I disagree with the whole premise of a new Halo not being an event. It's a bigger event than anything Sony releases.
Not anymore its not. Uncharted 4 outsold it 2:1.
Actually it's more like 1.75:1 (Halo 5 has sales of 5 million, Uncharted 4 has 8.5 million), but yes.
Damn, that's surprising.
The first figure is grossly outdated in comparison to the latter.
Welcome back lol
I guess it's a matter of opinion too... for me, each Halo & Forza release is a big deal for me and I consider them "prestige" franchises... so each to their own I guess.
@charizard1605:
http://gamingbolt.com/microsoft-needs-to-stop-relying-on-halogearsforza-combination-and-invest-in-high-quality-ips
That's your article from this website?
This is actually not true. That's the point- Halo 5 came and went without causing much of a stir in the larger industry. It sold very well to the existing Xbox fanbase, but not beyond- which, again, is evidenced by the lack of corresponding sales spike (unlike Halo 1-4, and even Reach and ODST).
a) Stop ascribing motive and presuming to know why I do what I do
b) I didn't find the content of your post interesting. I just find you, as a user, interesting. Actually, I know your spiel, I'm not going to blow your cover yet. But maybe try to be less obvious next time?
What cover, I'm not hiding anything, simply ask and you will receive answers.
I lost the plot, I'm ascribing to reality myself now.
Well, again- I probably can and might look the other way. Others will not. You know the rules, you know what happens if others catch on. Be less obvious.
I guess it's a matter of opinion too... for me, each Halo & Forza release is a big deal for me and I consider them "prestige" franchises... so each to their own I guess.
But that's exactly my point- Microsoft franchises are great, and do hold great appeal- to Xbox fans. They aren't doing anything to broaden their fanbase beyond what they have. Sony and Nintendo at least try to do that, and so often succeed, too. Microsoft is not doing that. That is my issue.
@charizard1605:
http://gamingbolt.com/microsoft-needs-to-stop-relying-on-halogearsforza-combination-and-invest-in-high-quality-ips
That's your article from this website?
Yep.
I agree that they need a killer app and what they need to do is take more chances on their devs. Sea of Thieves is probably the closest they have to this right now, but there has been a slew of devs leaving MS behind (Epic leaving Gears, Bungie leaving Halo, Lionshead shutting down, ect...). What MS seems to be pushing is not games, but power with the Scorpio (probably to make it an attractive 3rd party machine). Im not sure that is enough though to sway the gamer who likes the last of us or zelda, a great game will sell more than power.
I really hope there will Scorpio version of Xbox One game running at 60 FPS. Microsoft desperately need new IPs from their current studios. Rare hasn't made a relevant or critically good game since it was revived and made a Microsoft studio. I like the idea of Sea of Thieves but what about us single player lone wolfs with no online friends? How will be able to play the game? Or people without mics?
@charizard1605: So if Microsofts problem is it's first party and Nintendo's first party is great, then why has there been more XB1's sold then Wii U's. The Wii U should be miles ahead, but it isn't.
You can talk about industry buzz, prestige studios, games that when they get announced are an "event" and the like, but MS is in the boat they're in now because of it's fucking horrible policies they brought to the table with the initial XB1 reveal.
Could MS use some more first party studios, of course, but let's not pretend that it's the main reason why they have lost market share.
I work with a guy who's a casual gamer (damn these people are idiots) and he doesn't know who the developers are for the big releases which is the norm here. For instance he loves Halo but doesn't know who the dev was. His sole reason for buying a PS4 was because a friend told him that the XB1 had to connected to the internet for it to work.
Sony cruised through the first 2yrs with nothing of note, it was the messaging that sold all those PS4's not it's "prestige" developer.
There's is so much content in your book for people to pick apart, as for me i don't want to write a book in reply, so i'll stick to these points for now.
Again, simply comparing Xbox One and Wii U (and PS4) is missing the point. As I said to Pedro before, Nintendo may be in last place right now, but the generation just before that, it won on the basis of its offerings. The generation before that? Last place, again. The generation before that? Second place. Both the generations before that? Won. It could drive larger interest in its offerings on the basis of its lineup. None of this even brings up its handhelds, which literally sell only on the basis of its offerings.
Microsoft has never won a generation, never had a market leading product, because it is ultimately preaching to the choir. Where Nintendo and Sony can both drive interest in their offerings even from others who might not be inclined to look into what they have otherwise.
Don't get me wrong, Microsoft's bad PR before the Xbox One had a lot to do with where that system is right now- but the PS3 had every bit as much bad PR going into it as the Xbox One did, and it rallied on the basis of Sony's offerings. Microsoft haven't been able to rally- why? Because of this inability to drive larger interest in their platform. You are right that the residual misinformation from the Xbox One's pre launch campaign has a lot to do with where the platform stands- I am not arguing against that. But bad PR can be overcome with good games. Xbox One has a lot of good and great games- but nothing that appeals to anyone who might not already have been an Xbox fan. That's what I am saying.
So what you're saying is sales right? i mean if one gets a game YOU like it will drive INTEREST in the Xbox platform and that will drive sales. That's what i'm getting from your statement.
Nintendo & Sony have the same problem, as i consider myself a true racing game fan, and both Nintendo & Sony offer me nothing of interest if i'm not already a fan of those to companies. It just comes down to you not owning an XB1, and because it doesn't have a game you want is the reason that you have written all this, well that's what it feels like from where i'm sitting.
Let's face it, if at E3 this year MS announced that they have done a deal that Persona 6 was a console exclusive to the Scorpio you would be all over it, even though Atlus do not fit into this "prestige" game/developer agenda you're pushing in this thread.
Like i said MS needs more first party devs, but it isn't going to change over night, and some crazy idea that a "prestige" developer is needed is a fairytale. As long as the games are good, the general public (casuals) could careless about the people who make them, and they are the people who buys the majority of these consoles.
@charizard1605:
http://gamingbolt.com/microsoft-needs-to-stop-relying-on-halogearsforza-combination-and-invest-in-high-quality-ips
That's your article from this website?
You mean the one where the transparency of the article is getting annihilated in the comments? Yes.
Ya, comments in general are very positive and never attack the writer.
Oh wait, it's the internet and stupid people are abound.
New Crimson Skies, new Mechwarrior, New Amped, Ninja Gaiden Black remake/remaster, PGR5, make sure Crackdown 3 is amazing, most powerful hardware, best multiplats. I'd jump back in.
MS has interesting IP's collecting dust, they should play on people's nostalgia with more than just Halo and Gears, go back to the og Xbox mindset. Back to the future!
I think if they would of done Crackdown 3 without the cloud and just another game it would of been a prestige Xbox One title. Also Sunset Overdrive(if it continues to be a series).
@charizard1605:
I see you have a disdain for Xbox on any website then.
@charizard1605: So if Microsofts problem is it's first party and Nintendo's first party is great, then why has there been more XB1's sold then Wii U's. The Wii U should be miles ahead, but it isn't.
You can talk about industry buzz, prestige studios, games that when they get announced are an "event" and the like, but MS is in the boat they're in now because of it's fucking horrible policies they brought to the table with the initial XB1 reveal.
Could MS use some more first party studios, of course, but let's not pretend that it's the main reason why they have lost market share.
I work with a guy who's a casual gamer (damn these people are idiots) and he doesn't know who the developers are for the big releases which is the norm here. For instance he loves Halo but doesn't know who the dev was. His sole reason for buying a PS4 was because a friend told him that the XB1 had to connected to the internet for it to work.
Sony cruised through the first 2yrs with nothing of note, it was the messaging that sold all those PS4's not it's "prestige" developer.
There's is so much content in your book for people to pick apart, as for me i don't want to write a book in reply, so i'll stick to these points for now.
Again, simply comparing Xbox One and Wii U (and PS4) is missing the point. As I said to Pedro before, Nintendo may be in last place right now, but the generation just before that, it won on the basis of its offerings. The generation before that? Last place, again. The generation before that? Second place. Both the generations before that? Won. It could drive larger interest in its offerings on the basis of its lineup. None of this even brings up its handhelds, which literally sell only on the basis of its offerings.
Microsoft has never won a generation, never had a market leading product, because it is ultimately preaching to the choir. Where Nintendo and Sony can both drive interest in their offerings even from others who might not be inclined to look into what they have otherwise.
Don't get me wrong, Microsoft's bad PR before the Xbox One had a lot to do with where that system is right now- but the PS3 had every bit as much bad PR going into it as the Xbox One did, and it rallied on the basis of Sony's offerings. Microsoft haven't been able to rally- why? Because of this inability to drive larger interest in their platform. You are right that the residual misinformation from the Xbox One's pre launch campaign has a lot to do with where the platform stands- I am not arguing against that. But bad PR can be overcome with good games. Xbox One has a lot of good and great games- but nothing that appeals to anyone who might not already have been an Xbox fan. That's what I am saying.
So what you're saying is sales right? i mean if one gets a game YOU like it will drive INTEREST in the Xbox platform and that will drive sales. That's what i'm getting from your statement.
Nintendo & Sony have the same problem, as i consider myself a true racing game fan, and both Nintendo & Sony offer me nothing of interest if i'm not already a fan of those to companies. It just comes down to you not owning an XB1, and because it doesn't have a game you want isthe reason that you have written all this, well that's what it feels like from where i'm sitting.
Let's face it, if at E3 this year MS announced that they have done a deal that Persona 6 was a console exclusive to the Scorpio you would be all over it, even though Atlus do not fit into this "prestige" game/developer agenda you're pushing in this thread.
Like i said MS needs more first party devs, but it isn't going to change over night, and some crazy idea that a "prestige" developer is needed is a fairytale. As long as the games are good, the general public (casuals) could careless about the people who make them, and they are the people who buys the majority of these consoles.
No, I use the word 'interest' to differentiate it from sales. I used the word 'halo effect' in the OP to establish exactly what I mean- Microsoft lacks a prestige franchise. It does not lack franchises that sell.
Nintendo and Sony may have the same problem for you- but my entire point is that they have something that generally catches attention across the industry. Microsoft used to be good at this with Gears and Halo, but no longer are. Again, this is not a hard concept, and I am just repeating myself.
If Atlus did that, I would buy a Scorpio. I would never once claim a halo effect around Xbox because of Persona. Persona is appealing to me, but like the racing games you brought up, is appealing to a specific set of gamers. To repeat myself for the third time within this post alone: the idea is not having things that appeal to some people, it is having something that catches everyone's attention.
For your last paragraph, I agree with the gist of it, though I still do stand by my idea of prestige studios, but my feeling is you and I may not be able to see eye to eye on that.
@charizard1605:
I see you have a disdain for Xbox on any website then.
http://gamingbolt.com/the-xbox-one-is-the-ps3-of-this-generation
http://gamingbolt.com/five-reasons-to-buy-xbox-one-s-over-ps4-slim
http://gamingbolt.com/should-sony-have-waited-a-year-and-reworked-the-ps4-pro-into-something-more-powerful-like-scorpio
http://gamingbolt.com/unlike-sony-microsoft-are-in-a-better-position-to-take-more-risks-with-the-xbox-brand
http://gamingbolt.com/red-dead-redemptions-success-on-xbox-one-is-another-knock-against-the-lack-of-backwards-compatibility-on-ps4
http://gamingbolt.com/microsofts-upgradeable-xbox-plan-may-indicate-the-end-of-console-generations
http://gamingbolt.com/industry-personality-of-the-year-phil-spencer
You're damn right.
@Chutebox:
Joke conclusion.
damn Charizard you made the news over at n4g. good article you posted
@charizard1605: So if Microsofts problem is it's first party and Nintendo's first party is great, then why has there been more XB1's sold then Wii U's. The Wii U should be miles ahead, but it isn't.
You can talk about industry buzz, prestige studios, games that when they get announced are an "event" and the like, but MS is in the boat they're in now because of it's fucking horrible policies they brought to the table with the initial XB1 reveal.
Could MS use some more first party studios, of course, but let's not pretend that it's the main reason why they have lost market share.
I work with a guy who's a casual gamer (damn these people are idiots) and he doesn't know who the developers are for the big releases which is the norm here. For instance he loves Halo but doesn't know who the dev was. His sole reason for buying a PS4 was because a friend told him that the XB1 had to connected to the internet for it to work.
Sony cruised through the first 2yrs with nothing of note, it was the messaging that sold all those PS4's not it's "prestige" developer.
There's is so much content in your book for people to pick apart, as for me i don't want to write a book in reply, so i'll stick to these points for now.
Again, simply comparing Xbox One and Wii U (and PS4) is missing the point. As I said to Pedro before, Nintendo may be in last place right now, but the generation just before that, it won on the basis of its offerings. The generation before that? Last place, again. The generation before that? Second place. Both the generations before that? Won. It could drive larger interest in its offerings on the basis of its lineup. None of this even brings up its handhelds, which literally sell only on the basis of its offerings.
Microsoft has never won a generation, never had a market leading product, because it is ultimately preaching to the choir. Where Nintendo and Sony can both drive interest in their offerings even from others who might not be inclined to look into what they have otherwise.
Don't get me wrong, Microsoft's bad PR before the Xbox One had a lot to do with where that system is right now- but the PS3 had every bit as much bad PR going into it as the Xbox One did, and it rallied on the basis of Sony's offerings. Microsoft haven't been able to rally- why? Because of this inability to drive larger interest in their platform. You are right that the residual misinformation from the Xbox One's pre launch campaign has a lot to do with where the platform stands- I am not arguing against that. But bad PR can be overcome with good games. Xbox One has a lot of good and great games- but nothing that appeals to anyone who might not already have been an Xbox fan. That's what I am saying.
So what you're saying is sales right? i mean if one gets a game YOU like it will drive INTEREST in the Xbox platform and that will drive sales. That's what i'm getting from your statement.
Nintendo & Sony have the same problem, as i consider myself a true racing game fan, and both Nintendo & Sony offer me nothing of interest if i'm not already a fan of those to companies. It just comes down to you not owning an XB1, and because it doesn't have a game you want isthe reason that you have written all this, well that's what it feels like from where i'm sitting.
Let's face it, if at E3 this year MS announced that they have done a deal that Persona 6 was a console exclusive to the Scorpio you would be all over it, even though Atlus do not fit into this "prestige" game/developer agenda you're pushing in this thread.
Like i said MS needs more first party devs, but it isn't going to change over night, and some crazy idea that a "prestige" developer is needed is a fairytale. As long as the games are good, the general public (casuals) could careless about the people who make them, and they are the people who buys the majority of these consoles.
No, I use the word 'interest' to differentiate it from sales. I used the word 'halo effect' in the OP to establish exactly what I mean- Microsoft lacks a prestige franchise. It does not lack franchises that sell.
Nintendo and Sony may have the same problem for you- but my entire point is that they have something that generally catches attention across the industry. Microsoft used to be good at this with Gears and Halo, but no longer are. Again, this is not a hard concept, and I am just repeating myself.
If Atlus did that, I would buy a Scorpio. I would never once claim a halo effect around Xbox because of Persona. Persona is appealing to me, but like the racing games you brought up, is appealing to a specific set of gamers. To repeat myself for the third time within this post alone: the idea is not having things that appeal to some people, it is having something that catches everyone's attention.
For your last paragraph, I agree with the gist of it, though I still do stand by my idea of prestige studios, but my feeling is you and I may not be able to see eye to eye on that.
So what does this "interest" "appeal" "attention" do in the end?
@charizard1605: If MechWarrior5 will be MS CE, there's a possibility that it could be a system seller. MechWarrior is an established franchise after all.
They can also do a MechCommander sequel in addition.
@smearygoose1768: My friends who've played Sunset Overdrive have had nothing but good things to say about it, unfortunately I still haven't tried it. I love Crackdown, it's one of my favorite Xbox franchises. I even enjoyed Crackdown 2, specifically for it's co-op gameplay. I really hope they expand on that with Crackdown 3.
I never played Crackdown 2 or knew it released. I wasn't gaming or following gaming news for the time Crackdown 2 was announced and released.
So what does this "interest" "appeal" "attention" do in the end?
Drive attention in the platform and create the potential for people who may otherwise never have bought your system to eventually pick it up. If you don't have any interest in PlayStation, but do like, say, The Last of Us, then you may finally purchase a PS4 once The Last of Us 2 comes out and the PS4 is maybe $200. Ditto for Nintendo and Zelda. The games themselves don't actually even have to sell- heavens know Zelda is hardly this huge seller- but they do something more, they impact intangibles such as mindshare and buzz and halo around the platform. These things matter, and they matter quite a bit. If you don't believe me, do consider that Nintendo and Sony, who both have prestige projects, have in fact had market leading products at some point or the other (in Nintendo's case, literal domination of an entire sector of a market, unbroken for 30 years), and consider that Microsoft's greatest success, 2004-2010, literally directly coincides with their actually having a proper prestige brand under the wings, which was Halo. Or that PS3's comeback directly coincides with Naughty Dog becoming a prestige studio, with Uncharted 2 and through to The Last of Us.
Sales are the effect of prestige studios. They are not the point. The point is, as mentioned before, attention, interest, appeal, mindshare, buzz, halo. Sales are a second order consequence.
@charizard1605: If MechWarrior5 will be MS CE, there's a possibility that it could be a system seller. MechWarrior is an established franchise after all.
They can also do a MechCommander sequel in addition.
MechWarrior and MechCommander could do very well in today's climate, yes.
I think they've shown some risk taking outside of the usual Halo, Gears, Forza:
Titanfall, Tomb Raider, Dead Rising, Recore, Sunset Overdrive, Ryse, Quantum Break, Sea of Thieves, Scalebound, Phantum Dust
The problem isn't taking risks but more the risks they took not panning out as well as they hoped.
@lrdfancypants: The first 3 you listed are not MS's risks.
@charizard1605: Very nice thread Char. And I agree with almost all of it. Hopefully at E3 MS will differentiate their portfolio and come out with a broadening audience type IP. I mean let's face it, Sea of Thieves will probably be a great game. But It definitely won't be It Lol.
@charizard1605: Yeah but they have invested in new IP... some were good, some were average.
I'd like to see a comparison of each of Sony, MS & Nintendo this gen and compare new either 1st party IP or 2nd party. It's not like MS hasn't done anything... but yeah they should do more.
@charizard1605: Very nice thread Char. And I agree with almost all of it. Hopefully at E3 MS will differentiate their portfolio and come out with a broadening audience type IP. I mean let's face it, Sea of Thieves will probably be a great game. But It definitely won't be It Lol.
Thank you! :)
I basically agree with you regarding E3- but I also think that while Sea of Thieves itself may not be a prestige title, Rare itself could become a prestige studio (again, like they used to be in the N64 days). It depends on just how much talent the studio still has. We're going to find out soon with Sea of Thieves. I love Rare, and SoT looks promising, so fingers crossed.
@NathanDrakeSwag:
Yeah, I know not theirs but risks on locking down exclusivity, even if timed for some.
Like I said, I think they've taken some risks on games they just aren't working.
@charizard1605: Yeah but they have invested in new IP... some were good, some were average.
I'd like to see a comparison of each of Sony, MS & Nintendo this gen and compare new either 1st party IP or 2nd party. It's not like MS hasn't done anything... but yeah they should do more.
I'm not saying Microsoft doesn't invest in new IP- I'm saying it invests, and after initial lack of sales, gives up. That's not how you develop a brand or prestige. How long did it take Naughty Dog to reach the level that it did? How many Zelda games have outright underperformed? Did Sony or Nintendo give up? Why does Microsoft give up after one attempt? Why does it not have the confidence or perseverance to push through? That basically is what I am identifying as the problem here. Or one of the problems, at any rate.
@charizard1605: But they haven't given up... I'm sure they'll continue to invest in new IP. And that's what Phil's been saying they want to/are doing.
So what does this "interest" "appeal" "attention" do in the end?
Drive attention in the platform and create the potential for people who may otherwise never have bought your system to eventually pick it up. If you don't have any interest in PlayStation, but do like, say, The Last of Us, then you may finally purchase a PS4 once The Last of Us 2 comes out and the PS4 is maybe $200. Ditto for Nintendo and Zelda. The games themselves don't actually even have to sell- heavens know Zelda is hardly this huge seller- but they do something more, they impact intangibles such as mindshare and buzz and halo around the platform. These things matter, and they matter quite a bit. If you don't believe me, do consider that Nintendo and Sony, who both have prestige projects, have in fact had market leading products at some point or the other (in Nintendo's case, literal domination of an entire sector of a market, unbroken for 30 years), and consider that Microsoft's greatest success, 2004-2010, literally directly coincides with their actually having a proper prestige brand under the wings, which was Halo. Or that PS3's comeback directly coincides with Naughty Dog becoming a prestige studio, with Uncharted 2 and through to The Last of Us.
Sales are the effect of prestige studios. They are not the point. The point is, as mentioned before, attention, interest, appeal, mindshare, buzz, halo. Sales are a second
Do i need to say more?
@charizard1605: I would love for Rare to become a prestigious developer again! Much better chance now that MS isn't making them work on Kinect titles only.
@charizard1605: But they haven't given up... I'm sure they'll continue to invest in new IP. And that's what Phil's been saying they want to/are doing.
No, they gave up on those specific studios/IPs/games. Their approach is too scattershot. That's my point. Have the confidence in something to stick with it!
Do i need to say more?
Yes?
I completely agree with you Charizard and that's why MS will never have universal worldwide appeal or win a gen. They don't have a prestigious franchise with universal worldwide appeal. Halo was the last time they had a prestigious franchise but even then its appeal was mostly to western gamers and didn't have a worldwide appeal that a game like Zelda or Uncharted has. Lems will argue with you and say you're wrong but they don't get it, and that's why everytime an MS console gets rekt in sales by a Sony or Nintendo console they will continue to be surprised and angry. The point of these prestigious games isn't sales but creation of good will and attraction to gamers that might not be interested in your console otherwise.
@charizard1605: I would love for Rare to become a prestigious developer again! Much better chance now that MS isn't making them work on Kinect titles only.
That's my thinking too. I want to see them working on things like Blast Corps, Goldeneye, Banjo Kazooie, Jet Grind Radio, all these different games that cumulatively added so much appeal to the platform's library.
Microsoft has been paying Rare's legacy some mind of late- so my hope is they will let Rare do what they do best, and follow through on letting them make some great games.
@charizard1605: Yeah I guess... but we're always complaining that the majors don't invest in new IP enough :)
Did MS make any of their franchises? Halo comes from Bungie, Gears comes from Epic Studio. I'm not sure about Fable and Forza, we're they or their studio bought by MS? If that's the case does that mean MS hasn't made anything and just publishes games?
I completely agree with you Charizard and that's why MS will never have universal worldwide appeal or win a gen. They don't have a prestigious franchise with universal worldwide appeal. Halo was the last time they had a prestigious franchise but even then its appeal was mostly to western gamers and didn't have a worldwide appeal hat a game like Zelda or Uncharted has. Lems will argue with you and say you're wrong but they don't get it, and that's why everytime an MS console gets rekt in sales by a Sony or Nintendo console they will continue to be surprised and angry. the point of these prestigious games isn't sales but creation of good will and attraction to gamers that might not be interested in your console otherwise.
Thankfully, a lot of Xbox fans are agreeing with the premise of this thread. I think everyone understands that this isn't a criticism of Xbox as much as it is an acknowledgement of some problems it has. My hope is that Microsoft starts investing in prestige brands soon- Rare, as I have been discussing, could well be one of them. We'll see. As of right now, they definitely lack something like Zelda or Naughty Dog.
Did MS make any of their franchises? Halo comes from Bungie, Gears comes from Epic Studio. I'm not sure about Fable and Forza, we're they or their studio bought by MS? If that's the case does that mean MS hasn't made anything and just publishes games?
Forza is definitely a new Microsoft IP, if you mean 'did a studio not purchased by Microsoft but created in house develop a brand new IP for them.' But the distinction is a tad foolish, I feel.
@charizard1605: Yeah I guess... but we're always complaining that the majors don't invest in new IP enough :)
I think you need to have a balance- invest in new IP, stick by your old one too. Sony does this the best, Nintendo has started to get better about it in recent years. Microsoft should hopefully get with the program. I want them to invest in new IP and then stick with it, while also investing in more new IP.
@charizard1605: No it doesn't, i'm going to play Sniper Elite 4 with a friend, which is more fun then going around in circles with you, have a nice day :)
I am not talking about Microsoft being in last place at all. I am talking strictly and specifically about Microsoft's portfolio, which is unable to drive and generate larger interest in its offerings. This is, in fact, a fact. Nintendo may be in last place right now, but the generation just before that, it won on the basis of its offerings. The generation before that? Last place, again. The generation before that? Second place. Both the generations before that? Won. It could drive larger interest in its offerings on the basis of its lineup. None of this even brings up its handhelds, which literally sell only on the basis of its offerings.
Microsoft has never won a generation, never had a market leading product, because it is ultimately preaching to the choir. Where Nintendo and Sony can both drive interest in their offerings even from others who might not be inclined to look into what they have otherwise. Finally, the core issue in the thread is not about diversity- I start with diversity as a primer, and then segue into the very clearly enumerated idea of prestige franchises or studios. Either is an acceptable approach. I discuss Microsoft's options (building one or the other), and also discuss their prestige franchise formerly (Halo). All of this you would know if you had read beyond the first paragraph.
Bringing up Wii U, Xbox One, or PS4 is, again, missing the point entirely. I am not arguing about these specific consoles. I am arguing about PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo offerings as a whole. Nintendo has something to drive outside interest in what it offers- it actually has a lot of those things, but I chose to stick with 'prestige' and focus on one. Ditto for Sony. Microsoft does not. Microsoft is preaching to the choir. That is the point of the thread. Again. Read past the first paragraph. I am willing to engage in a discussion of why you may thing a prestige IP is not important, or what you think Microsoft should do to create one if you end up agreeing with the OP. But we're running around in circles right now, discussing points that are never raised by the OP in the first place.
I think you are being delusional to say the least. Even attempting to segue into handhelds would be extremely irrelevant to the topic. To make statements like "it is ultimately preaching to the choir" and then follow that statement by praising Nintendo which has been preaching to the choir for decades outside of the Wii is remarkable. Even the Wii success was not dependent on this made up concept of "prestige". The Xbox is not lacking in diversity as you are trying to make it out to be. You cannot use Nintendo as an example "prestige" being advantageous when it has not been beneficial to Nintendo. Games like Zelda is tried and true "preaching to the choir" more than anything else. Could MS benefit from exclusive games? Yes. But the benefit would not add much to what they already have or leading towards. If we really want to discuss the state of the Xbox one should genuinely ask why is it that games from a Japan tend to favor only systems that originate from the Japan and the same cannot be said for western developed games. That to me a is bigger issue than MS developing this phantom "prestige" you speak of. Comparing MS to Sony is a valid comparison but Nintendo is so outclassed by these two that mentioning them as an example defies logic.
@charizard1605: No it doesn't, i'm going to play Sniper Elite 4 with a friend, which is more fun then going around in circles with you, have a nice day :)
Hope you enjoy the game, it's pretty fun
I am not talking about Microsoft being in last place at all. I am talking strictly and specifically about Microsoft's portfolio, which is unable to drive and generate larger interest in its offerings. This is, in fact, a fact. Nintendo may be in last place right now, but the generation just before that, it won on the basis of its offerings. The generation before that? Last place, again. The generation before that? Second place. Both the generations before that? Won. It could drive larger interest in its offerings on the basis of its lineup. None of this even brings up its handhelds, which literally sell only on the basis of its offerings.
Microsoft has never won a generation, never had a market leading product, because it is ultimately preaching to the choir. Where Nintendo and Sony can both drive interest in their offerings even from others who might not be inclined to look into what they have otherwise. Finally, the core issue in the thread is not about diversity- I start with diversity as a primer, and then segue into the very clearly enumerated idea of prestige franchises or studios. Either is an acceptable approach. I discuss Microsoft's options (building one or the other), and also discuss their prestige franchise formerly (Halo). All of this you would know if you had read beyond the first paragraph.
Bringing up Wii U, Xbox One, or PS4 is, again, missing the point entirely. I am not arguing about these specific consoles. I am arguing about PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo offerings as a whole. Nintendo has something to drive outside interest in what it offers- it actually has a lot of those things, but I chose to stick with 'prestige' and focus on one. Ditto for Sony. Microsoft does not. Microsoft is preaching to the choir. That is the point of the thread. Again. Read past the first paragraph. I am willing to engage in a discussion of why you may thing a prestige IP is not important, or what you think Microsoft should do to create one if you end up agreeing with the OP. But we're running around in circles right now, discussing points that are never raised by the OP in the first place.
I think you are being delusional to say the least. Even attempting to segue into handhelds would be extremely irrelevant to the topic. To make statements like "it is ultimately preaching to the choir" and then follow that statement by praising Nintendo which has been preaching to the choir for decades outside of the Wii is remarkable. Even the Wii success was not dependent on this made up concept of "prestige". The Xbox is not lacking in diversity as you are trying to make it out to be. You cannot use Nintendo as an example "prestige" being advantageous when it has not been beneficial to Nintendo. Games like Zelda is tried and true "preaching to the choir" more than anything else. Could MS benefit from exclusive games? Yes. But the benefit would not add much to what they already have or leading towards. If we really want to discuss the state of the Xbox one should genuinely ask why is it that games from a Japan tend to favor only systems that originate from the Japan and the same cannot be said for western developed games. That to me a is bigger issue than MS developing this phantom "prestige" you speak of. Comparing MS to Sony is a valid comparison but Nintendo is so outclassed by these two that mentioning them as an example defies logic.
Again, no.
I address the point about Zelda being a decades old franchise in the OP- hint, it has to do with each Zelda game being distinct. I address the point about Xbox still preaching to the choir. Hint- it has to do with Halo being largely predictable. Hint- Nintendo has sold as much as it has since the SNES days solely on the basis of its 'prestige' and its own IP. Goodness knows there is no third party to spur you into buying a Nintendo. So it has, by every definition of the word, been 'beneficial to Nintendo.' Hint- handhelds are not an irrelevant segue, but an extremely valid example of hardware selling on the basis of nothing but prestige. Hint- prestige IPs don't have to make you choose a platform over one that you prefer, just push you into getting one in addition to one you already own. As for Nintendo being 'outclassed,' one again, your self professed 'Nintendo hate' is impeding your point here- what is Nintendo outclassed in?
You think prestige is a phantom concept. Why so? Have you never heard of prestige TV dramas networks run with low ratings, just for the, well, prestige? Arthouse films? Literary novels? Graphic novels versus comics? Why is 'prestige games' such a hard concept to swallow?
@charizard1605: I would love for Rare to become a prestigious developer again! Much better chance now that MS isn't making them work on Kinect titles only.
They are the ones on Sea of Thieves or whatever right?
Yup
MS doesnt need a prestige franchise or studio. For me the prestige is xbox live and the myriad of great online co-op/multiplayer focused games. I cant get that on Ps4 as they lack multiplayer/co-op games and the From Software type games dont interest me and even the co-op in those games is a bit archaic. After Ps3 debacle with Socom 4 getting cut in a short period of time and Sony's current cold shoulder to mutliplayer/co-op focused titles, PS4 is lacking and has no value to me even with a Studio like Naughty Dog. Id much rather play Twisted Metal, Socom, and Motorstorm type games which arent really pillar franchises. Nintendo is good with multiplayer but im not going to see games like Sunset Overdrive, Gears 4 and etc. So again im back to MS and gaming on xbox live.
Finally, its nice having a good developer like Naughty Dog and Nintendo with Zelda/Mario im sure it helps but its only a small piece of the pie if it interests you. Majority are going with the best system for multiplats, friends and ea sports regardless of highly touted first party studios/games.
Agree, somewhat. I have had a great time this weekend jumping from Halo Wars 2 to Nioh and back.
But the most fun I've had is this Sea of Thieves alpha that is wrapping up now. I don't get these experiences on PS. So there are strengths that the other ignores.
Time out, Naughty Dog n Zelda are closer to the type of production a Nolan flick is. It might be a bit more heady than the other blockbusters, but it's a safe bet on a blockbuster. Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, and The Last Guardian are what would be considered prestige projects. Ditto stuff like Journey and bets on people like that, patron of the arts stuff. You goon.
I could maybe get the argument for The Last of Us, maybe, but Uncharted? Really a prestige project where the gameplay is that middling, and the story is fucking national treasure tier bullshit? Get real.
I disagree with the whole premise of a new Halo not being an event. It's a bigger event than anything Sony releases.
It certainly used to be that, but I'm saying it's not anymore. Halo 4 and the Master Chief Collection ensured that, which then manifested itself with Halo 5 (which by all accounts is actually an improvement, but still didn't make much of a splash, and is the second lowest selling mainline entry, not to mention failed to cause a spike in Xbox sales).
Contrast this with The Last of Us or Uncharted 2/4.
Not going to lie, I don't know how many copies Halo 5/6 sold. But when these games are coming up to the release date, all you hear and see is Halo. Nothing else. And MS goes all out with bundles, ads, the works. It's very much still an event.
This is actually not true. That's the point- Halo 5 came and went without causing much of a stir in the larger industry. It sold very well to the existing Xbox fanbase, but not beyond- which, again, is evidenced by the lack of corresponding sales spike (unlike Halo 1-4, and even Reach and ODST).
It doesn't interest you so the event has no impact for you. People have said there is an event when halo comes out and you're just ignoring it because... lets face it you don't care. I have the same feeling for uncharted series, they just don't interest me. From my perspective there is no event because I don't pay attention to it.
"It sold very well to the existing Xbox fanbase" This doesn't make any sense, its only on xbox, it can only sell to the xbox fanbase. There is no beyond. That's like saying zelda won't sell beyond the nintendo fanbase.
I see a bunch of Xbox bashing... but nothing that clearly defines an "event" or how its measured. You're saying zelda had some poor releases but it gets a pass because? And halo shouldn't? You say halo knows what it does and its settling? Thats actually uncharted... halo has lost a bit of its identity and core principles going from bungie to 343 studios.
To say that M$ hasn't been trying new IPs is a blatant misconception. It just takes time to develop games and work with 3rd parties.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment