wccftech Indiana Jones and The Great Circle To Release as Timed Exclusive

[bonami2]

Quote

Bethesda and MachineGames announced in January 2021 that the game was officially being developed in collaboration with Lucasfilm Games. Jerk Gustaffson, the Director, teamed up with Gordy Haab to contribute original music and reinterpretations of classic Indiana Jones themes heard throughout the movies.

At the moment, Indiana Jones and the Great Circle doesn't have an official release date other than sometime in 2024. It's possible that, with the footage shown at Gamescom, they will announce a release date then. So far, the game is set to be one of the most highly anticipated Xbox exclusives.

Indiana Jones and The Great Circle To Release as Timed Exclusive

WCCFTECH.COM

---

Indiana Jones and The Great Circle is supposedly set to release as a timed exclusive, with the potential of it going to PS5 next year.

 

[UltraMega]

I may be the odd man out here, but I love that Microsoft is going full tilt on multiplatform titles. 

 

Microsoft's whole MO is: be everywhere people are using software. This is entirely within their main business strategy and long term it has the potential to really shake up the 'platform game exclusive' concept as a whole. 

 

We are past the days of needing to cater to hardware from a game dev perspective. The last time we were there was the PS3 era. Since then, dev are just leaving money on the table if they don't release their games everywhere they can. I understand that this move is happening early because Microsoft over-estimated the short-term success of game pass, but all that aside, we all benefit from more multi-platform games. 

[Slaughtahouse]

On 21/08/2024 at 06:37, UltraMega said:

I may be the odd man out here, but I love that Microsoft is going full tilt on multiplatform titles. 

 

Microsoft's whole MO is: be everywhere people are using software. This is entirely within their main business strategy and long term it has the potential to really shake up the 'platform game exclusive' concept as a whole. 

 

We are past the days of needing to cater to hardware from a game dev perspective. The last time we were there was the PS3 era. Since then, dev are just leaving money on the table if they don't release their games everywhere they can. I understand that this move is happening early because Microsoft over-estimated the short-term success of game pass, but all that aside, we all benefit from more multi-platform games. 

 

I think it's a double edge sword. There have been a lot of benefits (high quality games) when the big 3 push their key studios to develop flagship titles and software to help build their brand.

 

PlayStation -> God of War, Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, Infamous etc.

Microsoft -> Halo, Gears, Forza, Fable etc.

Nintendo -> Mario, Zelda, Smash, Metroid etc. 

 

Console sales were never strictly about profit and I suspect they've mostly been subsidized throughout the years. They're just the means to deliver the software. Have a killer app, acquire a customer, get them into your ecosystem (brand) and the profit comes from all the margins of game sales, software distribution / platform fees, online services, and accessories etc.

 

Microsoft has nice plans and I think its great they're putting more games on more systems. I just would hate to see that because of this Wal-mart / Amazon approach (smaller margins, easily accessible, higher # of sales) that we continue to lose the quality. Somehow Nintendo and Sony have still been delivering excellent games but Microsoft... not so much. 

 

Sony sales still pacing very well, PS4 or greater console sales and majority user base on multiplatform games like COD, MADDEN, FIFA etc. because the PS has at least some USP in the console market. Sony exclusives.

Nintendo dominating in their own market, with over 70 unique games selling at least 1m copies...

 

For a PC software company, I'm still baffled how they lost the PC market to Steam ~20 years ago and aren't trying to make ground their. It's absolutely wild. Even Epic has done a better job and that's saying a lot. If they join the hybrid market (Steam Deck / ROG Ally), they need to still convince people not to use Steam. The hardware won't be profitable and Steam /Steam Deck has the software to make the experience enjoyable (Steam OS / Proton layer). 

 

Just my 2 cents. 

[UltraMega]

4 hours ago, Slaughtahouse said:

 

I think it's a double edge sword. There have been a lot of benefits (high quality games) when the big 3 push their key studios to develop flagship titles and software to help build their brand.

 

PlayStation -> God of War, Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, Infamous etc.

Microsoft -> Halo, Gears, Forza, Fable etc.

Nintendo -> Mario, Zelda, Smash, Metroid etc. 

 

Console sales were never strictly about profit and I suspect they've mostly been subsidized throughout the years. They're just the means to deliver the software. Have a killer app, acquire a customer, get them into your ecosystem (brand) and the profit comes from all the margins of game sales, software distribution / platform fees, online services, and accessories etc.

 

Microsoft has nice plans and I think its great they're putting more games on more systems. I just would hate to see that because of this Wal-mart / Amazon approach (smaller margins, easily accessible, higher # of sales) that we continue to lose the quality. Somehow Nintendo and Sony have still been delivering excellent games but Microsoft... not so much. 

 

Sony sales still pacing very well, PS4 or greater console sales and majority user base on multiplatform games like COD, MADDEN, FIFA etc. because the PS has at least some USP in the console market. Sony exclusives.

Nintendo dominating in their own market, with over 70 unique games selling at least 1m copies...

 

For a PC software company, I'm still baffled how they lost the PC market to Steam ~20 years ago and aren't trying to make ground their. It's absolutely wild. Even Epic has done a better job and that's saying a lot. If they join the hybrid market (Steam Deck / ROG Ally), they need to still convince people not to use Steam. The hardware won't be profitable and Steam /Steam Deck has the software to make the experience enjoyable (Steam OS / Proton layer). 

 

Just my 2 cents. 

 

I think the market has changed. Consoles don't sell as well as they used to, which means selling games exclusive to one system means seller less copies over all. 

 

The Playstation 2 is still the best selling console of all time, followed by the Nintendo DS. 

 

Another factor is that games are cheaper now than they used to be. Games are still $60 as they were when I was a kid buying PS2 games, which means they're cheaper now since they price didn't rise with inflation. That means they have to sell more copies (or riddle their games with micro-transactions). In a world with fewer consoles being sold, and games being technically cheaper, somethings gotta give. 

 

The video game market overall is bigger today than ever, but individual console markets are smaller. The only way to keep profiting from game sales is to cut the dev budget or sell on more platforms. Nintendo is the exception, as the Switch is the third best selling console of all time; the audience is big enough there for Nintendo to stay exclusive. Plus I'd imagine the budget for their games is a lot smaller than a typical AAA game like COD or whatever.

 

Also of note, all the Playstation games you listed are on PC now, except Gran Turismo. Sony is also seeing the need to sell their games on more platforms. I don't see Sony selling games on Xbox, but they're ramping up their efforts in the PC market. 

 

You said it's a double edged sword, and maybe that is or was true for the console makers, but as gamers we benefit from games being available in more places. I see no down side. 

Edited August 22 by UltraMega

[Slaughtahouse]

23 hours ago, UltraMega said:

 

I think the market has changed. Consoles don't sell as well as they used to, which means selling games exclusive to one system means seller less copies over all. 

 

The Playstation 2 is still the best selling console of all time, followed by the Nintendo DS. 

 

Another factor is that games are cheaper now than they used to be. Games are still $60 as they were when I was a kid buying PS2 games, which means they're cheaper now since they price didn't rise with inflation. That means they have to sell more copies (or riddle their games with micro-transactions). In a world with fewer consoles being sold, and games being technically cheaper, somethings gotta give. 

 

The video game market overall is bigger today than ever, but individual console markets are smaller. The only way to keep profiting from game sales is to cut the dev budget or sell on more platforms. Nintendo is the exception, as the Switch is the third best selling console of all time; the audience is big enough there for Nintendo to stay exclusive. Plus I'd imagine the budget for their games is a lot smaller than a typical AAA game like COD or whatever.

 

Also of note, all the Playstation games you listed are on PC now, except Gran Turismo. Sony is also seeing the need to sell their games on more platforms. I don't see Sony selling games on Xbox, but they're ramping up their efforts in the PC market. 

 

You said it's a double edged sword, and maybe that is or was true for the console makers, but as gamers we benefit from games being available in more places. I see no down side. 

 

I hear you and agree with most of your points. Inflation and other factors surely have and will continue to drive change in the industry. There is no way to avoid it when development time increases on AAA games and cost per dev also goes up to compensate for increased cost of living.

 

I don’t necessarily see PC in the same light because it’s an open market and not an apples to apples comparison to closed, console markets. It doesn’t have a brand associated to it and doesn’t signify quality like a Sony or Nintendo first party would. Steam (Valve) on PC does but again, it’s not 1:1. Though, I do expect that to slowly change. Yes, it’s true that both Sony and Microsoft have expanded to PC and I expect that to continue. There really isn’t an incentive not to, since it’s open and a large market. 

 

To iterate on my point (double edged sword), I disagree that Microsoft’s strategy is only better for consumers. Microsoft for the entire 9th (?) current gen, has been pushing in this direction, prioritizing quantity, and it has impacted quality. 

 

Example #1: Cross platform requirements for flagship titles. Halo Infinite, a game that comprised on pillars of Halo (single player co-op split screen) to service as many consoles and gamers as possible. That was the bread and butter that got everyone hyped for a Halo launch. Buy the game, blast through it in one night with friends, brag you beat it on legendary, then move to multiplayer. They deprioritized that, focused on multiplayer, and sold the a compromised campaign separately.

 

Example #2: Imposing games must have feature parity between Series S | X. This impacted the launch of Baldur’s Gate III on Series consoles, missing a critical release window. Forcing Microsoft to reverse their own policy. There are surely other titles that also got impacted but only BG3 cones to mind. Knowing how big BG3 was going to be, and the writing was on the wall, with that game in early access for years, it’s just one more mistake that could have been avoided. Edit: Black Myth Wokong is another example. Not on Xbox (yet).

 

Example #3: Hands-off approach. Redfall, Forza. First party games with a reputation of poor quality (performance, features, value). Microsoft is very focused on being an VC, financing, or sponsoring (business) but I think their role as a first party should go beyond that. If Nintendo and Sony can do it, why not Microsoft (Xbox). The brand recognition and respect of the others is leagues ahead of Xbox. 

 

Will gamers get access to more games? Yes! Is that benefit? I don’t think it’s a clear win. We have a surplus of games already and I don’t believe Microsoft’s pursuit of more games on more platforms goes without fault. 

 

If they can get more high quality games out to more gamers, I am happy and it’s a win-win. Let’s hope they’ve learned from all their missteps but colour me skeptical.

Edited August 23 by Slaughtahouse

[UltraMega]

40 minutes ago, Slaughtahouse said:

 

I hear you and agree with most of your points. Inflation and other factors surely have and will continue to drive change in the industry. There is no way to avoid it when development time increases on AAA games and cost per dev also goes up to compensate for increased cost of living.

 

I don’t necessarily see PC in the same light because it’s an open market and not an apples to apples comparison to closed, console markets. It doesn’t have a brand associated to it and doesn’t signify quality like a Sony or Nintendo first party would. Steam (Valve) on PC does but again, it’s not 1:1. Though, I do expect that to slowly change. Yes, it’s true that both Sony and Microsoft have expanded to PC and I expect that to continue. There really isn’t an incentive not to, since it’s open and a large market. 

 

To iterate on my point (double edged sword), I disagree that Microsoft’s strategy is only better for consumers. Microsoft for the entire 9th (?) current gen, has been pushing in this direction, prioritizing quantity, and it has impacted quality. 

 

Example #1: Cross platform requirements for flagship titles. Halo Infinite, a game that comprised on pillars of Halo (single player co-op split screen) to service as many consoles and gamers as possible. That was the bread and butter that got everyone hyped for a Halo launch. Buy the game, blast through it in one night with friends, brag you beat it on legendary, then move to multiplayer. They deprioritized that, focused on multiplayer, and sold the a compromised campaign separately.

 

Example #2: Imposing games must have feature parity between Series S | X. This impacted the launch of Baldur’s Gate III on Series consoles, missing a critical release window. Forcing Microsoft to reverse their own policy. There are surely other titles that also got impacted but only BG3 cones to mind. Knowing how big BG3 was going to be, and the writing was on the wall, with that game in early access for years, it’s just one more mistake that could have been avoided.

 

Example #3: Hands-off approach. Redfall, Forza. First party games with a reputation of poor quality (performance, features, value). Microsoft is very focused on being an VC, financing, or sponsoring (business) but I think their role as a first party should go beyond that. If Nintendo and Sony can do it, why not Microsoft (Xbox). The brand recognition and respect of the others is leagues ahead of Xbox. 

 

Will gamers get access to more games? Yes! Is that benefit? I don’t think it’s a clear win. We have a surplus of games already and I don’t believe Microsoft’s pursuit of more games on more platforms goes without fault. 

 

If they can get more high quality games out to more gamers, I am happy and it’s a win-win. Let’s hope they’ve learned from all their missteps but colour me skeptical.

I agree with all of your criticism of Microsoft's strategy lately. It was a huge mistake IMO to release the Series S all together. Making a lower res 1080p system wasn't crazy, but releasing it with less ram was.

 

I think Sony and Microsoft also both suffered from being very late with true current gen content and cross platform really held back this gen, and still does more than it should. To be fair, I think Covid contributed a lot to that. Chip shortages had a real impact, and we can't really know if the approach would have been different if not for that. 

 

But with that in mind, I don't think any of those issues you mentioned are made worse by releasing games on PS5. I agree that quantity over quality has been the theme for the birth of game pass up to now, but selling more copies by releasing on PS5 doesn't really impact that one way or the other. Or if it does, it would seem they could maintain higher dev budgets with the anticipated extra sales. The homogony between Xbox, PS5, and PC now is at a level where there are no major hurdles for devs to release wherever they can. 

 

I think it's worth mentioning as well that Microsoft did make a lot of huge investments that have yet to really come to fruition. Had they made those investments a few years before launching game pass, they could have kicked off with a bang, but it's not typical for subscription services to launch with a big library of high quality first party IP. Netflix and Hulu started by streaming purely content they didn't produce, now they both have a lot of quality first party stuff.

 

I think Microsoft will get there. Once titles like Stalker 2, MSFS2024, Fable, and all the other current gen stuff they have in the works come out, I think they will get the ball rolling in the right direction. It will be interesting to see if they still want to release titles on PS5 once they do have some truly good current gen titles out. This whole Xbox titles on PS5 thing seems like it could be temporary as sort of a stop gap to slow the bleeding from all their investments that don't have a short term pay-off. But I hope it lasts, and becomes more standard as time goes on. 

 

I'll just wrap up by pointing out FF16 is a good example of a game that was more or less forced to become a PC title because of the low sales. Not a first party Sony game, but from what I understand the game was supposed to be a PS5 exclusive indefinitely but it just didn't sell enough copies. 

 

Edited August 22 by UltraMega

[Slaughtahouse]

What are your thoughts on Indiana Jones in the context of this announcement? It doesn't seem like it will be a huge blockbuster but I am hopeful it will be a good (not amazing) game. I'm not sure what signal it sends to say, hey if you wait a few months, it will come to PlayStation. Like... is there really such a large demographic that NEEDS to have Indiana Jones exclusive on Xbox for the winter season? Why not just go multiplatform on launch? Seems like another weird choice. If it was Starfield, or another hugely anticipated game like Perfect Dark or Fable, then I could get it. Just seems... odd. 

[UltraMega]

1 hour ago, Slaughtahouse said:

What are your thoughts on Indiana Jones in the context of this announcement? It doesn't seem like it will be a huge blockbuster but I am hopeful it will be a good (not amazing) game. I'm not sure what signal it sends to say, hey if you wait a few months, it will come to PlayStation. Like... is there really such a large demographic that NEEDS to have Indiana Jones exclusive on Xbox for the winter season? Why not just go multiplatform on launch? Seems like another weird choice. If it was Starfield, or another hugely anticipated game like Perfect Dark or Fable, then I could get it. Just seems... odd. 

 

I think Microsoft is feeling a bit upside down in their investment goals with all their acquisitions, and trying to balance their books on an individual IP basis. Since the Indian Jones game probably comes with a heafty IP licensing bill, they want it to be multi-platform. It's not a game that is going to help build the Xbox brand so much, as it's just an average licensed movie IP game. 

 

I agree that a few months of Xbox exclusivity seems meaningless at this point, but it at least allows them to appear to be putting their own platform first. I'm sure a lot of this boils down to just competing forces within Microsoft's executive's expectations, and them trying to find a balance between having their cake and eating it too. 

 

This Indian Jones game feels like a console market game more than a PC one. It looks like Uncharted, but worse, and with the Indian Jones IP on top. Games like this that cater more to console audiences are probably the ones Microsoft will be doing this with in general. Games like Stalker 2, probably not. I would be surprised in Stalker 2 ended up on PS5. 

Edited August 23 by UltraMega