Nobody has given a shit about Star Craft in like a decade and this current generation of gamers doesnt care for it in the slightest. So yall are telling me you would choose a spin off shooter, that was already cancelled once, over a similar Star Wars game because of some weird licensing ownership issue yall love projecting on Microsoft for some reason.
SpiderMan, Wolverine and Star Wars (for Respawn too) will move insane numbers and nobody should give a shit about the IP ownership because thats not our issue. Only thing we should be worried is about playing the game. Microsoft has enough studios and games that they could work out something and never be bothered about this.
And what if Disney decided they’d want gaming added to Disney+ like Netflix is trying now? You’d lose all those IP.
I agree with OP. Microsoft now has a unique chance to nurture their own IP. I won’t complain about a few licensed games, but MS has enough fantasy and sci-fi worlds to work with.
I feel like if it’s ok if Todd wanted to make a game with a licensed IP, then it should be ok for all the other studios if they want to as well. With that said though I would agree with @pg2g that a liscened IP would be nice every now and then, but I personally wouldn’t want it to be the main focus for all the studios.
huh?? MS won’t even have those IP to begin with, so no idea what this means. MS will still have published those games, they’ll have enough leverage to not lose access to those games sometime in this potential future where Disney suddenly cares about publishing and distributing games themselves again to the point of removing games. Pre-Disney+ Disney still held the IP and publishing of all their content, just that they weren’t in the distribution race yet. Gaming is not the same, they don’t publish anything themselves, outside the only recently formed Lucasfilm Games Division which just seems like a division meant for managing the game side of that house more effectively and dedicatedly. Indiana Jones will still be published by Bethesda, KOTOR Remake will still be published by Aspyr.
I’m sure MS will manage fine with some far future where Disney suddenly changes their tune and maybe takes games away from MS, all when MS themselves already have their biggest current franchise’s games getting delisted every 3 years, literally vanishing into thin air on the actual storefront.
I don’t even know who is saying all studios should just unilaterally shift to just working on licensed games, all of them. That makes no sense from the get go and is a weird strawman honestly. Literally the only argument being made is precisely that a big licensed game that captures the zeitgeist beyond just gaming every now and then could go a long way for the brand and the platform. This is far more charitable and reasonable than “MS should NEVER ever pursue that” imo.
My take is I’m not against licenced IP PERIOD but I’m really not a fan of MCU DC Star Wars oversaturation to get its way onto games too and honestly seeing XGS not get on it would be like a reminder that they’re truly being as creatively driven as possible. And yes maybe some would have liked to work on Star Wars or something but maybe before, but when now are being told “make what you want, really” maybe Star Wars just ain’t shit compared to their dream projects.
Also I really think licenced would be creatively limiting in game design. Those games always tend to follow a formula.
how does KOTOR follow the same formula as Jedi Fallen Order? Or Guardians of the Galaxy the same formula as the XCOM type game being made? Are the LEGO games following the same formula as the Mordor games?
Creative constrains exist within all games and sure, licensed games have more of them coming from outside the gaming sphere, but that’s a distinct challenge to work within not necessarily a bad one.
I’m with the OP however I recognize I’m being a bit selfish. I’ve generally felt that licensed IPs are more restrictive in terms of narrative and gameplay. Creatives simply have more freedom with IP that is owned by Microsoft. The best cases for licenses is when they can borrow the universe but create their own characters. Star Wars generally has potential because of how big the universe is. That said, I do like exploring universes and meeting characters with no boundaries set outside of the creative team.
I’m not saying the same formula, but A formula. And the game is designed around set abilities and actions dictated by the source material itself, not game designers and creatives. That is limiting.
That can be true, but the other way around is also possible. Case in point, Spiderman in Avengers vs Spiderman in Insomniac’s Spiderman. What Spiderman can do and to what extent was dictated by the game design in a significant way despite what Spiderman originally can do in the license, Avengers could only have him do what was dictated by the tethered co-op arena game design whereas Insomniac’s game design for their Spiderman game had its game design serve the fantasy much better. Game design can influence the character being realized just as much as other way around.
This can be a collaborative effort where both parties can explore the possibility space but of course that presumes the license holder to be willing to do that enough, and in that sense, of course the deal should be contingent on that to a degree, where there is a collaborative back and forth and not just top down. Only take deals that provide room for that collaborative input.
Also, the constraints are not necessarily always bad, constraints are important in every creative endeavor. They are what ground the vision. Constraints are what give a property its identity. Existence of lightsaber combat means Jedi get to deflect lasers with it meaning the lasers have to be slow enough to serve that lightsaber deflecting fantasy. This is not a bad constraint, it’s just a distinct one that grounds the world in its aesthetic and narrative rules that has its own creative possibility space to explore. Just because some of these constraints aren’t in your control doesn’t mean it’s inherently less creative. People should not conflate creativity as something enhanced by freedom alone, it can be enhanced by constraints just as much.
You make great points and I’m not saying it can’t be good or creative in ways, but they are still on a lower end of creativity imo, I would prefer studios own original works over licensed IP easily and that seems to be the case at XGS and I like it. Most iconic games in gaming are always original gaming IP, and that is important and makes the artistic and creative weight of the industry more important and recognisable.
A case where I’d like licensed IP is for studios that have been making or put to a single, more of the same IP/franchise for a long time, in that case licensed IP would get in more creativity than whatever the studio has made recently. Studio like High Moon, Raven, Coalition, etc.
Hmmm. And as I have mentioned before, this has to come from the will and passion of the studios themselves, not something to check a list for the publisher or fulfill a quota in the lineup or whatever. Although it would indeed be serving a role in the portfolio as a transmedia zeitgeist capturing project. This has to be “we have this cool idea for a licensed game that we’d love to do” and MS going “yeah we’ll try making that possible”, not MS going “hey here’s this license we got, now you gotta do something with it” or “no we are simply incapable of this or completely unwilling to do it whatsoever”.
I can guarantee that MS will do licensed stuff in the future. Only question is to what degree. MS is going to do a bit of everything.
They won’t force their own studios on it unless they want it (Rare) but I can definately see MS throwing money at X studio they don’t own to make a licensed popular IP.
No company likes doing licensed stuff because you don’t own it and it cuts in your profits but they also understand the importance of reach and positive effects it has on the brand amongst people who aren’t even into your product. I think MS is building up leverage before they go in on licensed stuff.
This makes sense to me. Or moneyhatting some licensed game already being developed.
But licensing IP for their own studios to develop does seem a little counter intuitive. The exception being sequels. If Rare asked for a Bond license to make a proper, official GoldenEye sequel for example.
If they desperately want some games based on popular non-gaming IP to pad out their catalogue of first party games, I’d rather see them straight up buy that IP permanently, than sign temporary licensing deals.
I’m not holding these opinions for any business or logical reasons. It just a gut feeling on what seems “right.”
There is no such thing as best use of freedom. That’s the freedom part. As long as teams are working on a project their are passionate about then what is there to think about?
