in the near future Xbox will go fully 3rd party like Sega 💵💰
do you understand the concept of licensed games? good lord the straw arguments or just lack of actual real information is astouding.
*** Of course, it´s their choice. They could just said *no* to MLB and made their own baseball game just like EA did. ***
That's an illusion of choice. It's not a choice. You're acting ignorant to try and serve up a bad argument.
you have to remember that these games are old now, they are given a fee upfront for their titles to be on gamepass, but for new people to play the games naturally you want to drive them to standalone sales as opposed to them playing on a service that they've already been paid for.
I don't understand what you are saying here. This is the exact argument people have been saying about GP for years now. In the short term the upfront cost is good, especially if your game is either trash or was never going to be popular in the first place, but long term and if your game exceeds expectations then it's not as good. Also if your game is AAA and is a sure fire going to sell millions day one, people want those titles day one on GP as well and think it's sustainable for some reason when logically that doesn't make sense.
@Outside - I don't know if MS has any incentives in place where devs get bonuses if games do well. You'd have to talk to someone in the know there.
Same here. its a nice little compilation. Plus I have the XB special editions on disc (still sealed)... and it was all thanks to playing them in Game pass. I dont get why its so hard for people to understand how this service can actually lead to sales, not just blindly accept the few who complain about how sales weren't as good as they expected.
Because not everyone is like you.
Most people wont go out and purchase a game on other consoles or buy special editions of games they already played if they can just try it on their cheap subscription service and move on once theyre done with it.
I bought Ori for Switch because it's on GP and wanted to be able to play it on the go. That being said, at 120fps and 4K on Series X, that is the way to play.
Fingers crossed for a release on PS5, I'd snap them up even though I have them on Switch already.
They didn't have a choice to partner with Microsoft for funding and create the game for them?
I’m with OneLove on this. Don’t go begging to fans when you already took Microsoft’s money.
For smaller companies to even have a CHANCE to make some money on Xbox, they often have to put their games on Game Pass. Don't be dense.
Anyone who wanted Ori has most likely already bought it. The game is not going to sell significantly anymore but GP will offer free exposure so that when Ori 3 comes out people may be willing to buy. If your game is good enough people will support in even if they can get it on a subscription. I still buy plenty of games that are available on GP and I also have played plenty of games that I would not have played thanks to GP. Bottom line is this, make a product people want and they will buy it.
I think what the CEO is implying is that the studio makes more money per copy sold vs a player on GP. But I think we know that as common sense. Even without being privy to Moon/Microsoft's contract, I think we can assume that because of the nature of GP, more money can be made per player at retail than via subscription. And honestly this would also probably apply to Microsoft as well. As in they would make more money too. Thats why the only way to maximize the utility of a subscription is to have a really large subscription base.
This is a really good editorial. I agree. Microsoft needs to focus on getting their pre-existing IPs rebooted as well as launching completely new IPs that rival those of Sony's.
The revival of old franchises and brand new I.Ps is something that the Xbox One definitely needs to succeed. Great editorial.
Microsoft picking up the publishing rights to Rise of the Tomb Raider was crazy overall, but I hope neither side has to resort to this in the long run. Sony of course has a ton of IPs to pull from so they shouldn't be worried about third-parties quite as much. The same goes for Microsoft too if they actually look deeper into what they have and start making new IPs altogether. Either way it def will be interesting to see how this all turns out as the years go by.
Competition always breeds success and it seems like the after the whole Tomb Raider thing, both companies are looking to one up each other.
Hopefully it benefits the gamers
Awesome article.