spartaxoxo wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

If they thought Blackbird would be successful, of course they would not have shot themselves in the foot by cancelling it.

They would if they want to pivot away from new IP because they think that it's not the future of gaming. They cut down on the amount of new IP they were willing to do as a general business strategy. They actually thought Blackbird was very promising until they decided to move away from new IP and directly communicated as such. This is one of the reasons it was so shocking that the project was suddenly scrapped. This was not a project that was flailing.

Yes, not being the future of gaming means they did not think it would be successful! You seem to think this was a title close to release. It was not.

Whatever their plans are to change how games are developed, that could have been applied to Blackbird.

Industry-wide upheaval:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022–2025_video_game_industry_layoffs

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

If they thought Blackbird would be successful, of course they would not have shot themselves in the foot by cancelling it.

They would if they want to pivot away from new IP because they think that it's not the future of gaming. They cut down on the amount of new IP they were willing to do as a general business strategy. They actually thought Blackbird was very promising until they decided to move away from new IP and directly communicated as such. This is one of the reasons it was so shocking that the project was suddenly scrapped. This was not a project that was flailing.

Yes, not being the future of gaming means they did not think it would be successful! You seem to think this was a title close to release. It was not.

They explicitly stated it was not performance driven. If the future of gaming is AI, and you're focused on new IP, then even if the game would be profitable, it would be less profitable than if you had set yourself up to also do AI for existing games. Let's say 1 billion from Blackbird but 3 billion from AI as made up profit numbers to illustrate the point. Blackbird pulling in a billion would still be successful but still not a good choice from a profit perspective because it could have been 3.

There was absolutely zero indication that Blackbird would not be successful. Sometimes it's not about the performance of a specific product. Sometimes it's about what you think will be a better thing for your company to focus on in the future. And that has been explicitly stated in this case.

Yes, there was an indication they did not think it would be successful! They cancelled it!

Desiato wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

If they thought Blackbird would be successful, of course they would not have shot themselves in the foot by cancelling it.

They would if they want to pivot away from new IP because they think that it's not the future of gaming. They cut down on the amount of new IP they were willing to do as a general business strategy. They actually thought Blackbird was very promising until they decided to move away from new IP and directly communicated as such. This is one of the reasons it was so shocking that the project was suddenly scrapped. This was not a project that was flailing.

Yes, not being the future of gaming means they did not think it would be successful! You seem to think this was a title close to release. It was not.

They explicitly stated it was not performance driven. If the future of gaming is AI, and you're focused on new IP, then even if the game would be profitable, it would be less profitable than if you had set yourself up to also do AI for existing games. Let's say 1 billion from Blackbird but 3 billion from AI as made up profit numbers to illustrate the point. Blackbird pulling in a billion would still be successful but still not a good choice from a profit perspective because it could have been 3.

There was absolutely zero indication that Blackbird would not be successful. Sometimes it's not about the performance of a specific product. Sometimes it's about what you think will be a better thing for your company to focus on in the future. And that has been explicitly stated in this case.

Yes, there was an indication they did not think it would be successful! They cancelled it!

Again, cancelation does not automatically mean not profitable. There is more than one reasons companies cancel projects. IDK how to make that more clear.

Source = gaming bolt

"But Blackbird’s cancellation was particularly shocking because it had blown away executives at Xbox just a few months ago.” said Schrier’s source. “During the demonstration in March, Spencer was enjoying the game so much that Matt Booty, the head of Xbox Game Studios, had to pull the controller away so they could keep the meeting going, according to two people who were in the room.".....The cancellation of the project also came as the studio was expanding its workforce in order to work on Blackbird."

It had blown the executives away and they had even been given the clear to expand their workforce. Microsoft explicitly stated these layoffs were not about performance.

That's the last I'll say on this as the discussion has become quite circular. But MS explicitly stated these layoffs are about pivoting and streamlining their business in preparation for the future. It was not about the performance of the individuals or projects being laid off. And in fact, the individuals being laid off had contributed to the gaming segment of Microsoft being some of the most profitable that it had ever been.

The employees were doing good work. This is why it came as such a shock to them. They had been hearing nothing but positive feedback and had great success. And then one day they're just locked out of their computers and they don't even know why. I can imagine how awful that felt. My heart goes out to them.

ETA
How this relates to ESO is some of the people laid off had been critical to its success and we just a lot of institutional knowledge.

https://massivelyop.com/2025/07/23/zenimax-online-devs-say-microsoft-layoffs-eliminated-critical-mmorpg-staff-and-institutional-knowledge/

Microsoft didn't hand pick employees to lay off, thats not how it works. Senior management had to make the decisions. Probably Firor.

I am certain that they attempted to keep as many of the integral people as possible. The article is making it seem like the layoffs were random, destructive, and not well reasoned, and that is generally not how these things go. Certainly they lost alot of good people but I am certain they tried to retain the best.

I know the constant news of the state of the game industry is not fun to hear from a player standpoint, and it can't at all make for a good work environment for those in the industry right now. I guess that's another check in the "AI is the worst thing ever" column, since it's basically all but confirmed that all of these tech industries are pivoting to AI and away from entertainment.
Remember when all those AI things first started dropping and people were like "if we get AI to do our work, we'll have time for hobbies like art and gaming!" Yeah, that's not entirely going as planned...

I'm honestly scared of the future (of this game, of course, but you could also end that with 'in general' and it would still be true). Of course nobody knows what's going on with Microsoft but their bean counters, but I'm sure there are a few simple things:

1. With the economy in the state it is (is this the fourth or fifth 'once in a lifetime recession' in the last 30 years already?), people are spending less on luxuries like entertainment.
2. Current trends in entertainment have clearly shown that sequels/prequels/etc. are more profitable than original IPs since they essentially have a guaranteed audience. While people may whine all they want about "please release new IPs and stop rehashing old stuff!" the profits aren't showing that.

Because of that, I can see why Microsoft pulled the rug out from this Blackbird project. It's not cool at all what they did, but with CEO's all in their "I was going to get that ivory back scratcher" phase, they're all trying to get more for less.

What this means for ESO is probably that it's safe. For now. In the same way a tightrope walker is safe.

ESO is an established game with an established playerbase from an established IP. But I'm sure the sharks are circling here.
We already know (yeah, yeah, unconfirmed, but we still know) that ESO's budget got a massive cut last year - no NA event, no cinematic reveal, and a reduced amount of content - but it's still kicking. However, this means that ESO's budget will continue going down if the profits aren't there, and the rabble on the forums and elsewhere has definitely sounded like the Season Pass was not as profitable as Gold Road... which itself was not as profitable as Necrom...
After all, the biggest drivers of the Chapter sales are 1) a new area of Tamriel to explore (Solstice is a brand new island not at all referenced in lore before now), 2) a new feature (Subclassing was basegame so purchase was not needed this time), 3) a cool cinematic to hype people up (nonexistent this time), 4) a compelling story (gripes about the writing quality going downhill have been getting louder and louder), and 5) a new Trial (PvE endgame has been on a decline since U35 so it would never drive much in the first place). So... yeah, Solstice was lacking in ways to drive sales as well.

ESO really needs to prove it deserves its existence to the suits, and that means is needs to show incredibly high sales figures. If I were in charge, I'd look at fast-tracking some Chapter-selling feature and use that as a tentpole for the next year. I'd essentially go through the forums and Reddit and wherever trying to find out what (sellable!) features are widely requested, and then pretty well tell the team to drop everything else and get those into the game in time for U50 in June. Because if ESO can't prove that it's a good thing to the executives who think that AI is the future and that all money needs to be redirected to ChatGPT (or whatever Microsoft's equivalent is; I don't care enough to look it's name up myself), well...

But I'm sure morale at ZOS is in the gutter, and I feel for the employees. It's hard to pour your passion into a project when you just watched a bunch of your coworkers get axed out of nowhere, and wondering if and when it's your time. I'm sure many of the devs are now splitting their focus between their jobs and cleaning up their résumés and doing interviews elsewhere so they don't get caught in the next surprise wave of "transitioning."

Even some of the things that they're doing now seem... suspiciously timed. Like the thread we just got asking for feedback about Subclassing - we've never gotten a thread asking for feedback after a feature released before. U46's PTS was like talking to a brick wall, and yet for U47, we got a thread posted there right after the 11.1.1 patch dropped telling us that they were reverting a fair amount of the 11.1.0 changes, and now we have the thread asking about player sentiment around Subclassing in general. I'm assuming that Subclassing was not the "this is the best thing ever! Come back to the game!" kind of feature that they were expecting, and they're trying to scramble to diagnose what can be done to bring people back. It can't be easy for the team (who obviously love Subclassing and are so proud of it) to see that it was not universally loved by the players, and triply so because their jobs are essentially on the line if ESO's numbers aren't there.

I hope that ESO can continue. I really love this game, and I want to see it continue to expand. I want Microsoft (and all the other tech companies) to stop trying to delete any kind of fun from the world and trying to make the literal Matrix from happening - like you all realize that that movie was about a dystopian nightmare, not an instruction manual, right?
But... I also hope that ESO can deliver. Players are customers, and it is not expected that they should buy everything simply because of the name on the box. I hope that U48 brings a satisfying end to the 2025 Season, and that U49 and U50 will be the home run that will inspire most players to buy on sight and the suits to accept that maybe gaming is worth investing in.

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

As tempting as it is to lay 100% of the blame on Microsoft, ZOS has to take some of the blame here.
ESO lost a bunch of long term players (mini whales) from the tone deaf changes in patch 35 and then tried to replace them with newer players, most of which moved on after a few months after spending $20.
It was a poor long term strategy to fluff up the numbers which eventually caught up with them.

Hm, if a game has to rely on rich players then something ain't right imo. Besides, do you have any actual statistics?

Why pay 100 people for ten years to develop a new IP when AI can do it in a year? Or six months? For a fraction of a fraction of the cost? The future of gaming is AI and what we're seeing here is the beginning of that. Heck, the future is AI period. Look at GTA6, ten years in development, 1-2 billion spent, and now that it might be close to release new technology has probably rendered parts of it obsolete before it even hits the market.

What remains to be seen in this context is whether or not the adoption of smart generative technology will be a net positive for us as consumers of ESO content or the death knell of a ten year old game with wonky unreliable servers. It could mean the beginning of a new era of content or it could mean bare bones maintenance mode as we limp towards the finish line. Only time will tell.

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

It is possible to keep an MMO running with just whales. You just need enough people to keep buying new stuff from the in game store when it appears and the company will keep the servers running.

I don't think this is the right model to run a game. There shouldn't be a situations like "we must have X amount of whales to make our game sustainable and profitable". If a game model relies so heavily on this then it's doomed from the beginning imo.

I don't know what keeps people to play other MMOs, but I highly doubt that aion game is any better that ESO. But I'm not a MMO fan, I'm an elder scrolls fan, so I don't know. People spend a lot of money on questionable mobile games, and not just whales but regular people. I'm actually glad that ESO is not that focused on milking people for money. But I think more people would be interested to join ESO+ if it was a bit cheaper or had several types of subscriptions to choose from.

The BEST thing you can do for the game and its developers - play it as much and engage with it as often as possible and get other players to play it - the more people play it and the more undeniable it is the better for the game and its employees...

Chrisilis wrote: »

Why pay 100 people for ten years to develop a new IP when AI can do it in a year? Or six months? For a fraction of a fraction of the cost? The future of gaming is AI and what we're seeing here is the beginning of that. Heck, the future is AI period.

I don't think AI is at the point where it can replace an entire team. For example, the writing. If you want deep stories that resonate with people, forget AI. I've been using Duolingo as part of my "learn French" project, and it uses a lot of AI. At first, it was fine - it was just the voices and short lessons. But recently it's become clear that they're also using AI to write story units. My god, those units used to be funny and engaging. Now they read like a textbook and they're boring. Turned my favourite type of lesson into the worst type.

I shudder to think what a game produced mainly by AI will be like. Not just the flat, boring stories, but the entire experience. Glad I've got a large gaming library already with lots of favourites to play so I won't have to worry about all the AI dreck.

I'm all for AI when it makes sense (though due to the horrible environmental impacts, I could do without it, too). It does not make sense in creative areas like gaming except to aid with coding.

I wonder who will be buying all the stuff AI is producing when most people don't have jobs because AI replaced them?

Anyway, I don't like to be doom and gloom about the future of ESO because we're talking about real people at ZOS. I think the plans for 2026 will be an indication of whether the game will continue to get meaningful updates.

In my time, I have been thru several 'acquisitions' and 'layoffs' and so on, so forth.

When this gets called, the deck gets shuffled, and people start moving. Once it's made public, whether you an employee or a shareholder, you have a new game to play and a new day isn't en route, it's already here and here to stay. People have to make decisions, I know, it's painful, never an easy thing. Lots of changes not just can but will and have already happened that are not intended to be rolled back.

There's a sense of community that comes from things like ESO, there's a sense of Order established based on respect in the workplace however, when this goes down, all of that gets flipped on its head. The only thing that can be done is keep being cool and doing what needs to be done. ESO bringing in more money won't change anything, ESO being a good thing (which it has been) won't change anything and neither will this end when we think it should. These things just don't work that way.

So, keep on smiling, take care of yourselves and if you are tied into this in any way, look carefully for any opportunity here that might exist -for you- because this is the time for change, a time like none other. Sometimes it be better this way. You just don't see it right away but at this point no need to be shy to something better than can come from this, but it starts with accepting things and then developing a plan that puts you first in midst of something not exactly intended for that purpose.

Being bought out by a larger corporation is most often the kiss of death for a smaller company.
Same thing when 3M bought one of the companies I used to work for, they got their feet wet decided it wasn't for them, kept what they wanted and trashed the rest of the company.
Investers are a fickle lot loyal to only the bottom line.

AzuraFan wrote: »

Chrisilis wrote: »

Why pay 100 people for ten years to develop a new IP when AI can do it in a year? Or six months? For a fraction of a fraction of the cost? The future of gaming is AI and what we're seeing here is the beginning of that. Heck, the future is AI period.

I don't think AI is at the point where it can replace an entire team. For example, the writing. If you want deep stories that resonate with people, forget AI. I've been using Duolingo as part of my "learn French" project, and it uses a lot of AI. At first, it was fine - it was just the voices and short lessons. But recently it's become clear that they're also using AI to write story units. My god, those units used to be funny and engaging. Now they read like a textbook and they're boring. Turned my favourite type of lesson into the worst type.

I shudder to think what a game produced mainly by AI will be like. Not just the flat, boring stories, but the entire experience. Glad I've got a large gaming library already with lots of favourites to play so I won't have to worry about all the AI dreck.

I'm all for AI when it makes sense (though due to the horrible environmental impacts, I could do without it, too). It does not make sense in creative areas like gaming except to aid with coding.

I wonder who will be buying all the stuff AI is producing when most people don't have jobs because AI replaced them?

Anyway, I don't like to be doom and gloom about the future of ESO because we're talking about real people at ZOS. I think the plans for 2026 will be an indication of whether the game will continue to get meaningful updates.

I completely agree with you, nothing can replace human creativity and imagination, human dedication to the lore, pride in their creation and dreams for the future. But apparently Microsoft thinks otherwise. I'm all for AI too (environmental impact notwithstanding) and hope the upheaval it causes will be worth it in the long run.

Desiato wrote: »

People are overreacting when it comes to AI. This is how things always have been. New technologies displace old ones CONSTANTLY. It's just a new tool. The name is a misnomer because it's neither artificial or intelligent. It's just advanced software that can analyze things and to some degree fractalize them like we do.

No, it won't mean we can all sit around and enjoy our hobbies all the time. Humans, as always, will need to compete by harnessing new things to their advantage. That is the model of life on this planet that we're all part of. Adapt or die. Avoid resting on your laurels.

Agreed.

I think people hear AI and they think of some person in a boardroom putting in a promp saying make me this game that does XYZ then they push it to prod.

Absolutley that is not how it is going down. ANY developer (I'm one) who isn't using AI in some capacity to increase their debugging will be replaced within the next year or two - that is just a fact we can't ignore. The same can be said for medical industry, finances, and so on and so on.

Back in the day.. you had the advantage if you "knew how to google and troubleshoot (stackoverflow)" to quickly debugg and problem solve. Now instead of google it's ai.

I once worked at a job, when AI was starting to make a rise, and they wanted to dive into automation. For every 1 PM we had I think we had 12 people in the backhop doing all "the things".

Those 12 people were so bogged down going through reports, and just... stupid stuff that took up so much of their time. The leaderships thought was to use AI/automation to make that 1:12 ratio close to 1:8 AND free up all the stupid/basic tasks the 8 people were having to do so they could focus on the stuff they truly enjoyed and the stuff that make the mos timpact for the company. Then, because we didn't have to hire 12 and just the 8.. we oculd take those resources ($) and put it into other teams who needed funding.

Will some pipelines be using AI to do a rough QA on games - possibly.
Will some early asses/level design use AI to "get off the ground" - possibly.

But, IMO, if it's done in a respectful way and ethical way AI can dramatically increase a studio's productivity - giving devs the freedom and time to focus on things they truly are passionate about - making the most epic game possible - and not being bogged down in busy work.

I'm all for games being pushed out every 2-3 years vs the 5-7 timeframe we are on now.

EDIT:

But with all that being said... if a company fires 100's of people and tries to just us AI to replace them and pocket the difference... yeah they can kick rocks.

LadyGP wrote: »

But with all that being said... if a company fires 100's of people and tries to just us AI to replace them and pocket the difference... yeah they can kick rocks.

That's just bad reporting. What actually happened was the gaming industry was in a boom period for a very long time which was temporarily accelerated by the pandemic.

This is no longer true, especially because of geopolitical and economic issues. So we're seeing contraction and efficiencies.

The reason it makes sense for large companies to purchase smaller ones for more than their valuation is because they can integrate them and thereby making them more efficient. Unfortunately, this means redundancy and layoffs.

Furthermore, Microsoft didn't buy Zenimax for its entire portfolio. They wanted the key IPs: TES, Fallout, Quake, Wolfenstein, etc and their historic titles. Everything else had to prove its worth. Unfortunately, they did not.

In respect to ESO, IMO, AI is barely a factor. Of course it has been and will be used in the development process. But the main thing is they don't make chapters anymore!!! So of course they don't have the same staffing requirements. At the same time, their management structure is being vertically integrated as expected because that's what always happens after an acquisition.


"What's going in Maryland?"

I had my Brian Windhorst moment when they proactively advocated to ESO content creators that ESO wasn't going into maintenance mode in late 2024, followed by the announcement of the transition from Chapters to Seasons. All of the sudden a lot of the things that happened in the months prior like the cancellation of the anniversary tour and the backend efficiencies started to add up to something bigger. ESO was entering a new phase.