Because being received well isn't what Microsoft are after. They're after making as much money, as (un-)realistically possible, even if it means shutting down things. This isn't the first, and definitely not the last time. They've had more than a handful of studios with iconic IPs, that got absolutely annihilated after acquisition

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago

Being after well received titles is congruent with their Game Pass strategy. Being after as much money as possible would mean they probably should have charged more than $30 for one of the best games of the year.

[–] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago

Ten years to make one well received game. After two failed high budget titles, an attempt at a franchise, Ghostwire and a mobile game supported for only five months.

The studio head Shinji Mikami left shortly after Hi-Fi rush. So I would guess any projects they had in the works weren't interesting enough to justify the costs.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

It was well received but did it have microtransactions? Checkmate game enjoyers!

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Just because the company you work for is making bank doesn't mean they won't fire you at the drop of a hat if they think they can make more by doing it.

[–] FunnyUsername@lemmy.world -5 points 6 months ago

Tbh, the game wasn't even that good. After the first 5-6 hours most people put it down. It just becomes frustrating and not fun.