Phil Spencer, while magnitudes better than Hack Mattrick, is overrated and all talk no action sometimes. His comment about canceling Scalebound is good for Gamers is still the most facepalmworthy quote from him
From what I've played, its actually pretty solid. Didn't have the desire to finish tho, like many other games in my library. I'm want some fresh stuff already -_- cause it looks like I'm starting to get burnt out
@spitfire-six: "For MSFT to take a risk in your mind the studio leads tasked with developing a IP would have to decide they don't want to do that anymore and they want to do something new." Dude that is the definition of taking risks, not sure if you're trolling or not now. Leaving established IP and creating new ones from the scratch is the prime example of devs taking risk. You're the first person to tell me that moving on from high profil exclusives that are warranted to sell(halo, gears)and coming up with a new unproven IP is not taking a risk. I dunno anymore, but believe what you want, cause this discussion is moving to ridiculous levels. Take risks is also synonym for trying out something new, even though it might not be as succesful as the established IP. Even Phil Spencer uses the definition taking risks in relation to create new IPs http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1332851&page=1 but whatever I guess
When I talk about sony being harsh to devs regarding first party, I obviously mean their own devs too or not? Sony doesnt have control over third parties like Insomniac, From Software etc.
@spitfire-six: name those new Ip from turn 10, the coalition, 343i etc. Then we can have a valid discussion. If you rely on buzzwords like "Are you drunk", I won't even bother debating with you
The only first party dev known to create a new IP for them is Rare currently
So you are limiting the idea of a risk to first party development. Well that makes no sense. Then you are wanting new IP from studios purposely built to manage a single IP. That also makes no sense. What you did here is create some rules that no one knows about except you and these rules you are using to determine risk dont exist anywhere but in your head. Investing money in a business you dont control for +3 years is the very definition of a risk. Just walk away from this, you dont have a point to make. Drop your self made definition of risk.
Yes, hence I said they should stop being harsh to devs, they dont have complete control over third party devs, why would you bring up third parties? Congrats my point flew over your head completely, and you argue for nothing. I'm talking about the dévs they have complete control over, you dont need to be a genius to understand what I'm talking about. Sorry but MS forcing devs to do only 1 Franchise, its hardly taking risks. I'm talking about their in-house first party devs, why should I bring up remedy when those are Thrid Party? It does make sense dude. Your misunderstanding of my topic =/= my points(which are factual) being invalid
Log in to comment