"In 2007, a review score of 6.0 for Kane & Lynch: Dead Men resulted in scandal, rumors, speculation, and the firing of a popular editor from a major gaming news site. What was the backlash of the firing, and did it taint the legacy of the Kane & Lynch name?"
Bossa Studios dev argues the console had "turned out to be an albatross around the next of production."
Microsoft’s entry-level console Xbox Series S is limiting the potential of new-gen games, a developer at indie studio Bossa Studios has argued.
VFX artist Ian Maclure made the claim on Twitter in response to a comment from veteran games journalist Jeff Gerstmann, who said he thinks the whole ‘Series S is holding back next-gen games’ argument doesn’t hold up.
“Most of these games also come to PC and already have to cover a wide variety of configs,” Gerstmann pointed out.
Maclure, who worked on last year’s Xbox Series X/S and PC game I Am Fish at Bossa, which also develops and publishes the Surgeon Simulator series, responded: “It might sound broken, but the reason you are hearing it a lot right now is because MANY developers have been sitting in meetings for the past year desperately trying to get Series S launch requirements dropped.
You want to know what's anti-consumer? Crippling a generation of games because the only way your hardware can chart is if it's below $300.
How is it anti consumer offering people a cheaper entry point? That’s actually a pro consumer strategy.
What you seem to be trying to infer is it’s anti hardcore, for those willing to spend the big bucks and want all the bell and whistles. Their’s a difference.
The anti consumer part is forcing devs to support the S when they clearly don't want to. In doing so, reducing the quality of the game.
I don't think you understand what anti-consumer means dude. For a start the developer isn't the consumer.
@Crimson
And who do you think buys the product that the developers make? A product of reduced quality to allow for Phil's demands.
I'm guessing you never lived through the PS2 era then from the perspective of literally any other platform.
@Crimson
You'll have to remind me of the PS2 X which was gimped to allow for the weaker PS2 S, I can't recall that.
It's not a cheaper entry point though. So you're telling me then it's not antu consumer however just 100$ more gets you all the bells and whistles with the PS4 digital?
They artifically created an "entry point" that is more affordable but doesn't actually give you a next gen experience. It's basically a remake of the Xbox one x. It's disgustingly deceptive.
Games are already struggling on the series s. It's not a 1440p machine.
My point (as it is apparently not immediately clear) is that many multiplatform games were indisputably held back on every other platform by the fact they had to release and run on a PS2 (the PS2 had a mere 4MB of video ram). And yet I would seriously struggle to call this "anti-consumer" to all the other consumers of different, more powerful platforms.
I'm trying to make you apply your logic to a different case to perhaps isolate your blinding bias. Obviously the developer motivation and market situation is different. But we're supposedly talking about consumers here aren't we?
Get outta here, you know very well he’s referring to the power difference between the PS2/GC/Xbox @generic-user-name
Everything that Sony does is clearly perfect though smh
You guys are aware that there is no such thing as anticonsumer, right? It's nothing but a buzz word created to provoke unrest between companies and consumers. There are those who can afford products and those who can't. It's simple as that.
Thing is how cheap do you go? There's no end to it.
It's a luxury item and I couldn't afford many of my consoles in the past as a young kid, I had to save or get super lucky as Christmas. If I wanted a new game or console I had to trade the other one in.
If saving up to get a new console means that when I finally get it I'm (along with others who have one) a full on NEXT GEN experience where developers are taking advantage of it then so be it.
Just because I couldn't afford past consoles didn't mean I wanted other games to suffer so developers could cater to me and the old console. I mean what would then be the point of me saving up money if I could just stay on my PS2 or something.
The difference with the ps2 you guys seem to be missing is that sony didnt have 2 models of ps2s on the market. Where as ms does. So the ps2 argument doesnt hold up at all.
It is anti consumer knowing that piece of hardware will become redundant within a timeframe that a consumer reasonably expects it to offer what it was advertising it does. Consoles are not PCs and cellphones. You can’t escape the generational model despite what bullshit Microsoft spouts. People always said that this would happen when the Series S was announced and its why Sony stuck to same specs with their PS5 models.
They why have a more expensive console, only for it to be held back because MS enforces parity? The Series S is a great budget system, but there is no need for the Series X to be held back. Anti-hardcore is something you made up to validate your point. It is holding back devs and limiting what they would like to implement, fact! Let me get this right, you're saying MS enforces an "anti--hardcore" policy because they're against their own superior system with the Series X outperforming the Series S. Wow, such genius.
@CrimsonIdol
PS2 had most of the best looking games that gen. Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Gran Turismo and Tourist Trophy, even games like Ace Combat, Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3 broke new ground in real time animation and graphics.
The irrefutable game that defined the entire generation is one you never heard of, Haven: Call of The King the space opera epic that had you jumping from one planet to the next in a tightly honed linear action adventure. It wasn't the best game nor the best looking but considering the underlying tech and the fact that it was still lightyears better looking than games like GTA: San Andreas and still ran at 60FPS. Imagine Squadron 42 as if it took place in a more fantasy sci-fi world made for PS2 and they got everything right. That was Haven and yet it wasn't made for Xbox or the GameCube.
No crippling a whole generation is releasing games on the ps4 and low end pc 😩😩 like you guys got to make it make sense.
Any devs saying other wise is hack and please don’t bring up I’d studio lonely dev, who also said the series s is a fantastic system but he would like a little more muscle but it still a nice system that ran Doom enteral at 120fps at 1440p and that was two years ago.
The Gotham dev who didn’t even work on the game hate Xbox series s going by his twitter history, which is the main reason he deleted his page.
Watch the Witcher 3 devs somehow get the Xbox series s version at 1080p or 1440p 60fps but Gotham Knights with less things on screen and effects struggle with 30fps on all consoles.
Please show me Sony forcing Capcom to make RE4 for PS4. You can't.
Every XSX title will be held back as long as Phil continues this anti dev/anti consumer practice.
Sony is not forcing anyone to release games on PS4 . MS is forcing devs to make a Series S version even though it’s basically an Xbox One X .
@jznrpg the series s can do things the one x cannot .. the Series S has the same CPU as the Series X just slightly down clocked. So I don’t see how the series s is really holding the generation back.
@wiz
It's not holding the generation back, but it's creating more unnecessary work for developers by having to optimize for a third device that already struggles with cross-gen content.
It's like you doing your job and completing a month's worth of work so you can go on vacation, only for your employer to tell you well John only did two weeks of worth, so we're canceling your vacation and splitting his remaining work between you and John so your vacation request is denied.
Not to mention the Series S GPU and VRAM are noticeably worse than the One X which is another factor into why developers are complaining. They have to make their games on a pretty straightforward spec with the PS5 and even the Series X. But then they have to optimize a version for a GPU that's at its best is 1/3 the performance of the Series X, with dramatically less CUs, lower clocks, and a dramatically smaller and inferior VRAM solution, only to sell your game on the Xbox platform that has a smaller install base, and a user base that is slowly being programmed to "Wait for GamePass".
Developers aren't really benefitting from this, MS is.
Personally I think the Series S was a good idea, however, the execution was awful again due to the GPU and VRAM. It should have been $349 with better cooling for safer clocks, RX 6600m for TRUE 1440p targets, and 12GB GDDR6 based on the Series X slower pool of RAM. But MS wanted $299 Day 1 without taking a loss like the Series X.
The thing about low end PC's is that phrase is dependant on the date is being said a low end pc today probably has a 2070 card but 3 years back that would have been a higher end card and a high end pc.
So in 3 years time a 3070 may be a low end card which easily trumps the xss and devs will still have to design for that SKU while they can easily abandon a PC gpu or a last gen system you can't do that if you are making a game for current gen and it doesn't run on xss but works on xsx you need to abandon the entire game for the Xbox platform
So I guess every company is anti consumer most companies provide cheaper products for those limited with money. Lol. The things people say here.
The thing holding back consoles is developers themselves still making games for last gen. Plus I really doubt and indie developer has the money to really make a AAA game so he is just trying to get attention. It would be nice to get a completely next gen only game but as long as there are 100’s of million of f last gen consoles they will keep making those games I really don’t think it’s about forcing anyone more so of reaching the most consumers and making the most money
The judges' scores are in:
9
10
8
LifeXline putting in a good performance in the mental gymnastics event.
No. Gaming is not the phone industry. In gaming each generation brings new capabilities. The series s does not bring new capabilities. It's the same and in some instances worse than Xbox one x.
@generic lmao who would have thought I had loser fans on n4g. Kids Who don’t like hearing the truth…..
You do realize that Xbox one X is more powerful than Series S, but they could not bring that down to $300.
@Stan... no, its not. The only advantage the One X has is 2gb more memory pool. Every other performant aspect of the Series S is better. cpu, gpu, memory speed and bandwidth, ssd... its only blemish is the 10gb memory pool compared to the One X 12gb memory pool.
One developer actually said, when speaking about xbox series S, that the generation was "being hamstrung by this potato". He later apologised, of course, but they feel strongly about it.
There's no point everyone getting up in arms that they haven't yet dropped last gen consoles, when Series S exists. Microsoft's policy states games MUST release on it.
We've discussed the specs before, but the fact is in some ways Series S is actually a step back from last gen's XB one X. This is why devs aren't happy.
Not in some ways... in only one way. memory capacity. it doesnt matter the S has the more efficient and faster memory. There just isnt enough of it. 10gb of faster memory is no match for 12gb of slighly slower memory. Its the pool size that makes the difference.
Series S has the better cpu, gpu, memory speed, hard drive, overall capabilities... but that memory pool is just not bigger than the One X. And it is that reason alone that the One X would be considered better. If they had just stuck with 12gb it then would have been a perfect replacement but as it is it is just a good replacement.
Replies(1)Having an additional cheaper option to play games isn't Anti-Consumer. Having an additional cheaper option at $300 would be Pro-Consumer. Forcing games to come out on a cheaper console also is still not Anti-Consumer. The biggest game this studio made is "I am Fish"... What a resume! Maybe they need better developers? Series S has more games at 120fps than the PS5. Is the new God Of War hamstrung because it will also come out on the PS4?
"Is the new God Of War hamstrung because it will also come out on the PS4?"
Absolutely. As was HFW, ever wonder why the flying mounts were so slow in that game?
Come off it. Sony has its Series S equivalent: The PS4.
Or are you going to argue that the Series S is holding back Gran Turismo 7, Horizon Forbidden West & God of War Ragnarok?
Clown.
Actually despite what you might say horizion plays just fine and is one of the best games out on next gen.
At some point PS4 will get no new games. Xbox Series S is part of this gen PS4 isn't.
LOL really?
It's anti-consumer for a company to release a product that ppl are happy to buy due to price/performance ratio and what it offers to consumers?
Wow let me guess Switch is anti consumer, selling the PS4 up to recently was anti-consumer because of the PS5,
Your basic TV at Walmart must be anti-consumer because tv shows don't bother to make things for my 8K tv
Quest 2 must be anti-consumer since it's a cheap VR headset built around an Android chip.
"Releasing a cheaper $300 entry level SKU is anti-consumer"
Welp, there's one I didn't have on my bingo card for today.
It's a stupid statement now and will be even more stupid once we enter the recession stages of the current financial crisis.
They did it with 360 gen to when theybstuck with dvd. You cant be switching discs for open world games.
The Xbox came out before HD DVD and Blu-ray were on the market.
The 360 came out Nov 2005. HD DVD first player came out in March 2006 in Japan and Blu-ray was June.
"The anti consumer part is forcing devs to support the S when they clearly don't want to. In doing so, reducing the quality of the game."
If that was true, Playstation 5 exclusive games should be miles ahead of anything Microsoft has in stores now. And that´s not the case at all.
Forza is miles ahead of Gran Turismo and the same can be said about Hellblade vs God of War
Too much talk too little to show
"Too much talk too little to show"
Sums up your comments pretty well. How much have we seen of Hellblade so far?
No one’s forcing a dev to make a game for Xbox. Target ps5/pc if you want no limitations, just understand your maximum audience is a fraction (large fraction) of the whole and adjust accordingly.
There might be more to it, maybe they want to retain processing parity with a handheld dockable future console. Running an x86 soc at 4tflops in dock mode is doable, especially with a clip-in dock that has an aluminum to aluminum cooler.
If true, it says a lot that some devs are willing to lose money to avoid having to develop for the S and dealing with its memory constraints.
I've always felt that MS should have just made a Series X Digital Edition like the PS5. All of the stock would have sold out either way.
Yep, even if they were still going to do all digital and a smaller SSD, the CPU, GPU, and RAM should have been the same.
Correct. Of all of these things you listed the biggest hurdle to current gen development is the memory.
Their goal was to beat Sony in price AND specs. That's why they didn't go the Sony route of disc and digital X. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
and yet still getting outsold regardless. and now they know they can't compete with 3rd party games available on both consoles, they want to buy all the 3rd parties they can tot ake away games from PS. shameful
Exactly. But MS marketing is even more deceptive as they tout the series s as a next gen machine. It's a easier point of entry into a false narrative. Therefore...deceptive.
And how so?
Does it use the same core processor?
Does it use a similar chipset?
@Pete the exact same , that’s where I’m confused at to where ppl can say the series s is really holding back this generation. It runs the same games as the Series X just in a lower resolution.
@wiz7191
There is also the difference in RAM as well. (More and higher speed on the X). If there really wasn't that big of a difference between specs then MS wouldnt have to force developers to support the series S. It is not as easy as PC where a user can turn down graphics capabilites and settings to make a game run on older/inferior hardware. There is no option for that on consoles so those developers have to essentially spend more time developing an inferior version of their product
It appears they gimped the S so that it can appear cheaper and sell. However, all i see available at stores are the Series S while the X and both PS5 versions are consistently sold out
https://www.destructoid.com...
@pete@whiz
Not just resolution but also frame rate and graphical settings. Well yeah but guess what...the Xbox one x could also play the same games so that argument is meaningless. To that same point right now many titles are cross gen and on Xbox pretty much all are that so downs it make it not a next gen machine? What's the difference? Yes exactly...the difference is the power of the machines and the series s is more close to the Xbox one x than the Xbox series X...therefore it's a last gen machine that is going to struggle like the one x to play next gen games.
Its just another bad decision by MS obe after the other. Yet people dogged on Sony over some small sh*t decision.
How? When every single game is being made for last gen as well?
Either way it doesn’t matter to me. Just make the game playable on Cloud (que the downvotes) and I will be able to enjoy on any console.
And if they do that it screws over people with potato internet if they made future games cloud only for the series s. Good idea for an entry level next gen system but they shot themselves in the foot for making it weak incomparison
How did they shoot themselves in the foot? I was a Sony Nintendo guy before the Series S and Gamepass. They made a new customer.
Personally I don't see how this person would know what the rest of the industry thinks. They made I Am Fish and Surgeon Simulator. If they had trouble getting those games to run on Series S that speaks volumes about the technical ability of Bossa Studios.
Devs are not focused on money typically that's the publisher who will also determine the scope of the games target ie we want this game on everything including mobiles they tell the dev team who design it around the lowest common denominator.
So devs will happily not work on a painful console if they can avoid it just like if your job was to was cars but someone decided to go home and do it themselves no skin off your back you still get paid it's the bosses that lose out
Normaly i would agree, but in times of low Chips production séries S is a genius move! I mean, that mother board is f$@$# small, they can likely produce almost 2SeS for each SeX. Consumers want next gen consoles, and If you can't find Sex or PS5, SeS is on shelves ready for you.
It's a bad move from MS that due to current chip production problems turned in a genius move!
The series S is not a proper next-gen console, that's what devs are trying to say. It's holding back this generation.
When you look at when the PS4/Xbox One launched, for 1-2 years while we got a true generational leap in games people complained about PC performance, called devs lazy, etc. So the PC argument doesn't hold a lot of water. You need a great baseline to step from one generation to the next. The series S has ruined that baseline for this generation.
I don't think they can change course this generation. Imagine the backlash from existing owners
How can they change it? They can't just discontinue to series s and lift the mandatory requirements for developers.
I think the series s is there best seller out of the s and x. That would effect so many people just 2 years into the systems life.
They won't. They're stuck on this path with the promises they made for this generation.
Replies(3)
Yeah, I'm a prolific developer, that's why I spend so much time on N4G complaining about cross-gen games.
Embracer Group AB (”Embracer”) has entered into an agreement to acquire the development studios Crystal Dynamics, Eidos-Montréal, Square Enix Montréal, and a catalogue of IPs including Tomb Raider, Deus Ex, Thief, Legacy of Kain and more than 50 back-catalogue games from SQUARE ENIX HOLDINGS CO., LTD. (“Square Enix Holdings”). In total, the acquisition includes ~1,100 employees across three studios and eight global locations.
Absolutely!
Square Enix says the transaction (which was 'only' $300 million) "enables the launch of new businesses by
moving forward with investments in fields including blockchain, AI, and the cloud."
SE still has Just Cause, Outriders, Life is Strange
And there jrpgs, feel like its a good thing cause they weren't doing anything with them.
So ya disagree and rather have square keep the ips and definitely not see another thief, deus ex etc again
@blackblades
it's probably some diehard SE FF fans who don't want to admit that square is eventually going to put blockchain in it for money's sake. The writing is literally on the monitor wall now. SE admits they want to do blockchain asap and is willing to let go of ip's that are fan favorites for a quicker cash in rather than working on quality. Or at least that's how i see it.
Interesting.... so this was all SE western stuff and none of the JP stuff. Is CD still assisting on Perfect Dark after this?
I said Square was going to do this months ago, they just have no real gains in Western development and they don't know what to do with those studios.
However, this was a dumb decision IMO to sell at this cost and at this time when someone like MS would have probably spent closer to $1 billion on them.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Sony offers Square a Bungie-like deal at this point.
MS
If anything this is probably confirmation that Microsoft cannot buy any other publisher or developer for the rest of the year until they get confirmation that the Activision-Blizzard deal goes through, because otherwise, they would have easily been able to buy these studios for $1 billion and had all their content in GamePass by their June Showcase. Crystal is basically a hired developer for them right now on Perfect Dark, and Edios and Sqaure Montreal were both talented / good picks as well.
Embracer Group
This is great for Embracer Group, and goes to show that once again an acquisition is not just about who spends the most money, as there were plenty of companies that could have easily outbid them, yet Embracer was still the one to acquire these studios. They're becoming a gaming and entertainment powerhouse with Dark Horse comics, Gearbox (Borderlands / Brothers in Arms), Deep Silver (Saint's Row / Dead Island / Time Splitters now), Warhorse (Kingdom Come), Saber Interactive (Crysis Remastered / Co-developed a lot of Halo modes/content / Timeshift / and a bunch of mid but at least decent mid), THQ Nordic (Darksiders), and now Tomb Raider, Deus Ex, Legacy of Kain, and more.
SE
I also think this was best for SE as well, since they had awful projections on the success they expected from their western teams, and didn't have any idea what to do with them after throwing them to into Marvel devs and failing. This will allow them to focus significantly more on JRPGs the genre they're good at (however, they've been slipping here).
SE / Sony Acquisition
This also brings up another thing what does Square's Market Value look like now as it was just below $5 billion prior? And is Square the publisher people were claiming Sony was trying to buy. Realistically it makes sense, the two have had several exclusive AAA games, and Sony is about owning and expanding AAA IP and Final Fantasy is an ideal IP for that. Sony has an amazing partnership with not only Square but Disney and Marvel and Kingdom Hearts is a bridge there and if I remember correctly they didn't show what platforms it was coming to which makes no sense considering part 3 came to all of them. Final Fantasy games / movies, Kingdom Hearts games / movies, Dragon Quest anime seasons, Life is Strange Netflix series, etc....
I think this basically means that Sony is buying Square. I'm not sure about the rest.
@blackblades
Each studio is allegedly up for sell, but that doesn't guarantee the IP's. So I agree with you to an extent that if it's just the talent / studio name Sony is the most likely buyer. But considering they're being sold individually and how AT&T is all about money / shares / and expansion of IP I don't think Sony is buying all of them, especially when they denied MS for $4 billion allegedly back in 2020.
Really only Rocksteady, Netheralm, Monolith, and Avalanche (the Harry Potter dev, not the Contraband dev) make sense IMO.
Rocksteady is hands down the best developer there with their experience with Batman Arkham franchise and working on an upcoming multiplayer Suicide Squad (aka progressing to live-action). So, they are a perfect fit to add to Sony's Marvel exclusives. They would make a killer Daredevil / Black Panther / X-Men co-op / etc...
Netherealm has proven they can make good / great fighting games with Mortal Kombat being back in high demand, and Injustice is a good 2nd option. Sony owns EVO, getting them and having them make two exclusive fighting games makes sense.
Monolith did make FEAR, the upcoming Wonder Woman, and Middle-Earth which IMO puts them a step above Avalanche until we see Harry Potter for a similar genre, but also having diversity with shooters.
Avalanche just had a solo state of play for a multiplat-game, which I believe is the first ever. While the combat of Harry Potter looks....acceptable, what truly looks great about the game is the world / setting and the creativity and scale of everything. Now allow this developer creative freedom to make a WRPG with a Fantasy setting and better gameplay, and they're a potential AAA studio in the making.
TT makes Lego games which isn't a fit for PS outside of maybe working on Astro spin-offs. And WB Games Montreal is basically the B-tier after Rocksteady by making the less popular Batman games, but they're still a solid developer (Arkham Knight Wii U, Batman Origins, and upcoming Gotham Knights).
WB doesnt matter all their Ips are rented out from someone else. Even mortal kombat will be lost and can WB sell Mortal Kombat and take it away from Netherrealm because they dont on their IP.
Yeah for 300 million I'm super surprised no one else went for them to be honest.
I hope they embrace Classic Tomb Raider
I think most of the big players don't want to generate additional regulatory scrutiny after their big purchases (Sony - Bungie, Microsoft - Activision). They want to fly under the radar until the deals have been approved. I am assuming that the recent announcements of both Xbox and Sony hiring people to find new acquisition targets means as soon as these deals are in the bag, they will move forward with further acquisitions.
Otherwise I agree with you, this would have been easy pickings for either company.
i rather have a new legacy of kain, or a complete remake if a new game cant be justified or something.
On the surface it may seem like a good deal but they’re also buying all their debt.
Asa subsidiary they wouldn't have any debt, no? Square enix would've been the ones taking the losses.
We don't know the wholse story (we may never will), 300m for all those assets seems too good to be true without it's downside...
"These are some of the best PC IPs of all time and SE somehow has no idea how to make them successful according to their ballooned expectations. Please sell." ~ Digital Foundry's comment on the news.
Here's hoping we get a Sleeping Dogs sequel and Legacy of Kain revival.
*forgot to add: a proper new Thief title as well.
A Sleeping Dogs sequel would be great!
I personally had much more fun with that than GTA V.
I hope the Sleeping Dogs IP is included, they bought over 50 IP from SE's back catalog so it's likely.
True, Thief started off as a great series back in the day!
I feel as if we had been....wait for it....robbed of a proper sequel up until now!
Good news for which side? I personally am more happy that money going to fund eidos IP is now going to Square IP.
I have been meh on the recent Eidos games and i don't really place the blame on Square.
What a steal honestly, wouldve preffered sony or microsoft to be the ones buying but hey atleast its not tencent.
I have all 3 consoles so makes no difference to me which if the big 3 get them.
My fear with embracer group is whats to stop them from jumping into the console space now?
They have the devs and game ips, the console would certainly have enough exclusives.
Last thing i want is a group big enough to jump into the console space, 3 is enough.
You really think an unknown company most people dont know about would go into a console space just like that pshh
Flawlessmic
Who CARES what consoles you have?
It is much better for all gamers that they remain multi platforms so that everyone can enjoy those IPs.
I literally explained why lol or cant u guys read. I stated i own all 3 so my first comment would make sense as i obviously wpuldnt miss out on the games if it was sony or ms.
I said my fear is they will own so much that surely the idea of making there own console or service where its only available there will come at some point hence its going exclusive anyway, onky difference is its either another cobsole on top of 3 players we have already or yet another subcription service.
Probs wont happen but like i said just a fear.
And also just like u guys dont care, i dont care if you or other people wont be able to play certain games, sounds like a you problem 🤙
300 million for all that is a great deal for embracer and I mean what are you thinking SE? Those are some valuable IP's
I really thought they were the acquisition Sony would have made but now I am puzzled by this. So many publishers would have paid more than 300 million for all that. I mean Sony paid over 3.5 billion for Bungie(and before someone comes in and says Sony over paid, Bungie can make Sony a FPS that can compete and beat halo and compete in live service market)
Sony still wayyyyyyyyyy overpaid for bungie no matter how you slice it.
Beating halo aint that hard these days so its not saying much.
I wouldve taken this purchase over bungie all day, everyday and twice on sunday and have a cool 3 billion left over to buy konamis ip or konami whole and would probs still have more money left over to bu even more ips or devs.
Instead we got bungie with 1, i repeat 1 ip and its nothing special.
That bungie deal sucked ass for sony simple as that.
I agree, over 10x that for bloody bungie and destiny, and they are keeping everything multiplat (ms not doing the same with Bethesda), it just makes me laugh, such an awful deal.
Jim and Herman seem obsessed with cramming PS players with live service games, did they forget what brought the huge success last gen?
@soul warrior
I hear ya mate, 3.6 bill for bungie was laughable while giving them complete autonomy like what did they even pay for then if sony cant even have a say if push came to shove.
Add in the fact sony probs overpaid for haven which hasnt even done a single thing then throw in the other billion wasted on the metaverse.
Unfortunantly its looks like there going down the same road as everyelse now, crummy live service games = easy money for unfinished games that lack content, dont have a decent story or top shelf graphics, which is what sony is known for.
Hate this new direction sony are going, its honestly the first time in 26 years since iv started gaming that im starting to doubt them and the games there gonna provide.
Iv always owned majority of the consoles released between ps1 and now but playstation has always been the day 1 never a doubt.
Hope im wrong but i think those days are over.
@flawlessmic yeah bungie for me is 500-800m at best with just destiny franchise(even with the knowledge of live service). But maybe sony knows something that we dont? I'll take this deal over bungie, That deal is OP
To you & I that seems like an overprice for Bungie but Sony is a billion-dollar business & they must have had good business reasons to buy Bungie at that price,evidently knowing something that we don't know.
I don't think they overpaid. Destiny is one of the top 5 lucrative game in the world I think. It gives them a huge IP to counter COD, Fallout and TES (not Halo, they don't care about that).
sony didnt just pay 3.6 billion for the company and the destiny ip. they paid for bungie's tech and knowledge in the gaas world. over 1 billion of the 3.6 billion purchase price went specifically to the people who actually made the game. they wanted to make sure they werent going anywhere for 5 yrs so they could use there expertise to help then jumpstart gaas for other playstation studios. im not a big fan of gaas in general, but with the right ip i will definitely jump in with both feet. i am especially interested in the last of us game and the rumored insomniac marvel gaas game. bungie is a major money maker and they are going to show sony how do do it properly. seems like a lot of money now, but they will quickly recoup the money with bungie's help.
Yea because apparently there no other completely online games with succesfull online strcutures right?? Bungie must be geniuses to have the first online game ever.
Ive heard that rubbish regurgitated so many times about the talent and online structure.
Like i said u can try swing it anyway u want but bungie aint close to being worth 3.5 billion.
There were much better deals to be made out there with much more talented devs.
This deal proves that, the deal for insomniac proves it, the deal for bethesda proves it, thats what you call good value for talented devs, multiple studios and multiple valuable ips.
Destiny is a good game at best, dont know why you defenders come put acting like they have created gamings masterpiece to be so overvalued.
The bungie deal stinks and you know hence why u need to cling to internet infrastructure, so called talented devs that have made 2 games since halo with a metacritic sitting around 80 at best. And my favorite one to hear is bungie has something hiding that we dont know about lol.
Bungie aint that talented, they skinned sonny for everything they could and came out on top.
They secured the talent at bungie which is more vital than the IP itself. If you remember something like 2 billion was paid to make sure the staff stays.
You are missing the point completely. Ms paid 45% above market value for Activision so the market has inflated. Another thing people miss in that 3.6 billion is about half of that is going towards making Bungie even bigger and retaining their current talent core
No doubt in a normal world Bungie would go for under 1 billion and Activision for around 45 billion but this no longer is normal
Flaw
Sony knows what they are working on and we don't
"Sony overpaid for Bungie Overcome Objection 101"
1. Made the 3rd and 4th best-selling FPS franchises of all time, with both earning over $4 billion in revenue.
2. Owns rights to said 3rd best-selling FPS franchise of all-time which earned over $4 billion in 2 games.
3. Said franchise earns an average of over $300 million per year in add-on content
4. Said franchise in its 4th year still sees several hundred thousand - 1 million players daily (other IPs are dead)
5. Said franchise is becoming a multi-media IP for gaming / film&TV / and eventually heavy merchandise
6. Expertise in Live-Service games (of which Sony has plenty to release and learn from)
Definitely not worth $3.6 billion.
Possibly the only independent developer at the time to have not one but 2 multi-billion dollar franchises to their name.
For comparison, every single-player game would need to sell 33+ million copies to hit multi-billion status but since PS5 games are now $70 Sony helped drop the goal down to a more achievable 28.5+ million copies for multi-billion status.
Every F2P game would have to earn $200,000,000 per year for the next 10 years, to achieve what Destiny does/did in just 3 - 4 years. That's if said multiplayer game is even able to achieve a 3 - 4 year lifespans while maintaining a 6 and 7-figure player counts daily. Meanwhile in reality player counts for anything not named Fortnite, Warzone, Apex haven't seen 6 figure player counts 6 months post launch.
That's why they paid for them. Bungie's games will pay the $3.6 billion on it's own over time. They also have a studio that can help their other live-service games hopefully see even 1/4 of the success Destiny has had which would be a huge financial win.
It's the same things as someone buying an investment home, yes for some people it could be 3% of their own overall value or 1/3 or 1/5 of your budget, but if your investment pans out you can make 2x or significantly more than you paid for the property to begin with.
In my eyes sony over paid for bungie it will take many years unless they make the next fortnite to get that money back. The only real reason I can see them paying that much is so they have talented devs at keeping online games running smoothly which may be worth all that money in Sony's eyes when it comes to their future in online games as a service.
I"n my eyes sony over paid for bungie it will take many years unless they make the next fortnite to get that money back"
You do realise Desinty 2 is still one of the most played games today right. Normally around a million players per day. They then have all sorts of DLC and MTs and I'm pretty sure it's not just one or two people out if them million players paying for silver to buy things. They must make a fair wack per day on MTs alone.
So I'm sure Sony know what they where doing when they paid that much for Bungie.
Jeff Gerstmann is one of the longest running games journalists out there with around 28 years in the industry. So it is fair to say he might know a thing or two about controllers and in the latest edition of the Giant Bombcast he made his views on the DualSense controller public.
I was really surprised by Jeff and Brad's excitement and enthusiasm in the GiantBomb quicklook given that they are generally quite jaded and snarky about most things. Really excited to get my hand on PS5 in a few weeks time.
Same. I guess that goes to show how God this thing is - literally everyone is pumped that ha had their hands on DualSense!
Never doubted moment I heard about this controller I was in. It’s new exciting and can change the way we play I’m all for it. Add in the top quality games they’ve provided all gen I’m sold 😂🙌🏻
Why are we surprised Mark Cerny made huge improvements with the deal shot for and now he's making huge improvements with dual sense controller. He's one of the legendary game developers and overall a well-known person in the gaming industry he knows what he's doing. What's amazing about him is he never officially worked for Sony even though he was working with them for such a long time
Yup, it's a toss up between GiantBomb or Easy Allies for my fave podcast, whilst Jeff and Vinny are funnier, I prefer Easy Allies more upbeat and positive tone.
love the game. and love the drama, around it :)
About to start playing my copy right now, but not exactly sure what to expect. Anyone else have early copies?
I played the demo of the first and just based on that it definitely didn't deserve the 6.0.