Changes at MS UK & Denmark, Fable Legends Development Ceased

[eastmen]

We're talking about console output mainly. Although it's not like their PC and phone titles are an extensive library.

Yes, it fizzled out. And in the mean time Sony bought up Guerilla and Media Molecule etc.
On different platforms. So 3 on PS3, which was warranted because they sold. The fourth is on the new platform, wanted by the fans, and is the last in the series, ND moving on to something new. The other two were handheld titles. That's very different to MS having 7 (or whatever it is, lots more on Wiki) Halo console games, Bungie getting sick and eventually ditching MS.

Similarly, KZ was okay for four titles and then Sony let GG move on.

That's not to say Sony aren't beyond 'milking' a franchise, but they do allow studios to follow the market, or cut them off and replace them. To date, MS hasn't shown the same support. Rare were given some flexibility until Kinect launched. The other studios are single franchise factories, and when the franchises are no good (Fable), they get axed rather than allowed to redirect themselves.

You move goal posts , you finally admit that SOE fizzled out so they sold it but hey they bought up successful companies. MS bought the Gears IP and opened a studio during that time also but hey MS does it , its bad. Sony does it is good until the posts move again.

MS only 7 Halo games if you don't want to count spin offs. That's a franchise that started in 2001. So 15 years for 7 games vs 5 years for 4 games

Sony let GG move on from Killzone because they were never large successes. The first one was forgotten about and received poor reviews on the ps2. The ps3 tech demo made Killzone 2 a spectical and part 3 again got bad reviews.

Rare is making a large scale multiplayer game based on pirates. It seems like they were allowed to reinvent themselves. Even lion head was allowed to reinvent their franchise by trying out Fable Legends but delay after delay happened and there was no visionary at the front of the studio.

Let's not forget Bungie left MS precisely because they didn't want to make another Halo game. Who knows what would've happened had they let them do something different?

Bungie left and made another first person shooter which had massive problems. The whole game was thrown out and remade in a few months and its still extremely content starved. So if MS let them stay to make something different it would have been another first person title just not called Halo .

I mean if you picked another studio or if Bungie left to make an RPG you'd have a point there. But they went right to making FPS games.

I was on the alpha and internal beta of EQ Next Landmark for almost two years. I have no real information about what happened and can only conjecture. After Sony sold off the studio, the new management fired the wrong guy (they fired Dave, of all people), then nothing happened for a year until they finally closed. Ambition was not the problem, the talent was there, the system was working, but Sony was still selling off a sinking ship. They seemed to have internal creative conflicts, because the disagreements were noticeable during their developers round table discussions, despite the attempts at hiding it. It really felt like the open questions to the public were to resolve internal conflicts, I guess we'll never know....

I hope Dave Georgeson will get back on his feel with a new project elsewhere, he was by far the one I agreed with the most. Interestingly his profile on twitter changed recently to "VR architect", so good luck to him!

That's a shame , the systems they showed off seemed to allow for a lot of dynamic content. But lets not act like the SOE problems started with the sale. They had problems as far back as galaxies.

 

[Clukos]

Technically, Naughty Dog is also only making third person games, but i don't think that's because Sony demands it, but rather because that's their comfort zone, same with Remedy. I was really surprised to see Guerrilla move from Killzone to Horizon because it's something entirely different from what they're used to be doing. Maybe Horizon will be terrible as a result of that risk taken by Sony and Guerrilla, maybe not; but the choice of doing such a change both in gameplay style and a new IP shows that Sony trusts Guerrilla and their vision. Does MS trust 343i or Coalition with doing anything but Halo or Gears? Time will tell, but their current business plan doesn't seem to indicate anything like that.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

You move goal posts

Of course. Shifty is the one with the reputation for shifting goalposts in discussions.

 

[function]

Let's not forget Bungie left MS precisely because they didn't want to make another Halo game.

According to Bungie they pitched another Halo trilogy, but they didn't want it to be all they worked on and they wanted to have some flexibility with timescale and projects. It appears that MS had other ideas and so Bungie ditched MS.

As an outsider, MS seem to both grind developers down and force them onto "no win" projects. Then when weariness or failure show, they perform a cull.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

MS only 7 Halo games if you don't want to count spin offs. That's a franchise that started in 2001. So 15 years for 7 games vs 5 years for 4 games

Sony let GG move on from Killzone because they were never large successes. The first one was forgotten about and received poor reviews on the ps2. The ps3 tech demo made Killzone 2 a spectical and part 3 again got bad reviews.

Rare is making a large scale multiplayer game based on pirates. It seems like they were allowed to reinvent themselves.

You know what, I'm not going to argue against these. Let's say that point for point, you're completely right. Halo versus UC - both are milked. SOE was closed but GG bought; Lionhead was closed but whatever Gears studio was established. Rare makes something big. Sony milk GT, MS milk Forza.

Sony == MS, right? No difference.

What about Team ICO? What's MS's equivalent? What about Bend working on a big AAA title? MS's equivalent is...? MM making Dreams? I suppose we can call Project Spark their version. San Diego's MLB and Sucker Punch and PixelOpus and GG Cambridge's Rigs? Also, look at the output from these studios. San Diego churn's out MLB, yes, but also made Bowling and ModNation Racers and Sport's Champions. ND made UC, but also made TLoU. GG made KZ, but have moved on. None are stuck on the factory-cycle turning out the same franchise ad nauseum. ND aren't going to be making UC 5/6/7. GG aren't making KZ 5/6/7 (maybe one will appear as a VR game?)

 

[eastmen]

MS has their games too. Last gen thanks to them funding games we got alan wake , mass effect , gears of war and so on. This gen its scale bound , re-core , below , sunset over drive and quantum break.

Ms doesn't keep as many internal studios and as for Team Ico , you can say that MS's equivalent was Lionhead , they had quirky games that sometimes worked and sometimes didn't.

Also why do you believe Naughty dog would stop at the 4th Uncharted and not come back to it ? GG aren't making KZ 5 because the previous ones didn't do well. Who has been making GT for the last two decades + ? I guess its okay if they are the same dev forced to turn out the same game over and over again cause its sony ?

The last question is how do you know MS didn't get rid of lion head a team that has failed to deliever since fable 3 in order to open new studios that will perform better.


My point is both companies do the same things. Sony closes studios when they don't work , MS does too. Sony funds games for their platform , so does ms . But when MS closes lionhead the headlines are negative , when sony sold SOE the headlines were positive . It happens a lot on this forum .

People were crying about the windows store restrictions and today ms announced cross platform play.

 

[Globalisateur]

...

Ms doesn't keep as many internal studios and as for Team Ico , you can say that MS's equivalent was Lionhead , they had quirky games that sometimes worked and sometimes didn't.

...

WTF

Which Team Ico game didn't work? Ico or Shadow of the Colossus?

 

[function]

Sometimes studios make bad decisions.

But MS seems to like making bad decisions on behalf of studios.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

MS has their games too. Last gen thanks to them funding games we got alan wake , mass effect , gears of war and so on. This gen its scale bound , re-core , below , sunset over drive and quantum break.

No-one said they didn't. MS prefer 2nd party (because they don't have to worry about managing the studios then).

Also why do you believe Naughty dog would stop at the 4th Uncharted and not come back to it ?

They've said it's the last in the series? Okay, maybe they'll revisit in some years just as some hope they'll revisit Jak, but the franchise will be given a rest.

GG aren't making KZ 5 because the previous ones didn't do well.

Right. Only the studio is kept open and moved onto something else, rather than closed.

Who has been making GT for the last two decades + ? I guess its okay if they are the same dev forced to turn out the same game over and over again...

That's one studio. Call PD Sony's Bungie if you want. Point being Sony has more studios, so there's some working a franchise (which they love, or at least Yamauchi does!) and others who move from one thing to another.

My point is both companies do the same things.

Except you've said yourself MS funds externally developed games! They work differently. MS keep internal studios to a minimum, despite having way more money to invest in internal studios than nigh-bankrupt Sony. Sony keep more internal devs and afford them more freedom.

Sony funds games for their platform , so does ms.

It's the specifics of how they do that. The companies work differently.

But when MS closes lionhead the headlines are negative , when sony sold SOE the headlines were positive.

Bad comparison. Use Sony Liverpool instead. We weren't altogether pleased with that. However, Sony have kept on plenty of studios making big titles for PS4 instead of reducing to a skeleton crew managing the key tentpole franchises and using 2nd party for everything else. That's why when Sony Liverpool closed, you didn't get people saying Sony don't know how to handle software studios and just buy them up to have them churn out franchises until they atrophy and are sold.

Edit: Actually, I pointed out how the acquisition of Psygnosis affected their output, turning into a two trick pony. Damn me and my Sony bashing platform bias!

I'm guessing Sony didn't know how to handle studios so well back then when just getting into the game.

 

[AlNom]

This thread sure went off the rails (unlike Fable Journey).

 

[MrFox]

That's a shame , the systems they showed off seemed to allow for a lot of dynamic content. But lets not act like the SOE problems started with the sale. They had problems as far back as galaxies.

Of course they had problems: they were stuck with John Smedley until the very end. And they were a very detached company from Sony, making multi-platform games.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

But when MS closes lionhead the headlines are negative , when sony sold SOE the headlines were positive . It happens a lot on this forum .

IMHO, what is happening a lot in this forum is just people acknowledging that Sony has been a whole lot better at managing their studio purchases than Microsoft, at least during these two past generations.
For one high-profile studio closure from Sony (Psygnosis/Liverpool), Microsoft has:
- Lionhead after butchering Fable into a MMO;
- Ensemble after butchering Age of Empires into a MMO and the studio releasing a commercially successful Halo Wars;
- Digital Anvil just two years after the studio released two commercially successful games (Freelancer and Brute Force) in a single year, and constantly denying Chris Roberts' pitches for making follow-ups to Starlancer and Freelancer (an idea that later turned into the richest crowd-funded project in human history);
- ACES who had been developing the profitable Flight Simulator series for over 20 years, and Microsoft seemingly just closed the studio because they decided they wanted to cripple the PC gaming crowd when the X360 started being successful;

Either these closures happened because Microsoft forced a switch of genres/platforms on the studios and it went wrong, or just wasn't able to keep the talents from leaving the teams, the fact is that these were previously successful teams that turned into failures after their acquisition.

Which Team Ico game didn't work? Ico or Shadow of the Colossus?

The Last Guardian was (and is?) obviously in development hell for way too long. I honestly have no idea how one dev team manages to not launch a single new game for 11 years and still get to keep their jobs. Seriously, it's mind-blowing.
That said, in 2016 I can say Team Ico is hardly an example of a successful dev tem IMO.

 

[eastmen]

IMHO, what is happening a lot in this forum is just people acknowledging that Sony has been a whole lot better at managing their studio purchases than Microsoft, at least during these two past generations.
For one high-profile studio closure from Sony (Psygnosis/Liverpool), Microsoft has:
- Lionhead after butchering Fable into a MMO;

What Fable MMO ? The last full fable was criticly panned. Since then their head of studio left Microsoft and their latest game was delayed a year

- Ensemble after butchering Age of Empires into a MMO and the studio releasing a commercially successful Halo Wars;

This is the first studio I can agree with

- Digital Anvil just two years after the studio released two commercially successful games (Freelancer and Brute Force) in a single year, and constantly denying Chris Roberts' pitches for making follow-ups to Starlancer and Freelancer (an idea that later turned into the richest crowd-funded project in human history);

You should read up on Freelancer , the game was delayed and way over budget . MS had to take Chris Roberts off the project. Seem familiar ? He has a new title that has been delayed way past its original release date and is way over the original budget

- ACES who had been developing the profitable Flight Simulator series for over 20 years, and Microsoft seemingly just closed the studio because they decided they wanted to cripple the PC gaming crowd when the X360 started being successful;

Flight Simulator games were no longer selling well. They'd be throwing good money in after bad. The series was on a multi-title decent into failure. A niche genre with a developer that had constant delays. Sure sounds like they should have kept them !

Either these closures happened because Microsoft forced a switch of genres/platforms on the studios and it went wrong, or just wasn't able to keep the talents from leaving the teams, the fact is that these were previously successful teams that turned into failures after their acquisition.

Or you know they bought companies that had huge amounts of internal problems and diva studio heads like Roberts .

The Last Guardian was (and is?) obviously in development hell for way too long. I honestly have no idea how one dev team manages to not launch a single new game for 11 years and still get to keep their jobs. Seriously, it's mind-blowing.
That said, in 2016 I can say Team Ico is hardly an example of a successful dev tem IMO.

Last guardian wasn't in development hell , it was completely dead. Sony resurrected what they had left of it for brownie points. Between that and Shenmue they were able to win that e3 without any real substance because fans had been asking for those two things. Of course Last Guardian looked like a game that ceased development back in 2009 and it turns out they didn't even fund Shenmue

 

[function]

What Fable MMO ? The last full fable was criticly panned. Since then their head of studio left Microsoft and their latest game was delayed a year

Fable 3 had potential but ended up feeling unfinished and unloved.

Lionhead didn't need killing for failing at poor chosen projects, they needed managing.

Flight Simulator games were no longer selling well. They'd be throwing good money in after bad. The series was on a multi-title decent into failure. A niche genre with a developer that had constant delays. Sure sounds like they should have kept them !

FSX kept selling for years and at a high price. It was a great game in need of an overhaul, with the potential for spin offs and ongoing sales, dlc, and subscription services. It needed managing, not killing.

it turns out they didn't even fund Shenmue

MS didn't even fund it either. But Sony gave the project huge publicity and reaped the rewards. They were very smart.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

What Fable MMO ?

Have you read this thread's title?

You should read up on Freelancer , the game was delayed and way over budget .

And it made a profit AFAIK.

Seem familiar ? He has a new title that has been delayed way past its original release date and is way over the original budget

Agreed. But the harsh reality is that Star Citizen is already a success. They've been paying salaries, getting tons of free marketing, establishing a brand name, etc.
Chris Roberts may under-deliver in what relates to some excel sheet that a bean-counter is capable of making, but his value, and the value he has generated is immense.

 

[eastmen]

Fable 3 had potential but ended up feeling unfinished and unloved.

Lionhead didn't need killing for failing at poor chosen projects, they needed managing.

Isn't that what MS did , they are going to split LIonhead up and put some of the team under different projects and management. Seems like a good solution than to keep a failing developer running.

FSX kept selling for years and at a high price. It was a great game in need of an overhaul, with the potential for spin offs and ongoing sales, dlc, and subscription services. It needed managing, not killing.

FSX was canceled as the market contracted for flight sims. Flight seems have been extremely niche since the early 2000s and the team had problems delieving on a timely schedule

MS didn't even fund it either. But Sony gave the project huge publicity and reaped the rewards. They were very smart.

They were very lucky. Even when MS does good things the internet gets mad. Just look at the last few months. Xbox one exclusives coming to the pc .... internet says the sky is falling . Those exclusives are coming to the windows store , internet says the sky is falling games for windows live part 2 !

Have you read this thread's title?

Yea , I read the title . You realize that Fable Legends is a 4 player 3vs1 game correct. You also realize that MMO stands for Massively multiplayer online.

And it made a profit AFAIK.

It obviously didn't make enough for MS want to invest in another game. Most likely because they could have made the same or more from other investments and didn't have to deal with a Diva developer.

Agreed. But the harsh reality is that Star Citizen is already a success. They've been paying salaries, getting tons of free marketing, establishing a brand name, etc.
Chris Roberts may under-deliver in what relates to some excel sheet that a bean-counter is capable of making, but his value, and the value he has generated is immense.

The jury is still out on Star Citizen because the full game doesn't exist dispite being a year late at this point. Yes they keep brining in more money but if its true what they say and they are pumping all that into development at some point they need to deliever and have people want to keep paying and playing. They are far from that.

I am a kickstarter backer for the game and I'm starting to feel like MS must have felt when they kept giving him money for freelancer and kept waiting for the game to be ready but milestone after milestone slipped by. I kickstarted for a freelancer in nov of 2013 it apparently became flyable in the alpha this past January dispite tons of other ships that were announced years later being playable. The other ship I pledged for the star farer just 2 weeks later is still not avalible to fly. The developer has also broken tons of promises to the early backers.

So I have first hand experience with the Diva that is Chris Roberts and I know never to give the man money again

 

[temesgen]

MS has their games too. Last gen thanks to them funding games we got alan wake , mass effect , gears of war and so on. This gen its scale bound , re-core , below , sunset over drive and quantum break.

Ms doesn't keep as many internal studios and as for Team Ico , you can say that MS's equivalent was Lionhead , they had quirky games that sometimes worked and sometimes didn't.

Also why do you believe Naughty dog would stop at the 4th Uncharted and not come back to it ? GG aren't making KZ 5 because the previous ones didn't do well. Who has been making GT for the last two decades + ? I guess its okay if they are the same dev forced to turn out the same game over and over again cause its sony ?y

The last question is how do you know MS didn't get rid of lion head a team that has failed to deliever since fable 3 in order to open new studios that will perform better.


My point is both companies do the same things. Sony closes studios when they don't work , MS does too. Sony funds games for their platform , so does ms . But when MS closes lionhead the headlines are negative , when sony sold SOE the headlines were positive . It happens a lot on this forum .

People were crying about the windows store restrictions and today ms announced cross platform play.

Both MS and Sony are criticized for game development here on B3D and the internet in general but for different reasons - I'm not sure how anyone could deny that while looking objectively at the things said about both companies....

Its a bit of generalization but as I see it, Sony uses internal studios to diversify the type of software that is available on their platform, sales do not appear to be the number one priority. However when those titles don't sell as well as say Gears or Halo some argue the titles don't matter or are not any good because of sales are not as proportionately good.

MS largely focuses on titles that will sell extremely well and appeal to their core audience, yes they have attempted to diversify the offerings at times like when they produced a number of decent JRPGs for the 360 but when those titles haven't sold as well as other internal offerings MS has typically moved on/stopped investing in the project.

Some people are critical of MS for not diversifying the type of titles available but that is very different than Sony who gets criticized for not selling the number of units MS first parties do. Two very different business models which subjects the two companies to very different types of criticism but in no way are Sony immune to negative commentary. In fact we've had whole threads here devoted to 'Should Sony even bother with first party development?'... Yet here you are trying to suggest Sony has avoided critical assessment......

I guess you can feel however you want but Sony has taken their lumps just as MS is now. Shutting down studios is a by product of MS focusing on titles that will sell extremely well, keeping studios open is essential to Sony's desire to broaden the offerings on their platform which impacts them financially. Two very different models with very different consequences both discussed and criticized here and other places... I can say that objectively bc its factual.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Shutting down studios is a by product of MS focusing on titles that will sell extremely well, keeping studios open is essential to Sony's desire to broaden the offerings on their platform which impacts them financially. Two very different models with very different consequences both discussed and criticized here and other places...

I think that's a good identification of the difference. MS sees first party as direct profit generators. Sony sees first party a little more as value adds to the whole PS brand. For MS, they can buy in diversity from external studios. Sony also do this - I wonder if there are internal conflicts over which direction first party should go?

 

[Scott_Arm]

Apparently Sony isn't immune to closing big studios with an apparent successful history.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-03-22-sony-confirms-closure-of-evolution-studio

No word on what this means for DriveClub.

It's almost as if studios are ultimately responsible for their own futures ...

 

[Deleted member 11852]

As always, sad for those affected at the studio, but if I'm permitted a moment to be really selfish I'm also saddened because I think this means there is no chance of Motorstorm on PS4 and I'd always hoped.. I adored those games.

Surprising? No. The racing genre has struggled and Sony having two first party developers (Evolution and Polyphony) both focused on 'serious' car racer seems redundant. I guess they could have tasked them to do something else but c'est la vie.