Dee J:
This week at Bungie, we created Guardians that will never die.
We’ve lost count of how many brave heroes we’ve nurtured down the path from inception to legend, only to lose them to a new build of Destiny. The Hunters, Titans, and Warlocks that we’re playing as now will endure. They just need some more company in the Tower – and out in the wild.
The long-rumoured Destiny Mobile game from NetEase may finally be ready for reveal according to multiple leakers.
Phil Spencer talks candidly about missing out on both Destiny and Guitar Hero
Replies(1)
Microsoft bought all of Zenimax Media for 7 billion, while Sony paid 4 billion for Bungie. I think Microsoft got the better deal due to acquiring Fallout, ElderScrolls and Doom.
Yeah, I thought it out. I'm not sure you did. But since we are buddy's now, you're welcome.
"Clearly your parents didn't teach you"
You know you lost, when you have to resort to this tactic.
So you're saying that Microsoft has missed out on so many huge gaming franchise in the last 25 years from GTA exclusivity to guitar hero and destiny it's just laughable they had so many misses
Yea, but they're still 100 times more wealthy than Sony. I would say it worked out well.
That isn't because of Xbox though. This is a gaming page, not an I get supplemented by father Windows page
Microsoft's money has nothing to do with Xbox.
Xbox is a money pit to them they would love to ditch but are after some ROI first.
Let's face it, Xbox is like a red headed stepchild that steals from you to buy drugs.
MIicrosoft is NOT XBOX. The current situation illustrates this. And Microsoft wants its ROI.
@Bathyj and daddy Satya has just force admitted Phil to rehab.
you know why MS has so much money, and it aint cause of the gaming xbox branch.
so lets not kid ourselves.
@PhillyDownJawn not more profitable. More revenue with ABK acquisition but them going multiplat shows they are not making much profit
That's great for Xbox gamers ain't it that Microsoft are more wealthy than Sony. Is that really a argument use are using now lol?
Imagine me in my job. Arguing with a fellow security guard at another company. Hahah well the company I work for is worth £800m the one you work for is only work £600m!
Microsoft may have more money but Sony has the talented studios and the games to back up those studios.
Plus turning down Marvel too. Spiderman is only exclusive to Playstation because of that
Best deal deal in gaming must be when Sony bought Insomniac for 229 million dollars. They made over 800 millions on Spiderman for the ps4 alone. Thats just crazy!
another Interview?
how is he the only one who loves the spotlight as much as he does lol
Let's not forget he also famously passed on Spider-man, Genshin Impact and GTA3.
However it's almost kind of cute how he can keep that sh1t-eating grin and say he's a 'no regrets' kind of guy, especially when you think how much just these 5 titles could have swung the world in Xbox's favour instead of Sonys.
How he's kept his job I don't know, he must sure be keeping Papa Nadella's shaft warm somehow.
"But, but Gamepass, he introduced that!!!"
Yes he did, and now look at Xbox, all it's exclusives are coming to Playstation now rendering the platform obsolete.
Honestly, with that kind of track record, you can't convince me Spencer hasn't eaten it from the back in the name of self preservation. Probably unwashed...and at least twice.
That aside, my interpretation of everything here is Xbox has been mismanaged a bit too much and Nadella came down from his throne. The way it is now, I don't believe for a minute the multiplatform move was Spencer's idea. I don't even think the acquisitions was Spencer's work. At this point, I reckon he's got as much power in his role as Hunter Biden at a Ukrainian energy company.
You can never tell how things will turn out if he had said yes to those games. Xbox already has access to some great IPs, however, they hardly do anything with them or fail to deliver. It's also possible their presentation wasn't good at the time, and they made sure the next presentation was better.
I believe that part of being successful is releasing things in the right place at the right time.
Many major corporations have a story similar to passing on successful business ideas. Let us look at Sony Pictures for example. Back when Marvel went bankrupt, they had the opportunity to buy the entire Marvel for only $25 Million but turned them down. An unnamed big shot at Sony reportedly claimed that “nobody gives a shit about any of the other Marvel characters,”. They ended up taking Spiderman for $10 Million instead.
https://www.avclub.com/sony...
Fast forward to today, we can see what the Marvel brand has done for Disney. Is it possible the same success would have been possible had Sony acquired those IPs. We can't say that for sure and it is possible most of those IPs that are successful today may not have been used.
A former Halo and Destiny executive producer has said the live service model is "so much better for developers and players" than the one-off $60 purchase model.
Alan Wake 2, BG3, Tears of the Kingdom, Elden Ring, GoW Ragnarok, Hades, Returnal, Fallout 4, Dishonored, It Takes Two, Untitled Goose Game, Breath of the Wild, both of The Last of Us, Ghost of Tsushima, Sekiro, Psychonauts 2, Control, Celeste, Super Mario Odyssey, Bloodborne, The Outer Wilds, The Witcher 3, Dragon Age: Inquisition, Cocoon, The Dredge, and more and more and more.
Up against Overwatch and Destiny as far as critical acclaim and recognition as 'better' for players.
And, let me be honest, even 'for developers' is a lie. Want to know why? Because it's only good for people who can pump out graphics constantly and not overall quest designers, coders, engine devs, etc.
What this guy means is "we can give a lot of cosmetic content to players, who we think players like more because people spend money on it, and it's best for us because we don't have to pay for a full team to create a new game and just the people to pump out new graphics from one season to another." In no way is his comment a true reflection of what is 'better for players' let alone 'better for the industry stability over longer periods of time.'
This is more investor mindset focusing on maximizing profits by getting consumers to buy less for more while they spend less making it. That's it.
You know what's best for players? Newer, better, and more content that is good and not just cosmetic. Live service isn't that unless you pay $60 a year to them to add more for it (like Destiny and CoD do). Then you might get some improvements and new content. Even then? Not usually.
In terms of player feedback/awards yes but the list you made are all nothing in terms of profit.
Call of duty mobile alone laughs at that list that game is a billion dollar money making machine.
Toss in your apex/mmo/rivals/fortnight/robl ox/minecraft monoploy go or back to console with elder scrolls fallout 76.
Basically there is alot more live service style games that hit or go above the billion dollar mark than your list and that is what the people at top want cold hard cash. Heck alot fo them make a billion + a year
Gta 5 single player profit vs gtao profit as a example now that ps5/series has gtao as a free standalone with gta + there printing cash like its going out of style over there.
Being more profitable isn't better for the consumer or developers. That's better for executives in suits.
@Christopher
Umm exactly who do you think pay's the bill's and hands out the games budgets?
They have 0 care about a games award's/feedback its all profit driven some use to care like sony back in the day now its profit first.
0 likes shows how many are still on copium thinking the big publishers care about them
Well the Poll on the website is suggesting he is massively wrong and out of touch.
A big majority of the vote going to "I prefer one off purchases with paid expansions"
Couldn't agree more.
I'll always think the concept is awesome. Back during the PS3 era I pictured a Spider-Man game that would be the traditional open world swinging playground that they typically are but every comic issue would be turned into dlc. It'd be the entirety of the Amazing line, 2 to 3 issues at a time, turnt to dlc until the entire Amazing line is told in form of a game. That concept eventually made it to the industry and they have consistently fk'd it up with every game that has been made as a "service".
There is nothing like sitting down , popping in a great single player game and blocking out the world.
Sometimes I like to log into Fortnite and Call of Duty and just sit and listen to 12 years call me a n*****, f**, m***** f***** just so I can remember why I like to play single player games.
This is exactly what I reasoned three days ago but got 8 disagrees. Lol.
http://n4g.com/news/1577602...
"Like I mentioned to someone else recently. I'd just chalk it up to the fact that they're afraid of letting a few people online to review it when it really needs everyone online to get the full feel of it. I don't blame them. I wouldn't want someone reviewing my game if it was almost completely empty. The social aspect is too strong with this one to be reviewed any other way."
@aconnellan- Exactly! You know a few reviewers would have said that too. If not something worse. Haha
Or maybe they just don't want corrupt journalists to review their game. Hahaha!
only 4 more days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, well more like 3 now ,since this day is almost over!!!!
Makes sense.. If you can afford it support it regardless of reviews, it is a very good developer so chances are you will like it.. If not... Well it's not the end of the world so just trade it back in that is what most of you like to do anyway right?
We’re okay with that. We’ve created something we’re proud of.”
Sounds like they're totally hiding something.... I get it's all just speak and no real facts but they're reasoning seems solid to me.
"“We explored several options to populate the world for reviewers. Our team estimates it would take thousands of gamers to ensure each potential public space in Destiny would be populated – that every activity would be accessible at all hours of the day and night. Where on Earth would we be able to find thousands of gamers? The answer, again, is you.”
That's not hard to argue in my opinion especially for an online only game that relies on some interaction with other people. If the game is reviewed when the servers aren't populated and the reviewer says it felt empty, they could lose a sale for someone who wanted a more populated environment.