The Last Of Us Online Is Officially Canceled (kotaku.com) 18
Sony Group's Naughty Dog studio has cancelled an online version of its popular console game The Last of Us. From a report: Naughty Dog announced today that the multiplayer spin-off of the hit series is no longer in development, citing concerns about managing ongoing content for a live-service game while still trying to produce the single-player blockbusters the PlayStation studio is famous for. "We realize many of you have been anticipating news around the project that we've been calling The Last of Us Online," Naughty Dog wrote in an update.
"There's no easy way to say this: We've made the incredibly difficult decision to stop development on that game." The studio said that as production on the project ramped up, it became clear that "we'd have to put all our studio resources behind supporting post launch content for years to come, severely impacting development on future single-player games." The choices were apparently between becoming a "solely live-service games studio" in the mold of modern day Bungie, which makes Destiny 2, or "continue to focus on single-player narrative games that have defined Naughty Dog's heritage."
"There's no easy way to say this: We've made the incredibly difficult decision to stop development on that game." The studio said that as production on the project ramped up, it became clear that "we'd have to put all our studio resources behind supporting post launch content for years to come, severely impacting development on future single-player games." The choices were apparently between becoming a "solely live-service games studio" in the mold of modern day Bungie, which makes Destiny 2, or "continue to focus on single-player narrative games that have defined Naughty Dog's heritage."
Know When To Say When. (Score:2)
Extra Lambo's for everybody!!
Sounds like World Class Mismangement (Score:2)
The "we don't want to make a live service game" sounds like a flimsy excuse. It's more than likely "we've burned through all the remaster money".
I mean, seriously. You put all this time and money into a multi-player game, and then you just suddenly realized where it was leading? Naw, not buying it.
I do feel bad for anyone losing their job. Don't feel bad for Naughty Dog leadership, though.
Re: (Score:2)
sounds indeed like a really astonishing lack of awareness about what they were getting into with an online version ... or the lamest ceo excuse ever bc it doesn't even work as an excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
sounds indeed like a really astonishing lack of awareness about what they were getting into with an online version...
Indeed. They chose to create a multi-player version of the game, while also keeping (the same?) resources tied up in making a new single-player version of the game? World Class was apparently foreign to the concept of pick a fucking lane already.
Last of Us a bad choice anyway (Score:3)
Everywhere it has found success it has been as a heavily narrative and character driven work.
Online games do not mesh with either of those. Generally you want a compelling world or gameplay. Well, the world of Last of Us by itself isn't that engaging, and the gameplay is solid, but not overwlemingly compelling, and stealth sneaking by/ambushing NPCs doesn't translate to online either.
Let's look at the bright side (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's look at the bright side: Franchises that went live-service have seriously scaled down their single-player game releases (GTA comes to mind). As the old saying goes "once a franchise tastes live-service cash, there is no going back".
So, I don't think that's *quite* it. The secret to the success of a live service game is a good gameplay loop, and a mechanic that readily compliments that loop. Destiny, Warframe and League of Legends all have lore and backstory, but it's the gameplay loop that keeps players returning.
None of these games are particularly narrative; Warframe can pretend that there's a greater context, but there really isn't one. Neither friends nor foes have faces; the gameplay loop is "go to the place and shoot the lads, t
Sounds like... (Score:2)
...we've heard the last of them.
Ok, ok, I'll show myself out.
last (Score:2)
The last of us didn't last, apparently.
Ridiculous idea anyway (Score:1)
"The Last of Us" is a TV fad. Might be a good one, but it's still just a moment in time popular thing. It's not "Lord of the Rings".
Building a whole long-term, costly ecosystem around a TV show, however popular, is kind of silly. Especially when considered in light of the shrinking attention span of the populace. I wouldn't sign up for a "That 70's Show" themed online game, and that was a monster back in the day.
It should be an old-fashioned one-and-done single purchase game, if it's anything. Capture the z
Re: (Score:3)
I think in this case the game preceded the show, but I am not sure.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It should be an old-fashioned one-and-done single purchase game, if it's anything. Capture the zeitgeist while it's in place.
The Last of Us is already multiple old-fashioned single player video games released over the past 10 years before the TV show was created.
The Last of Us for Playstation 3
The Last of Us: Left Behind DLC
The Last of Us for Playstation 4
The Last of Us Part 1 for Playstation 5
Since the TV show was released they've also released The Last of Us for PC. Next month they will release The Last of US Part 2 for Playstation 4 and 5.
Re: (Score:3)
Well damn. Don't I look like an idiot. :)
In my defense I'm an out of touch old person who plays three games, none of them current.
These games are a gamble (Score:2)
Service games can pay off big, but putting significant resources into them is a gamble. You must attract players, keep them engaged so they get invested and want to participate in micro transactions. And not just one-off transactions but entice them to keep making them. You have to keep adding to the game and changing things so it doesn't get boring.
Compared to a complete game that you can gauge reactions from a test audience and be assured of some level of satisfaction and potential sales, these are a comp
AAA studio has gotta AAA studio (Score:3)
There's no easy way to say this: We've made the incredibly difficult decision to stop development on that game."
Sure there's an easy way to say this:
"Hey y'know how AAA studios axe functionality of old product customers to artificially stimulate demand for new product? And AAA studios won't support direct player-to-player connections similar to the one's that existed in dial-up era PC gaming that still work to this day? Or release source code for running servers to let tHe CoMmUnItY that we care about so much? We're doing that. We're taking your toy away because it'll make us money! We love money! Also fuck games preservation, we will stuff the work of artists and shove it into the memory hole a few years later and you can't stop us."
There. It'll even fit on a flashcard that can be kept in a shirt pocket and reused several times a month!
Good luck... (Score:1)
Good (Score:2)
"Live service" games require significant attention and luck. Look at Fortnite, Warzone, or even Sea of Thieves. You need to dedicate entire studios, sometimes along with support from others to generate "seasonal" content in a never ending fashion. You can't even take a break for 3 months, and your single player content (if it existed) is going to suffer a lot (again look at Call of Duty).
It is good that they are returning back to their strengths. The issue is I wonder how much time has been lost at ND and o