You can't just take an idea and give it to any random studio. The reason TLOU Online would've been great is because Naughty Dog would've been making it. Without Naughty Dog behind it it wouldn't be the same.
IconEra
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
FairGames Cancelled (Studio will become a Support Studio).
- Thread starter Danja
- Start date
Discussion
You can't just take an idea and give it to any random studio. The reason TLOU Online would've been great is because Naughty Dog would've been making it. Without Naughty Dog behind it it wouldn't be the same.
The 4B Bungie figure (actually less, since they did not meet payout requirements) was a failure of valuation (a separate mistake). That’s a different topic from whether funding live service projects is a mistake in aggregate
you can throw the individual PnL of Destiny and marathon from opex and it doesn’t change what I’m discussing
That failure in properly valuing Bungie led to a $750m impairment charge they had to account for. So even if you take the acquisition cost out of it, that cost is undeniable. Now add all the flopped/cancelled live service games. Just doing a very conservative $200m loss each from Concord, Fairgames and Marathon already adds up to another $600m and we're at $1.3bn down the drain already. And obviously those were not the only ones. Helldivers 2 has maybe made $1.5bn in revenue in total or so. So claiming Helldivers 2 was definitively worth having all those other flops seems a bit premature to me. This maybe rang true one or two years ago, but I doubt it does anymore.
The impairment loss was the result of a terrible valuation decision on a company they decided to purchase, shouldn’t really be included here. It’s a separate mistake that was a knee jerk reaction to the Activision deal
Helldivers 2 continues to generate revenue every year, for the cost of its development budget and $600M in other live service failures? Absolutely worth it
And that IP will continue making money with other cross media ambitions and potential for a sequel
Bungie was specifically bought for their live service expertise. There's a reason they had them do internal portfolio evaluations, which also led to them giving Naughty Dog a reality check and ND deciding to cancel Factions. The Bungie acquisition is inseparable from the live service push and the impairment charge should absolutely count against it. They wouldn't have bought Bungie if they had no ambitions in the live service space.
Also that $600m in losses was a very conservative estimate and for those 3 games only (I left out other flops, about-to-be-flops or cancelled games like Destruction AllStars, the God of War live service game, TLOU factions and Horizon Hunters Gathering). These games almost surely lost Sony more than $200m each considering they've been in development for 5+ years each and in case of Fairgames and Concord also included an acquisition for a studio, one which was dissolved follow Concord and the other is probably not long for this world either even though it's still open atm.
Helldivers 2 was worth it in the sense that they were going to do this push anyway, so at least they got 1 successful title out of it. But if they could go back in time and never do the live service push knowing the results, including Helldivers' success, there's a good chance they might've chosen not to bother.
you have zero clue regarding multiplayer live service. ur just another herman hulst/braindead PS exec that are out of date with the current market
23 Kojima games
Yes, and to account for that drop in value they had to write down $750m+ in costs. Costs which should be counted against the live service push since they're part of it. If Destiny and Marathon had been popping off and generating hundreds of millions, you'd be counting that towards live service as a success, so it's only natural that an almost $1bn impairment charge should be counted against it. That impairment charge alone undoes most of Helldivers 2's game unit sales (not MTX).
You are delusional if you think that just because they both made a third person shooter, they can be stand ins for Naughty Dog on TLOU Factions. This is like arguing people who made Bubsy 3D can fill in for EPD Tokyo for the next mainline 3D Mario game because they both make 3D platformers.
And no, I do not want TLOU Factions at any cost. And people saying they want the NCSoft Horizon game instead of the Guerilla one is entirely due to art style. The NCSoft game looks like what the games people are used to look like, and Guerilla's game looks like a spin off for children. No one asked for the NCSoft game, but it's out there so people might as well. If you had polled Horizon fans if they would want NCSoft to make a Horizon game probably 90% of the poll answers would be "fuck no".
The cost to purchase Bungie came from their acquisition budget, not their live service budget
Why are you moving the goalposts to be about what budget it was allocated to? If they use their acquisition budget to buy studios and developers to exclusively be part of their live service push, it's 100% part of the live service push. And any of the failures or successes stemming from that acquisition should therefore be attributed to the live service push.
Like I said, if Marathon had been a smash hit you'd be the first to credit it to the live service push. But when Destiny and Marathon bomb so hard that they have to need to file an impairment charge of almost $1bn suddenly it no longer has anything to do with the live service initiative and shouldn't be counted against it?
I already tossed you a bone by not counting the full $4bn acquisition of Bungie. But the impairment charge is 100% a direct side effect of the live service games that Bungie released underperforming big time. Therefore it makes no sense to definitively claim that Helldivers 2's success undid all the failures of this initiative. These failures have cost Sony easily $1-2bn at least.
the smartest thing PS can do is take those 150 dev studio at haven to finish tlou online add modes that cater to PS player like a full pve survival mode & a 5v5 arena mode & charge $10 then after things settle take 50 devs at haven to reuse the asset from the tlou online to spin off a tlou spin off a 1st person silent hill esque tlou game with much slower survival gameplay to go along with naughty dog tlou 3 that will release first so you can extract the most out of all the asset from tlou online & release more tlou game with spin off
I said to include the cost of supporting Destiny and Marathon to market and beyond
I think valuation expense is an entirely different animal and shouldn’t be lumped in. It was a mistake, but it was a mistake in valuation, not in the product development. They just paid to much for the acquisition
Speak for yourself. I would of loved the Factions 2 project. Would of been a dream game
Throw in a MP in the next Uncharted game too. Im down for that
What's the difference? You think because both studios make a third person live service game their talent and skills are interchangeable. They're not. It's like I said, just as stupid as arguing the Bubsy 3D could do the next mainline 3D Mario.
Haven couldn't even get their own fucking game published because it was too ass, and you want them to fill in for Naughty Dog, one of the most prestigious studios in the industry? Lmao.
Just because Naughty Dog is experienced in single player first and foremost doesn't mean that 90% of the appeal of TLOU Factions wouldn't be Naughty Dog using their IP and taking a crack at a full multiplayer experience. No other studio except maybe Rockstar can replicate the level of quality in animations and details that Naughty Dog would be implementing even in a multiplayer game. If it's not Naughty Dog doing it, the game would be fundamentally different.
Try again nerd. People on this forum seriously need to stop this delusional cope that I'm sort of poser who can't back up his words.
Haven thus far is a dogshit studio that couldn't even get their own game out. I don't want them to defile the Last of Us IP and get credit for Naughty Dog's work. Naughty Dog chose to drop the project to avoid becoming a live service studio. It sucks because I liked the TLOU1 multiplayer and would've loved to try it, but I respect that and I vastly prefer that over them never making another singleplayer game again. That's the difference between being an actual fan and a fanboy who just wants to jerk off to thought of a bigger list they can use to fight their fanboy wars online. There's a reason the "we have X at home meme" exists, it makes fun of people like yourself claiming X and Y are interchangeable when they aren't.
Also a live service game requires constant new content. So no, they cannot just take Naughty Dog's assets and somehow make the whole game with that. Even if they could, what do they do post launch?
You never have reasonable takes rooted in reality anyway. If it was up to you Sony would've been burning millions on mobile gaming slop instead and they'd have stopped making traditional home consoles to instead become a Switch clone.
It is literally a cost they accounted for. What difference does it make if they are accounting for a $750m impairment loss or a $200m game development budget? You are arguing against Sony's own accountants here. Bungie's games flopping led to their value dropping so much it had to be registered as a separate cost on their balance sheet, and since this studio is part of the whole live service push it should be included in the gains and losses there when we are discussing those.
Well, I am speaking for myself. That's why I said *I* do not want it at any cost.
If you want TLOU2 Factions even if it's made by a studio that has never put out any game and with minimal to no involvement from Naughty Dog like that user is suggesting, be my guest.
You can't just take an idea and give it to any random studio. The reason TLOU Online would've been great is because Naughty Dog would've been making it. Without Naughty Dog behind it it wouldn't be the same.
The 4B Bungie figure (actually less, since they did not meet payout requirements) was a failure of valuation (a separate mistake). That’s a different topic from whether funding live service projects is a mistake in aggregate
you can throw the individual PnL of Destiny and marathon from opex and it doesn’t change what I’m discussing
Wraith Phantom
Well-known member
This herman guy has got go. Fire Herman hulst.This clown closed down bluepoint and kept these lot. WIth zero game shown
That failure in properly valuing Bungie led to a $750m impairment charge they had to account for. So even if you take the acquisition cost out of it, that cost is undeniable. Now add all the flopped/cancelled live service games. Just doing a very conservative $200m loss each from Concord, Fairgames and Marathon already adds up to another $600m and we're at $1.3bn down the drain already. And obviously those were not the only ones. Helldivers 2 has maybe made $1.5bn in revenue in total or so. So claiming Helldivers 2 was definitively worth having all those other flops seems a bit premature to me. This maybe rang true one or two years ago, but I doubt it does anymore.
The impairment loss was the result of a terrible valuation decision on a company they decided to purchase, shouldn’t really be included here. It’s a separate mistake that was a knee jerk reaction to the Activision deal
Helldivers 2 continues to generate revenue every year, for the cost of its development budget and $600M in other live service failures? Absolutely worth it
And that IP will continue making money with other cross media ambitions and potential for a sequel
Bungie was specifically bought for their live service expertise. There's a reason they had them do internal portfolio evaluations, which also led to them giving Naughty Dog a reality check and ND deciding to cancel Factions. The Bungie acquisition is inseparable from the live service push and the impairment charge should absolutely count against it. They wouldn't have bought Bungie if they had no ambitions in the live service space.
Also that $600m in losses was a very conservative estimate and for those 3 games only (I left out other flops, about-to-be-flops or cancelled games like Destruction AllStars, the God of War live service game, TLOU factions and Horizon Hunters Gathering). These games almost surely lost Sony more than $200m each considering they've been in development for 5+ years each and in case of Fairgames and Concord also included an acquisition for a studio, one which was dissolved follow Concord and the other is probably not long for this world either even though it's still open atm.
Helldivers 2 was worth it in the sense that they were going to do this push anyway, so at least they got 1 successful title out of it. But if they could go back in time and never do the live service push knowing the results, including Helldivers' success, there's a good chance they might've chosen not to bother.
I was totally serious when I said Tassi would be on it…
And here he is…. He said he’s asked around for confirmation but he’s confident this is indeed the case
(Keep in mind he’s been leaking stuff with “speculation”)
And here he is…. He said he’s asked around for confirmation but he’s confident this is indeed the case
(Keep in mind he’s been leaking stuff with “speculation”)
Last edited:
LOL they killed off Bluepoint and this studio survived. FML.
loosing arrowhead is a good thing. there a incompetent studio that over years polarize & turn the helldivers community toxic because arrowhead thinks helldivers 2 is a mil sim rathen then a arcade horde shooter. give helldivers to bungie & greenlight helldivers 3 only on PS
haven isnt a random studio there a studio with nearly 4 years making a 3rd person shooter. tlou online is allready 85% done so they would just be polishing it, roadmapping the live service & the additional mode arent new ideas & allready proven modes. ehh tlou fans just want tlou online at any cost they dont care if it comes from naughty dog as shown with guerilla horizon project & ncsoft where PS & horizon fans want the ncsoft mobile version on PS & want guerilla games to cancel theres.
you have zero clue regarding multiplayer live service. ur just another herman hulst/braindead PS exec that are out of date with the current market
I would really love a running total of what has been wasted directly on live service games that never released or were shit down early.
23 Kojima games
Yes, and to account for that drop in value they had to write down $750m+ in costs. Costs which should be counted against the live service push since they're part of it. If Destiny and Marathon had been popping off and generating hundreds of millions, you'd be counting that towards live service as a success, so it's only natural that an almost $1bn impairment charge should be counted against it. That impairment charge alone undoes most of Helldivers 2's game unit sales (not MTX).
You are delusional if you think that just because they both made a third person shooter, they can be stand ins for Naughty Dog on TLOU Factions. This is like arguing people who made Bubsy 3D can fill in for EPD Tokyo for the next mainline 3D Mario game because they both make 3D platformers.
And no, I do not want TLOU Factions at any cost. And people saying they want the NCSoft Horizon game instead of the Guerilla one is entirely due to art style. The NCSoft game looks like what the games people are used to look like, and Guerilla's game looks like a spin off for children. No one asked for the NCSoft game, but it's out there so people might as well. If you had polled Horizon fans if they would want NCSoft to make a Horizon game probably 90% of the poll answers would be "fuck no".
Last edited:
The cost to purchase Bungie came from their acquisition budget, not their live service budget
Why are you moving the goalposts to be about what budget it was allocated to? If they use their acquisition budget to buy studios and developers to exclusively be part of their live service push, it's 100% part of the live service push. And any of the failures or successes stemming from that acquisition should therefore be attributed to the live service push.
Like I said, if Marathon had been a smash hit you'd be the first to credit it to the live service push. But when Destiny and Marathon bomb so hard that they have to need to file an impairment charge of almost $1bn suddenly it no longer has anything to do with the live service initiative and shouldn't be counted against it?
I already tossed you a bone by not counting the full $4bn acquisition of Bungie. But the impairment charge is 100% a direct side effect of the live service games that Bungie released underperforming big time. Therefore it makes no sense to definitively claim that Helldivers 2's success undid all the failures of this initiative. These failures have cost Sony easily $1-2bn at least.
your comparing singleplayer to multiplayer games LMAO just give it up
thats cause your not a tlou or PS user. its ok to be wrong.
the smartest thing PS can do is take those 150 dev studio at haven to finish tlou online add modes that cater to PS player like a full pve survival mode & a 5v5 arena mode & charge $10 then after things settle take 50 devs at haven to reuse the asset from the tlou online to spin off a tlou spin off a 1st person silent hill esque tlou game with much slower survival gameplay to go along with naughty dog tlou 3 that will release first so you can extract the most out of all the asset from tlou online & release more tlou game with spin off
Why are you moving the goalposts to be about what budget it was allocated to? If they use their acquisition budget to buy studios and developers to exclusively be part of their live service push, it's 100% part of the live service push. And any of the failures or successes stemming from that acquisition should therefore be attributed to the live service push.
Like I said, if Marathon had been a smash hit you'd be the first to credit it to the live service push. But when Destiny and Marathon bomb so hard that they have to need to file an impairment charge of almost $1bn suddenly it no longer has anything to do with the live service initiative and shouldn't be counted against it?
I already tossed you a bone by not counting the full $4bn acquisition of Bungie. But the impairment charge is 100% a direct side effect of the live service games that Bungie released underperforming big time. Therefore it makes no sense to definitively claim that Helldivers 2's success undid all the failures of this initiative. These failures have cost Sony easily $1-2bn at least.
I said to include the cost of supporting Destiny and Marathon to market and beyond
I think valuation expense is an entirely different animal and shouldn’t be lumped in. It was a mistake, but it was a mistake in valuation, not in the product development. They just paid to much for the acquisition
Speak for yourself. I would of loved the Factions 2 project. Would of been a dream game
Throw in a MP in the next Uncharted game too. Im down for that
What's the difference? You think because both studios make a third person live service game their talent and skills are interchangeable. They're not. It's like I said, just as stupid as arguing the Bubsy 3D could do the next mainline 3D Mario.
Haven couldn't even get their own fucking game published because it was too ass, and you want them to fill in for Naughty Dog, one of the most prestigious studios in the industry? Lmao.
Just because Naughty Dog is experienced in single player first and foremost doesn't mean that 90% of the appeal of TLOU Factions wouldn't be Naughty Dog using their IP and taking a crack at a full multiplayer experience. No other studio except maybe Rockstar can replicate the level of quality in animations and details that Naughty Dog would be implementing even in a multiplayer game. If it's not Naughty Dog doing it, the game would be fundamentally different.
Try again nerd. People on this forum seriously need to stop this delusional cope that I'm sort of poser who can't back up his words.
Haven thus far is a dogshit studio that couldn't even get their own game out. I don't want them to defile the Last of Us IP and get credit for Naughty Dog's work. Naughty Dog chose to drop the project to avoid becoming a live service studio. It sucks because I liked the TLOU1 multiplayer and would've loved to try it, but I respect that and I vastly prefer that over them never making another singleplayer game again. That's the difference between being an actual fan and a fanboy who just wants to jerk off to thought of a bigger list they can use to fight their fanboy wars online. There's a reason the "we have X at home meme" exists, it makes fun of people like yourself claiming X and Y are interchangeable when they aren't.
Also a live service game requires constant new content. So no, they cannot just take Naughty Dog's assets and somehow make the whole game with that. Even if they could, what do they do post launch?
You never have reasonable takes rooted in reality anyway. If it was up to you Sony would've been burning millions on mobile gaming slop instead and they'd have stopped making traditional home consoles to instead become a Switch clone.
It is literally a cost they accounted for. What difference does it make if they are accounting for a $750m impairment loss or a $200m game development budget? You are arguing against Sony's own accountants here. Bungie's games flopping led to their value dropping so much it had to be registered as a separate cost on their balance sheet, and since this studio is part of the whole live service push it should be included in the gains and losses there when we are discussing those.
Well, I am speaking for myself. That's why I said *I* do not want it at any cost.
If you want TLOU2 Factions even if it's made by a studio that has never put out any game and with minimal to no involvement from Naughty Dog like that user is suggesting, be my guest.