Square-Enix Completely Threw Crystal Dynamics Under The Bus

During the company's annual report, Square-Enix CEO Yosuke Matsuda publicly described the sales and post-release struggles of Marvel's Avengers as "disappointing." While the company's overall sales and net revenue all showed signs of significant growth even during the global pandemic, Avengers was a big sticking point in the report. This is a relative change from the last quarterly report in which Square-Enix noted struggles with Avengers but doubled down on its commitment for the game's long-term future. However, instead of calling the game a learning experience Matsuda cites Crystal Dynamics' unfamiliarity with the "Games as a Service" business model as one of the primary reasons for its failures and re-iterates its support for GaaS in general.

Most media circles and game developers on social media did not take SE's report well. Many developers were apt to point out that many of the reasons why consumers were leery of Marvel's Avengers were likely design decisions guided by executives from SE's upper echelons. It's simply unconscionable to throw a working studio under the fucking bus like this. Furthermore, I cannot imagine how demoralizing it is to see your CEO publicly declaring your studio as struggling and its latest effort as "disappointing" especially when those struggles were likely due to said executive flogging you into making your game in a particular manner.

Finally, the community that continues to rally around the game, while small, are now freaking out as the report, to them, at least, signals that SE might pull the plug on new content in favor of re-directing developmental resources into different games. It's a mess and a mess entirely of Square-Enix's making.

I don't see anything particularly damning in that part of the statement you posted. If anything, they seem to acknowledge they screwed up by putting the team on a game they don't mesh well with.

Yeah I don't see anything particularly damning about Crystal Dynamics lacking GAAS experience leading to errors being made, Square Enix is being quite honest here.

We've seen many studios create many different types of games, but CD made a few very odd choices. Loot not being visable, solo only missions and the Avengers themselves look like MCU movie knock offs. Its hard not seeing how any of these decisions weren't from CD, and pretty obvious ones from the outset.

I don't think CD is necessarily getting thrown under the bus, but it looks super shitty of SE in this report to cling so hard to the GaaS model while saying Avengers was disappointing, when the ultimate reason it was disappointing was it had to be a GaaS game. The GaaS model just didn't fit this developer, and that's on SE for forcing the pairing (which they acknowledge in the annual report above). Had they concentrated on making a single-player game from the start with story DLC later, everyone would've been better off.

It also clearly needed more time to cook between game-breaking bugs and lack of endgame content, and it wasn't delayed to deal with those issues, which in SE's defense was the styyyyle at the time

The issue that many see, and myself included, is SE made this a service game and are saying the studio they gave the project was not the right fit, and that was the issue.

They're deflecting blame by saying that it was Crystal Dynamic's fault for not making GAAS work due to "inexperience" and not THEIR fault for pushing a specific business model onto the game.

@zombiepie: I don't know. The quote says "Taking on the GaaS model highlighted issues that we are likely to face in future game development efforts such as the need to select game designs that mesh with the unique attributes and tastes of our studios and development teams". Nothing about that reads as "It's Crystal D's fault" to me. That sounds to me like they're taking the blame for forcing the team into making a game they shouldn't have.

@zombiepie: The 'wrong fit' isn't really throwing CD under the bus and could easily be read as SE management being at fault.

And I would agree with SE Avengers had problems with its design, but it's not a wild statement to make and not laying the blame on anyone.

Considering Avengers main campaign is mostly solo affair doesn't fit a multiplayer co-op looter service title, I think CD didn't really commit to making a GAAS.

Yeh I also don't see this as throwing them under the bus, it actually reads that SE realise they need to work to the studios strengths.

I agree with @zombiepie here. The key is that they're saying that they picked the wrong studio not that they implemented bad monetization ideas that no studio could have carried out successfully, which is what actually happened. They're saying another studio could have made this idea work and I don't think that's true. The problems with Avengers are pretty deep and a lot seem to come from how the project was managed by Square Enix and the Marvel license itself rather than Crystal Dynamics (though CD does have to shoulder the blame for some of the problems like the fact that the boss fights are so terrible.)

That being said...I don't see why this would be particularly demoralizing for the people at the studio.

Do people identify with their employers so strongly that when the employer gets called out they take it personally? Like if you were an artist or a designer who worked on the game why would you care about this? It's not your particular work that's being attacked, and while everyone feels bad when a project that they worked hard on doesn't get good reviews, that ship has already sailed. They know what the reception to Avengers was.

I don't see why this would affect my morale if I were working at CD. It might make me a bit worried about job security, considering how frequently studios get shut down, but they're working with Microsoft on that Perfect Dark game now so they've got a big profile project that's unlikely to be canceled (though it's not impossible.)

I wonder if Microsoft might acquire CD from Square Enix (they seem like a better fit for Microsoft to be honest) or if some of the talent might move over if they feel like CD is on shaky ground.

I do think it's interesting to hear Square say that they basically decided to give Avengers to Crystal D because both are third person action games. Almost like they didn't realize that the GAAS business-model implementation is an incredibly huge challenge to overcome that most of the big players had to figure out after the game was released and are still tweaking as they go. Now i can see why you'd want to have another studio in your portfolio that can make those games, but at that point you better give Crystal D all the support they can get to learn how to put a GAAS system in place. I bet there are people involved in FF14 that could've helped them out and steer them away from pitfalls. Wasn't this the game where players complained that leveling up took too long, and then the gamedevs decided to make it take even longer? Hmm.. that's definitly a move that makes your playerbase want to play & get their friends and followers involved!

At the same time, i question whether a licenced superhero game is in itself a good fit for a GAAS. Naturally there are a few iconic outfits for most heroes, but when i play as Iron Man, i want to play as the red/yellow superhero. If i play as Thor, i want a comically big square hammer. If i am captain america, i want to throw the american flag shield around. Now either the loot ends up being incredibly boring to not veer too far from the base model, almost like you're playing a PS2 JRPG. Or the loot goes really wild and you'll end up playing with heroes that don't look like the base model at all anymore, which will in itself turn away a portion of the userbase from being interested in that loot.

Like Zombiepie and bigsocrates said the issue isn't that Squenix is wrong, it's more of a lie of omission.

Yes, CrystalD lacks experience with the GaaS but who's idea was it to make Avenger's a GaaS product?
Yes, CrystalD made the game but did they ask to make the game or were they told "Your next project is Avengers"
Yes, the game has gotten negative press but is that a result of the game or a result of publisher decisions like the recent addition of XP boosters? (This may or may not be Squenix)

Point is, Squenix is acting like they handed CrystalD a bunch of money and the Marvel IP and oh man CrystalD made a bad game. When in reality, they made EXACTLY what Squenix told them to make.

@bigsocrates: I can see how this can effect morale simply on a "This is what we can expect from our Parent Company".

If anyone was pushing back against Squenix from within CrystalD "Hey, system x doesn't work" "Hey this game isnt ready for release" whatever, not only did those pleas fall on deaf ears but now Squenix is pointing the finger back at them like "And they didn't even know enough to say it wasn't working out!" Everyone knows they're gonna butt heads with boss, no one wants to take bullets for them TOO.

When my company got bought by a larger company, we got folded into their health insurance plan and it was worse/more expensive and it immediately just set off this vibe of like "oh, everything is going to get worse now, huh?" and sure enough, management suddenly didn't care about issues, changes to shipping and inventory delayed orders and customers, corner cutting on aftermarket and 3rd-party parts.... yadda yadda yadda. Bad parent company can kill a vibe within a smaller company.

Yeah, I am not seeing this as SE throwing CD "under the bus".

No, you forget we have alternative outfits for characters as toys and comics. Think black suit spiderman, all the different spiderman outfits in the movies, the cartoons change his outfit. I remember buying a desert batman outfit toy as a kid...cause it was cool...later thinking...wtf would batman be doing in the desert of Gotham city? People like to mix and match. The reason we have horse heads in Fortnite and ninja anime girls. It all looks ridiculous but people like silly more than people think.

@topcyclist: I mentioned that heroes have different outfits. But there's a limit to what you can do with licenced characters. Especially in a game that tries to play it fairly straight compared to the 'anything goes' style of Fortnite. I'm pretty sure that even in Fortnite, you only have two different outfits for licenced characters like Ryu and Chun-Li.

Marvel Avengers can't decide to put a bucket of fries on cap america's head or anime eyes on Iron Man. I'm pretty sure loot in that game only really influences the stats, but you'll have the chance to choose from a few different outfits. No mixing and matching, no visual changes with each gearpiece. To me, that kind of ruins the idea of gathering loot already. It's just like a PS2 JRPG at that point.

But at the same time, if Marvel gave the go-ahead to go balls to the wall on the cosmetics, at some point you lose the feeling that your flying icecream truck has anything to do with your fav superhero Iron Man. I just think licenced superhero games are a bad fit for a GAAS game. I see more potential in a City of Heroes or Freedom Force-type of game where you're creating your own superheroes. At that point, the devs can take the cosmetics wherever they want to and the players aren't sticking with an outfit from the 60's that they have nostalgia for.

The Gamespot article links it, but if you want to just read the annual report being quoted here:

https://www.hd.square-enix.com/eng/ir/library/pdf/ar_2021en.pdf

For my part, SE hasn't really earned the benefit of the doubt with a lot of things they do, but I personally see this more as management getting as close as you'll ever likely see to admitting they screwed up by trying to force Crystal Dynamics to make their big GaaS title and will attempt to utilize a studio that is a better fit in the future. Keep in mind this is all being presented as Square Enix and Square Enix's ability to deliver products and that as far as I can tell Crystal Dynamics isn't mentioned at all in the reports.

@onemanarmyy: There have already been Marvel games with f2p collecting mechanics. The main way they get around the costume issue is by having you collect heroes, of which there are a ton. Avengers' big screw up was in creating a premium game that promised to give you all the heroes for free instead of an F2P game where you collected heroes Genshin Impact style. Would it be possible to have combat mechanics this deep and have a ton of heroes? No. But it fits the property better and something like an Ultimate Alliance combat system would work fine.

The game that Crystal Dynamics made just isn't a good fit for the GAAS model. There are tons of ways you could make a GAAS Marvel game that would make a ton of money (the Overwatch model is another natural fit) but deep combat brawler is a huge mismatch.

I don't blame CD for this because it seems like they were making a premium game and the GAAS thing got shoehorned in at some point, and it managed to work as neither.

@bigsocrates: Yeah good point. Collecting heroes makes sense for such a game.

Back in 2013, Crystal Dynamics considered the Tomb Raider reboot as a major sale mile stone for them and Square Enix was disappointed because it was not the Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare kind of mile stone they had hoped for. Not surprised that SE would shit talk CD again with Avengers being more critically panned than the 2013 title.

@bigsocrates: This kind of statement from a parent company absolutely affects morale.

Devs are pretty good (most of the time) at having a thick skin and separating valid criticisms of their work from nonsense. If a launch review of Avengers went, "eh it's alright but this GaaS stuff seems really awkward and shoehorned in," I bet no one at Crystal Dynamics went "how DARE they!", they probably knew that already and didn't appreciate the mandate from SE.

That being said, that's a lot different than your parent company, the folks responsible for keeping the lights on and paying for your job, throwing your whole company under the bus. They're not just saying "Avengers was disappointing" -- everyone already knew that. What rankles is how they're saying, "it was disappointing BECAUSE Crystal Dynamics made it." Individual projects come and go, even disappointing efforts like Avengers can be learned from, but a slight against you and all your coworkers -- that stings. Because, for better or worse, some devs have a lot of pride in where they work.

So even if you see the objective truth: "this was our first live service game shoehorned into a linear third person action game," it hurts to see your parent company use that obvious fact as an excuse to say, "yep, this developer messed it up!" Beyond just the emotional aspect and the pride in their work and their place of work, I imagine it's anxiety-inducing from a purely financial standpoint -- does this mean we'll be shut down in the future? Guess the next project REALLY has to hit!

...and as we all know, the best art comes from when artists are desperately doing anything to survive. /s

Netherrealm studios had cosmetic loot in Injustice I don't see why CD couldn't.

The real bummer about Avengers, after playing it for about 20 hours when PS Now was on a 99 cent sale, is that there really is a lot there to like. The campaign is pretty good, with most of its awkwardness owing to the shoehorned ties to the multiplayer stuff - they really should've just let those characters be fully powered with some "canonical" skills during the campaign, as a teaser for what you can get up to with your own versions of them later!

To wit, Thor and Captain America were very fun to play as!

I also think it's a bit of a canard when people try to argue that the game wasn't fit for the games as a service model. Jeff's unabashed love for Marvel Heroes despite not caring about the IP at all as well as the prior success of the Marvel Ultimate Alliance franchise proves you can milk quite a bit out of these heroes and their abilities just bashing anonymous skulls for hours and hours. And again, some of these characters were a real blast to play!

The problem was that the game was a truly hopeless grind, the mission design was pretty rote and, worst of all, it just didn't work all the time. I really wanted to give the endgame a good college try, but I experienced issues with the level loading, fodder enemies being placed all around the map, but objective enemies nowhere to be found no less than five times. That was super dispiriting. The other main issue, which contributes to the grind IMO, is that when you play on the early recommended difficulties, the missions are not hard at all, they just take upwards of thirty minutes because the final bosses are always so spongy.

But you get scant XP, so you get it in your head you'll play on a harder difficulty. The bonus there being you also get to see a bunch of much higher leveled players do their thing and it often looks spectacular. But, sort of like playing Nightmare strikes in Destiny without a fully powered character, you quickly realize your role is a pretty unsavory one: useless bait for enemies to latch onto and knock unconscious over and over again. If you're lucky your teammates will keep on reviving you, but more likely they'll just let you sit in a corner, dead, while the match takes. for. ever to finish because they're down a guy and despite all their fun new tricks with fully levelled characters, those bosses are still spongy fucks.

I can't say whether or not Crystal Dynamics could've solved that problem if the game were designed around Games as a Service from the outset, but I can say attempting to shoehorn that element of game design into a game clearly not prepared for it by a team who'd never attempted anything like it before (other than the weird card systems in Rise of the Tomb Raider) was an epically bad idea. And Square Enix has to take the blame for that.

@lapsariangiraff: There's a difference between something "rankling" and something affecting morale in a meaningful way. Obviously it's never great to have your work criticized by a colleague but I doubt it will have any serious impact. I've been in groups that have been unfairly criticized by superiors in the past and everyone just kind of bitches about it for a day or two and moves on. It's not something serious.

In my experience people generally don't identify so strongly with their employer that they get all upset when the company as an abstract concept is criticized, even by a parent company, when it doesn't name them specifically. The creative leads or higher ups may take it more personally but most of them from Avengers have left already, and I doubt some artist or level designer who had no say in the things being criticized is going to take it personally, beyond being mildly irritated for a bit.

The issue of concerns about job security is much more valid and something I mentioned in my original post. Of course there's a lot more factors than this kind of statement that goes into how secure you feel in your position, but if people are worried about layoffs or budget cuts or just being put on less desirable projects then yes, that affects morale and they might start looking for the door. However if everything else at the company is going well and they're all ramped up and focused on Perfect Dark, this statement alone probably won't cause too much concern in that area either.

Collecting heroes works in the past cause you arent making high res textures and unique character animations. People would be pissed if say you unlock the thing and he is just reskinned hulk with no dialogue and unique story. At least that's what I think the company thought. This is why we can't just get spiderman, we need spiderman with a campaign. I think many skins with the same animations can work for some like the thing and hulk, but how would you do dr strange...wanda...quicksilver...many marvel characters have the same powers but not exactly the same level of powers. Making enough new powers each week would be too much. Unlike overwatch where all skins work the same. Animations are kinda on a treadmill. It's why the heroes get pieces of armor you cant see. Like old school RPGs...yeah you have the demon sword of world killing...trust us...your just holding the stick from level 1 cause it looks nice. 100+ stats.

Seems accurate though? Many GaaS games have done extremely well, and from what I have read about the game most of the issues come from how that stuff was implemented and not the core gameplay/story.

@topcyclist:. Naturally the design of this particular game CD decided to make, with only a handful of heroes, is not a game where you can make a great amount of unlockable heroes the collectible thing. Bigsocrates just let me see that there have been Marvel games before that did manage to offer a good carrot on the stick for a licenced GAAS game by letting you unlock a ton of new characters (Marvel Heroes for example). Clearly, this Avengers game was built on the idea that gathering gear with stats + alternative costumes should be an engaging lootgrind.

I went out and bought Guardians yesterday because it wasn't a game as a service. Knowing that a game is deigned in the same manner as quarter-suckers from the 80s and 90s is 100% a turnoff for me. It's why i don't watch TV shows and much prefer movies. I need closure. I'll take a reboot or spin off 100 times over before i watch a show like Lost where they just make and write content so they sell ads for Pampers. Content needs a Rosetta Stone. I've learned to tolerate DLC because it gives games that i adore and forgot about a chance to make it back in the queue. Generally I'm just going to buy the over priced complete edition for the follow up game (Watch Dogs to Watch Dogs 2) Then i skip the follow up game in the series completely like i did with Watch Dogs legion if i feel burned enough. It's a coping strategy. I primarily bought GoTG for the incoroporation of license music and my experience with The Marvel game wasn't all too bad but strechy armstrongette as a protagonist was the weakest power i've ever seen. I mean in the fantastic four mr. fantastic is fourth pick behind the invisible women in my imagination and on the playground.

I'm just mad that "Games as a Service" is a thing with an acronym now and I fucking hate it.

@dochaus:I kinda like the fact that Acronym is pronounced Gas

I read the whole Square Enix Annual Report and I think the OP's title "throwing under the bus" is misleading. They never mention Crystal Dynamics by name and the context from the whole statement seems to be COVID fucked everything up, everyone had to work from home and they didn't have a firm idea how to deliver a successful Games-as-a-service product.

Square Enix is really lucky they didn't need to discuss Balan Wonderworld because it just happened to release right after the fiscal year but boy howdy would I want to learn how they will explain that catastrophe.