As the Nintendo Switch 2 launches, these are our hopes and dreams for the console Image credit: Nintendo Feature by GamesIndustry.biz Staff Contributor Published on June 5, 2025 With the Nintendo Switch 2 launching today, it closes out a rocky pre-launch period of tariffs, fiery price discussions around software and hardware, and some retailers cancelling pre-orders. Much of that will feel like a distant memory once the hotly-anticipated console is in players' hands, and they're trying out the first new Mario Kart game in more than 11 years. There's always something special about Nintendo hardware. Even with the Wii U, the console manufacturer's biggest dud in recent memory, that was still the case. While the Switch 2 is firmly an evolution of 2017's Switch and not anything bolder in terms of input or form factor, Nintendo's unbelievable run of great software over the past eight years looks set to continue. The downside for consumers, of course, is that they will be paying much more for some of those titles than they did on the last console. Below, to celebrate its launch day, the GamesIndustry.biz team shares its realistic hopes and dreams for the years to come on Switch 2. A fresh take on exclusive IP Nintendo has already demonstrated that it's willing to switch it up in terms of new takes on its iconic franchises, with the destructible levels of Donkey Kong Bananza and the open roads of Mario Kart World. But I have an appetite to see the same approach taken with continuations of beloved franchises like The Legend of Zelda, 3D Mario, and Pokémon. While Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom are getting enhanced versions and the newest Pokémon Legends title launches this fall, Nintendo has the opportunity to revitalise some of its beloved IP with boosted hardware and fan interest. Not only that, but it could flip the script entirely and debut a brand new franchise unrelated to anything that’s come before it – something that would become intertwined with the Switch 2 and inspire a new generation of players and developers. – Sophie McEvoy The end of bad Switch ports While games like Doom and The Witcher 3 demonstrated that miracles were possible with the Nintendo Switch's limited hardware capabilities, numerous ports from more powerful platforms fell short. From the notoriously rough visual downgrade of Batman: Arkham Knight to the choppy port of WWE 2K 2018, sometimes visually intensive games have made their way to the console with a whiff of 'buyer beware' about them. In some cases, like the Kingdom Hearts games, 'cloud' versions bypassed trying to run natively on the hardware altogether, which was a compromise too far for many players. That's a trend the Switch 2, with its out-of-the-gates impressive ports of Cyberpunk 2077 and Civ 7, could really do without. Inevitably, we will reach a point with the next Xbox and PlayStation consoles where the disparity with the Switch 2 becomes too great, and we could potentially see a similar downslide in ports. But hopefully the quality level reached with this first wave of releases sets a high standard for what's to come. Users' tolerance for lower quality multiplatform releases has been tested too much during the latter years of the Switch's lifecycle. – Samuel Roberts Switch 2 is at the heart of indie games Image credit: ConcernedApe The early years of the Switch were a honeymoon period for indie games, causing a gold rush of publishers and developers getting their back catalogues on the platform. As the eShop became swamped with shovelware, while Nintendo did little to improve discoverability (until very recently), Steam quickly became the de facto home for indie games again. There's still nothing like playing an indie game on Switch. The portability remains a cut above other devices with a similar form factor, like the Steam Deck. While Nintendo shows it values smaller games with its Indie World showcases, there's still a disconnect between the intent of those presentations and how easily indie games are actually discovered on Switch. Using the eShop to celebrate good taste in games should be a goal of Nintendo's during this generation. A golden age of indies comparable to the original Switch launch seems unlikely – the moment has probably passed on that. But more consistent curation would have a massive amount of value. – Samuel Roberts Nintendo shows that the mouse has the magic The unveiling of the Switch showed that Nintendo learned a lot of lessons from the Wii U, itself a failed follow-up to the Wii: the company didn't rock the boat. It's the same form factor you know from the original Switch, with a clear '2' in the name. All its more novel secondary features – like the Joy-Con's mouse controls – are not at the centre of the marketing messaging like the Wii Remote or DS touchscreen were for those consoles. This was wise in a few practical ways. It means there are no interface-based headaches in porting a game onto the console, paving the way for (theoretically) good third-party support. Consumers, developers, and publishers know what they're getting. Still, it means the console is going to feel largely familiar as an experience. The hope, then, is that deeper into the generation, Nintendo and other developers find new and interesting things to do with the mouse. Competitive wheelchair basketball game Drag x Drive is Nintendo's first attempt at this, but the drab art style doesn't inspire much confidence. Previous breakthrough exclusives like Arms and Splatoon felt like a much bigger deal. – Samuel Roberts More than just a console As a handheld device, the Switch ended up being more than just a games console. Subscription-based services like Crunchyroll and InkyPen provide access to anime, comics, and manga, while the YouTube app lets players watch a (albeit limited) selection of movies and shows. With the improvements in screen resolution, the Switch 2 would benefit from integrating more streaming services like Netflix, Disney+, and Amazon Prime. Sure, you can use these apps on phones and laptops, but it would be convenient to have everything on one device – particularly a handheld console that's a popular traveling companion. And with social connectivity being a major selling point of the new console with GameChat, there's an opportunity to host streaming parties of shows and films on top of playing games. – Sophie McEvoy The GameCube library isn't left to fester on Nintendo Switch Online On day one, Nintendo Switch Online's Expansion Pack brings GameCube games to Switch 2 players: The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker, F-Zero GX, and Soulcalibur 2. More will be coming, but if Nintendo's previous form with its classic console libraries are anything to go by, it will be a glacial wait. I hope I'm proven wrong. Possibly complicating matters is that some key GameCube titles have already been ported to Switch, like Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, Pikmin 1 and 2, and Metroid Prime. The console's best game, Resident Evil 4, has been widely available for years on other platforms. The best case scenario here, then, is that Nintendo brings some more unusual or unexpected games to the service – the coming inclusion of Chibi-Robo, a cult GameCube game that's been hard to get hold for many years, is a strong indicator that the company is thinking outside the more obvious Mario and Zelda games. Rogue Squadron 2: Rogue Leader, Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem, and Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes would be on my personal wishlist. And maybe Starfox Adventures, too, just to hear everyone complain about it again. – Samuel Roberts A new take on Zelda in time for the movie This one is pretty much guaranteed. After reinventing the Zelda series with the open world games Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom, both of which celebrated player freedom and ingenuity, it will be fascinating to see what tack the team behind these games take next. "I think [TOTK] is – to use a bit of a term – an apotheosis, or the final form of that version of The Legend of Zelda," said producer Eiji Aonuma in a 2023 interview with Game Informer. "In that regard, I don't think that we'll be making a direct sequel to a world such as that that we've created." My prediction: in the same way Super Mario Wonder gave players a fresh spin on a classic Mario 2D platformer experience following 2023's (terrible, if you ask me) Super Mario Bros. movie, I could see a similar tack taken with 2027's live-action Zelda movie. A game that seems superficially familiar, but is bursting with new ideas, would bridge the gap between veteran Nintendo players and newbies. – Samuel Roberts

Build A Rocket Boy’s Leslie Benzies has spoken about MindsEye and how the studio plans to offer a value-for-money experience without any filler. However, it’s only the first step in a longer game, which includes a “big overarching ten-year plan.” While speaking to GamesIndustry.biz, Benzies reiterated that the title would continue receiving new content. “Some of the content, like races, are made just for fun. But [with] most of the content, we’ll try and incorporate it into the story. So once you’ve played the big overarching ten-year plan, you’ll have a very good idea of what this universe looks like.” There are plans for multiplayer and a fully open world, but it’s also looking at “what players are creating and incorporating that into our plans. Given the ease of the tools, we think there will be a high percentage of players who will jump in and give it a try, see how it feels, and then decide. Hopefully, some will create compelling content we can then promote and make that part of our plans to push to other players.” Interestingly, the story of MindsEye is “bang in the middle” of the greater narrative that Build A Rocket Boy wants to tell. “So, we’re going to go back 10,000 years, then we’re going to go forward a certain amount of time. It’s the relevant piece of the puzzle that will have players asking questions of what the bigger story is,” said Benzies. This is the reason why the studio hasn’t showcased footage for “huge parts” of the experience. The studio wants to avoid spoilers, but he does tease that the story takes some “unusual twists.” As for multiplayer, Benzies said, “The dream from the building side is to allow players the opportunity to create their own multiplayer open-world games with ease. Anyone could pick up the game, jump in, drive around, stop at a point where they saw something of interest, build a little mission, jump back in the car, drive again, and build another mission. Once you’ve built a couple of hundred of these, you’ve built your own open-world game. So, that’s the build side.” However, Build A Rocket Boy also wants to develop “a place where people can socialise, play together, and engage in the stories that we build.” As such, an open-world multiplayer title is planned for next year, unfolding one year after the events of MindsEye. You can also expect an open-world free-roam title to bridge the gap between the two releases. “All of these stories interconnect in a fairly unique and original way, which I think players like these days. They like the complexity of deeper stories.” MindsEye launches on June 10th for Xbox Series X/S, PS5, and PC. Check out the overview trailer and post-launch roadmap.

Build A Rocket Boy’s MindsEye has had quite the journey in the past week, from finally showcasing extensive gameplay at last to its co-CEO believing that those with negative reactions are “100 percent” financed by “someone.” Nevertheless, studio founder and director Leslie Benzies believes in the game’s vision and offering value for money without the filler. Speaking to GamesIndustry, Benzies said, “I don’t think you can have filler content in games. I think people want the meat and they want the potatoes. We’ve tried to make as much meat as we can if that makes sense.” Though MindsEye’s story was previously touted as requiring about 15 hours to finish, Benzies has since noted that it will take “20ish” hours, which is a “good length for a game.” “What you also find through data is that [with] big games, people don’t play them all. The majority of people – 60% or 70% of people – don’t actually play games to the end.” “So when you’re making something, I would prefer – I’m sure the team would say the same – [that] you had the whole experience from start to finish and not create this 200-hour game. Create something that is finishable but has some side things that will fill out the universe. A lot of the side missions on the play side of MindsEye do fill out the characters’ back stories or fill out what was happening in the world.” As for the price, which is $60, Benzies said, “The world’s in a funny place. People are worried about the price of eggs. So value for money, I think people appreciate that when times are difficult.” The discussion is interesting since titles like Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 and The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion Remastered have received praise for offering so much at $49.99. Whether MindsEye can aspire to the same quality of content in its runtime remains to be seen. It launches on June 10th worldwide for Xbox Series X/S, PS5, and PC, but the journey only starts there, with a post-launch roadmap announced. Check it out here.

The big Leslie Benzies interview: MindsEye, Everywhere, and the double-edged sword of GTA How Build A Rocket Boy developed its debut project Feature by Samuel Roberts Editorial Director Published on May 30, 2025 As the producer behind the Grand Theft Auto games from GTA 3 through to GTA 5, as well as Red Dead Redemption and LA Noire, any project with Leslie Benzies' name on it is going to be a lightning rod for attention. MindsEye, the first game from Benzies' studio Build A Rocket Boy, is getting plenty of it – even if some of that attention has been less positive. MindsEye is a single-player third-person shooter with vehicle gameplay, set in a Las Vegas-style city called Redrock. It's a techno-thriller story about a former soldier called Jacob Diaz – but it's clear from visiting BARB in Edinburgh this week that the game is envisioned as a gateway into something much larger, both in the fiction of MindsEye, and for players who pick the game up. That includes a user-generated content platform called Build.MindsEye, where players on PC can create levels using relatively straightforward tools that incorporate any object in the game. When asked if third-person shooter levels or driving sections were the limits of the build side of MindsEye, the developers showed other examples of how they can be used, like massively increasing the proportions of a basketball, dropping it into the world, and functionally making an in-game version of Rocket League. Still, while MindsEye launches on June 10, 2025, for PC and consoles, many questions remain unanswered, including the future of its long-gestating Everywhere project. Benzies sat down with GamesIndustry.biz earlier this week to talk us through his vision for the game. This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity. Image credit: Austin Hargrave What's your grand vision for MindsEye? What will it be at launch, and where is it going in the future? MindsEye is one story in an epic universe. The other stories take place at different time periods, and [at] different locations in the universe. This story is Jacob Diaz's story. There are also other stories within MindsEye, so we tell the backstories of other characters Jacob will meet. That's the way we're going to fill out the universe over time – so when you travel around, all the stories will be connected by one overarching theme, and each story will have different mechanics. And we'll give these mechanics to players within the creator tools. What will happen with the game after launch? [The studio] will support the game through Play.MindsEye, with continuous new content. Some of the content, like races, are made just for fun. But [with] most of the content, we'll try and incorporate it into the story. So once you've played the big overarching ten-year plan, you'll have a very good idea of what this universe looks like. We have plans to add multiplayer, [and] we have plans to make a full open world. And of course, we've also got to look at what players are creating, and incorporate that into our plans. Given the ease of the tools, we think there's going to be a high percentage of players who will jump in and give it a pop, see how it feels. Hopefully some will create compelling content we can then promote and make that part of our plans to push to other players. Is it best to think of MindsEye as the first game in a series of games? Or one game as part of a larger experience? MindsEye sits bang in the middle of our story. So, we're going to go back 10,000 years, then we're going to go forward a certain amount of time. It's the relevant piece of the puzzle that will have players asking questions of what the bigger story is. We've intentionally not released footage of huge parts of the game, because we don't want to spoil anything for players. But this story does take some unusual twists. What's your vision for the multiplayer component of the game? I guess there's two sides to the answer. The dream from the building side is to allow players the opportunity to create their own multiplayer open world games with ease. So anyone could pick up the game, jump in, drive around, stop at a point where they see something of interest, build a little mission, jump back in the car, drive again, build another mission. Once you've built a couple of hundred of these, you've built your own open world game. So, that's the build side. From our side, we want to [create] a place where people can socialise, play together, and engage in the stories that we build. So, we do have plans next year to launch an open world multiplayer game that takes place a year after MindsEye finishes. In the interim, we also have an open world free roam game that spans from when MindsEye finishes to the launch of the open world multiplayer game. All of these stories interconnect in a fairly unique and original way, which I think players like these days. They like the complexity of deeper stories. You're selling the base game at launch, with a pass for upcoming content additions. Do you have a vision for how you're going to package future stories in the overarching MindsEye experience? It depends on the scale of the story. Some will be free, and some will be paid. After you left Rockstar Games, what came next? What led to you building the studio? I spent a few years looking into some other things: going [into] some property development. Using some of the games experience, we made a thing called VR-Chitect, which allowed you to build houses and view them in VR. I spent a lot of time in Los Angeles at this point, and this is when the droughts were very bad. I got into [making] these machines that would suck water out of the air. Still sitting in my back garden in Los Angeles is this big clunky machine, it works like an air-conditioning unit. It could suck up one thousand litres of water. So I got involved with that. But there's really nothing like making games. The different types of people – the lawyers, the accountants, the programmers, the artists, the dancers, the singers – that bunch of people in one big pot, all working together, and turning something from a piece of paper into [something on the] screen – that's where I get my excitement. Since I was a kid, that's what I've wanted to do. I thought, 'I better get back into making games' because nothing else was as much fun. What was the journey towards creating MindsEye as your first standalone release? Your first game's always your hardest. You have to build systems, you have to build the team. Everything is new. You don't really see a lot on the screen until way down the line, because you're building underlying systems, physics systems, the gameplay systems. It's a slow start, but what you end up with is an engine, and obviously we use Unreal, which provides a certain level of support and building. On top of that, we've got to build our own stuff. [Plus], we have to pack up everything we build and present it nicely for the creator tools. So it adds this extra layer of complexity to everything. But now, given where we are, the speed that we can iterate, we can very quickly place enemies, place vehicles, place puzzles, whatever, and get a feel for a game. We've now got a great, experienced team – a lot of talented guys in there. In the old days, you'd get a game, stick it on the shelf, and you'd wave goodbye. It's not like that anymore. You're continually fixing things. When you release a game, you've suddenly got, not a hundred testers, but hopefully millions of testers. You've got to continually fix, continually optimise, and especially with the tools that we've got, we want to continually create new content. So MindsEye is a standalone game, and Everywhere is not mentioned anywhere on the Steam page. But obviously there's a strong 'build' component to this game, which was part of the Everywhere pitch. What does this mean for Everywhere, and what was behind the decision to package the game this way? This is all part of a bigger story and ecosystem that we've got planned. Everywhere is going to show up again pretty soon. Everything we're working on, there's a story behind it – a big overarching story. So Everywhere will come back, and it fits into this story somewhere. I can't tell you [where], because it would be a spoiler. But that's going to reappear soon, and it will all be a part of the same product. "I'm not sure it would've been smart as a company to say, 'we are going to compete with the biggest game on the planet'" Leslie Benzies, Build A Rocket Boy In terms of the tools, the tool doesn't really care what world you're building in. It sits separately. So any game we create, it will naturally work on top of it. But we're big fans of keeping everything thematically connected, or connected through a narrative, and you'll see it. The bigger story will become obvious, once you've played through all of MindsEye. Then you might start to see how it all connects together, to the Everywhere world. Has the landscape for something like Everywhere, or the build component to MindsEye, changed as platforms like UEFN have taken off or Roblox has become so huge? It's great to see these tools being used by people. I build a lot with my son, and when he builds, I see the excitement he gets. It reminds me of when I was a kid with my Dragon 32 computer, managing to get a little character moving on the screen – that excitement of, 'wow, I did that'. Giving that to other people is massive. It's still very difficult to build in Roblox. For example, when my son wants to do it, I have to jump in. I used to be a programmer, and I struggle to build in there. When he wants to run around and scream with his friends he's in Roblox; when he wants to build he'll jump into Minecraft, because Minecraft is a much easier system to build within. And I think we sit somewhere in the middle: you can get very high quality, fun games, but they're very easy to build. I think we're at the infancy of this in video games. We're at the very beginning of it, and we're going to see way, way more of it. It doesn't necessarily have to be presenting it to your friends, or to an audience. I think the process of creating for a human being is fun in itself. MindsEye has been positioned as a linear game. You are best known for creating open world games. What was behind the decision to make MindsEye a more linear, narrative-driven experience? I think certain stories are more difficult to present to players in an open world setting. Open world gives you freedom – you don't necessarily want freedom to portray a story. For MindsEye, it's a very set time in a character, Jacob Diaz's, life. You pick up as Jacob when he arrives in Redrock, and then you leave Jacob at a certain point in the future. And so, it'd be very difficult for us to have an open world in there. It's horses for courses: it depends what you're doing. But for Jacob's story, it had to be a linear game. Having said that, there are open world experiences in there, and we can build them through Build.MindsEye. There is a free roam open world mode, where you play [as] a different character and you see his time, from the end of MindsEye, to the point of our next big planned launch. Again, they're all connected through a narrative, and we really want to show the universe, show the stories that have taken place in the universe, the characters in that universe, and see how they've experienced the same experience but from different viewpoints. "The dream from the building side is to allow players the opportunity to create their own multiplayer open world games with ease" Leslie Benzies, Build A Rocket Boy Was there ever a discussion about creating a more traditional GTA competitor? In design, you look at a lot of different options. I'm not sure it would've been smart as a company to say, 'we are going to compete with the biggest game on the planet'. I'm not sure that would be the best business decision to make. We went through a bunch of different designs, and to tell our story, this is what we landed on. MindsEye is priced more like a game from a decade ago at $60, and it'll take around 20 hours to finish. Can you talk about how you settled on the game's length and scope, and how you made that decision around price? So you've got the MindsEye campaign, and yes, it'll be about 20ish hours. But you do have all this other side content: there's going to be this continuous stream of content. These days, there are so many different options for people. It's not just games: there's streaming TV, so many good shows out there. I don't think you can have filler content in games. I think people want the meat, and they want the potatoes. We've tried to make as much meat as we can, if that makes sense. I think that's a good length for a game. What you also find through data, is that [with] big games, people don't play them all. The majority of people – 60% or 70% of people – don't actually play games to the end. So when you're making something, I would prefer – I'm sure the team would say the same – [that] you had the whole experience from start to finish, and not create this 200-hour game. Create something that is finishable, but have some side things that will fill out the universe. A lot of the side missions on the play side of MindsEye do fill out the characters' back stories, or do fill out what was happening in the world. On price: the world's in a funny place. People are worried about the price of eggs. So value for money, I think people appreciate that when times are difficult. I was curious why you waited until quite late in the day to reveal the build element of the game, only because it seemed you were being quite church and state with how MindsEye is releasing versus what Everywhere is. So in general, we believe – and again, it goes back to the amount of information, the amount of options people have these days – I don't think you can have extended marketing times. It's very expensive, we're a start-up. I think you lose interest from people. There are so many things for people to do, that if you extend it, you're not punching through to the place you need to be. I've seen other games, nine years before launch, it's getting talked about. I'm not sure that's the way of the world these days. You'll see there are games that never go to market: the day of launch was the marketing campaign, and it worked very well. So I think we tried to compress ours down for that reason. On the MindsEye.Play [continuous content] part of it, yeah, maybe we should've got that out there sooner, but it is a nice little surprise to give players. That's the thing with marketing – you never know what's the right or wrong way to do it, you've got to go with your gut, your senses, and test it. Being who you are, it brings a certain level of expectation and attention. Do you find it a double-edged sword, launching a new studio and launching a new game, with your background? Yes. There's always comparisons, and I think that's how humans work. As kids, we're taught to put a triangle into a triangular hole, and a square into a square hole. I think we do that for the rest of our lives, and we like to describe something new as 'it's X plus Y, with a bit of Z in there'. It makes things easy for us. It's maybe humans optimising the way we communicate. So there are comparisons. It serves us well in some ways, it doesn't serve us well in others. Dave Grohl said it well when he formed the Foo Fighters: nobody's interested in the Foo Fighters, all they were interested in was Nirvana. The guys have built something very cool, and I just hope people can see it for what it's trying to be.

Remedy's surreal take on co-op with FBC: Firebreak Game director Mike Kayatta discusses Remedy's approach to multiplayer titles, and how it balances appealing to fans and appeasing casual co-op players Image credit: Remedy Entertainment Feature by Sophie McEvoy Staff Writer Published on May 29, 2025 Much like Remedy's narrative-driven single-player games, FBC: Firebreak is a step into the unknown. Not for the player, but for the developer itself. Firebreak not only marks the first time that Remedy has developed a multiplayer game, but it's also the developer's first foray into a first-person shooter. But a project focused on session-based gameplay runs the risk of alienating fans of Remedy's lore-heavy third-person games, while potentially dissuading casual players from checking out its impressive back catalogue if the game doesn't click. Mike Kayatta, Remedy Following a hands-on preview of the game, GamesIndustry.biz spoke to Firebreak's game director, Mike Kayatta, to discuss Remedy's approach to developing its first co-op FPS title. He also explained how the studio balanced appeasing longtime Remedy fans while attracting seasoned co-op players unfamiliar with Firebreak's surreal world. Firebreak is a spin-off of 2019's Control, which follows Jesse Faden – the director of a secretive government agency known as the Federal Bureau of Control (FBC). Its headquarters, known as the Oldest House, is a shifting, paranatural building that holds all sorts of otherworldly entities contained by the organisation. Control sees the Oldest House under lockdown following the invasion of a hostile force known as the Hiss. Firebreak takes place six years after the events of Control, and the lockdown is still in place. Maintaining a balance Right off the bat, there's a hurdle of not overloading players new to Remedy with so much lore that they'll feel like they need to play Control to play Firebreak. As Kattaya explains, the studio prioritised not overwhelming those unfamiliar with its universe and appeasing fans that will be on the lookout for connections to other Remedy titles. "We set the game during a lockdown, which creates a narrative bubble for the FBC that also helps us create a bubble around the world itself," Kayatta notes. "So, if you know Control, then you might be interested in seeing what was going on in the Oldest House six years after the first game. And if you don't know Control, then you can step right into this moment and get a contained experience." Firebreak may be a spin-off, but Kayatta affirms it is firmly set within Remedy's connected universe (RCU) – which links the Control and Alan Wake franchises together. "Of course, we are set firmly within the RCU timeline and canon, so there are connections," he explains. "But we're very focused on protecting Control players who might not want to switch genres to get the 'whole story', and protecting co-op players who might not want to fire up an old game to get the full experience out of Firebreak." By maintaining this balance, Remedy has made a game that potentially encourages fans to step out of their comfort zone while also enticing less familiar players to dive into Remedy's back catalogue if the world intrigues them. Internally, Remedy also faced the task of producing a game in a genre it's not developed for before. Still, it has over two decades of experience in developing narrative-driven, immersive single-player titles, which offered the studio some advantages. "Even though games like Alan Wake and Control aren't all that similar to Firebreak in terms of genre and gameplay, they do all share a focus on immersive worlds and impactful narrative space," Kayatta says. "That sort of thing comes through lighting, audio, world design, and more somewhat direct crossovers. "When we look at what's different [about Firebreak], it's the perspective, the social nature of the game, and driving gameplay through systems. It's a combination of previous work experience outside of Remedy, personal experience as gamers or solo projects, and transference of other practical design skills into a new vision." Kayatta continues: "We do have a lot to learn and definitely face the task and players with a lot of humility, but there wasn't really a point where we felt like we didn't know how to go about something fun." Overcoming development obstacles Remedy also had to contend with approaching the game from a different perspective during the development process. Kayatta says the making of Firebreak differed in "so many ways" compared to Alan Wake 2 or Control, but that overall, every Remedy game release "is a miracle and Firebreak is no exception." "Even things as simple as playing the game suddenly takes three times the number of people," he emphasises. "Lots of typical production processes remain the same, but the rest has been a lot of adaptation and learning on the fly." This included playtests. Remedy has conducted a lot during Firebreak's development, even as recently as a couple weeks ago to test various game mechanics and matchmaking. The game is constantly changing – I'll have a totally different experience playing with friends post-release than I did during my playtest, and the devs were busy polishing things then, too. "Sometimes making games feels like nothing but overcoming obstacles," Kayatta laughs. "Honestly, it's been [like that] every single day. Sometimes it's about absorbing the pain, learning lessons, and pushing through to the next milestone. Other times, it's about seeking help from experts across the studio. Every single game released is a miracle and Firebreak is no exception. "Then, creatively, a lot has been shifting the mindset of what's the most valuable [aspects] to players and learning to let go of the control you have over players when making a single-player experience." Image credit: Remedy Entertainment Unlike Alan Wake 2 and Control, Remedy aren't guiding players through narrative cues. There are suggestions and hints of what needs to be done in a given situation, but players are given much more agency and control over how they approach obstacles with the arsenal they're given. As for the FPS aspect – there are plenty of guns to fire in Firebreak, but it's the 'crisis kits' that are the focal point. "Every single game released is a miracle and Firebreak is no exception" These three loadouts are tailored to a specific skill – one is electricity-focused for field control, another is impact-focused for problem solving, and one is water-focused for manipulating conditions like controlling flames and cooling down team members. Players aren't limited to what they use, either. All three players in a session can use the same kit, or they can plan who will use which kit to maximise the effects of teamwork during a session. The kits are also where Remedy's kookiness shines. Each kit has a tool related to its theme, whether that's a massive wrench or a hydro-cannon. Paranatural items known as 'Altered Augments' can be attached to these weapons, which provide bizarre – and at times chaotic – effects to give players the upper hand against enemies. For example, a paranatural teapot can be attached to the hydro cannon to super heat water globules into molten lava. Experimentation is key Giving players a varied loadout of guns and tools enabled Remedy to make Firebreak something newcomers to the FPS co-op genre could enjoy. This was achieved by providing the ability to adjust components to meet players needs and a progression system that doesn't focus on "power ramping." "Like most games, we front load a lot of the extremely impactful long-term progress, such as unlocking critical gear and abilities," Kayatta says. "And the 'mid-game' (if you want to call it that) is about getting your power up and upgrading what you like to use." Kayatta also clarifies they didn't want newer players to be locked out of the experience when playing with those who are familiar with how multiplayer FPS games work. "[Firebreak] doesn't dwell too long in the 'power ramping' phase and quickly shifts into promoting experimentation and forming playstyles," Kayatta notes. "We've also added things like the resonance system which can let players with access to strong builds actually share those abilities to anyone (so long as they stay close)." Speaking of progress, Kayatta notes that Remedy made it a priority for Firebreak to "feel like a fair experience for everyone" – whether you're playing for long or short periods of time. "For this, we made sure that the longer-term progression focuses more on unlocking options rather than raw power," he explains. "That players can create their own end-game challenges by adjusting threat, clearance, and corruption [levels] to meet their capabilities." Threat, clearance, and corruption control the difficulty of a job, with rewards scaling up accordingly based on the level of challenge. These aspects also enhance replayability – particularly corruption, which enables 'corrupted items' that modify the environment and enemy behaviours. Remedy's approach to microtransactions There's also a perk system that provides unique gameplay effects, which are achieved by levelling up or using in-game currency known as 'lost assets'. Players can also use in-game currency to purchase 'requisitions' – cosmetic items including armor sets, sprays, and weapon skins that have no effect on gameplay. Some requisitions are 'classified' meaning that players will need to spend real-money to unlock them. "We tried to think of ourselves as gamers and what we would want out of a game" When asked why Remedy went down the route of locking only cosmetics behind a paywall as opposed to a pay-to-win system like some other multiplayer titles, Kayatta says the team thought of what they would want out of Firebreak as players. "[This approach] is not a direct response to any particular mechanic or game, but it is different from many that you see in the multiplayer space," Kayatta explains. "Mostly, we tried to think of ourselves as gamers and what we would want out of a game. "Maybe it's a bit of a nostalgia, old man, 'kids-these-days' sort of thing to say, but dang. I miss games like Left 4 Dead 2 where you could just buy the game and play it when you feel like playing it. It felt easier to get friends on board and easier to kick back and enjoy things." Kayatta continued: "I don't like the stigma that comes with multiplayers today. I don't like how guarded I feel when I hear something is going to be supported after release. Support after release should be an awesome, exciting thing. So why, so often, does it make me feel worried somehow?" The future of Firebreak With that in mind, Remedy has implemented a solid roadmap to support Firebreak post-release. It launches with five jobs, with two additional jobs planned for this year and more to come in 2026. "It's always hard to predict the future, especially before we've released the game and gotten the chance to hear from players," says Kayatta. "We know we are going to support the game, we know we want to make it bigger this year, at least. "And going into next year, we want to know what's going to add value for players and do that. Is it more jobs? Could be, in which case that will be the plan. Is it something else? Let's see and then try to do that if it makes sense." "We're a small team with limited resources. We're trying to be super careful about where we put our attention" Remedy is steadfast on putting the players' needs first. All post-launch content will be free, and will be catered to what fans want out of the game they're spending their money and time on. "Ultimately, we're a small team with limited resources," he adds. "We're trying to be super careful about where we put our attention." As for the future of co-op games at Remedy, Firebreak sets a precedent for potential games set around its other franchises. So has the experience of developing Firebreak inspired the devs for similar games in the future? "Oh boy," Kayatta laughs. "The only future on my mind right now is getting Firebreak to players on June 17, then supporting them as best I can. As for anything else, to quote the wise Magic 8-Ball: 'Ask again later'."

The big Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 interview: Sandfall and Kepler on team size, the return of AA games, and what's next Plus: how Kepler plans to be the A24 for games, and why a follow-up to Clair Obscur won't involve a big studio expansion Image credit: Sandfall Interactive Feature by Lewis Packwood Contributor Published on May 27, 2025 The success of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 – which sold 2 million copies within 12 days of launch – has meant all eyes are now on its developer, Sandfall Interactive. As the games industry mulls how to move forward, faced with a saturated market, widespread layoffs and spiralling development costs, the fact that an original title made by a relatively small team could see such massive success gives hope to everyone. It's also an emphatic validation of the strategy of Clair Obscur's publisher, Kepler Interactive, which since its formation in 2021 has focused on original titles with eye-catching art styles and mould-breaking gameplay, including Sifu, Tchia, Scorn, Pacific Drive, Ultros, Bionic Bay, and the upcoming Rematch. "They respect creativity and innovation in games, they have a very high standard in choosing games to publish, and they are very fun people to work with," enthuses Shuhei Yoshida, former president of Sony Interactive Entertainment Worldwide Studios, and now a freelance consultant for Kepler. Yoshida has been helping to evaluate game pitches for the publisher since he left Sony in January, as well as helping to promote Bionic Bay and Clair Obscur. "They have a great balance in looking for innovation in games and investing in commercially viable projects," he says. "I think the way Kepler chooses games and supports developers is a great example of sustainable indie publishing. I expect many companies in the industry will look for inspiration from what Kepler is doing." Coop mode One thing that immediately marks out Kepler as different is its structure. "Kepler is co-owned by a group of studios, but they all operate autonomously," explains portfolio director Matthew Handrahan, who joined Kepler from PlayStation in 2022 (before that, he was editor-in-chief of this very site). "They make a lot of their own choices creatively and commercially in terms of the direction of their business. But there is a collaborative aspect that they can draw upon if they feel they need it. The thing that we definitely are very clear on is Kepler is not sitting here telling anyone what to do." The idea is that Kepler can provide support into each studio in terms of things like HR, legal teams, and IT. "And each one of them can draw on that to the degree that they want to, in the belief that if you give people that solid base, they can just focus more on being creative," says Handrahan. Image credit: Sandfall Interactive But the plan was always for Kepler to become a third party publisher, he continues. So in addition to publishing games from its own studios, since 2024 Kepler has started releasing games from outside developers, like Pacific Drive, Clair Obscur, and the newly signed PVKK from Bippinbits, the creators of Dome Keeper. "As we go forward, what we really hope is that people can spot a Kepler game," says Handrahan. So what marks out a Kepler title? CEO Alexis Garavaryan has previously emphasised the publisher champions games with "bold art direction and innovative game design" that avoid familiar influences like Star Wars and superheroes. Handrahan says this is essential in today's market. "I remember writing about Steam being overcrowded for GamesIndustry.biz 10 years ago, and saying, 'Oh, there's too many games'," he says. "Well there's five times more games being released now. So if you are coming to market with a game, it had better be doing something genuinely fresh." What Kepler definitely isn't doing is chasing trends, which Handrahan says is a dangerous strategy. He gives the example of Balatro imitators. "If you're making something hot on the heels of that, by the time you get to market, there'll probably be 150 other alternatives." One can't help thinking, too, of the expensive failure of Concord at PlayStation, which proved to be one hero shooter too many. The next expedition Sandfall's COO and producer François Meurisse says that the fact that studio head Guillaume Broche was deliberately avoiding chasing trends with Clair Obscur was what attracted him to join in the first place. "Some people predicted to us that it was a tricky [sector] when we started development, and there could be kind of a curse on AA games" François Meurisse, Sandfall Interactive He was immediately on board with Broche's passion for revitalising the kind of flashy, 3D, turn-based JRPGs that had long gone out of fashion. That passion came first: the strategy came later. "A bit after, when we tried to rationalise that yearning he has for this kind of game, we realised that it wasn't addressed as much in the market, and maybe there was a place for it," says Meurisse. The end result went beyond their wildest dreams. "The game has had success to an extent that we didn't imagine," he says. "We smashed our forecasts pretty fast." Naturally, thoughts are already turning to a follow-up. "There will be another video game, for sure," says Meurisse, adding that it's a little early to say exactly what form it will take. "I can't wait to dig more into the ideas we already have for the next game," he says. "Plus the team has grown up, has acquired new skills throughout production," he says. "Many of them were junior when we started. We learned to work together. So I can't wait to get to the next project, because we'll start from a more efficient position than when we started the company five years ago. And that [comes] with higher expectations as well, so it will be challenging. But I can say that we have – and Guillaume in particular has – great ideas for the next game." AA comeback Image credit: Sandfall Interactive The success of Clair Obscur has led many to herald the comeback of AA games, a sector that has shrunk significantly over the past couple of console generations – even if it's a harder category to define in 2025 based on a lack of publicly available budget numbers. "Some people predicted to us that it was a tricky [sector] when we started development, and there could be kind of a curse on AA games," remembers Meurisse. "But from our perspective, we didn't care too much about market considerations. […] In a sense, A Plague Tale or Mortal Shell or Hellblade, games like those were already proof for us that small teams of less than 50 people could have great games and great execution." Speaking of team size, much was made of the claim that Clair Obscur was created by a team of around 30, although many were quick to point out that the credits include dozens more people than that, working on things like QA, localization and voice production, as well as a ‘gameplay animation' team in Korea. "These kinds of games did exist in much greater numbers about 15 years ago, and I think there are some threads that the AAA industry lost as they grew and grew and grew" Matt Handrahan, Kepler Interactive So was the game mis-sold? "I don't think so," says Handrahan. "I think that the creative engine of the game was that group of 30. […] In terms of what the game is – the vision of it and the way in which it's executed – [that] does come from that nucleus of staff that is at Sandfall." "In terms of main credits over the four years of production, we were on average about 30 people," clarifies Meurisse. "We started with less than 10 people, scaled up until 30, and close to 40, and then scaled a little bit down. You mentioned Korean animators, but it's important to mention that none of them were full time. They were doing some extras beside some other jobs of animation. So the core team was on average 30 people in the home studio, plus privileged contractors like the lead writer or the composer, for example: I include them in that core team." "But of course, we had a galaxy of partners revolving around the project. Kepler in the first place – and I want to really pinpoint that they were really key in the success of the game – plus some other creative people as well, like musician players, translators, QA testers also. And that definitely extends the team, and I'm super grateful we could work with all those super […] passionate partners from all over the world." "I think people fixated on this number," adds Handrahan, "but actually the more useful thing that was being said was that this is not a AAA game, right? You can look at those credits, and it's still definitely not a AAA game." "These kinds of games did exist in much greater numbers about 15 years ago, and I think there are some threads that the AAA industry lost as they grew and grew and grew, and brought in different ways of monetising," he continues. "We have to remember there was a time when AAA companies were making games like Vanquish and Mirror's Edge and Kane & Lynch, and all of these really cool, interesting, not small games, but much smaller scale games. And you've seen the number of releases from AAA publishers dwindle and dwindle and dwindle. Now there's an opportunity for teams like Sandfall to come in and give players something that they really have not been given for quite a long time." Which leads us to ask, if Clair Obscur can't be classed as a AAA game, how much did it cost, exactly? Neither Handrahan nor Meurisse is willing to disclose the true figure. "I would say that I've seen a lot of budget estimations that are all higher than the real budget," muses Meurisse. Handrahan agrees. "Everybody's desperate to know what the budget is, and I won't tell them, but I would guarantee if you got 10 people to guess, I think all 10 wouldn't guess the actual figure," he says. "I'm sure Mirror's Edge and Vanquish cost more, put it that way." Keeping the team small Image credit: Sandfall Interactive With a success like Clair Obscur, the temptation might be to scale up the studio for a blockbuster sequel: a pattern we've seen with successful franchises many times before. But Meurisse says that's something Sandfall wants to avoid. "For now, our vision would be to stick to a close team working in the same city with less than 50 people on board, focusing on one project after another, and keeping this agility, and this creative strength, and smartness of a small group of passionate people wanting to do something big," he says. "That's how video games were made for years," he continues. "The team that made Ocarina of Time or Half-Life 2, I think those were max 60 or 70 people*, and that kind of size allows for good decisions and great creativity." He adds that the studio might recruit a few more members, but it won't start working on multiple projects simultaneously, and they will deliberately avoid growing too big and unwieldy. "We want to keep the organisation that made us successful," he says. Handrahan notes that because game making is an iterative process, maintaining only a small permanent team makes sense. "I think keeping a core team to hold the vision and to build out what the game is, and then expanding as you need to through things like outsourcing, is a very smart and sustainable way to manage game development," he says. "I think that there's been a lot of irresponsible practices in the industry," he continues, referring to the inherent risks involved in ballooning AAA budgets and team sizes. "Some games can make it work. Grand Theft Auto 6 is going to make it work, I think we can all say with great confidence. But there are plenty of games made with very large teams and for huge amounts of money that don't land, and there is a human cost to running things that way. People lose their jobs. God knows how many layoffs there's been in the industry over the last few years." He worries that the temptation to scale up is too great. "I do see a lot of developers who ship a game and then get some level of success – even very small levels of success or on very small budgets – and then almost instinctively feel like they need to double or triple the budget of the next game. And that is something I definitely question." No bloat He also questions the need to make games bigger. "One of the things that's great about Expedition 33 is it really respects the player's time. It gives them plenty to do, and it gives them plenty of satisfaction, but it isn't arbitrarily 500 hours of gameplay. It's impactful because it's scoped correctly. […] It doesn't have any sense of bloat or extraneous things that are put there just to make it larger and larger and larger." "Brevity should be more of a virtue in gaming," he adds. "Something can be better by being shorter – something that's being discussed in film at the moment. Every film seems to be two and a half hours long, and I think most people are like, 'Can they all be a bit shorter, please? Because we have other things to do with our lives'." Meurisse notes that the focus for Clair Obscur was always on quality over quantity. "From the beginning, we wanted to do an intense and short experience," he says. "The first length estimates of the game were closer to 20 hours for the main quest. I think we ended up closer to 30, even 40 hours if you take a bit of time. As a player, there are so many great games out there that I want to experience, [and] what's important to me is the level of excitement and fun I get from a game, rather than how long it is." He also questions the link between game length and price. "The value that players get from games does not align systematically with the length of the game," he says. "For example, one of my favourite games of all time is Inside, which lasts about two hours, but it's one of the most polished, and intense [experiences] – and even life changing for some people." What are games worth? Notably, Clair Obscur launched at a price point of $50/$45, at a time when the standard price for big-budget games is creeping up to $80. "I think as that AAA price goes up, I think it creates more of an opportunity to be launching games – more sensibly scoped games – [and] pricing them at that $40–50 range," says Handrahan. "And I don't think anyone that played Expedition 33 would think they didn't get their money's worth out of that." "When we announced the pricing at $50 we did actually have a little of a backlash online," adds Meurisse, "with people fearing it would be a 12-hour-long game with unfinished content, and that it was suspicious to have a $50 game that was looking like this in the trailers. But in the end we stuck with the price, we doubled down on it, [and] we provided some context about the fact that it wasn't a AAA." "In the end, it was a win-win situation, because it was a way to attract more players towards the game, to have good player satisfaction about their buying [decision], and it could actually end up doing more sales. So maybe players' perception can change a bit about that kind of price [point]." The Kepler brand Image credit: Sandfall Interactive Clair Obscur has obviously provided a huge boost for Kepler as a publisher, and Handrahan says the plan now is for Kepler to build a brand as the home for high-quality, mid-sized games with a unique vision. He gives the newly signed PVKK as an example. "The art direction is very high quality, it's very, very bold. It has a strong narrative component. It has innovative gameplay design. It speaks to wider culture, it's not an insular vision for a game. I think you get a lot of games that are kind of just about other games, and that is not something we're interested in necessarily." It's a model that he thinks others could follow. "We definitely want there to be strong associations with the games we do, so if that is something that other publishers could imitate or follow along from, then all the better," he says, adding that it makes little sense for publishers to cast a broad net of styles and genres in such a crowded market. But of course, there is a risk to championing unique, untested visions. So what does Kepler do to mitigate that risk? "We definitely do market research," says Handrahan – although he adds that ultimately the process is subjective. "I came to this company because I really trusted the taste of the people that I work for. I have always felt that if I'm really excited by a game, there will be other people out there who are excited by it. Yes, you can test that against market research, and that is definitely a function that we have in the company, and we use it. But our litmus test is a subjective level of excitement and belief in the vision and creativity that we see in the games that we sign." He points to companies in other media, like A24 or Warped Records, that have taken a similar approach with great success. "We want to be that in games." *Fact check note: Valve's core team was actually 84 for Half-Life 2, without including the many people involved in voice acting, QA, IT, legal, and so on. The team behind Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time numbered around 66, although the people involved in QA testing aren't listed individually in the credits.

IGN and Meta will host a Women in Gaming networking event on June 6 ahead of IGN Live The event features panels, hardware demos, and more News by Samuel Roberts Editorial Director Published on May 25, 2025 IGN and Meta will host a Women in Gaming event on Friday, June 6 as part of this year's IGN Live event. Taking place at the Magic Box in Los Angeles, the event promises to honour the women making waves in the games industry, and will feature curated panels with industry leaders. Meta, meanwhile, will bring hardware demos to the event. A pop-up studio offering headshots will also be part of the mix, with make-up artists from NYX Professional Makeup providing touch-ups. Dentsu Gaming completes the list of sponsors for the event. Those interested in attending Women in Gaming or finding out more information are encouraged to reach out to Kim Hatfield at IGN Entertainment. IGN Live itself takes place on June 7 and June 8, with tickets available now. Participating publishers at the event include Xbox, Sega, 2K Games and Ubisoft. GamesIndustry.biz is part of IGN Entertainment, the division of Ziff Davis that includes Eurogamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, and VG247.

Here's what happened to Peter Molyneux's Kinect game Project Milo "I don't want to prance around like a tw*t." Image credit: Peter Molyneaux News by Victoria Phillips Kennedy News Reporter Published on May 23, 2025 Project Milo was initially revealed alongside Microsoft's Kinect device all the way back in 2009, and featured a young character named Milo who players could interact with. However, it never actually made it to release, and the project was cancelled in 2010. So, what happened? Well, Peter Molyneux recently shared his side of the story during Nordic Game 2025 in Malmö, explaining how changing priorities led to the end of the project and how he didn't want to "prance around like a twat". Does Anyone Really Want Long Games Anymore? Watch on YouTube "I'll tell you exactly what happened," Molyneux said, as transcribed by Eurgamer's sister-site GamesIndustry.biz. "Microsoft had [bought] us, we were owned by Microsoft, and they had...I'm going to say this, I might get in trouble...what I thought was a bit of a crazy idea. And that was to do gesture recognition as an input device, rather than a controller. They showed me this stuff, and Microsoft had this amazing research building. Incredible. "It was run by this brilliant bloke called Alex Kipman. Makes me look boring and passionless – he had ten times more passion than I had. He had this demo of this device, and when he showed me this demo, it could see people's faces. He said, 'it can do voice recognition', and it had a massive field-of-view so it could see this whole room." When Kipman first asked Molyneux his thoughts on the tech that would ultimately end up as the Kinect, the game developer replied: "'Well, firstly' - when he did the demo, he was jumping all over the room - 'I'm a gamer, I don't want to play games standing up. That's the first thing. It doesn't appeal to me, I want to sit back, I want to smoke what I smoke, and I want to drink what I want to drink, and I don't want to prance around like a twat'." Molyneux said he would go and instead create a demo of how he believed the technology should be used, with a more sedentary slant with a focus on feeling. For this, he took inspiration from his then seven-year-old son, Lucas. "Anyone who's a parent will probably experience this: there was this moment where you realise you're crafting, inspiring, a human being," the developer said. "Wouldn't it be an incredible thing to create a game around that feeling… About inspiring, in Milo's case, a boy. That was contentious in itself, because of course, lots of people go to the dark side with that [idea]." Staff at Molyneux's studio Lionhead subsequently started work on the demo, and began collaborating with a technology company on Project Milo's voice recognition. "We had all sorts of experiences, like you could hand things to Milo in the game world and he would take them. They really worked well." The team "cheated in a big way about how you could talk to Milo", Molyneux said, adding he wanted to make sure that players would be able to relax on the couch at the end of a day (or, to be fair, in the middle of it), and "just experience things with this game character". "Even though voice recognition now is almost a solved problem, back in those days we solved the problem by cheating," Molyneux explained. "So, when Milo asked you the player a question, we had set that question up to different points, so he knew what sort of answer he'd give." The developer went on to explain some more about the behind the scenes of Project Milo, admitting it was unfortunate that at the same time as all of this was going on, Microsoft was also working on its Kinect device. "And [Microsoft] realised that the device that Alex Kipman first showed off would cost $5k for consumers to buy. So they cost-reduced that device down to such a point, where the field-of-view… I think it was a minuscule field-of-view. In other words, it could only just see what's straight in front of you." In the end, changing priorities at Microsoft, which wanted to focus on the Kinect, led to the end of Project Milo. Molyneux said the "death blow" which still "breaks his heart" today, "was that it was decided that Kinect shouldn't be a gaming device: it should be a party device. You should play a sports game with it, or dancing games with it." Project Milo, then, "didn't fit into the Microsoft portfolio", and the whole thing was ultimately canned. "No one ever saw the complete experience," Molyneux closed. "We didn't finish the experience. But it was a magical thing. What was so magical about it: it wasn't about heroes and aliens coming down, there wasn't this 'end of the world' narrative scenario. "It was just experiencing what it's like to hang out with someone that loves you." E3 2009: Project Natal Milo demo. Watch on YouTube Eurogamer spoke to Molyneux last year, about his Masters of Albion project. Masters of Albion will take place "in the land of Albion", and has - in the words of Katharine Castle - big Black and White energy, with a more customisable bent that lets you design buildings, meals, armour and more.

Peter Molyneux recalls how Project Milo, the Kinect game with revolutionary promise, died a death At Nordic Game 2025, Molyneux shared how tech limitations and changing priorities killed the Xbox game Milo & Kate Feature by Samuel Roberts Editorial Director Published on May 22, 2025 Vapourware can end up being the stuff of legend, like Rockstar's Agent, Star Wars 1313, or StarCraft: Ghost. Without ever seeing the light of day, these games never risked the possibility of being played and forgotten, and instead live on forever as the subjects of lengthy YouTube essays. Peter Molyneux, formerly of the studios Bullfrog and Lionhead, and currently working on Masters of Albion at 22cans, has had a number of cancelled projects in his career. The original Xbox's prehistoric game BC was axed around the time Fable became Lionhead's priority, for example. Still, Molyneux's most notable lost game (or tech demo, depending on who you asked at the time) was arguably Project Milo. Revealed alongside the Kinect device at E3 2009, which was then known as Project Natal, players would interact with a young male character called Milo using voice and gesture commands. Watch on YouTube This unusual premise made the game a huge talking point. The project was revealed just as traditional game genre boundaries were starting to blur following the success of the Nintendo DS and Wii. The actual game based on the tech demo was to be called Milo & Kate, with Molyneux demoing it in more detail at a TED presentation in 2010. Lionhead's stylistic touches are obvious throughout the demo, like its tone, music, narration, and choice of story about a British family that's recently moved to America. Molyneux described the game at the time by saying, "most of it is just a trick; but it's a trick that works". The game ultimately didn't release, with some of its ideas rolled into Fable: The Journey on Xbox 360, which was not well-received. Still, the demo arguably did its job, putting Microsoft's Kinect device at the centre of the cultural conversation for its reveal, a full 17 months before it was commercially available. Fable: The Journey ended up being the final Lionhead game before the studio's closure in 2016. While the broad details (and many specifics, per a 2013 Polygon piece) of Project Milo's demise are fairly well-known, it was undeniably exciting to hear Molyneux himself recall the project during Nordic Game 2025 in Malmö this week. During the Q&A section of his fireside chat, one attendee asked about Milo, saying they believed that to this day, Molyneux had a vision for what it could've been. "I'll tell you exactly what happened," Molyneux said. "Microsoft had [bought] us, we were owned by Microsoft, and they had...I'm going to say this, I might get in trouble...what I thought was a bit of a crazy idea. And that was to do gesture recognition as an input device, rather than a controller. They showed me this stuff, and Microsoft had this amazing research building. Incredible. "It was run by this brilliant bloke called Alex Kipman. Makes me look boring and passionless – he had ten times more passion than I had. He had this demo of this device, and when he showed me this demo, it could see people's faces. He said, 'it can do voice recognition', and it had a massive field-of-view so it could see this whole room." Molyneux then recalled his first reaction to the tech that would eventually become Kinect. "He said, 'what do you think?', and I said, 'well, firstly' – when he did the demo, he was jumping all over the room – 'I'm a gamer, I don't want to play games standing up. That's the first thing. It doesn't appeal to me, I want to sit back, I want to smoke what I smoke, and I want to drink what I want to drink, and I don't want to prance around like a twat'. "The death blow of Milo, which still breaks my heart to this day, was that it was decided that Kinect shouldn't be a gaming device: it should be a party device" Peter Molyneux "I said, 'I'll go away and I'll create a demo of [how we should use] the technology you showed me.' "Again, I go back to what I want the player to feel," Molyneux continued. "Now, at that time, my son, Lucas, was about seven years old. And, anyone who's a parent will probably experience this: there was this moment where you realise you're crafting, inspiring, a human being. Wouldn't it be an incredible thing to create a game around that feeling?" Molyneux's phone then started ringing during the panel, and he paused to turn it off before continuing. "Wouldn't it be incredible to create an experience around that? About inspiring, in Milo's case, a boy. That was contentious in itself, because of course, lots of people go to the dark side with that [idea]. Molyneux then said staff at Lionhead started working on the demo, collaborating with an unnamed technology company on Project Milo's voice recognition. "We had all sorts of experiences, like you could hand things to Milo in the game world and he would take them. They really worked well." Molyneux then said the team "cheated in a big way about how you could talk to Milo", recalling that his intention was to have players sit back on the sofa and "just experience things with this game character". "Even though voice recognition now is almost a solved problem, back in those days we solved the problem by cheating," Molyneux said. "So, when Milo asked you the player a question, we had set that question up to different points, so he knew what sort of answer he'd give." At this point, Molyneux explained how the changing specs of the Kinect device in the run up to launch impacted the potential of Project Milo. "Unfortunately, as we were developing Milo, so the Kinect device was being developed. And they realised that the device that Alex Kipman first showed off would cost $5,000 for consumers to buy. "So they cost-reduced that device down to such a point, where the field-of-view...I think it was a minuscule field-of-view. In other words, it could only just see what's straight in front of you." Ultimately, the demise of Project Milo came down to Microsoft's changing priorities with the Kinect device, which was soon synonymous with the kinds of casual games that exploded in popularity on the Wii. "Then, the death blow of Milo, which still breaks my heart to this day, was that it was decided that Kinect shouldn't be a gaming device: it should be a party device. You should play a sports game with it, or dancing games with it. So, it just didn't fit into the Microsoft portfolio, and unfortunately the project was cancelled." "No one ever saw the complete experience," Molyneux continued. "We didn't finish the experience. But it was a magical thing. What was so magical about it: it wasn't about heroes and aliens coming down, there wasn't this 'end of the world' narrative scenario." "It was just experiencing what it's like to hang out with someone that loves you." GamesIndustry.biz is a media partner of Nordic Game 2025. Travel and accommodation were covered by the organisers.

Peter Molyneux on Masters of Albion progress and the influence of Fable on his new game GamesIndustry.biz catches up with the creator of Fable and Black & White at Nordic Game 2025 Image credit: 22cans Feature by Samuel Roberts Editorial Director Published on May 22, 2025 Peter Molyneux was typically charming and emotional during his fireside chat at Nordic Game 2025 in Malmö this week, discussing his past work at the studios Bullfrog, Lionhead, and even the legendary doomed Kinect project Milo and Kate. Molyneux is a complicated figure for some (in games media circles, that's certainly the case), but the response in the room was incredibly warm. There is perhaps an understanding from the creator of Dungeon Keeper and Fable that the game has to do the talking this time. That said, as usual, Molyneux couldn't hide his excitement for what's coming next. Following last year's in-depth chat about upcoming god game Masters of Albion, as well as his negative experiences with the press, GamesIndustry.biz caught up with Molyneux about how development on the game is progressing ahead of his talk. This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity. How is Masters of Albion going? I've got to say this, but it's going to get me in trouble: every atom of my being believes we're making a great game. I bullied, persuaded, and blackmailed a lot of the old people that I worked with, like Russell Shaw, Mark Healey and Ian Wright, Kareem Ettouney, to come back and do one last gig. And it's incredible. There is a magic that we used to have, when we created Dungeon Keeper and Black and White and Fable, and that magic was completely intangible. It's not something you can produce. But it really feels that magic is back. And I'm not saying that to you to hype the game – I'm only saying so you get a perspective of how I'm feeling about the game. It should be impossible to make this game. It's all about player freedom, it's all about asking ourselves what a god game is, what it should be, and what it should stand for. But: it's f*cking working. It's coming together. If you can play the game, it is something that in my mind, feels – and again, these are words that play out in my mind, this is not me hyping the title – but it feels fresh, and different, and new, and it feels, above all, insanely brave. It's exactly what I wanted it to be: it's a marriage of Dungeon Keeper, and Black & White, and Fable, and it's all [of] that put together. And how the hell does that work? It's only now, really, in the last year, that I've dared to hope that this weird mixture of game mechanics can actually blend into something unique and different. When you're working again with all these previous collaborators, does it feel like it used to, or with time and experience, does the dynamic feel a little bit different? There is this trust. There is this overwhelming trust that you have. I'm not telling Mark [Healey] what to do; you don't tell Mark what to do, he is a genius. You just show him, and he does the rest. I don't say, 'we should have this type of music, or we should have these sound effects' with Russell Shaw; he just takes what I make and he adds his genius to it. And that dynamic, I didn't dare hope would work again, but it is working. We've got 24 people, because I love working with small teams. Then to work with other people on the team that I've worked with for ten years, to see them embrace this thing that we're creating, is just wonderful. I'm working harder now than I worked in my twenties. Every moment of every day is spent on the game, and thinking about it. But that sort of focus is what you need. Image credit: 22cans How does it feel to be in the weeds of designing a game now versus 20 or 30 years ago? It's funny you should ask that question, because there is this realisation that I had a while back. Journalists always ask me, 'you're working on an RTS one minute, you're working on a god game another minute, you're working on a roleplaying [game] another minute, where's the consistency?' I think I've realised that the consistency is the experience that the player has. What we're really trying to do is create an experience. And for me, that started back when we created a game called Magic Carpet, years and years ago. Let me give you an example of what I mean by an experience. At that time in the industry, Doom and Quake and Wolfenstein were around, and we had that tech to do an indoor shooter just like those. And we would've made a shitload of money, and maybe even created a franchise. But instead, my bastard and half-insane mind said, 'no. Let's not do that. Wouldn't it be fantastically cool to experience flying? Like, flying on a magic carpet? Okay, you shoot things, but [while] flying on a magic carpet.' That's when I first realised, I think, that for me as a designer, it's more about the player's experience than it is about the mechanics. Traditionally, if you're making an RTS game, the first thing you do as a designer is you write down all your units, work out your attack skills, and you have your design bible, and you give that to the programming team. That's not the way we approach it, and that's definitely not the way we approached it with Masters [of Albion], and we didn't approach it [that way] with Fable, or Black & White, or any of those games. So, the short answer to your question is, it feels so familiar to the way we used to work, and that is stumbling through the darkness looking for the daylight as you're developing the game. Trying things out, throwing things away, obsessing. Going, 'that's the heart of the game; no, actually that isn't the heart of the game, let's throw that away'. So in that sense it's incredibly familiar. It's very, very chaotic. Those people that we do employ who have worked elsewhere, after they've been working with us for a week, just look defeated. 'Tell me what to do, and I'll do it really well.' You miss the point: it's not what to do, it's how we embrace what [comes from that process]. You're launching the game in Early Access. How does the process of building a roadmap look for you, when you're very conscious of not overpromising? I think the real time for a roadmap is when you're in Early Access. I'm never going to lose this creative friction that happens, but if you've got a live product, and we have experience of this now, because we still have two live-service products [at 22cans] – Godus and Betrayal, which are both very successful. You can think creatively, and you absolutely should think creatively, but you've got to be a little bit more predictable, because you're no longer just throwing a schedule away, you're throwing away what people are anticipating. So I think the time for a roadmap, the time to be predictive about what we're releasing and share that with the community, that's soon coming up. The Dungeon Keeper and Black & White influences on Masters of Albion are really clear. Can you talk more about how the Fable influence manifests in the game? The way I think of it is like making a soup. I can put potatoes in, and I can put leeks in – and it's going to be a leek and potato soup. Then I can put strange other ingredients in, and it tastes like nothing I've ever tasted before. That's how I think about Masters of Albion. We have got bits from Dungeon Keeper; there's a core mechanic in the game that's absolutely inspired by Dungeon Keeper. We've got very visible things from Black & White, like the hand and reaching into the world, and this godlike feeling, caring for things and nurturing things, absolutely from Black & White. But Fable: that's where the main focus comes from, because the entire narrative, the entire world, the openness of the world, the freedom which Fable gave you as a player, absolutely is embraced [here fully]. We've just done some user tests – I shouldn't say any of this stuff – using a company over in America. And the first thing that came back is, 'oh my god, I'm playing Fable.' That was such a wonderful moment for me. That's what they said when they first started playing it. And then they said, 'no no, it doesn't remind me of Fable, it reminds me of Black & White.' It is a blend, but that blend, just like that soup analogy, is something new, fresh and different. GamesIndustry.biz is a media partner for Nordic Game 2025. Travel and accommodation were covered by the organisers.