Sony being in that dominant position puts them in something much closer to a monopoly of their segment of the market than Microsoft is post-acquisition. Building up studios takes a lot of time, which would translate to Sony further running away with their market position. I'm not exactly pro-acquisition; I'm just not anti-this-acquisition, especially when there are a lot of games and IPs from the past that Activision has no incentive to revive but Microsoft does. That is something about this acquisition that benefits customers and not just Microsoft.
Hard disagree. Sony's in a dominant position specifically because of anti consumer tactics like exclusives. These games can take 5+ years to make, so the only way Microsoft catches up at all during this console generation is via acquisitions (of companies looking to sell, mind you). The only way their trillions of dollars (of market cap, not cash on hand) helps them anytime soon is acquisitions. And also remember that these acquisitions came up in response to Sony seeking further exclusivity of things like Starfield and Call of Duty.
And once again, there's just so much to the video game market that neither of those companies own. Video games are an international industry made up of many, many, many participants, and even Microsoft is nowhere close to having a majority of it.
That's precisely the thing I hope we've finally hit a turning point on, and that we have some evidence that we've hit that turning point. The metaphorical landfill filled with dead games as a service got so many more games this year. Especially because so many of these games are designed to monopolize your time, perhaps they'll realize there isn't enough time on earth to dedicate to this game when it's already being dedicated to 100 other games. Then they can come to the conclusion that there's more money to be made in 5 short experiences than 1 game that you're intended to play indefinitely.
You were originally talking about HyperScape, not Hyenas.
You say tomato, I say...it works better when spoken.
Ubisoft, like many giants, isn’t going to give up on GaaS games any time soon.
Like the above, I'm just saying there are only room for so many. Remember how everyone wanted a World of WarCraft? And everyone wanted a Call of Duty? And everyone wanted a League of Legends? And everyone wanted a PUBG? Those games, and like two of their competitors in most cases, are still around, but there just isn't enough room for more when you're the Nth battle royale (HyperScape) or extraction shooter (Far Cry). No one can predict the future, and my own biases are informing what I'm taking away from my own observations, but you have a problem where the audience now knows that when you sink money into a live service game, it's likely dead in a year, and you're out of pocket $X with nothing to show for it when the servers are gone.
Overall, though, I don’t see the industry destroying itself.
No, it actually is. Not the entire industry but the live service end of it and the games they created. They're designed with kill switches, self-destruct buttons, or whatever other metaphor you like. They're burning down the library on their way out the door, which is why, short of YouTube footage, I don't see how this can be anything other than a semi-dark age for the medium. Semi because plenty of games are not bound to servers or some other form of planned obsolescence, but a lot of high-profile releases most certainly are, and they'll be lost to time. Meanwhile, games from 30 years prior still live on and can be enjoyed by people who weren't even born yet when they released.
I'm totally with you on some studios shrinking, other studios forming, and the circle of life continuing. My prediction for the industry was way faster than the reality of things, but I foresaw that studios like TinyBuild, Embracer, Devolver, Anna Purna, and the like would inevitably come to be and grow, because there are games that the big AAA publishers just don't make anymore, and people still want to play those games.
if anything they are still looking to recoup the development costs of those games. So why not use that technology in a multiplayer game that’s surely to sell well? Right?
But it's been spun out separately, according to the article...I think we're talking past each other. Ubisoft and Sega are not the same company, but Hyenas was Sega's most expensive project ever, and they still found the best decision to be not releasing the game at all, which makes some amount of sense because live service games have recurring costs. Maybe Ubisoft is staring down that barrel right now, as there's definitely a world where, like with Ghost Recon, a successful franchise's name won't carry your live service endeavor to even recouping any costs as opposed to just killing it in the womb and avoiding the sunk cost fallacy.
It is my hope, and it's possibly the reality, that Ubisoft has discovered that live service games are not guaranteed money printing machines. Then maybe we can get back to an industry that isn't so intent on destroying itself rather than the semi-dark-age we're in right now.
Those managers and publishers were likely looking at their burn rate and needed to get some funding to come in to keep the studio afloat. It's tough out there for games right now.
I think people largely have stopped buying them, apart from very few exceptions, which is why games like Hyenas get cancelled at the finish line and why we've got a graveyard of live services that shut down just this year. Second Extinction didn't make it out of early access. Rumbleverse didn't even last one year.
They're different teams, but it's relevant because, according to this article, this spun out into another live service project after HyperScape quickly died and the Ghost Recon game wasn't going to recoup its costs. The entire industry is facing a live service reckoning right now; it can only support so many, and making more expensive games like this isn't panning out.
EDIT: Man, I forgot XDefiant too. If that game isn't cancelled before it officially hits 1.0, it'll likely be shut down within 18 months.
Sure, and game development in general takes longer than it did 20 years ago, but allocating a proportional amount of resources is all you need. If it's a hit, it's a hit. If you want to patch it up a bit to fix some glaring flaws, go ahead. Expecting it to maintain tens of thousands of simultaneous players is going to end up with the dev putting lots of resources into something unlikely to be the next big thing.
And now those games just get shut down with no recourse. Eventually, those companies will realize that they're better off making a multiplayer game that doesn't get 5 years worth of updates to chase after bazillions of dollars that never materialize.
I have seen people post factually incorrect AI summaries often enough that I don't trust them by default. This one's crime was just not being a summary but a paraphrase, lol.
Historically, some of the best multiplayer components attached to single player games were done with very few resources in a matter of weeks, like Halo and Goldeneye.
Which means I'll always watch on YouTube. Being able to pause, rewind, and play back at 1.25x speed to catch back up is such a critical feature that every other streaming site needs, but Twitch's exclusivity has made it difficult for streamers to utilize. Unfortunately, discovery on YouTube is horrendous, so maybe I find a streamer on Twitch and then watch on YouTube.