Gaming News

Mr Crispy

EoinMcLovin wrote: »

https://twitter.com/geoffkeighley/status/1280211179638452226?s=19

I mean, who would you even want out of that lot...

pixelburp

Lordy, what a line up. Bit of a rogue's gallery lol. I mean at first blush, Microsoft are maybe the least worst of that lot?

Mr Crispy

pixelburp wrote: »

Lordy, what a line up. Bit of a rogue's gallery lol. I mean at first blush, Microsoft are maybe the least worst of that lot?

Yeah, probably. Although it would likely mean XB exclusivity for some big franchises that have been multiplat until now. From their perspective it would make sense... "You have Spidey, but we have Batman, Supes et al".

pixelburp

Mr Crispy wrote: »

Yeah, probably. Although it would likely mean XB exclusivity for some big franchises that have been multiplat until now. From their perspective it would make sense... "You have Spidey, but we have Batman, Supes et al".

Maybe it's all a feint to hide the eventual, real buyers: Konami. All part of their redemptive arc... ... through licenced, globalised pachinko machines.

Mr Crispy

Mr Crispy wrote: »

Yeah, probably. Although it would likely mean XB exclusivity for some big franchises that have been multiplat until now. From their perspective it would make sense... "You have Spidey, but we have Batman, Supes et al".

For anyone with gamepass on Xbox or PC it could be very good news.

johnny_ultimate

Putting aside their fighting games (which I hear are well regarded but just not for me) there’s very, very little in Warner Bros arsenal that appeals these days. Attractive licences for a corporate buyer, definitely. But just can’t get excited about another Batman game given how definitively that series descended into generic open world guff over the course of three games. One can only hope whatever is cooking in their studios (a non Rocksteady Arkham game and a Rocksteady Suicide Squad, last I heard?) is a big departure and fresh take.

CatInABox

If Microsoft did buy it, I'd doubt that they'd be able to keep any of the WB franchises. More likely would be a deal that means the licenses would stay with the WB parent company, who'd then license it out to another multiplatform publisher, i.e EA, Take Two, or Activision.

Even without that though, the developers alone would be a great deal for Microsoft, as they're all pretty successful devs, and even bolstered as they've been over the last few years, Microsoft still need more.

mrkiscool2

CatInABox wrote: »

If Microsoft did buy it, I'd doubt that they'd be able to keep any of the WB franchises. More likely would be a deal that means the licenses would stay with the WB parent company, who'd then license it out to another multiplatform publisher, i.e EA, Take Two, or Activision.

Even without that though, the developers alone would be a great deal for Microsoft, as they're all pretty successful devs, and even bolstered as they've been over the last few years, Microsoft still need more.

Sony and Microsoft both have the same amount of first party studios now.

Markitron

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Putting aside their fighting games (which I hear are well regarded but just not for me) there’s very, very little in Warner Bros arsenal that appeals these days. Attractive licences for a corporate buyer, definitely. But just can’t get excited about another Batman game given how definitively that series descended into generic open world guff over the course of three games. One can only hope whatever is cooking in their studios (a non Rocksteady Arkham game and a Rocksteady Suicide Squad, last I heard?) is a big departure and fresh take.

They don't actually get the WB licenses with this deal, just the developers that made them. So for example anyone that buys WB Interactive that wanted Rocksteady to make a new Batman game would then have to go and negotiate with WB for the license. Same goes for the Lord of the Rings. Think they do get Mortal Kombat though, which is something I suppose.

Penn

Markitron wrote: »

They don't actually get the WB licenses with this deal, just the developers that made them. So for example anyone that buys WB Interactive that wanted Rocksteady to make a new Batman game would then have to go and negotiate with WB for the license. Same goes for the Lord of the Rings. Think they do get Mortal Kombat though, which is something I suppose.

Yeah I imagine Netherrealm themselves have Mortal Kombat, but would Netherrealm be happy to only have MK on Xbox, as I imagine a good chunk of their earnings would come from dlc/mtx, and cutting out the PS market for that would be huge. MS would have to offer them a very pretty penny to keep them happy and have MK as an exclusive. Otherwise, I think Ed Boon could form a new company, sell the MK license to it and start afresh.

Same when it comes to WB, I wonder if they'd prefer to keep their games (especially the movie-based ones) multiplatform, and would therefore be reluctant to let MS have the licenses as exclusives. I know Sony were able to have Spider-Man, but Sony Pictures hold the movie rights so were likely able to arrange that pretty easily, but I doubt Marvel would just let all their licenses go to Sony/PS even though they had the larger market share this generation.

That said, some of the studios MS would get would be huge even if they didn't get to retain the licenses.

Retr0gamer

Sales don't really matter when it comes to exclusives. They are usually bank rolled by the platform holder and are more to make the platform more attractive and attract customers to it than actually to sell well.

Penn

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Sales don't really matter when it comes to exclusives. They are usually bank rolled by the platform holder and are more to make the platform more attractive and attract customers to it than actually to sell well.

Does the same apply to DLC/MTX though? I would have thought the devs would get a larger cut or bonuses for same, and that the license holders for movie-based franchises would want to appeal to as broad a base as possible. Would the exclusivity money be enough to outweigh that?

Robert ninja

Developers are on a salary from their publisher. I don't think they get a 'cut' of anything. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And in case anyone missed it it's now illegal to modify or upgrade your computer in Mexico. RIP Mexico-based PC gamers.

CatInABox

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Sony and Microsoft both have the same amount of first party studios now.

Yes, but if Microsoft wants to close the gap with Sony, then they will still need more than what they've got.

RedXIV

Robert ninja wrote: »

And in case anyone missed it it's now illegal to modify or upgrade your computer in Mexico. RIP Mexico-based PC gamers.

Interested in this? any reasons why? what defines an upgrade?

Mitch Connor

CatInABox wrote: »

If Microsoft did buy it, I'd doubt that they'd be able to keep any of the WB franchises. More likely would be a deal that means the licenses would stay with the WB parent company, who'd then license it out to another multiplatform publisher, i.e EA, Take Two, or Activision.

Even without that though, the developers alone would be a great deal for Microsoft, as they're all pretty successful devs, and even bolstered as they've been over the last few years, Microsoft still need more.

But isn't the talk that AT&T are selling WB Games (who would own those rights, as well as the Devs) so you get all in one go.

The 4billion estimate only makes sense if the licences are included, given Insomniac sold for 300million, and would be a more valuable (from the outside) studio than any of those bar Rocksteady.

Robert ninja

RedXIV wrote: »

any reasons why?

Because Mexico.

RedXIV wrote: »

what defines an upgrade?

Technically it's 'modification'. So changing your GPU, RAM and even software like the operating system is deemed an offense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ3LphA-SW4

Retr0gamer

Penn wrote: »

Does the same apply to DLC/MTX though? I would have thought the devs would get a larger cut or bonuses for same, and that the license holders for movie-based franchises would want to appeal to as broad a base as possible. Would the exclusivity money be enough to outweigh that?

There will be bonuses for a job well done but also other perks like a far safer working environment from a job stability standpoint and also better benefits like health benefits.

Platform holders want you on their platform. They then have you on their eco system and are making money from you on every game or item you buy for that system. That's far more valuable to them than unit sales of a game.

So when you see people praising Sony first party games for not having MTX (they do have DLC but it's usually substantial and very high quality) it's not because Sony are so altruistic and don't believe in MTX, it's that MTX just isn't part of the game plan and would probably decrease platform take up from bad publicity. But once they get you on that platform they will be making MTX money off you anyway from MTX sales through their platform.

Kiith

Robert ninja wrote: »

And in case anyone missed it it's now illegal to modify or upgrade your computer in Mexico. RIP Mexico-based PC gamers.

It's illegal to break security locks that are built into devices (i.e jailbreaking phones, bypassing DRM etc...). Upgrading regular computers is absolutely fine.

Robert ninja

Incorrect. You have to have licenses to repair your own stuff or send it away. Unable to install non OEM OS. Not allowed to use things like F-Droid on your Android phone. Based on what I've read I would have a lengthy criminal record if I lived in Mexico.

Markitron

Penn wrote: »

Does the same apply to DLC/MTX though? I would have thought the devs would get a larger cut or bonuses for same, and that the license holders for movie-based franchises would want to appeal to as broad a base as possible. Would the exclusivity money be enough to outweigh that?

It is actually very common for developers to get sales-related bonuses, it is frequently used to offset lower basic salaries.

EoinMcLovin

https://twitter.com/THQNordic/status/1280487596926345217?s=19

Grumpypants

Robert ninja wrote: »

Developers are on a salary from their publisher. I don't think they get a 'cut' of anything. Correct me if I'm wrong.
.

It depends on the studio. For example Warner Bros and Namco are publishing Cyberpunk (NA/EU) but CD would be their own studio.

Where as Rocksteady would be owned and they would be salary based. They probably have bonuses tied to a game's success.

If your studio is making good games that sell lots then you will get nicer offices, bigger wages, better bonuses so you do long term get a cut.

Robert ninja

Aren't the majority of staff in these big companies on a contract and/or let go/moved around after the completion of a game? Doubt they're even around to see nicer offices (especially since it's all going remote now too). I mean I'd be glad to be wrong but it's hard to imagine bonuses going to little miss in the corner who mastered some sound FX when she's probably well into another job by the time the game is even bringing in money. Cool if so, though, and probably true for their core staff and big names. As long as it's an actual bonus and not just the rest of the salary that they ought to have been getting anyway (like tipping system in the US).

Markitron

Grumpypants wrote: »

If your studio is making good games that sell lots then you will get nicer offices, bigger wages, better bonuses so you do long term get a cut.

Unless you work for Gearbox of course, in which case the money is hoovered up by a lying, cheating amateur magician.

Retr0gamer

Halo 3 coming to PC MCC this day next week. Really looking forward to this one. Also apparently this release comes with an update to finally fix the game ruining sound issues with Reach.

If nobody knows what Halo 3 is it's a FPS game and contains the single worst single player FPS mission ever created.

The rest of the game isn't so bad.

But seriously **** that final flood level.

Markitron

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Halo 3 coming to PC MCC this day next week. Really looking forward to this one. Also apparently this release comes with an update to finally fix the game ruining sound issues with Reach.

If nobody knows what Halo 3 is it's a FPS game and contains the single worst single player FPS mission ever created.

The rest of the game isn't so bad.

But seriously **** that final flood level.

The numerous 10/10's that game received at the time made me seriously question my own sanity. I just couldn't figure out how anyone could give a game that contained that level a perfect score.

JimBurnley

Mafia: Definitive Edition release has been delayed from 28 August to 25 September.

EoinMcLovin

EoinMcLovin wrote: »

https://twitter.com/THQNordic/status/1280487596926345217?s=19

Oh wow, there's a new expansion coming with it.