Microsoft, change your strategy, or drop out (long read)

#1 Edited by charizard1605 (56019 posts) -

Alright, let's talk Xbox. Specifically, let's talk the state of Xbox exclusives, and the first party lineup (whatever there is) on Xbox. Recent developments- Tomb Raider being announced as an Xbox exclusive, then as a timed exclusive, and the resultant outcry over all of that- make this an especially relevant tome to do so.

Before I proceed, I do want to give due credit to @darkspineslayer- it was in a conversation with him that this occurred to me, mostly because he pointed it out flat out.

Specifically, I am talking about the lack of Microsoft's first party lineup, and its larger implications. Microsoft has now been in the console industry for fourteen years. That is a long ass time, and amazingly, they have managed to not only not build a slate of first party franchises in this period, but also destroy most of what looked like very promising first party games that would have helped the Xbox brand in the long run, and secured its identity.

See, here's the thing- so far I've been defending Microsoft's first party. 'It takes time,' I've been saying. But my problem (as well as the problem of many Xbox fans, fanboys, defenders, and apologists, I assume) is that I have been in the mindset of Microsoft being a late entrant, a newcomer to the market- they're not, not anymore. It's 2014, they entered in 2000, they don't have any excuses.

Let's see where Nintendo stood fourteen years after their initial entry into the market in terms of first party franchises. By 1999, here is the list of first (and second) party Nintendo franchises:

  • Mario, and all its various spin offs
  • The Legend of Zelda
  • Metroid
  • Pokemon
  • Star Fox
  • F-Zero
  • Super Smash Bros.
  • Donkey Kong
  • Wave Race
  • Pilotwings
  • Exctebike
  • Kirby
  • Yoshi
  • Banjo Kazooie
  • Killer Instinct
  • Earthbound
  • Punch-Out!!

Just a heads up, this list is already severely truncated- not only have I consolidated all the Mario brands that technically count as separate (such as Mario Kart), but I am also not considering any one shot games (such as Sin and Punishment), any inactive franchises at this point in time (such as Kid Icarus), and any franchises not localized to the west (such as Fire Emblem). It's still a kickass list, and it still thoroughly shames Microsoft's present lineup.

Okay, I hear you say. Fine. But Nintendo is a special case, it lives and dies on the strength of its first party. It's not fair to compare the two here. I hear you. Fair enough. Let's compare Microsoft with Sony and PlayStation, they're the immediate competition anyway, right?

After 14 years, in 2008, this was the list of PlayStation exclusive first (and second) party franchises:

  • Gran Turismo
  • Jak and Daxter
  • Ratchet and Clank
  • Sly Cooper
  • God of War
  • Killzone
  • Twisted Metal
  • Wipeout
  • Resistance
  • Uncharted
  • LittleBigPlanet
  • Syphon Filter
  • SOCOM
  • Wild Arms
  • Dark Cloud
  • Singstar

Once again, a hell of a list. That's super impressive, and again, I haven't counted any one-shot games (so stuff like Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Rogue Galaxy, all of that? It's out), or any inactive franchises. These are all franchises that were alive and well in 2008.

Right, let's look at Xbox's list now, in 2014, fourteen years later, shall we?

  • Halo
  • Gears of War
  • Fable
  • Forza
  • Crackdown
  • Killer Instinct
  • Zoo Tycoon
  • Viva Pinata
  • Kinect Sports

And... that's it (and that's being generous and counting Zoo Tycoon and Viva Pinata). Fourteen years later, this is what Microsoft has to show for its first party.

It doesn't even have to be this bad- not only are they sitting on a trove of unused franchises (Perfect Dark, Kameo, Banjo Kazooie, Midtown Madness, Project Gotham Racing, Blinx, Conker), but they are the richest company in the world. They have far more money than either Sony or Nintendo- they could easily invest in new franchises and studios, set up new IP with enormous backing behind them, and generally, have a much better lineup of games than they do now.

Instead, they seem to be content to just buy their way into the industry. Now, don't get me wrong, for a newcomer breaking into the market, sure, buying up established studios and franchises? Good idea. Even Sony did it back in the day with Pygnosis and Wipeout, for example. So sure, for the first five or so years, buying Bungie, buying Lionhead, securing third party exclusivity was a great idea. But at the same time, it was equally important for Microsoft to shore up its own first party studios. In this period, not only did Microsoft fail to expand their portfolio, but amazingly enough, they contracted it, killing and dropping so many studios and franchises that would have been so good for them.

Instead, they began to pay third parties to make games exclusive for their system. Not only is this an unsustainable strategy, it is also worse in the long term- the game has no guarantee of staying exclusive. The sequels certainly won't be. You gain a short term immediate advantage, but in the long run, you have no guaranteed hits. Instead of paying for Mass Effect, Ninja Gaiden, Ryse, Dead Rising, or Tomb Raider, Microsoft should have been investing in studios, or putting existing ones to work. Instead of expending $500 million on that NFL advertising deal, and another million on advertising the Kinect, they should have used that money to make games. Seruously, that's $1 billion.You could get 20 games on the scale of Grand Theft Auto V made with that money, and they'd all belong to you, forever, and customers would know you are serious.

And that's the other thing- Microsoft never committed to the gaming industry. No, they put the systems out there, and their strategy is to throw money at it until it works. That's not how it works, and if you want proof, I point out to you that Xbox is the only one of the three current console lines that has never turned a profit. If Microsoft were to invest in their own games, if they were to show customers that they are serious, if I knew I could always expect quality content on an Xbox console that I knew for sure wouldn't be available anywhere else (instead of being available on everything else a few months- a few years later), then sure, I'd buy the Xbox on faith! Just like I buy PlayStation or Nintendo on faith!

Finally, I want to make one thing clear- there is nothing wrong per se with paying for third party exclusivity. Everyone does it. Sony did it (most notoriously with GTA back in the day), Nintendo does it (presumably with Monster Hunter), and yes, Microsoft can do it too. the difference is, Sony and Nintendo use third party exclusives to supplement their own games, not to replace them.

Sorry, it's a long read, but I wanted to make sure the argument was unassailable. What do you think, System Wars?

#2 Edited by Suppaman100 (3771 posts) -

Agree,

Btw, quoted from Neogaf:

Sure you don't build a first party stable overnight, but in MS' case when they hell are they going to start?

Lets recap:

Started Turn 10, who went on to make Forza, the one truly original IP from Microsoft to ever succeed.

Bought Bungie when Halo was months from release, had them port it to Xbox, cancelling a much hyped PC version which did later arrive, not to mention the Mac version Bungie had been promising.

Purchased FASA as part of another acquisition in 1999. After doing very little with the Shadowrun and MechWarrior IPs on the Xbox family of consoles closes FASA in 2007, licences out all their worthwhile IPs to small studios.

Bought Rare in 2002, since they have mined the Perfect Dark, Banjo, and Conker IPs with zero success, made one new mascot IP for Xbox 360's launch that never got a follow up despite being a pretty solid (kid friendly) game (Kameo, FYI). Have since been largely relegated to Kinect titles, weren't even the ones who made the Killer Instinct reboot.

Purchased Lionhead in 2006. Proceeded to have them make nothing but Fable games, including a crappy Kinect Fable game. Stopped making PC versions entirely, games progressively got further and further away from the original concept for Fable. A large number of staff has been laid off over the past two years, another large group up and left with Molyneaux, which if it was anything like his departure from Bullfrog to found Lionhead constituted his core staff he's had everywhere (i.e. the real talent in the studio). Making yet another Fable game that is even further removed from the original premise.

Started up 343 studios as a replacement for Bungie when Bungie wanted out as opposed to eternally making nothing but Halo. Now 343 makes nothing but Halo, only not as well as Bungie. The game they wouldn't let Bungie make, Destiny, is now the most pre-ordered game yet. Winning?

Disbanded Ensemble Studios, Aces Studio, MS Flight Team, MS Victoria Studio (never released anything) and Carbonated Games. Have in the last several years purchased BigPark (absorbed into MS Game Studios), Twisted Pixel (who's next game was a full blown stinker), Press Play (nothing of note, so basically shuffling deck chairs with this and closing Carbonated).

Also, Black Tusk isn't new. It's Microsoft Vancouver. They just cleaned house and renamed it after Vancouver went years without finishing anything. Black Tusk is doing an admirable job keeping that history alive.

This is just a quick sample of how MS has handled their first parties. Forza is the only new IP they've generated and maintained worth a shit in their entire time as a console first party. Everything else was bought, mismanaged, and typically shuttered.

Buying their way into the industry with the Xbox with Bungie, Lionhead, etc. is one thing. Sure, you need meaningful exclusives and that was the fastest way to get them. They've been in the console business for nearly 13 years now though. The proof is in the pudding. Microsoft has never shown a commitment to developing their own legitimate first party stable. They closed much of what they did start with the Xbox during the X360 generation because Sony's failure to deliver with PS3 allowed them to pick off former exclusives and have a comparable 3rd party library at a lower price, so they weren't needed. The only significant reinvestment they've ever shown in software development was for Kinect, which they've now pulled back on nearly completely as well.

Microsoft brings nothing to this industry other than dump trucks of money. They're in the video game industry for all the wrong reasons. Making and selling video games is a secondary part of the business model and that has been the case from day one. Originally it was a Sony denial tactic. As Sony fell on hard times and the X360 emerged as a successful product they used XBL to turn it into a marketing push where their real customers were advertisers and games were just the gateway to get people in the door looking at all the ads. The XB1's original concept took this to the next level planning to have Kinect effectively mining data from within our homes while we lived around the system. Obviously the blow back was too great to continue that little project, but that was the original intent and Microsoft stated as much during a conference for their advertising partners.

Instead of this (which probably cost them $50M or better), Titanfall (which also likely cost them $50M or better) the stated NFL deal at $400M, and buying the Gears IP from Epic (likely a solid $50-$100M price tag) Microsoft could have funded over a half dozen of the biggest, most expensive AAA exclusives EVER. They gave the NFL more money for a fantasy football app than Take 2/Rockstar spent on Grand Theft Auto 5. Let that sink into your head when you excuse their lack of first party studios as "taking time".

#3 Edited by Zaibach (13444 posts) -

Had Sony been more competitive last gen instead of shitting the bed, MS would have been forced to create some new IPs of its own and compete instead of relying on the trifecta of Forza, Gears and Halo. After rinsing and repeating this formula with great success, they had no incentive to really bolster their 1st party. And then enter Kinect to deal the deafening blow to the outcry for new Ips or even old unused ones

#4 Posted by Suppaman100 (3771 posts) -

@Zaibach said:

Had Sony been more competitive last gen instead of shitting the bed, MS would have been forced to create some new IPs of its own instead of relying on the trifecta of Forza, Gears and Halo. After rinsing and repeating this formula with great success, they had no incentive to really bolster their 1st party. And then enter Kinect to deal the deafening blow to the outcry for new Ips

Lol, so it's Sony's fault now?

Every rational gamer knows it. MS needs to GTFO of the gaming industry, ...no that's also not right, they should get out of the console industry.

Loved MS in the 90's with Age of empires,... MS should go back to making games, not consoles.

MS did more bad to the console industry than good.

#5 Posted by charizard1605 (56019 posts) -

@Zaibach said:

Had Sony been more competitive last gen instead of shitting the bed, MS would have been forced to create some new IPs of its own instead of relying on the trifecta of Forza, Gears and Halo. After rinsing and repeating this formula with great success, they had no incentive to really bolster their 1st party. And then enter Kinect to deal the deafening blow to the outcry for new Ips

No, I think, this is the issue, instead of investing in their own IPs, Microsoft would have just done what they did (and continue to do now, when Sony is competitive)- buying games (even if only for a limited time) instead of making their own. I don't think that making their own games is even an idea that occurs to them. It's a cultural problem, it needs to change. Sure, Sony and Nintendo are both also businesses, but they care for the business they are in (in that at least PlayStation and Nintendo care for games, if only in a business sense). Microsoft has repeatedly shown that it does not.

#6 Posted by Salt_The_Fries (8366 posts) -

Char, you have to take development costs of mid to late 80s with dev costs of 90s into consideration. Microsoft started console business when it was already quite expensive to create games. In the long run I'm sure they'll be fine with Black tusk studios and recently acquired Undead Labs, besides there's the Crackdown studio as well and that new European studio Leap Game Pioneers or something. You know now games require a lot more dev time than ever and even Sony suffers from that, constantly delaying etc. What would really help MS, though, is allowing Lionhead and Rare make normal games again, and Lionhead is already working on something non-Fable. BTW you've raised good points and I in no way disagree with most of them but I opted to offer different perspective. Btw I swyped it all on my phone while brushing my teeth.

#7 Posted by charizard1605 (56019 posts) -

Char, you have to take development costs of mid to late 80s with dev costs of 90s into consideration. Microsoft started console business when it was already quite expensive to create games. In the long run I'm sure they'll be fine with Black tusk studios and recently acquired Undead Labs, besides there's the Crackdown studio as well and that new European studio Leap Game Pioneers or something. You know now games require a lot more dev time than ever and even Sony suffers from that, constantly delaying etc. What would really help MS, though, is allowing Lionhead and Rare make normal games again, and Lionhead is already working on something non-Fable. BTW you've raised good points and I in no way disagree with most of them but I opted to offer different perspective. Btw I swyped it all on my phone while brushing my teeth.

I do understand that, and that's exactly why Microsoft is in this pickle right now- they don't have many valuable first party brands to fall back on (outside of Halo, but Halo is diminished in popularity), and now that the PS4 is outclassing them, they don't even have the value proposition of alluring exclusives to help sway buyers. It's clear that deals like Tomb Raider are all knee jerk reactions to Sony's success- they don't have their own exclusives, they know they need exclusives, so now they're buying them out, if only for a short period of time.

At the same time, assuming I give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they are starting to build up on their first party now- which, they haven't given us any indication (no studio acquisitions, no announcements) beyond what they already have- then they're sort of screwed for the next two or three years that it takes for them to get those games out, aren't they?

In that case, they really should course correct now, as soon as possible.

And I wouldn't have guessed that that was Swyped lol, it was very well typed.

#8 Posted by ghostwarrior786 (3870 posts) -

wow so even sheeps are damage controlling the tomb raider announcement. this truly is unprecedented

#9 Posted by kuu2 (6963 posts) -

Laughable post TC.

If anyone should get out of the console biz its your boys at Nintendo.

Just like Sony should get out of the handheld biz.

MSoft has done just fine and so far this gen they are doing fine considering the mistakes they made early on.

#10 Posted by charizard1605 (56019 posts) -

@kuu2 said:

Laughable post TC.

If anyone should get out of the console biz its your boys at Nintendo.

Just like Sony should get out of the handheld biz.

MSoft has done just fine and so far this gen they are doing fine considering the mistakes they made early on.

Explain your comments, or don't make them.

Explain your comments or don't make them. Nintendo has done more for console gaming, sold more consoles, and made more money with consoles than Microsoft ever will.

I don't see where Sony's handhelds come into the picture at all.

Actually, I don't see where any of this comes into the picture. Did you read the OP? Do you know what I am talking about?

#11 Posted by foxhound_fox (87669 posts) -

If they are making money, then who should give a fuck?

#12 Posted by Blabadon (25933 posts) -

@Suppaman100: No rational gamer thinks that. Stop putting the sane people here with the likes of you fanboys.

#13 Posted by charizard1605 (56019 posts) -

If they are making money, then who should give a fuck?

People who care about games instead of revenue, money, or stock valuations.

#14 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150326 posts) -

Good thread. Yeah MS doesn't spend the time to create IPs. It's not of interest to them. They really don't seem to understand how the gaming industry goes. It's not solely about the hardware....though this gen MS didn't even do much in that regard unless you count trying to take over your TV as a gaming achievement. You can't throw money at third party devs and expect to win a generation. Very few third party games will ever remain an exclusive....they just cost too much to create. And with the small install base MS has relative to the competition....they just aren't as enticing....sure they got away with this last gen because the PS3 was too expensive at launch. But even then when all was said and down Sony at the minimum caught MS or even surpassed it....with one year less on market. Why? Games. It's the same reason Nintendo is still standing. Still has faithful fans. Still has IPs that shouldn't be missed if one is a gamer. Their consoles may underwhelm but their games do not.

But expect some MS fans to bury their heads in the sand and not see what's happening with MS. They would rather consider Sony and enemy then see the mistakes MS makes.

#15 Posted by kuu2 (6963 posts) -

@kuu2 said:

Laughable post TC.

If anyone should get out of the console biz its your boys at Nintendo.

Just like Sony should get out of the handheld biz.

MSoft has done just fine and so far this gen they are doing fine considering the mistakes they made early on.

Explain your comments, or don't make them.

Explain your comments or don't make them. Nintendo has done more for console gaming, sold more consoles, and made more money with consoles than Microsoft ever will.

I don't see where Sony's handhelds come into the picture at all.

Actually, I don't see where any of this comes into the picture. Did you read the OP? Do you know what I am talking about?

Explain yourself TC.

MSoft has brought multiplayer gaming to the masses and their contributions to the game industry are unmatched in the last generation. Nintendo still does not have a online infrastructure comparable to even Sony yet. Plus the lack of third party software and compelling first party software is still something they have yet to over come. If you love Zelda , Mario, SSMB, MKart then get a WiiDuex.

My post is no more asinine than yours.

The butt hurt over TR is hilarious and this is another thread whining about it.

#16 Posted by slimdogmilionar (477 posts) -

@charizard1605: That was a well thought out proposal and as someone who games mostly on xbox I can't deny that what you have said holds some weight. It's for the very reason you listed that xbox could never be my sole gaming device, I'm constantly wondering also why they don't invest in their own first party studios instead of buying exclusives which will be on other platforms sooner or later. Hopefully Spencer will do some things different but I'm not holding my breath, they will probably make him jump through plenty of hoops to get funds to invest in their first party studios.

#17 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150326 posts) -

@kuu2 said:

@charizard1605 said:

@kuu2 said:

Laughable post TC.

If anyone should get out of the console biz its your boys at Nintendo.

Just like Sony should get out of the handheld biz.

MSoft has done just fine and so far this gen they are doing fine considering the mistakes they made early on.

Explain your comments, or don't make them.

Explain your comments or don't make them. Nintendo has done more for console gaming, sold more consoles, and made more money with consoles than Microsoft ever will.

I don't see where Sony's handhelds come into the picture at all.

Actually, I don't see where any of this comes into the picture. Did you read the OP? Do you know what I am talking about?

Explain yourself TC.

MSoft has brought multiplayer gaming to the masses and their contributions to the game industry are unmatched in the last generation. Nintendo still does not have a online infrastructure comparable to even Sony yet. Plus the lack of third party software and compelling first party software is still something they have yet to over come. If you love Zelda , Mario, SSMB, MKart then get a WiiDuex.

My post is no more asinine than yours.

The butt hurt over TR is hilarious and this is another thread whining about it.

Not everyone wants multiplayer games dude. If that is all MS has to offer then they are missing the boat.

#18 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (6145 posts) -

Microsoft marches to its own beat. While Sony and Nintendo have more first party, it is no industry standard.

I am happy with what they offer. The whole quantity and quality thing will always be present. Plus, games on that list are dead and gone never to be seen again, possibly. So it isn't like it is a active list. Just saying.

#19 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150326 posts) -

Microsoft marches to its own beat. While Sony and Nintendo have more first party, it is no industry standard.

I am happy with what they offer. The whole quantity and quality thing will always be present. Plus, games on that list are dead and gone never to be seen again, possibly. So it isn't like it is a active list. Just saying.

Well that wasn't the point of his list though most are still around.....but if you are happy to accept half hearted attempts to full your console with games then don't expect anything to change. Brands react to consumers. Shouldn't be the other way around.

#20 Edited by jg4xchamp (47338 posts) -

Nintendo has brilliant first party support=totally fucking meaningless from a competitive standpoint during the 64 era, gamecube era, let's be real the wii era (the controller and wii sports sold that system), and now.

Microsoft without that shit was already competitive with Nintendo in one gen, was highly successful last gen, and is on track to be fine this gen (if whipped by the PS4). While I agree they have done the least from a first party standpoint, and that continues to be their weak spot, but they are actually competitive in the console space, not fake competitive like Nintendo.

#21 Posted by Desmonic (13417 posts) -

Again, long ass OP brah :P

Though I can see this thread being fun hehe

#22 Posted by kuu2 (6963 posts) -

@kuu2 said:

@charizard1605 said:

@kuu2 said:

Laughable post TC.

If anyone should get out of the console biz its your boys at Nintendo.

Just like Sony should get out of the handheld biz.

MSoft has done just fine and so far this gen they are doing fine considering the mistakes they made early on.

Explain your comments, or don't make them.

Explain your comments or don't make them. Nintendo has done more for console gaming, sold more consoles, and made more money with consoles than Microsoft ever will.

I don't see where Sony's handhelds come into the picture at all.

Actually, I don't see where any of this comes into the picture. Did you read the OP? Do you know what I am talking about?

Explain yourself TC.

MSoft has brought multiplayer gaming to the masses and their contributions to the game industry are unmatched in the last generation. Nintendo still does not have a online infrastructure comparable to even Sony yet. Plus the lack of third party software and compelling first party software is still something they have yet to over come. If you love Zelda , Mario, SSMB, MKart then get a WiiDuex.

My post is no more asinine than yours.

The butt hurt over TR is hilarious and this is another thread whining about it.

Not everyone wants multiplayer games dude. If that is all MS has to offer then they are missing the boat.

Tell it to the industry because that is what sells, and is being created mostly.

#23 Posted by bezza2011 (2384 posts) -

Totally agree and it's on the fanboys of MS who won't and seem to blame Sony, or the people who say it's ok and it will be fine they have black tusk o who are working on another Gears Of War, What Sony do or at least Did well was mix it up each generation, they didn't hold back companies trying new things, like Naughty Dog who made Crash then Jak & Dexter and then Uncharted and then The Last Of Us, there always adding aswel, Variety is key for Sony and that's what they do best.

Now I'm not saying Xbox don't have great exclusives the problem is most of them I've played since The first Xbox and instead of reinventing a new IP Microsoft seem to just keep pushing these franchises to the limit and even the creators wanted to leave it alone but MS seem hell bent on keeping it's core franchises going with new devs, MS have so many great dev teams under there belt it's a real shame there doing exactly what EA has done and ruined great companies and there idea's for sure bet games.

#24 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (6145 posts) -

@FoxbatAlpha said:

Microsoft marches to its own beat. While Sony and Nintendo have more first party, it is no industry standard.

I am happy with what they offer. The whole quantity and quality thing will always be present. Plus, games on that list are dead and gone never to be seen again, possibly. So it isn't like it is a active list. Just saying.

Well that wasn't the point of his list though most are still around.....but if you are happy to accept half hearted attempts to full your console with games then don't expect anything to change. Brands react to consumers. Shouldn't be the other way around.

Sure I admit I could use some fresh new ideas and games. But I am getting that on my ONE. More first party just seems like a SW penis length contest.

#25 Posted by rrjim1 (853 posts) -

I'll take a few less good games that I will play over a lot of crappy games I will never play.

#26 Edited by LJS9502_basic (150326 posts) -

@kuu2 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

Not everyone wants multiplayer games dude. If that is all MS has to offer then they are missing the boat.

Tell it to the industry because that is what sells, and is being created mostly.

It's not the only thing that sells. If that were true there would be 100% consoles subscribing to their networks. They do not have that.

#27 Posted by kuu2 (6963 posts) -

Nintendo has brilliant first party support=totally fucking meaningless from a competitive standpoint during the 64 era, gamecube era, let's be real the wii era (the controller and wii sports sold that system), and now.

Microsoft without that shit was already competitive with Nintendo in one gen, was highly successful last gen, and is on track to be fine this gen (if whipped by the PS4). While I agree they have done the least from a first party standpoint, and that continues to be their weak spot, but they are actually competitive in the console space, not fake competitive like Nintendo.

Someone else sees what I see.

Again this is a whine thread that the TC doesn't like that MSoft plays the game with their biggest asset........... money.

#28 Posted by charizard1605 (56019 posts) -

@kuu2 said:

Explain yourself TC.

MSoft has brought multiplayer gaming to the masses and their contributions to the game industry are unmatched in the last generation. Nintendo still does not have a online infrastructure comparable to even Sony yet. Plus the lack of third party software and compelling first party software is still something they have yet to over come. If you love Zelda , Mario, SSMB, MKart then get a WiiDuex.

My post is no more asinine than yours.

The butt hurt over TR is hilarious and this is another thread whining about it.

I did explain myself. It's that longass novel in the OP. I suggest you go read it.

Yes, Microsoft gets lots of credit for Xbox Live. But this is not about Xbox Live, this about me wanting them to contribute as a game maker, because otherwise, why bother?

I don't actually care about Tomb Raider? I was actually pretty happy when it was announced as an exclusive, I don't know if you were not around then, or if you just decided to ignore that because it suits your point better.

Nintendo has brilliant first party support=totally fucking meaningless from a competitive standpoint during the 64 era, gamecube era, let's be real the wii era (the controller and wii sports sold that system), and now.

Microsoft without that shit was already competitive with Nintendo in one gen, was highly successful last gen, and is on track to be fine this gen (if whipped by the PS4). While I agree they have done the least from a first party standpoint, and that continues to be their weak spot, but they are actually competitive in the console space, not fake competitive like Nintendo.

Well, for starters, I'm not talking about these consoles' sales performance in the OP, I am talking about these three companies as game makers. That is what this thread is about, so bringing in sales performances does nothing.

But even going with the argument and extending it, as the Xbox One is showing, Microsoft's strategy is not sustainable. You can't buy an exclusive for six months and expect your consumer to not know.

Now, I'm not arguing about market share or revenue- I'll leave that for the suits to worry about. I'm not arguing about third party games- there are better (and at least other) places to play them than Xbox. I am asking- what reason do I have to buy an Xbox, exactly? Sony has stellar first and third party support, so if I'm to have one console, I'm going to go PlayStation, 10/10 times. If I want a second console, why in the world do I want an Xbox, which is a poorer PlayStation in terms of games? Fuck, I'll go Nintendo, they have their own shit, great shit, differentiated shit, that's not available better on PS4 or PC.

I don't care if they're competitive or not, I care what games they bring. But hey, in the process, it needs to be said that having actual true exclusives gives your brand an identity and makes them more sustainable and viable in the long run. Nintendo has been around for far longer than Microsoft, and made far more money consistently than Xbox. Maybe just focusing on business, and not focusing on games, is the reason Xbox hasn't had a real breakthrough yet.

#29 Edited by LJS9502_basic (150326 posts) -

@FoxbatAlpha said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@FoxbatAlpha said:

Microsoft marches to its own beat. While Sony and Nintendo have more first party, it is no industry standard.

I am happy with what they offer. The whole quantity and quality thing will always be present. Plus, games on that list are dead and gone never to be seen again, possibly. So it isn't like it is a active list. Just saying.

Well that wasn't the point of his list though most are still around.....but if you are happy to accept half hearted attempts to full your console with games then don't expect anything to change. Brands react to consumers. Shouldn't be the other way around.

Sure I admit I could use some fresh new ideas and games. But I am getting that on my ONE. More first party just seems like a SW penis length contest.

Well if first party games are not necessary why should one buy the X1 when they get all the multi plats plus first party on the PS4? Really no first party is a sure way to kill your investment. You need a reason to stand out from the other competitors. Or you have no value. That's just how it is. And they should be seeing that now.

#30 Posted by Desmonic (13417 posts) -

(...) they have their own shit, great shit, differentiated shit,(...)

Spoken like a man who knows his shit! :P

#31 Edited by SolidTy (42445 posts) -

Everything in the OP I've said before in various posts but I'm glad you articulated it well and all in one giant thread. Finally, I feel there is starting to be an understanding to my issues with the 'Xbox weaker 1st party / heavily relied upon 3rd party timed exclusive' approach. I had this problem four years ago when I realized Xbox were a decade into the market. They weren't newcomers then, but now we are seeing in 2014 they are approaching their 15th year in the console market. Things haven't improved or changed dramatically.

Essentially, the 'spending money to pay for 3rd party games' that were already coming to Xbox instead of taking that money and using it to build 1st party has been a big mistake to me (a gamer who bought all three of their consoles at launch), and ultimately it affects all gamers as their Xboxian approach results in LESS games on the market to play (but hey, they secured that game that was coming to Xbox anyways!). The plus side, we gamers can take solace in the fact that PS, PC, and Nintendo copies of the same 3rd part timed exclusive games are shelved for a few months.

The issue isn't that they do it, it's that they do this approach to such a detrimental level and overly rely on this quick little strategy. Then we see loyalists defend the strategy as if Xbox making more money or selling units was our primary concern instead of gaming.

#32 Edited by charizard1605 (56019 posts) -

@charizard1605: That was a well thought out proposal and as someone who games mostly on xbox I can't deny that what you have said holds some weight. It's for the very reason you listed that xbox could never be my sole gaming device, I'm constantly wondering also why they don't invest in their own first party studios instead of buying exclusives which will be on other platforms sooner or later. Hopefully Spencer will do some things different but I'm not holding my breath, they will probably make him jump through plenty of hoops to get funds to invest in their first party studios.

I am counting on Spencer fixing this. Unfortunately, even if he got started as soon as he took the helm, we won't know until at the earliest the second half of 2015, which means that until then, Xbox has to keep trucking on with bought exclusives, I guess.

@kuu2 said:o.

Someone else sees what I see.

Again this is a whine thread that the TC doesn't like that MSoft plays the game with their biggest asset........... money.

Right in the OP, I say this:

Finally, I want to make one thing clear- there is nothing wrong per se with paying for third party exclusivity. Everyone does it. Sony did it (most notoriously with GTA back in the day), Nintendo does it (presumably with Monster Hunter), and yes, Microsoft can do it too. the difference is, Sony and Nintendo use third party exclusives to supplement their own games, not to replace them.

It looks more and more like you didn't read the OP.

Also, I suggest you go and read the Tomb Raider announcement thread (incidentally made by me). I was actually pretty fucking happy about the prospect of an exclusive Tomb Raider, not that I care for the franchise, but just because it made it seem like Microsoft actually cared enough to try something legitimately ballsy... and then it turned out to be timed exclusive.

#33 Posted by Gatman32 (429 posts) -

Who gives a shit, if you don't like the console don't buy it. Simple as that.

#34 Posted by charizard1605 (56019 posts) -

@SolidTy said:

Everything in the OP I've said before in various posts but I'm glad you articulated it well and all in one giant thread. Finally, I feel there is starting to be an understanding to my issues with the 'Xbox weaker 1st party / heavily relied upon 3rd party timed exclusive' approach. I had this problem four years ago when I realized Xbox were a decade into the market. They weren't newcomers then, but now we are seeing in 2014 they are approaching their 15th year in the console market. Things haven't improved or changed dramatically.

Essentially, the 'spending money to pay for 3rd party games' that were already coming to Xbox instead of taking that money and using it to build 1st party has been a big mistake to me (a gamer who bought all three of their consoles at launch), and ultimately it affects all gamers as their Xboxian approach results in LESS games on the market to play. The plus side, we gamers can take solace in the fact that PS, PC, and Nintendo copies of the same 3rd part timed exclusive games are shelved for a few months.

The issue isn't that they do it, it's that they do this approach to such a detrimental level and overly rely on this quick little strategy. Then we see loyalists defend the strategy as if them making more money or selling units was our primary concern instead of gaming.

Definitely, I agree with you.

I have no issues with moneyhatted third party exclusives, incidentally- it warms things up, it makes companies more competitive, and that is good for me in the long run. But I have an issue when that is the only strategy a company is relying on (also as you said). If Microsoft, instead of spending a definitely large amount in securing Tomb Raider, had used that money to kickstart a new franchise, I would have preferred that, 10/10 times (unless the franchise was another Kinect ____, then I would have rathered Tomb Raider).

#35 Posted by scottpsfan14 (3784 posts) -

Why do M$ need first party when they can just hold popular franchises hostage with their endless bag of $$$? Now that's a good game company.

#36 Posted by foxhound_fox (87669 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

If they are making money, then who should give a fuck?

People who care about games instead of revenue, money, or stock valuations.

Microsoft and Microsoft shareholders don't care.

Just a reflection on where the gaming industry has come in the past decade.

#37 Posted by charizard1605 (56019 posts) -

@Gatman32 said:

Who gives a shit, if you don't like the console don't buy it. Simple as that.

Amusingly enough for me, and distressingly enough for Microsoft, it seems like more and more people are doing just that.

#38 Posted by charizard1605 (56019 posts) -

Why do M$ need first party when they can just hold popular franchises hostage with their endless bag of $$$? Now that's a good game company.

Because you can't do that forever, it's not a sustainable strategy at all, and it's coming back to bite them in the ass.

Microsoft and Microsoft shareholders don't care.

Just a reflection on where the gaming industry has come in the past decade.

The great thing, then, is that the Xbox is not actually making money, and the Xbox division as a whole never has. So a change in strategy is definitely needed.

#39 Edited by SolidTy (42445 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

@SolidTy said:

Everything in the OP I've said before in various posts but I'm glad you articulated it well and all in one giant thread. Finally, I feel there is starting to be an understanding to my issues with the 'Xbox weaker 1st party / heavily relied upon 3rd party timed exclusive' approach. I had this problem four years ago when I realized Xbox were a decade into the market. They weren't newcomers then, but now we are seeing in 2014 they are approaching their 15th year in the console market. Things haven't improved or changed dramatically.

Essentially, the 'spending money to pay for 3rd party games' that were already coming to Xbox instead of taking that money and using it to build 1st party has been a big mistake to me (a gamer who bought all three of their consoles at launch), and ultimately it affects all gamers as their Xboxian approach results in LESS games on the market to play (but hey, they secured that game that was coming to Xbox anyways!). The plus side, we gamers can take solace in the fact that PS, PC, and Nintendo copies of the same 3rd part timed exclusive games are shelved for a few months.

The issue isn't that they do it, it's that they do this approach to such a detrimental level and overly rely on this quick little strategy. Then we see loyalists defend the strategy as if Xbox making more money or selling units was our primary concern instead of gaming.

Definitely, I agree with you.

I have no issues with moneyhatted third party exclusives, incidentally- it warms things up, it makes companies more competitive, and that is good for me in the long run. But I have an issue when that is the only strategy a company is relying on (also as you said). If Microsoft, instead of spending a definitely large amount in securing Tomb Raider, had used that money to kickstart a new franchise, I would have preferred that, 10/10 times (unless the franchise was another Kinect ____, then I would have rathered Tomb Raider).

I completely and enthusiastically agree!

Ultimately if Xbox execs took that TR timed exclusive money and invested those moneybags in a new IP or even jump started one of their old IPs, Xbox would have still got Rise of the Tomb Raider AND A NEW GAME! Two months ago, TR was slated for PC, 360, PS3, Xbone, and PS4. Now TR for 360/Xbone in a timed deal as well all know.

Going with the tactic of investing into a new game (instead of money-hatting a timed exclusive deal), the end result? That is two games for gamers instead of one TR game that PS, Nintendo, and PC gamers can't play for a few months. I don't get why others defend playing less games, but I do understand from a business aspect the appeal of timed exclusive deals, but as gamer it's unfortunate we are getting less games over and over as this strategy thrives.

Hopefully more users stumble on this thread and take the time to actually read and ponder upon this issue. Be nice if we get on the same page as a forum (pipe dream, I know).

#40 Posted by charizard1605 (56019 posts) -

@SolidTy said:

@charizard1605 said:

@SolidTy said:

Everything in the OP I've said before in various posts but I'm glad you articulated it well and all in one giant thread. Finally, I feel there is starting to be an understanding to my issues with the 'Xbox weaker 1st party / heavily relied upon 3rd party timed exclusive' approach. I had this problem four years ago when I realized Xbox were a decade into the market. They weren't newcomers then, but now we are seeing in 2014 they are approaching their 15th year in the console market. Things haven't improved or changed dramatically.

Essentially, the 'spending money to pay for 3rd party games' that were already coming to Xbox instead of taking that money and using it to build 1st party has been a big mistake to me (a gamer who bought all three of their consoles at launch), and ultimately it affects all gamers as their Xboxian approach results in LESS games on the market to play (but hey, they secured that game that was coming to Xbox anyways!). The plus side, we gamers can take solace in the fact that PS, PC, and Nintendo copies of the same 3rd part timed exclusive games are shelved for a few months.

The issue isn't that they do it, it's that they do this approach to such a detrimental level and overly rely on this quick little strategy. Then we see loyalists defend the strategy as if Xbox making more money or selling units was our primary concern instead of gaming.

Definitely, I agree with you.

I have no issues with moneyhatted third party exclusives, incidentally- it warms things up, it makes companies more competitive, and that is good for me in the long run. But I have an issue when that is the only strategy a company is relying on (also as you said). If Microsoft, instead of spending a definitely large amount in securing Tomb Raider, had used that money to kickstart a new franchise, I would have preferred that, 10/10 times (unless the franchise was another Kinect ____, then I would have rathered Tomb Raider).

I completely agree!

Ultimately if Xbox execs took that TR timed exclusive money and invested those moneybags in a new IP or even jump started one of their old IPs, Xbox would have still got Rise of the Tomb Raider AND A NEW GAME! Two months ago, TR was slated for PC, 360, PS3, Xbone, and PS4. Now TR for 360/Xbone in a timed deal as well all know.

Going with the tactic of investing into a new game (instead of money-hatting a timed exclusive deal), the end result? That is two games for gamers instead of one TR game that PS, Nintendo, and PC gamers can't play for a few months. I don't get why others defend playing less games, but I do understand from a business aspect the appeal of timed exclusive deals, but as gamer it's unfortunate we are getting less games over and over as this strategy thrives.

Yes, absolutely. However, I do think that this strategy is starting to show cracks- if Microsoft had had a more dependable and reliable slate of established first party franchises, then the Xbox One, even as it is now, would have had a whole lot more appeal. Right now, the system has no identity, no brand association or value (outside of Halo, Gears, and Forza, all three of which are severely diminished in worth and perception). I think that the case for having a proper first party should have made itself clear to Microsoft by now, and with any luck, they will invest in their own IPs and studios.

And if they want to continue moneyhatting games for Xbox after that- well then, definitely, go on ahead! I would support that, because, again, that competition might prompt Sony or Nintendo to come up with their own new IPs if they can't counter Microsoft's bids, for example. In that case, we all win. As it stands now? Microsoft uses bought timed exclusives to replace their first party, instead of complementing it. A very short sighted strategy, all said and done.

#41 Posted by Shewgenja (8464 posts) -

I hope NVidia makes a console when MS drops out.

#42 Edited by AzatiS (7263 posts) -

DELETED

#43 Posted by charizard1605 (56019 posts) -

@AzatiS said:

@charizard1605: Sony list is limited i can name way more than those games. Actually you missing pretty much HOT playstation exclusive games maybe in purpose to make Nintendo look better ?

This is a list of active franchises Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft had 14 years after their initial entry into the market. What active Sony franchises am I missing, by that definition, exactly?

#44 Posted by SolidTy (42445 posts) -

@SolidTy said:

@charizard1605 said:

@SolidTy said:

Everything in the OP I've said before in various posts but I'm glad you articulated it well and all in one giant thread. Finally, I feel there is starting to be an understanding to my issues with the 'Xbox weaker 1st party / heavily relied upon 3rd party timed exclusive' approach. I had this problem four years ago when I realized Xbox were a decade into the market. They weren't newcomers then, but now we are seeing in 2014 they are approaching their 15th year in the console market. Things haven't improved or changed dramatically.

Essentially, the 'spending money to pay for 3rd party games' that were already coming to Xbox instead of taking that money and using it to build 1st party has been a big mistake to me (a gamer who bought all three of their consoles at launch), and ultimately it affects all gamers as their Xboxian approach results in LESS games on the market to play (but hey, they secured that game that was coming to Xbox anyways!). The plus side, we gamers can take solace in the fact that PS, PC, and Nintendo copies of the same 3rd part timed exclusive games are shelved for a few months.

The issue isn't that they do it, it's that they do this approach to such a detrimental level and overly rely on this quick little strategy. Then we see loyalists defend the strategy as if Xbox making more money or selling units was our primary concern instead of gaming.

Definitely, I agree with you.

I have no issues with moneyhatted third party exclusives, incidentally- it warms things up, it makes companies more competitive, and that is good for me in the long run. But I have an issue when that is the only strategy a company is relying on (also as you said). If Microsoft, instead of spending a definitely large amount in securing Tomb Raider, had used that money to kickstart a new franchise, I would have preferred that, 10/10 times (unless the franchise was another Kinect ____, then I would have rathered Tomb Raider).

I completely and enthusiastically agree!

Ultimately if Xbox execs took that TR timed exclusive money and invested those moneybags in a new IP or even jump started one of their old IPs, Xbox would have still got Rise of the Tomb Raider AND A NEW GAME! Two months ago, TR was slated for PC, 360, PS3, Xbone, and PS4. Now TR for 360/Xbone in a timed deal as well all know.

Going with the tactic of investing into a new game (instead of money-hatting a timed exclusive deal), the end result? That is two games for gamers instead of one TR game that PS, Nintendo, and PC gamers can't play for a few months. I don't get why others defend playing less games, but I do understand from a business aspect the appeal of timed exclusive deals, but as gamer it's unfortunate we are getting less games over and over as this strategy thrives.

Hopefully more users stumble on this thread and take the time to actually read and ponder upon this issue. Be nice if we get on the same page as a forum (pipe dream, I know).

Yes, absolutely. However, I do think that this strategy is starting to show cracks- if Microsoft had had a more dependable and reliable slate of established first party franchises, then the Xbox One, even as it is now, would have had a whole lot more appeal. Right now, the system has no identity, no brand association or value (outside of Halo, Gears, and Forza, all three of which are severely diminished in worth and perception). I think that the case for having a proper first party should have made itself clear to Microsoft by now, and with any luck, they will invest in their own IPs and studios.

And if they want to continue moneyhatting games for Xbox after that- well then, definitely, go on ahead! I would support that, because, again, that competition might prompt Sony or Nintendo to come up with their own new IPs if they can't counter Microsoft's bids, for example. In that case, we all win. As it stands now? Microsoft uses bought timed exclusives to replace their first party, instead of complementing it. A very short sighted strategy, all said and done.

I certainly hope this tactic is starting to show cracks, god I hope so. It could result in amazing things if they built up their 1st party output.

#45 Edited by AzatiS (7263 posts) -

@charizard1605: Sony list is limited i can name way more than those games. Actually you missing pretty much HOT playstation exclusive games. One shot games should be up there or time exclusives that were Sony exclusives for more than 5-6 years more or less like FF7/FF8/FF9/FF10 , Medieval series , Crash Bandicoot series and so many other fantastic exclusive games like TEKKEN series exclusive since few years ago. ( I wont mention timed exclusives like 6months to a year though ).

None can go near to what Playstation can offer when it comes to variety. If i do the list as it should have been ... Oh boy!! Wont even be fair for Nintendo and Xbox combined when it comes to variety.

Anyways i agree with you. Nintendo has great games in their own style. Both quality and quantity thought lacks variety of genres but games are up there. MS on the other hand ... Literally based on 1-2 franchises , both shooters...then ...what else ? Nothing...

#46 Posted by charizard1605 (56019 posts) -

@SolidTy said:

@charizard1605 said:

@SolidTy said:

@charizard1605 said:

@SolidTy said:

Everything in the OP I've said before in various posts but I'm glad you articulated it well and all in one giant thread. Finally, I feel there is starting to be an understanding to my issues with the 'Xbox weaker 1st party / heavily relied upon 3rd party timed exclusive' approach. I had this problem four years ago when I realized Xbox were a decade into the market. They weren't newcomers then, but now we are seeing in 2014 they are approaching their 15th year in the console market. Things haven't improved or changed dramatically.

Essentially, the 'spending money to pay for 3rd party games' that were already coming to Xbox instead of taking that money and using it to build 1st party has been a big mistake to me (a gamer who bought all three of their consoles at launch), and ultimately it affects all gamers as their Xboxian approach results in LESS games on the market to play (but hey, they secured that game that was coming to Xbox anyways!). The plus side, we gamers can take solace in the fact that PS, PC, and Nintendo copies of the same 3rd part timed exclusive games are shelved for a few months.

The issue isn't that they do it, it's that they do this approach to such a detrimental level and overly rely on this quick little strategy. Then we see loyalists defend the strategy as if Xbox making more money or selling units was our primary concern instead of gaming.

Definitely, I agree with you.

I have no issues with moneyhatted third party exclusives, incidentally- it warms things up, it makes companies more competitive, and that is good for me in the long run. But I have an issue when that is the only strategy a company is relying on (also as you said). If Microsoft, instead of spending a definitely large amount in securing Tomb Raider, had used that money to kickstart a new franchise, I would have preferred that, 10/10 times (unless the franchise was another Kinect ____, then I would have rathered Tomb Raider).

I completely and enthusiastically agree!

Ultimately if Xbox execs took that TR timed exclusive money and invested those moneybags in a new IP or even jump started one of their old IPs, Xbox would have still got Rise of the Tomb Raider AND A NEW GAME! Two months ago, TR was slated for PC, 360, PS3, Xbone, and PS4. Now TR for 360/Xbone in a timed deal as well all know.

Going with the tactic of investing into a new game (instead of money-hatting a timed exclusive deal), the end result? That is two games for gamers instead of one TR game that PS, Nintendo, and PC gamers can't play for a few months. I don't get why others defend playing less games, but I do understand from a business aspect the appeal of timed exclusive deals, but as gamer it's unfortunate we are getting less games over and over as this strategy thrives.

Hopefully more users stumble on this thread and take the time to actually read and ponder upon this issue. Be nice if we get on the same page as a forum (pipe dream, I know).

Yes, absolutely. However, I do think that this strategy is starting to show cracks- if Microsoft had had a more dependable and reliable slate of established first party franchises, then the Xbox One, even as it is now, would have had a whole lot more appeal. Right now, the system has no identity, no brand association or value (outside of Halo, Gears, and Forza, all three of which are severely diminished in worth and perception). I think that the case for having a proper first party should have made itself clear to Microsoft by now, and with any luck, they will invest in their own IPs and studios.

And if they want to continue moneyhatting games for Xbox after that- well then, definitely, go on ahead! I would support that, because, again, that competition might prompt Sony or Nintendo to come up with their own new IPs if they can't counter Microsoft's bids, for example. In that case, we all win. As it stands now? Microsoft uses bought timed exclusives to replace their first party, instead of complementing it. A very short sighted strategy, all said and done.

I certainly hope this tactic is starting to show cracks, god I hope so. It could result in amazing things if they built up their 1st party output.

Exactly. Microsoft has shown what all they can do if they set their mind to something. If they put all that money towards first party games, it would be amazing.

Hope the Xbox One's struggles get the message across to them.

#47 Posted by charizard1605 (56019 posts) -

@AzatiS said:

@charizard1605: Sony list is limited i can name way more than those games. Actually you missing pretty much HOT playstation exclusive games. One shot games should be up there or time exclusives that were Sony exclusives for more than 5-6 years more or less like FF7/FF8/FF9/FF10 , Medieval series , Crash Bandicoot series and so many other fantastic exclusive games like TEKKEN series exclusive since few years ago. ( I wont mention timed exclusives like 6months to a year though ).

None can go near to what Playstation can offer when it comes to variety. If i do the list as it should have been ... Oh boy!! Wont even be fair for Wii U and Xbox combined.

Did you... did you actually read the OP, or did you just read the lists, and decided to comment? Because that's what it looks like you did, and now you look pretty foolish.

#48 Edited by AzatiS (7263 posts) -

@charizard1605: Sony list is limited i can name way more than those games. Actually you missing pretty much HOT playstation exclusive games. One shot games should be up there or time exclusives that were Sony exclusives for more than 5-6 years more or less like FF7/FF8/FF9/FF10 , Medieval series , Crash Bandicoot series and so many other fantastic exclusive games like TEKKEN series exclusive since few years ago. ( I wont mention timed exclusives like 6months to a year though ).

@charizard1605 said:

@AzatiS said:

@charizard1605: Sony list is limited i can name way more than those games. Actually you missing pretty much HOT playstation exclusive games maybe in purpose to make Nintendo look better ?

This is a list of active franchises Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft had 14 years after their initial entry into the market. What active Sony franchises am I missing, by that definition, exactly?

Well , active is tricky word and i get why you mentioning it. You are clever. You see there arent many companies out there using the same "active" franchises for over 15/25 years ...I can think only one. And i think thats why you put the "active" in there. The exclusives playstation list is waaay bigger than what you mentioned ( and im talking about good exclusives not mediocres ).

Since we talking about exclusives and what each console provided all those years or when we talking about the past in general ... why we jumping massive titles in the name of "activeness" ? I dont get you

#49 Posted by scottpsfan14 (3784 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:

Why do M$ need first party when they can just hold popular franchises hostage with their endless bag of $$$? Now that's a good game company.

Because you can't do that forever, it's not a sustainable strategy at all, and it's coming back to bite them in the ass.

Pretty sure you supported the move on the thread you made about it. I know, MS need more first party. They have Halo and Gears which are bigger than any other franchises in gaming. What more do they need? They care about the $$$. Not the 'veriaty' of games. Halo alone makes them more money than all Sony exclusives combined. We live in the age of dudebros who only like competetive shooters.

343i is basically MS's way of continueing getting money out of Halo. They don't care about Bungie's heretige at all. They have already stated that Halo 4 is by far the best Halo game ever made (not true at all) just because it sold the most.

That's why I respect Sony. They only make games if it will do the fans justice. Like Jak & Daxter. ND wanted to do it again but felt they might be unable to do the fans of the series justice. They let go of Crash Bandicoot. Sony's potential Mario. I think ND would have continued to handle the franchise very well. All 4 Crash games ND made are classics. No doubt, it would have been on Mario and Sonics calibur.

Bottom line. Halo and gears make MS more money than all of their other games combined. What reason dothey have for more first parties?

#50 Edited by intotheminx (597 posts) -

I don't see anything wrong with spending money if you have it. It would have been brilliant if MS paid for exclusive rights to TROTTR instead of making it timed. They do need to produce more 1st party games, but they should also buy what they can. They need the help.