Prioritizing game exclusivity on console - as a hypothetical Xbox strategy

[ZebMacahan]

Meh. Sour grapes. There's always some disgruntled guy. Sounds like he has a bad attitude.

PS: MS has published MANY good/great games this gen, but we should probably keep that debate out of this thread.

Seems like a very bad decisions to me to fire senior artists very close to a deadline (especially for one of your biggest franchises), and it makes sense that it would impact production in the way he describes.
The whole 18/6 doesnt seem like a good policy if quality products or having happy employes is some one cares about. Sounds like a bunch of greedy suits ruining stuff.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

According to this guy.

From what I'm hearing, the 1900 people cut from MS actually liked working there and aren't that happy to leave.

In all seriousness, some of these contractor policies are designed to weed out the assholes rather than just hiring people directly into the fold. This guy might not be a keeper.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The 18/6 policy isn't about that though, is it? It's a cost evasion strategy. The point here is MS have a policy of not retaining staff all through a project but swapping them in and out with other staff. Unless you think the guy's sour grapes extend to making stuff up and that 18/6 policy doesn't exist, the value of this perspective here (ish, in a meandering discussion) is how MS operates its studios and how leads will be let go on a fixed timetable rather than when would be most appropriate, when the new guy is up to speed.

Also, he liked working at MS too and didn't want to leave! He wanted a job there. He just couldn't get one because MS don't want employees, they want contractors, as contractors are cheaper.

 

[QPlayer]

The 18/6 policy isn't about that though, is it? It's a cost evasion strategy. The point here is MS have a policy of not retaining staff all through a project but swapping them in and out with other staff. Unless you think the guy's sour grapes extend to making stuff up and that 18/6 policy doesn't exist, the value of this perspective here (ish, in a meandering discussion) is how MS operates its studios and how leads will be let go on a fixed timetable rather than when would be most appropriate, when the new guy is up to speed.

Also, he liked working at MS too and didn't want to leave! He wanted a job there. He just couldn't get one because MS don't want employees, they want contractors, as contractors are cheaper.

We can examine this question from another angle. It is true that MS builds with contractors during its game development, but this is a necessary method and it has been done for many years, e.g. it was similar in previous episodes of the Forza game series. We can also see that with this strategy, more game developers get the opportunity to show their skills. Then, we cannot judge from here who is doing his job and how. Now I could say that it is better to create a game with a completely familiar team, but you can see that these games are almost as buggy these days and are often incompletely prepared by the deadline.

Today's AAA game development has become a lot of money, obviously a solution has to be found on how to keep it within a reasonable framework.

 

[ZebMacahan]

We can't argue effectively on business strategy based on individual opinion. It needs a collective measure of something substantial. Metascores provide just that and, with the same critics working on the same content, we have a reasonable comparison between platforms and titles based on those critics, regardless how they operate. If they collectively give a game 8/10 on week, and a different game 4/10 the next, those measures are 'calibrated' to the normal operations of those critics.

If you don't want to use Metacritic et al, you need to provide a better source of data than just personal opinion as no console business is going to be operated on what Nisaaru thinks.

I dont think that changes the fact that overall critic score is a very flawed way of measuring a games quality.

If we take Halo Infinite for exampel, I get why people like it. I think the core gunplay is very fun and fast paced (personally I think it could have used some tweaks). But theres no denying the open world looks like crap. It looks bad for a last gen open world game. You can be on any part of the map and have no idea where you are because every place looks the same. The indoor levels, even though they look very nice, are just the same rooms over and over basically. In older Halo games every mission was very distinct, not in Infinite. When comparing that to what Insomniac or Guerilla puts out there´s a HUGE leap in quality, quantity and variety. One can still think that Halo Infinite is more fun and therefore a better game (I personally think the first Halo is more fun than Horizon for example), but its still kinda strange that MS havent been ben able to put out a better Halo game in terms of production quality, variaty etc considering all the time and money they have put into it.

 

[Nesh]

Gamer response and metacritic impressions are quite often often not aligned.

Not all 80+ games are valued the same by gamers, as people's expectations may be quite different.

The Last Of Us 2 for example got high metacritic score (93) but received a backlash, unrelated to how good the game actually is, because it intentionally tries to provoke and make people uncomfortable. User score is 55 in comparison. Totally unrelated to gameplay, graphics and execution

Halo Infinite got an 87, just one point less than Forbidden West, but even DF found flaws with some if it's visual aspects, gamers complained about the game feeling at launch incomplete, complained that it is missing promised features and not being up to the standards they were expecting in terms of story. It's a game were people had a lot higher standards and expectations for and it didn't push the envelope as much as they hoped.

It's diminishing popularity is a testament of something missing despite the metacritic score.

The game probably deserves it's 87, but if those points are not distributed how people expected to experience the game, it won't be reflected in their impressions.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I dont think that changes the fact that overall critic score is a very flawed way of measuring a games quality.

It doesn't much matter whether they do or don't regards the point as to what drives people to buy consoles. The argument is games that score above a certain threshold, whether that measure is 'accurate' or not, are games that generate envy and drive adoption.

If so, we ought to see correlation between library and metascores. And even metascores for titles and changes in hardware sales - a highly rated title should see an associated up-tick in hardware sales.

We don't need to determine the accuracy of those metascores; only if the given scores relate to hardware sales.

Heck, even that may not be needed as the point is more "envy-generating titles" with the metascore serving only as a wishy-washy way to qualify what makes an "envy generating title". But there might be a solid correlation there. Are there any envy-generating exclusives that moved hardware that didn't score highly on metacritic? The key point here isn't Metacritic, but which games sell hardware.

 

[Nesh]

It doesn't much matter whether they do or don't regards the point as to what drives people to buy consoles. The argument is games that score above a certain threshold, whether that measure is 'accurate' or not, are games that generate envy and drive adoption.

If so, we ought to see correlation between library and metascores. And even metascores for titles and changes in hardware sales - a highly rated title should see an associated up-tick in hardware sales.

We don't need to determine the accuracy of those metascores; only if the given scores relate to hardware sales.

Heck, even that may not be needed as the point is more "envy-generating titles" with the metascore serving only as a wishy-washy way to qualify what makes an "envy generating title". But there might be a solid correlation there. Are there any envy-generating exclusives that moved hardware that didn't score highly on metacritic? The key point here isn't Metacritic, but which games sell hardware.

For whatever reason, I have this gut feeling that, using Forbidden West as an example, which had almost the same metacritic, might have generated more interest to purchase a PS5, even by people who didn't experience the original, than Halo Infinite did for XBOX. Forbidden West's presentation is exceptional and has the visual quality to communicate it.

There was something missing in Halo Infinite's presentation on the other hand. It was sterile. Whereas the original Halo games were exceptional in pulling you into their vivid space worlds and alien planets. It developed curiosity for it's characters and untold story. Visually it was XBOX's own Uncharted. During the OG XBOX and at the initial start of the 360, the name Halo alone created expectations of superb tech and big worlds. The franchise had such a strong presentation, it begun developing its own mythos, like Star Wars.

Where is all this now?

Halo was indeed a huge system seller. Just like Gears. Infinite was probably stack mostly with old loyal fans.

 

[ZebMacahan]

It doesn't much matter whether they do or don't regards the point as to what drives people to buy consoles. The argument is games that score above a certain threshold, whether that measure is 'accurate' or not, are games that generate envy and drive adoption.

If so, we ought to see correlation between library and metascores. And even metascores for titles and changes in hardware sales - a highly rated title should see an associated up-tick in hardware sales.

We don't need to determine the accuracy of those metascores; only if the given scores relate to hardware sales.

Heck, even that may not be needed as the point is more "envy-generating titles" with the metascore serving only as a wishy-washy way to qualify what makes an "envy generating title". But there might be a solid correlation there. Are there any envy-generating exclusives that moved hardware that didn't score highly on metacritic? The key point here isn't Metacritic, but which games sell hardware.

I agree with much of what Nesh writes in his post above. (edit: I originaly meant his post above yours, but I´d like to include his most recent post as well).

Has any relation between hardware sales and metascore been established? I guess there should be one, hopefully good games get good scores. I dont think that is the only thing that matters though.

Halo Infinites first showing is pretty infamous with its "look at the ape"-meme. My guess is that if they had given us something with the same production value, quality etc like Horizon, God of War, Last of Us etc that would have created much more hype and reason to get a series console, even if it had gotten the exact same metascore. God of Wars 2018 reveal probably did alot of good for the PS brand and sales.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Has any relation between hardware sales and metascore been established? I guess there should be one, hopefully good games get good scores. I dont think that is the only thing that matters though.

Perhaps not. But as I say, that isn't really Johnny Awesome's point. It's not about the score per se, but the quality of titles and the need for flagship software irrespective of how it's formally reviews. He just cited a higher metascore because what else is there to use to refer about the best quality games out there?

 

[QPlayer]

As I can see, several exclusive titles will be released this year. In my opinion, May's Senua's Saga can be as good as it is, it won't move crowds by itself, it will be good as a demonstration of Xbox graphics power. There is a promised MS Flight Simulator 2024 for the summer, and that's it until the second part of the year...

From September, the show can start with titles such as Starfield Upgrade (with DLC), Avowed, Stalker 2, Indiana Jones. However, the real success would come from the release of the new Gears of War.

I would bundle all of this with the redesigned Series consoles and a price cut. This pack can now be a system seller.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Thanks guys. Good points everyone is making.

It might be something like Envy = Metascore - 3 for every marketing fiasco that occurs. Halo Infinite initial gameplay reveal was a fiasco. Lack of modes at launch was a fiasco. Season delays were a fiasco. So 87 - 9 =79. Not too different that the usescore of 78.

Just a thought....

 

[dobwal]

The 18/6 policy isn't about that though, is it? It's a cost evasion strategy. The point here is MS have a policy of not retaining staff all through a project but swapping them in and out with other staff. Unless you think the guy's sour grapes extend to making stuff up and that 18/6 policy doesn't exist, the value of this perspective here (ish, in a meandering discussion) is how MS operates its studios and how leads will be let go on a fixed timetable rather than when would be most appropriate, when the new guy is up to speed.

Also, he liked working at MS too and didn't want to leave! He wanted a job there. He just couldn't get one because MS don't want employees, they want contractors, as contractors are cheaper.

MS employs such strategy so low-level MS managers don't bring in temps only to treat them like full time employees. Microsoft was sued in the past for hiring perma-temps because they weren't offering them benefits. 18/6 stops managers from using temps as a way to avoid the FTE hiring process.

 

[ZebMacahan]

MOD: This is not the RPSC forum

You can leave arguments at your observations - "I think MS have shifted priorities" - without going on to debate 'wokeism in gaming'. Basically, agree to disagree and leave it here, or take the discussion to a different thread outside of the gaming forum to where discussing the look of characters in a trailer and the possible politics behind those decisions is appropriate content.

I started a thread about this in the general forum, if anyone is interrested to have a discussion about it.