Predictions for E3 2014

[RancidLunchmeat]

I hear all this stuff that securing a franchise exclusive will be bad for publishers & it will upset fanboys, etc, but I've yet to hear what other alternative Microsoft has. It needs titles that the other platforms don't have. And since they supposedly don't have the depth of first party studios that the other platform has, their only alternative is to pay for 3rd party exclusives. Time is critical & paying for exclusives let them get around that in the short term. Long term they are better off doing it themselves. No doubt about that.

Tommy McClain

The problem is that new exclusive franchises don't move consoles, so they need to purchase established (yet not worn out) franchises and make them exclusive - or at least timed exclusives, and I'll bet that is actually cheaper for MS and as Dave said, beneficial to any 3rd party that either needs immediate capital or a boost to their balance sheet.

 

[temesgen]

Business is a funny thing and there is another axiom in business that states "money now is [usually] better than money later". A 'good' financial input upfront is often seen as preferable to potential money over time, even if it is viewed that the long term potential could reap more.

The publishers aren't going to do anything which makes their situation untenable long term, with Nintendo essentially turning into a closed platform they have to support both consoles or risk creating a situation where they only have PC and XB1 or PC and PS4 to publish AAA titles on. That is not in their best interest. If anything excesses of the PS2 and proceeding eras had the publishers push back a bit and this last generation when MS was aggressively seeking these sorts of deals we saw that the publishers are willing to offer up DLC but ultimately they have a vested interest in supporting both platforms.

OTOH its possible that EA or Activision might lend some support to XB1 to prevent PS4 from becoming the default winner or vice versa. But I wouldn't expect any actions like that at this stage, its too early.

EA isn't going to play 'king maker' anytime soon.

 

[Dave Baumann]

The publishers aren't going to do anything which makes their situation untenable long term

Frankly I don't think it would make a franchises "untenable" (Dead Rising is one such franchise that has flip flopped) and you don't know what financial concerns they have be they short or long term. Any company that has IPO'ed is valued by its share price, which is not directly correlated financials; ensuring your quarterly report doesn't significantly negatively impact the share price can be a powerful motivator.

 

[AzBat]

The problem is that new exclusive franchises don't move consoles, so they need to purchase established (yet not worn out) franchises and make them exclusive - or at least timed exclusives, and I'll bet that is actually cheaper for MS and as Dave said, beneficial to any 3rd party that either needs immediate capital or a boost to their balance sheet.

I don't think we disagree then. The question then becomes who & what game(s)?

Tommy McClain

 

[temesgen]

Frankly I don't think it would make a franchises "untenable" (Dead Rising is one such franchise that has flip flopped) and you don't know what financial concerns they have be they short or long term. Any company that has IPO'ed is valued by its share price, which is not directly correlated financials; ensuring your quarterly report doesn't significantly negatively impact the share price can be a powerful motivator.

I'm not discussing Dead Rising, most people don't even know what that title is or who publishes it. FIFA was mentioned earlier as an example and that is what I am referring to. We saw EA do some pretty aggressive moves by not supporting the Dreamcast in the PS2 era and I don't see sports titles getting yanked from either platform. Dead Rights could be given away for free with a 10 gift card and it wouldn't impact anything materially. Try and do that with Madden, FIFA or COD for example and it's a completely different story.

Edit:

further the amount of $$$ that would come into question is another factor that people tend to gloss over, just bc MS has money doesn't mean the gaming division does.

We could also debate but nature of the contracts surrounding the use of FIFA copyrighted materials for example (which I think isn't exclusive but nobody else bothers paying the royalties to use) at the end of the day I don't see it. The NFL isn't available exclusively on DirectTV, yes they did do a TV deal but you could still catch plenty of games on Dish. The point here is that the owners of these brands that EA is using have something to say in this too and I highly doubt the contracts would allow for something like that.

 

[AzBat]

EA isn't going to play 'king maker' anytime soon.

Have we already forgotten Microsoft's E3 from last year? EA was already playing king maker. Will be interesting to see where they show up this year.

Tommy McClain

 

[temesgen]

Have we already forgotten Microsoft's E3 from last year? EA was already playing king maker. Will be interesting to see where they show up this year.

Tommy McClain

Yes and the unprecedented partnership with Nintendo? What does that stuff even mean? At the end of the day for all the exclusively on Xbox PR we've listened to since 2005, most of those titles and DLC came out on PS3.

MS needs to invest in 1st party studios and do spin offs with their successful IPs. Fallout led to Fallout NV, similarly Gears needs to do Coles story and Halo needs much more ODST and less 5,6&7 or they will destroy the franchise. Hollywood figured this out a long time ago.

 

[Rangers]

Yes and the unprecedented partnership with Nintendo? What does that stuff even mean? At the end of the day for all the exclusively on Xbox PR we've listened to since 2005, most of those titles and DLC came out on PS3.

MS needs to invest in 1st party studios and do spin offs with their successful IPs. Fallout led to Fallout NV, similarly Gears needs to do Coles story and Halo needs much more ODST and less 5,6&7 or they will destroy the franchise. Hollywood figured this out a long time ago.

Spinoffs could be argued to dilute franchises worse. ODST, while imo a great game, didn't sell great that I know of. Halo Reach the same to some degree. Similarly, Gears Judgement and GOW:Ascension sold much worse than mainline entries.

It seems to me what really gave for example the Gears series a heavy sales blow, such that it almost called the series into question, was actually Judgement.

 

[XpiderMX]

MS needs to invest in 1st party studios and do spin offs with their successful IPs. Fallout led to Fallout NV, similarly Gears needs to do Coles story and Halo needs much more ODST and less 5,6&7 or they will destroy the franchise. Hollywood figured this out a long time ago.

What wwe know is they have new first party studios (unknown yet), maybe @E3...

 

[temesgen]

Spinoffs could be argued to dilute franchises worse. ODST, while imo a great game, didn't sell great that I know of. Halo Reach the same to some degree. Similarly, Gears Judgement and GOW:Ascension sold much worse than mainline entries.

It seems to me what really gave for example the Gears series a heavy sales blow, such that it almost called the series into question, was actually Judgement.

Execution is largely to blame for the issues with GOW, even the 3rd game arguably wasn't very good.

ODST was a very good but perhaps short game, in the case of both GOW and Halo the general fatigue of the IP is real. Well made spinoffs that focus on a peripheral character or area in the game that was well received can work but if there are games coming as frequently as these 2 IPs have suffered and the actual product isn't very good then damage to the IP is significant.

I think it could be argued that the Halo series has been getting worse since Halo 2, with ODST being a brief spark in the right direction and that has consequence. That isn't to say Halo has been bad but overall things have gone wanting since Halo 2, that game was the total package, great visuals, innovative weapons and interesting maps/online evolution since then they've hit some but not all that is needed to be a great title.

 

[Rangers]

Execution is largely to blame for the issues with GOW, even the 3rd game arguably wasn't very good.

ODST was a very good but perhaps short game, in the case of both GOW and Halo the general fatigue of the IP is real. Well made spinoffs that focus on a peripheral character or area in the game that was well received can work but if there are games coming as frequently as these 2 IPs have suffered and the actual product isn't very good then damage to the IP is significant.

I think it could be argued that the Halo series has been getting worse since Halo 2, with ODST being a brief spark in the right direction and that has consequence. That isn't to say Halo has been bad but overall things have gone wanting since Halo 2, that game was the total package, great visuals, innovative weapons and interesting maps/online evolution since then they've hit some but not all that is needed to be a great title.

Well, that's your opinion. As a Halo and Gears fan I think Gears 3 was a bit of a return to form, and I also liked Halo 4 quite a lot, though it's deeply flawed. I'm also pretty sure both these iterations sold very well. There also should not be any more franchise fatigue than many other series, like Assassins Creed, COD, Uncharted, GoW, Battlefield, etc, judging by simple number of games over time.

In my opinion for Gears it's something like Gears 1>>>Gears3>>Judgement>>>>>>>>Gears 2. The more arrows indicating more quality between them

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

But more Haloz and Gearz aren't going to sell Xb0x's to those who don't already love those franchises, and I would say that many that did love those franchise are a bit worn out.

MS tried to do a big thing by grabbing an exclusive game from a formerly PS exclusive developer in Sunset Overdrive, it's just about the only exclusive that appeals to me, but its not enough to make me buy a console primarily because it is a completely new franchise and who knows if it will be executed properly?

What MS needs to do is grab a multiplat game like Red Dead Redemption and make RDR2 exclusive, or timed exclusive for a year, that would probably shift some consoles as that game sold well across both platforms. I'm trying to think of another established, but young, franchise that MS could toss some money at in order to right their ship but I really can't think of too many other choices.

As far as Dead Rising goes - just goes to show you aren't an xbox fan, every xbox user knows exactly what Dead Rising is. Its just about the only current game that I'd pick up for the Xb0x that isn't multiplatform.

 

[XpiderMX]

IMHO both companies needs to show more non-established-IP games. New Uncharteds, new Killzones, etc are the same than new halos, new gears, etc.

Today there is nothing that make me to buy a PS4 (yet)

 

[Scott_Arm]

IMHO both companies needs to show more non-established-IP games. New Uncharteds, new Killzones, etc are the same than new halos, new gears, etc.

Today there is nothing that make me to buy a PS4 (yet)

Agreed. I'm ready for new ip.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

Also agreed

 

[AzBat]

But more Haloz and Gearz aren't going to sell Xb0x's to those who don't already love those franchises, and I would say that many that did love those franchise are a bit worn out.

Probably agree with you there. I think that's why they think the TV shows will help resurrect interest in the games.

MS tried to do a big thing by grabbing an exclusive game from a formerly PS exclusive developer in Sunset Overdrive, it's just about the only exclusive that appeals to me, but its not enough to make me buy a console primarily because it is a completely new franchise and who knows if it will be executed properly?

I'm warming up to the game, but it feels almost too much like a Tony Hawk game & I was never really a fan of that. But the open-world & crazy over-the-top art & weapons has my interest. Could care less who it's from though. It's just got to be a fun game.

What MS needs to do is grab a multiplat game like Red Dead Redemption and make RDR2 exclusive, or timed exclusive for a year, that would probably shift some consoles as that game sold well across both platforms. I'm trying to think of another established, but young, franchise that MS could toss some money at in order to right their ship but I really can't think of too many other choices.

Oh boy, RDR exclusive(timed or otherwise) would be a day one purchase. Might have to sell a kidney, but I'm getting it done.

Other newer multi-platform games? Borderlands? Far Cry? Battlefield? Tom Clancy *whatever*? Would be interesting if The Division was timed exclusive.

Tommy McClain

 

[AlNom]

Oh boy, RDR exclusive(timed or otherwise) would be a day one purchase. Might have to sell a kidney, but I'm getting it done.

Speaking of Rockstar... that reminds me of the timed exclusivity for the GTA IV DLC...

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Speaking of Rockstar... that reminds me of the timed exclusivity for the GTA IV DLC...

Well well... what about a nextgen GTA V only on Xbox One? That'd certainly be a megaton.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

The problem is that new exclusive franchises don't move consoles

Halo 1 says "Hello"

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Agreed. I'm ready for new ip.

Quantum Break says "hello"