So, how does this work? Were people actually developing a game that will never be seen? Or did they likely stop working on this years ago and just forgot to tell the world?
At the time it was announced, money was cheap to borrow, so a trailer like this came out when it was way too soon to let customers know about it but exactly the right time to entice new employees to work on your new project, so they were staffing up to make that game. They probably were working on it for the past four years; Avalanche hasn’t had a release since it was announced.
Well since there has been absolutely nothing revealed since, I can only guess and speculate. But I would say the most likely scenario is it was in active development hell.
Like, developers were working on it, but there were probably major problems that were holding them up. Perhaps they restarted development due to some factor. If the game was originally going to be a PvEvP looter shooter, for example, that plan may have changed after seeing the severe negative public reception to that genre (except for streamers). It may have been planned as a live service game but then Concord happened and developers decided to change everything because they were worried the same could happen to their game. Maybe some of the developers wanted a “realistic” depiction of the 1970s and other developers wanted a “sanitized” depiction and there was infighting preventing the game from progressing.
My point is, there are a lot of way that there could have been active development with no actual progress. But since nothing has been shown since the announcement trailer ( a render, not gameplay), I can say with some level of confidence that it likely had no meaningful progress in terms of gameplay development. Otherwise, we would have seen it. 4 years is a long time to spend with no updates just to be cancelled. If there was progress, the game should have been finished by 4 years.
Why would we have seen it? You normally don’t see anything until they’re gearing up for launch.
I think it’s more likely MS looked at their portfolio, looked at how much this was costing, and decided it didn’t fit what they were looking for for how much it was costing.
This is not to say it’s a good call, just that MS executives are pretty shit at game development analysis.
4 years of development and they didnt have anything to show except for a CG render? That is absolutely troubled development.
Are there any examples of games which have had 4 straight years of radios silence that have not had major development problems? I mean, Metroid Prime 4 had major issues and was restarted twice. Halo Infinite had major problems and that took 6 years. Scalebound was in development for 4 years before it was cancelled, and it obviously had very troubled development. At least Scalebound had some gameplay to show after it was in development for 2 years (it was cancelled 2 years later), Contraband didn’t even have that for all 4 years. That would indicate to me that the gameplay was not in a state that could be shown to the public. The developers could have been actively working on the game, but no meaningful progress was being made.
This was probably the right call from Microsoft. Though depending on the problems being had, they probably should have cancelled it sooner. It sucks for me to say that because I was interested in this game, but thats the reality of game development. Sometimes an impassable roadblock comes up and its not feasible to continue to fund the sinkhole for 10 years, sometimes its better to pack up and go around.
4 years of development and they didnt have anything to show except for a CG render?
Anything to show you. They aren’t beholden to you. The CG render was to get applications for jobs, not to sell the game. That happens when it’s almost done.
Are there any examples of games which have had 4 straight years of radios silence that have not had major development problems?
The vast majority! Game dev cycles are often 8+ years now, and you don’t hear anything from them until about a year before launch. You think about the canceled ones, but most of them that launch you just don’t consider, which is good. No news is good news, as the saying goes.
I’ve been addicted to Bioshock for so many years now. I do a yearly-ish replay of them (Infinite is my fav, which some consider sacrilege) and always hoped for more. They’re perfect Steam Deck games.
For now, I think the upcoming Judas will be a more dependable game to look forward to:
A disintegrating starship. A desperate escape plan.
You are the mysterious and troubled Judas. Your only hope for survival is to make or break alliances with your worst enemies. Will you work together to fix what you broke – or will you leave it to burn?
Judas is a narrative FPS developed by Ghost Story Games, a studio led by Ken Levine, Creative Director of System Shock 2, BioShock, and BioShock Infinite.
Throw the System Shock remakes into your replay. They’re Bioshock in all but name, except you get more freedom (that decreases steadily over time with each game in this “series”).
Hello fellow kids, remember the BioShock game series? Now you can buy more, now with added Circus of Value™ boosts! $4.99 to unlock a new exclusive ability!
Just let a series be, not everything needs endless sequels. Come up with something new.
Idk, I suppose you can argue that the binary morality system of the first BioShock was integral to the franchise identity, considering the time it came out and all, but I don’t hate that Infinite has one definitive ending to the story it wanted to tell. In fact, given the game’s emphasis on tropes and meta commentary, I’d imagine that setting a story in a universe with infinite possibilities and then removing the “choice” from the player to influence the ending was done deliberately. However, it’s been a decade since I played it, so I could certainly be misremembering some details.
The game’s narrative was identified as an area that was particularly in need of improvement and will be revamped in the coming months
I really don’t trust executives to be the arbiters of what is considered good narrative. I hope they didn’t just kneecap the writing because it wouldn’t appeal to as many people as possible.
To be fair, they are largely anti-american and woke, but in a good way. Woke is good, and America has some fucking issues. If you’re choosing to be not woke or actively pro-america, then you might be doing something wrong.
It’s TakeTwo - you know they did. Bioshock was a complete arc and died with Irrational. Whatever this zombie project is, I expect it won’t live up to the name, but they’ll slap it on anyway because goshdarnit executives just can’t help milking a franchise dry instead of innovating.
Not saying you're wrong but I do feel like there's still so much of the universe to explore, even if the main arc is complete. I would love to learn more about Rapture
In my dreams, regulators would require UP and NS to divest older or redundant ROW so that publicly-owned transit systems can repurpose them for passenger rail services. Even so much as a single-track minor branch line could be reinvigorated with high-floor DMUs while maintaining freight access in the off-hours, such as with SMART in San Francisco area. And in the long run, electrification without UP’s typical objections to overhead wires could enable performant EMUs like with CalTrain.
Fully agree. In a civilized modern country the government would own the rails (because, I mean obviously it would) and operators would put out timetables and requests for trains - all managed by the government. Just like the UK and most other countries, the government is in charge of maintaining the rails, keeping them safe, and expansion, while the operators do what they do best - they manage their schedules and try to squeeze the most profit out of it.
It’s a win-win, private industry doesn’t have to worry about safety or maintenance beyond their own vehicles, they work with the government on scheduling, and passenger rail would get a resurgence because adding new train lines and stops would just be a matter of starting a new operator.
If you thought of a new commuter line that you think would benefit a region, it wouldn’t be trying to convince Amtrak to do it - you could literally raise the money and start your own operator, lease some vehicles, and then literally just start running your train line operated on government tracks. Just as the semis do on the interstate system, just like airlines do.
In a civilized modern country the government would own the rails
I agree with the sentiment, but also have to mention some implementation quirks that should be addressed along the way.
Just like the UK
I personally find the UK to be something of mixed bag. Yes, they do have Network Rail managing the fixed infrastructure for the national rail system, but they’ve bungled the working model with a half-hearted attempt at semi-privati(s)ation with franchise operators for different rail segments. And while that problem has flared and simmered since the 80s, attempts to fully open the network for any operator (aka open access) runs into the age-old problem of too much demand.
Open access – which should absolutely be a starting point of any regulated monopoly, government owned or not – comes with the challenge where if every train operator wants to run their own London to Edinburgh service, then very quickly, the East Coast Main Line and West Coast Main Line are going to be booked up, leaving scant capacity for local service. Obviously, a high-speed corridor between Scotland and England would solve that particular issue, but the central challenge remains one of finding balance: local vs long-distance express, minimum train speeds, freight capacity, first-class vs economy vs sleepers. Open-access is open like a door, but even the widest doors enter to a limited space.
The proper balance is a matter of policy, rather than technical merit, so I’m not entirely sold on the notion that it should be the infrastructure manager (eg Network Rail) making those decisions. Such decisions would have major consequences, and so I think properly belong to public policy makers (eg lawmakers or regulatory agencies). But for technical decisions like loading gauge or max axle loads, those are almost exclusively for the infra manager to adopt, but with public consultation with operators and the public. After all, we wouldn’t want adoption of obsolete or unusable standards on the national system.
they work with the government on scheduling
I think this is implied, but I’ll state it for clarity: operators should have to make a showing to the regulator that their services operate “in the public’s interest” before being granted access to the national rails. And even when granted access, operators must conform to the infra manager’s technical requirements for uniform operation.
In the USA, this is almost identical to the process of setting up a television broadcast: radio spectrum is a limited commodity, and so it must be used in furtherance of public interest. In practice, this isn’t a very high standard, but it does prevent waste such as having one’s own private TV channel. So too would it be wasteful to schedule a “corporate train” service for the exclusive use of select personnel while still physically occupying the rails despite carrying zero passengers.
Basically, there’s much to be fixed in the USA, but the UK model could also use some work too, towards a principled model that maximizes the public investment.
Completely get all of your points, and respect them. I think on the spectrum of bad to perfect systems, I see the UK as “good” - but a long ways from perfect too. The US however is just obviously bad, and I think moving towards the UK’s system would be a massive step in the right direction. Personally, I think the first step is that the private companies should not own the rails themselves, they have proven that they are not the proper stewards of those systems and should not own that.
That’s step one. After step one though, I completely see your points and that there would be a lot of details worth looking into.
And, as someone how has ridden the Azuma service from London to Edinburgh 4 times - I have seen it cancelled twice. Ridiculous that in my very very infrequent trips to the UK I have seen my train trips cancelled just as many times as I’ve ridden them.
There is exactly one nice thing I can say about the USA rail system, and it kinda underscores essentially every issue we have with the rails today: the privately-owned railroads are absurdly good at moving freight.
If we were to ignore the entire notion of using trains to move passengers, then suddenly the American railroads are remarkable in how much tonnage they can move over across the continent, even with their horrifically skeletal network, and still achieve the highest energy efficiency for land transport. They really shouldn’t be as successful as they are, given that they have unionized labor, are not exempt from federal emissions regulations, and serve huge tracts of the country using only single-track lines dating back to the 19th Century.
To say that they’ve devoted all of their efforts to making freight work is an understatement. And it is from this foundation that all other uses of the rails are incompatible. And it shows.
The national passenger operator, when seeking to (re)start a line somewhere, must negotiate with host railroads – except when Amtrak owns the tracks, such as in New England – and that’s primarily a matter of paying for time on the track, plus the “inconvenience” of regular schedule services when most freight doesn’t really need to follow a schedule at all.
Unlike any other product or service, there is no eminent domain at the state-level for access to a railroad, so if a small public transit operator is rebuffed by the host railroad in their area, then that’s basically it. Only Amtrak has a right to use eminent domain for railroads, and that’s only ever been used once, resulting in a 20 year lawsuit to settle the matter at great cost.
Query whether a wealthy state like California or Texas can make a market-rate offer to outright buy the rail network within their state. I imagine the answer is yes, though this would have been much more useful if the idea came up when Southern Pacific was having their difficulties in the 1990s. Further query whether a state-owned railroad located in multiple states can unilaterally deny access to all other states – like what the private railroads can do. Who knows.
In all fairness, we do have a few objectively nicer things, like level-boarding for wheelchairs and strollers into LRT carriages, and pantographs rather than trolley poles.
But we did lose 100+ MPH operation in the 30s, when the 79 MPH track limits came into being for most railroads.
So in total, if that’s all we’ve progressed after a century, then yeah, we haven’t gone very far.
This honestly feels like an “everyone sucks here” situation. It’s obviously bad that the publisher just sacked the 3 founders of a developer and replaced them with a CEO from a developer they just scuttled… But then there is this terrible sell-out deal the devs went for where 1/3 of the sale price of the company was tied up in sales performance with the deadline rapidly approaching so of course they want to put out a shiny new title for people to buy even though they keep having to cut the planned content down to almost nothing. (supposedly, obvi I haven’t played it…)
AND THEN there is what I am calling Schrodinger’s Beta. It is supposedly right now ready for early access release (which means Krafton delaying the game is proof of being shady and avoiding the bonus), but also likely going to flop because they got rid of the founders and now they won’t have the devs to make it any good (making Krafton correct in delaying the EA because it isn’t ready yet…).
This whole thing is a mess of pointing fingers and no one knows what’s real. Truth of the matter is probably that both sides are right. Dev’s want to push the game out to get the rest of what they feel they are owed, whether the game is ready for EA be damned. Publisher wants to not pay for any of that, downsize the dev team to finish production as cheap as possible just to drop a steaming turd with just enough name recognition to keep their line going up, but not to make enough money they can’t plausible deniability sink another developer. I hope I’m wrong, because I was looking forward to Subnautica 2 (mostly just to have a multiplayer subnautica experience), but the industry has mostly convinced me to assume the worst in everyone.
bloomberg.com
Gorące