Bungie jeopardizes Last of Us Multiplayer

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-26/-last-of-us-multiplayer-video-game-faces-setbacks-at-sony#xj4y7vzkg

Sony Group Corp. has slowed down development on an upcoming multiplayer game in its long-running The Last of Us video game series as the creators reassess its quality and long-term viability, according to four people familiar with the project

Sony has invested heavily in “games as a service,” or video games designed to be monetized beyond their initial sales through ongoing purchases. As part of that push it asked another of its video-game studios, Seattle-based Bungie, to evaluate the games across its portfolio. Bungie raised questions about the The Last of Us multiplayer project’s ability to keep players engaged for a long period of time, which led to the reassessment.

Bungie is now an active force for bad in the industry, affecting other studios. In my opinion of course. It's one thing to pivot into this awful model for your own games… but to foist it on others is just so unfortunate.

locked

611 views

- No text -

locked

475 views

Do you mean the Sony subsidiary that uses Bungie’s name and iconography?

Listen, Cody… this is what Sony bought. This is exactly the reason they spent so much money to acquire Bungie. They want games-as-a-service across the board for their entire multiplayer gaming slate, not just within the walls of one of their studios.

locked

534 views

locked

561 views

I mean opinions aside (Destiny 2 is very good and a large part is because it uses a live service model well IMO) Naughty Dog chose live service for a multiplayer game. Bungie is one of the few developers who have been able to really understand the space, lessons they learned from faceplanting, getting back up and improving. Even if you are bitter about the system better to have bad implementations then yet another Live service game dying in flames no?

locked

481 views

(Destiny 2 is very good and a large part is because it uses a live service model well IMO)

I agree with this. It uses the live service to tell the campaign/story while keeping the ongoing playing universe up to date and ever changing.

Other games like GTA and Red Dead have AMAZING campaigns, but aren't at all related to the multiplayer experience. I loved both campaigns but don't give a crap about the online multiplayer experience.

Call of Duty, I love Warzone but don't give a crap about the game itself. The multiplayer sucks and the campaigns have become stale. The part I love, Warzone, is super fun gameplay, but even then, things get really stale after a while. They don't do a good job of keeping things fresh. There's no interest from me or anyone in my group to work the battle pass, or do any objectives, and the story they are trying to tell is just obnoxious cutscenes we can't skip.

Destiny is a world that we all are a part of with TOOONS of options and ways to play it. Despite the issues, Bungie has nailed it.

locked

496 views

I mean opinions aside (Destiny 2 is very good and a large part is because it uses a live service model well IMO) Naughty Dog chose live service for a multiplayer game. Bungie is one of the few developers who have been able to really understand the space, lessons they learned from faceplanting, getting back up and improving. Even if you are bitter about the system better to have bad implementations then yet another Live service game dying in flames no?

We don't know how intrusive or even what kind of live service the game was going to be - only that it would not generate lots of money in Bungie's opinion.

What is lots? Could it have been sustainable or profitable just at a smaller scale?
How intrusive or unintrusive were these live systems?
How good was the game?

My gut tells me that the game probably was pretty good given Bungie's appraisal. But we won't, and may never know. Because they killed it.

locked

484 views

I mean opinions aside (Destiny 2 is very good and a large part is because it uses a live service model well IMO) Naughty Dog chose live service for a multiplayer game. Bungie is one of the few developers who have been able to really understand the space, lessons they learned from faceplanting, getting back up and improving. Even if you are bitter about the system better to have bad implementations then yet another Live service game dying in flames no?

We don't know how intrusive or even what kind of live service the game was going to be - only that it would not generate lots of money in Bungie's opinion.

What is lots? Could it have been sustainable or profitable just at a smaller scale?
How intrusive or unintrusive were these live systems?
How good was the game?

My gut tells me that the game probably was pretty good given Bungie's appraisal. But we won't, and may never know. Because they killed it.

I think you're taking a pre-decided and cynical point of view to it. If the gameplay isn't fun, then it won't make money, period. Not saying your assessment is wrong, but you know there is more nuance involved than just a group of briefcases coming in and shredding the blueprints.

locked

471 views

I mean opinions aside (Destiny 2 is very good and a large part is because it uses a live service model well IMO) Naughty Dog chose live service for a multiplayer game. Bungie is one of the few developers who have been able to really understand the space, lessons they learned from faceplanting, getting back up and improving. Even if you are bitter about the system better to have bad implementations then yet another Live service game dying in flames no?

We don't know how intrusive or even what kind of live service the game was going to be - only that it would not generate lots of money in Bungie's opinion.

What is lots? Could it have been sustainable or profitable just at a smaller scale?
How intrusive or unintrusive were these live systems?
How good was the game?

My gut tells me that the game probably was pretty good given Bungie's appraisal. But we won't, and may never know. Because they killed it.

I think you're taking a pre-decided and cynical point of view to it. If the gameplay isn't fun, then it won't make money, period. Not saying your assessment is wrong, but you know there is more nuance involved than just a group of briefcases coming in and shredding the blueprints.

Zero mention in the article fun was the issue. It was entirely business. If the game weren't fun, enough so that it got the project put on hold, that would have been mentioned.

locked

468 views

Zero mention in the article fun was the issue.

...there was an article?

locked

452 views

I mean opinions aside (Destiny 2 is very good and a large part is because it uses a live service model well IMO) Naughty Dog chose live service for a multiplayer game. Bungie is one of the few developers who have been able to really understand the space, lessons they learned from faceplanting, getting back up and improving. Even if you are bitter about the system better to have bad implementations then yet another Live service game dying in flames no?

We don't know how intrusive or even what kind of live service the game was going to be - only that it would not generate lots of money in Bungie's opinion.

What is lots? Could it have been sustainable or profitable just at a smaller scale?
How intrusive or unintrusive were these live systems?
How good was the game?

My gut tells me that the game probably was pretty good given Bungie's appraisal. But we won't, and may never know. Because they killed it.

I think you're taking a pre-decided and cynical point of view to it. If the gameplay isn't fun, then it won't make money, period. Not saying your assessment is wrong, but you know there is more nuance involved than just a group of briefcases coming in and shredding the blueprints.

Zero mention in the article fun was the issue. It was entirely business. If the game weren't fun, enough so that it got the project put on hold, that would have been mentioned.

I'm not giving my email to read an article, but no where else have I read that the multiplayer game is "on hold" or "killed." Given your sky-high critical requirements, I'm surprised that you would assume that Bungie's critique didn't have merit, but I guess it's another reason to dunk on Bungie, which seems like one of the only reasons you've hung around here for years. (I honestly don't know what you get out of it.) This is second-hand reporting, and beyond that selective I'm sure. So Bungie said they didn't think the game would make money. So what? Maybe that was one of many things they said, and maybe they said that because they were asked that question.

locked

501 views

and maybe they said that because they were asked that question.

That's my general issue with all this. It's what Sony's priorities are becoming. We could always count on Sony for big, meaningful single player experiences. By 2025, Sony's costs will be 60% live service, and 40% traditional. It's not like traditional games are going to disappear, but it's looking like they will be less and less common.

locked

460 views

I’m not happy about that either. Fortunately, I have a backlog that will last years.

locked

456 views

I’m not sure it’s that dire.

Naughty Dog is reportedly working on a new IP and Neil has talked about having ideas for The Last of Us 3. Insomniac is doing Spider-man and Wolverine. Cory Barlog is working on a new IP. It’s assumed (or maybe confirmed?) that Ghost of Tsushima 2 is in development. Blueprint is working on an original game.

Basically all of Sony’s big studios that made the types of games you’re talking about are known to be working on sequels to those games or original games that will likely be in that mold. That Sony has acquired a bunch of studios to do live service stuff doesn’t change that, and I’d be really surprised if it means they’re not going to continue to give the likes of Naughty Dog the time and budget to do their thing.

locked

470 views