im worried that most AAA rpg games are owned by microsoft

[Falksi]

Retro gaming is booming at the moment,... There's a lot of "Physical Forever" groups starting up on Facebook too, which are obviously anti-online.

Is this why old boxed games are going for outrageous amounts now?!!

Spoiler

Yup.

It's been a perfect storm of lockdown forcing current devs to postpone games, and folk waking up to the fact that there's a fuck load of games from previous eras already sat there which are not only FAR better than most the modern shite, but also the fact that they plug in and play way easier too. Without any fucking patches, DLC or bollocks.

Then you've the family bonding of watching the kids get their arses handed to them from the games which the parents did. Something which has boomed during Covid.

Once normality returns to the world post Covid I dare say some of the mongatrongs will go back to wanting the newer products. But I also think that the culture will have changed somewhat, and that there's more of a hunger for older school style games now. Which in turn will mean someone with an eye for business will want to exploit that (as we're already seeing with SOR 4, the Alex Kidd reboot, The Wonder Boy reboot etc.).

I mean 150k SEGA Master Systems are still sold in Brazil each year because of how expensive modern consoles are. So the market's there for it. It's only a small one compared to the newer consoles, but it is there and it is growing. And if the parents keep raising the kids on games which are complete & which work as soon as they plug them in, they're not gonna grow up wanting to fuck about with downloads, patches and all the other buggy bullshit which generation "impatient hype faggot" has forced everyone to grow accustomed to.

 

[a Goat]

The concept of AAA RPG is a paradox.

Unless you use a definition that is specifically designed to discount the AAA RPGs we around in existence or development, as well as a bunch of non-AAA RPGs then it's a paradox that exists in reality.

 

[GrainWetski]

AAA RPGs do not exist unless the AAA stands for ActionActionAction.

 

[Melcar]

Imagine still caring about AAA games in current year.

 

[d1r]

Don't care if it will be Microsoft or any other shitty publisher as long as we don't end up in some kind of "Stadia Dystopia", where you have no access at all to game files. Also, what Melcar says.

 

[a Goat]

AAA RPGs do not exist unless the AAA stands for ActionActionAction.

Baldur's Gate 3 has a budget of ~$300M. Unless you're another "turn based action game" retard it'll be hard to discount that.

 

[RNGsus]

It's monetization you should be worried about. Microsoft bought those companies at a premium. They're going to be expecting mad profits. Single player RPGs don't print monies compared to other games. So who knows what nefarious money making scheme they'll come up with.

Horse Armor.

 

[mindx2]

Thanks Falksi. The prices I've seen lately have been ridiculous. A boxed original DOOM II going for $200-$500?!! Give me a break! There were sooooooo many of those produced they are not rare by any means! Heck, the shareware versions of this and Heretic, Duke go for even higher prices... what the...?! It also seems that any game still in shrink-wrap gets jacked up by hundreds of dollars, regardless of the actual game!! Man, I sold my collection at the wrong time....

 

[Shrimp]

AAA RPGs do not exist unless the AAA stands for ActionActionAction.

Baldur's Gate 3 has a budget of ~$300M. Unless you're another "turn based action game" retard it'll be hard to discount that.

I don't doubt you, but do you have a source on that? I don't recall ever seeing any information about that game's budget size.

 

[RNGsus]

AAA RPGs do not exist unless the AAA stands for ActionActionAction.

Baldur's Gate 3 has a budget of ~$300M. Unless you're another "turn based action game" retard it'll be hard to discount that.

I am.

 

[samoilaaa]

Don't care if it will be Microsoft or any other shitty publisher as long as we don't end up in some kind of "Stadia Dystopia", where you have no access at all to game files. Also, what Melcar says.

you know thats innevitable right?

 

[samoilaaa]

AAA RPGs do not exist unless the AAA stands for ActionActionAction.

thats one of the dumbest things i heard

 

[samoilaaa]

Imagine still caring about AAA games in current year.

because of people like you the rpg genre has stayed in the shadows for decades , you just dont want this genre to be better , all you want is isometric view games with any type of combat as long as its not action . There are alot of good AAA games out there , ofc 70-80% are crap but still

 

[Raghar]

Now microsoft owns most AAA rpg game developers , Bethesda , Obsidian , Inxile , and Playground games ( with Fable )

is there any hope that these games will turn out good ( im not even hoping for great ) and wont be filled with woke shit ?

there are other upcoming AAA rpg games but they will 100% be woke like hogwarts legacy and dragon age 4

Step 1.
MS owns most game companies.
Step 2.
TPM is necessary part of Windows 11.
Step 3.
Locking games to work only on TPM.
Step 4.
Forcing everyone pay for games, part of that goes to MS.
Step 5.
Do the same with movies.

 

[Marat]

There is nothing wrong with RPGs being a little more cinematic every now and then. Problem is that when a big studio pinches out to make a cinematic "RPG", they want a return on this investment so being cinematic always comes at a cost - for the sake of mass market appeal, the game is dumbed down, story is stupid/lazy/cliched, game mechanics are gutted so that they could never pose a problem to even a dumbest motherfucker out there, et cetera. In other words, "cinematic" inevitably comes packaged with excessive simplification, effectively delivering a product stripped of all things that differentiate RPG genre and make it fun.

 

[a Goat]

There is nothing wrong with RPGs being a little more cinematic every now and then. Problem is that when a big studio pinches out to make a cinematic "RPG", they want a return on this investment so being cinematic always comes at a cost - for the sake of mass market appeal, the game is dumbed down, story is stupid/lazy/cliched, game mechanics are gutted so that they could never pose a problem to even a dumbest motherfucker out there, et cetera. In other words, "cinematic" inevitably comes packaged with excessive simplification, effectively delivering a product stripped of all things that differentiate RPG genre and make it fun.

If anything cinematic approach necessitates greater focus on good story and storytelling as by design gameplay will have to be compromised if you focus on cinematics(same with "story" in general, see the thread in my sign).

 

[copebot]

I actually think that the era of cinematic games has ended because the film world has lost a great deal of its prestige along with its financial pizazz. The biggest figures in filmic gaming like Ken Levine have been in the wilderness for 10 years. What gaming companies admire are the mobile game makers and the gambling companies, which turn out much greater profits than any cinematic game could hope to. What drove a lot of that cinematic game decision making was envy by business executives towards Hollywood, combined with a firm belief that the future of games looked like that of movies.

Business leaders sought the prestige and influence accorded to Hollywood, and made creative and technological decisions accordingly. I don't think anyone in business envies Hollywood anymore unless they have a fanatical nostalgia.

One way in which the gaming companies want to emulate film is in the economics of the streaming business. Microsoft is the only company that has succeeded in introducing a "Netflix for games" at large scale at a similar price point. There is probably more investment money available now for small games companies looking to try out a new model than at any other time in recent memory, just because a lot of the old ideas are saturated and are just not delivering the kinds of returns that they were in the past. I don't think Microsoft really has a direction in this, they just know that they can justify making more acquisitions to shareholders because they have a good narrative about what they're going to use it for: if you like stocks like Netflix, in the gaming space, we are imitating the acquisition strategy of Netflix, and our stock price is likely to go up. As it relates to how those individual games are monetized, Microsoft just wants literally everyone to sign up for the GamePass subscription and is probably less concerned about the monetization of individual titles than it is about generating huge growth in subscribers.

The emerging consensus on how streaming services have impacted Hollywood's creative strategy is that creative quality overall has gone sharply down, with studios more focused on generating volume and picking content themes that just have high ambient demand, since SEO and recommendations are the only thing that matter, with ad campaigns and conventional marketing not really moving the needle. I don't think anyone really knows how to make these content acquisitions work well. I think this model is a boon for mediocre games, but probably makes it harder for big ticket blockbuster style games to stand out and to have their old economics work. If the new habit that the corporations are trying to train is to have Joe Couchpotato click on GamePass to see what's new and NOT to buy individual games, it just leads to a very different creative and business dynamic in the industry than existed in the past.

 

[gurugeorge]

I actually think that the era of cinematic games has ended because the film world has lost a great deal of its prestige along with its financial pizazz. The biggest figures in filmic gaming like Ken Levine have been in the wilderness for 10 years. What gaming companies admire are the mobile game makers and the gambling companies, which turn out much greater profits than any cinematic game could hope to. What drove a lot of that cinematic game decision making was envy by business executives towards Hollywood, combined with a firm belief that the future of games looked like that of movies.

Business leaders sought the prestige and influence accorded to Hollywood, and made creative and technological decisions accordingly. I don't think anyone in business envies Hollywood anymore unless they have a fanatical nostalgia.

One way in which the gaming companies want to emulate film is in the economics of the streaming business. Microsoft is the only company that has succeeded in introducing a "Netflix for games" at large scale at a similar price point. There is probably more investment money available now for small games companies looking to try out a new model than at any other time in recent memory, just because a lot of the old ideas are saturated and are just not delivering the kinds of returns that they were in the past. I don't think Microsoft really has a direction in this, they just know that they can justify making more acquisitions to shareholders because they have a good narrative about what they're going to use it for: if you like stocks like Netflix, in the gaming space, we are imitating the acquisition strategy of Netflix, and our stock price is likely to go up. As it relates to how those individual games are monetized, Microsoft just wants literally everyone to sign up for the GamePass subscription and is probably less concerned about the monetization of individual titles than it is about generating huge growth in subscribers.

The emerging consensus on how streaming services have impacted Hollywood's creative strategy is that creative quality overall has gone sharply down, with studios more focused on generating volume and picking content themes that just have high ambient demand, since SEO and recommendations are the only thing that matter, with ad campaigns and conventional marketing not really moving the needle. I don't think anyone really knows how to make these content acquisitions work well. I think this model is a boon for mediocre games, but probably makes it harder for big ticket blockbuster style games to stand out and to have their old economics work. If the new habit that the corporations are trying to train is to have Joe Couchpotato click on GamePass to see what's new and NOT to buy individual games, it just leads to a very different creative and business dynamic in the industry than existed in the past.

Yeah, good points. If anything, I'm worried about a descent into a bunch of trash throwaway shit and the decline of the AAA game aspiration.

 

[Stavrophore]

Every big company has to answer before shareholders, whether it was bethesda before acquisition or microsoft. You think that obsidian could self publish some niche game? Or any game without considering financial gains? Why would they seek bethesda help with new vegas, if it wasn't for the publicity and MONEY thanks to big company behind[maybe it was about copyright to fallout franchise?]? Was the game bad because of that? Nope.

This will not change anything. If you want more focused, niche game, you will still won't find them among AAA publishers or big studios.

 

[Atchodas]

Its not like Bethesda or Obsidian can do any worse than their last games so MS buying them will be for the better

 

[Can't handle the bacon]

Who owns Larian Studios?

 

[gurugeorge]

Who owns Larian Studios?

Mainly this lot apparently.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Who owns Larian Studios?

Swen, it's a private company.

 

[Undead Phoenix]

There's loads more publishers than just Microsoft making AAA RPG's so I wouldn't be worried if I were you.


Since you seem to want something easy and cinematic to help you unwind after work, have you heard of Call of Duty? It's a AAA RPG published by EA. You Play the Role of a soldier in this Game. It is very immersive and has stats and everything you seem to want.

 

[Old Hans]

Who owns Larian Studios?

I bet Microsoft does. Just connect the dots. Ronald Trump and michealsoft