None of that is true either. He just had an interview with IGN reiterating what cain just stated. Do a little watching and keeping up with things instead of just being a troll.

@Jaysonguy: But they haven't so that is a completely false statement to make.

Yes, not even a question.

Come on don't sit here and tell me they couldn't. They have gotten a good amount of funding and ED even though there isn't atmospheric planets and an FPS aspect of the game, there is still plenty to do in game. They have also kept up with adding additional expansions and features since release going on 3 years ago. Granted both are very large and ambitious games to begin with, however I would be fine with having limited features and at least have something to play than nothing at all with the hope of something down the road. ED is indeed an ocean wide and puddle deep in some cases. However, there are still a ton to explore, bounty hunting, mining, planetary landings, missions, now commander creation, multi-crews, and the ability to go on a rover and explore a planet, even if it is for the most part lifeless. Along with PVP. So I wouldn't say it is lacking tons of stuff for years. Its all in how you approach it. I would rather have seen SC take the path ED has when both needed external funding. We will shall see where both are in the coming years. I will not be surprised if ED is far beyond that of SC when it is all said and done.

No but it would be nice if they took the route that ED did and just release a game that everyone can play and then slowly roll the other features out. Even though ED is far from perfect, it is game that is currently out and can be played. Its better to be ambitious for an extended time than it is in a short time and not have a chance to play it.

Because Call of Duty even through some of their not so prime installments in the series still had a good campaign with always having the outstanding multiplayer side of it. When a new series like Killzone comes out it is going to be compared to have what Call of Duty and Halo does because those standards that they have set. It may not be fair but that's how it goes.

@iandizion713: This would be the scummiest thing I have ever seen if this was the case. Sure, for some reason people will be all for it, but honestly with how the NES Classic went and just cancelled manufacturing, do you think the same will not happen here? I really hope people don't buy this garbage and contribute to artificial shortages like Nintendo created.

Phil has already stated that there will be nothing with Halo or Gears in E3 or this year.

That is not true he spoke of games that have come out within the past year, so no not all examples were from four years ago. Secondly, whether you feel they are dog shit or not has nothing to do if they had a high risk proposition associated with them. Just because something is shit in your opinion doesn't have anything to do with risk what so ever. If you want to speak of bad execution, OK I'll give you that as some of the games that have come out haven't been what they could have been. However, It still doesn't correlate to shit and zero risk.

@PraetorianMan said:

@Pedro said:

@lifelessablaze said:

The Scorpio is a good decision but their lack of risk taking in 1st party/2nd party games is a bad decision. If MS doesn't announce any new games at E3 aside from the usual Halo/Forza stuff, I'm not so sure the Scorpio will be all that exciting.

Lets pretend that games like Ryse, Quantum Break, Ori and the Blind Forest, Sunset Overdrive, Halo Wars 2 and Recore weren't MS taking risk but making sure deals.

Lets pretend that half of those games were worth a shit.

Regardless if the games turned out to be what was expected or not has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. They took some risk with some new IPs and some of them didn't meet the hype. It doesn't mean they were shit games. Troll