[msftgreed]

> Microsoft is never going to figure out gaming.

That's the thing -- for a while they had figured out gaming. The xbox and 360 were solid consoles with lots of great internal and external games. Halo was incredible.

Then the company did the thing that Amazon did, Blizzard is doing, and all the big tech companies do -- they thought their big war chest meant they should make bigger games. Budgets ballooned, game timelines extended. Now they are stuck with games and studios with 10 year dev cycles trying to create the biggest, the most incredible, the most expensive games.

There's SO many devs out there making incredible games for fractions of the cost. It's a shame Microsoft (and others) keep thinking that reaching for bigger means better outcomes. No one wants "the game only Microsoft can make", everyone wants another great Zelda. Or Gears of War. Or Satisfactory. Or Mina the Hollower. Or UFO 50. Or Animal Well.

Hell, people want a game about shelving 3000 books in an Arcane library. Let games be smaller, more exploratory, more creative experiences. Let your studios get weird with it. Let them explore spaces and take risks. Stop sinking tens of billions into games. Start sinking tens of millions into them.

[pibaker]

> No one wants "the game only Microsoft can make", everyone wants another great Zelda. Or Gears of War. Or Satisfactory. Or Mina the Hollower. Or UFO 50. Or Animal Well.

This IMO is a display of what is wrong with a lot of online gaming discourse — it is dominated by people who spend more time playing and critiquing games than 99% of the population and has a tendency to overemphasize indie darlings and ignore the massive commercial success of mainstream titles. Forza 6 released in May and is wildly popular among normie gamers. So is your yearly call of duty instalment which is now a Microsoft property. Go ask people coming out of a Walmart if they know what is Animal Well and they will probably think you are soliciting donations for a local animal shelter.

I'm not saying you can't criticize mainstream AAA games. I get they are boring, formulaic and increasingly rely on predatory business models. But if you want to talk about business and what kind of games companies should invest into, you can't just ignore the massive commercial success AAA already enjoys or the fact that most indie games flop anyway.

And yes, people will play games that can only be made in an established franchise by a major company. Forza is able to license real world car models from companies like Porsche because it is a well known and safe brand backed by a big company. Not to mention games like Microsoft flight simulator or GTA.

[msftgreed]

Sure, I love a Forza Horizons (I'm not much for mainline Forza), but those games aren't really experiencing the same scope creep as the the rest of the industry.

Call of Duty is, but it's also noteworthy that sales of CoD are slumping. Hard. Like down-by-60% hard. And the gamepass numbers aren't really boosting it back up.

Also, I think you'll find my list absolutely included big games. Gears of War? Zelda? These are not "indie darlings".

[Cthulhu_]

Sales is one thing, recurring revenue is another. Their mobile titles are also huge.

[operation_moose]

AKA "we just passed the 8th anniversary of the Elder Scrolls 6 announcement trailer"

Also worth noting Skyrim first came out on the 360; an honor shared by GTA5, but at least they have an imminent release.

[caconym_]

I think another big issue they have is their insistence that most (ideally all?) of the people working on their games should be temporary employees. When your most valuable studios get out of the business of providing secure and sustainable employment, you lose the ability to build institutional expertise. When you treat your creatives like a commodity, you'll get generic assets and writing regardless of budget. When you focus on everything but the games themselves, it shouldn't come as a surprise that your big franchises degenerate into undifferentiated revenuemaxxing slop and unique new projects that might get people excited die on the vine.

Overall I think western AAA game development is dead. The executive class killed it with their greed and incompetence, and as long as these huge corporations are allowed to keep buying smaller studios/publishers and shutting them down a few years later, nothing is going to change.

[ColdStream]

It was once the Wii with anemic hardware and waggle ended up outselling the 360 that MS changed. They went from pushing forwards to chasing trends.

I agree, they need to be focusing on smaller projects that take risks. Maximum 24 month dev times but with modern tooling could do some special things. Maybe if after 6-12 months they see something that is gold, they can give it more resources but that would be on a case by case basis.

[axus]

I felt like the Kinect was pushing forward, and not chasing the Wii. Never owned one, but the tech sounded cool

[zapzupnz]

It was 100% chasing the Wii. It didn't chase all that hard, either.

[dannyw]

I might be looking at the Kinect with rose-tinted glasses, but bringing depth and camera-based pose tracking to the masses in 2010 is pretty impressive.

Sure they were chasing the Wii, but they did try to innovate on the hardware and capability front, and back then VR was nascent, but investing in this area for gaming made sense then (it was very easy to imagine VR games being the 'next big thing').

Unlike Nintendo, Microsoft couldn't really figure out good and fun gameplay for Kinect. Basically only dancing games took advantage of it well IMO?

[zapzupnz]

And some sports games, which is where it seems clear they just wanted their own Wii Sports.

Not so much the game itself so much as the excuse for the masses to buy a console for a game even grandpa can play.