Quantcast
Microsoft Has No Further Plans To Bring First-Party Games to Other Platforms

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Microsoft Has No Further Plans To Bring First-Party Games to Other Platforms

JRPGfan said:

To be fair, at that point because the OP didnt put any content in his oringal post, expect a link, all I had read at that point was just the Title of the thread, and it was a reactionary message.

The details that its only future content, after these things come out, and only with the expection of other consoles ect.

You see how messy that messageing from MS is?
If what you say changes on a weekly basis, and you need to read the fineprint, and Thread titles are misleading, and possbily article names too....

Yeah its bad communication.
Good messageing is short, precise, doesnt require reading fine print, and doesnt sway left and right, week by week.

Yeah but when someone posts about an interview and includes a link... shouldn't you read the interview before making a crazy reaction?

There is no messy messaging, just people who make the messaging messy with spins and opinions. Microsoft bought some studios. Some of them have games already coming with prior release arrangements. Microsoft will honor those. Past that, they have no plans to support other consoles. See how easy that is?



JRPGfan said:
konnichiwa said:

If you read the article:

We have no plans to further expand our exclusive first party games to other consoles.

With gamepass on PC they bring their games on pc

And studios that they acquired who were making a game for multiply systems will still release the game on the other systems this is known for a long time :s.

New games from the studious like bleeding egde will be on Xbox/PC.

+

Alright you two.... be honest... how long until the next Steam/Switch/PS4 announcement from a Microsoft Studio?

Maybe, probably, not right now, no current plans...

How long does this PR quote last? until its proven wrong?

but why include steam we know about PC gamepass and it includes first party.

We never know ofcourse but bleeding edge is for PC/Xbox only , Ori is second party tho + minecraft is minecraft it sold more than PS2 and is basically a platform on it's own but I believe the other game Mojang made was only on Xbox(pc?).






LudicrousSpeed said:
JRPGfan said:

To be fair, at that point because the OP didnt put any content in his oringal post, expect a link, all I had read at that point was just the Title of the thread, and it was a reactionary message.

The details that its only future content, after these things come out, and only with the expection of other consoles ect.

You see how messy that messageing from MS is?
If what you say changes on a weekly basis, and you need to read the fineprint, and Thread titles are misleading, and possbily article names too....

Yeah its bad communication.
Good messageing is short, precise, doesnt require reading fine print, and doesnt sway left and right, week by week.

Yeah but when someone posts about an interview and includes a link... shouldn't you read the interview before making a crazy reaction?

There is no messy messaging, just people who make the messaging messy with spins and opinions. Microsoft bought some studios. Some of them have games already coming with prior release arrangements. Microsoft will honor those. Past that, they have no plans to support other consoles. See how easy that is?

Your explaination is better than the one Phil or whoever this quote is from, is.
You should do PR for Microsoft, your take is much better.

Still.... all this coulda been avoided I feel like, its unnessary to even say this much. Theres probably ways around running into such issues.
(like saying things everyone expects = pointless to say so)

My question is..... if Ludicrous is able to give a short, sweet, precise answear, that leaves no room for confusion.

Why the hell cant the guys at Xbox do the same?


Why do they give messy answears like this:

"The past year has been an exciting time for us as we have more than doubled the internal creative teams making up Xbox Game Studios. As these new studios transitioned in, we were aware of some existing commitments to other platforms and will honor them. However, going forward these new studios will focus on making games for our platforms. We have no plans to further expand our exclusive first party games to other consoles. We continue to believe deeply in cross play and progression of games with the right flexibility for developers to insure a fair and fun experience."

Why is it that long?
why does it mention cross play?
and allowing the "right flexibility" of devleopers (of what happends) to insure fair and fun experiances?

Why dont they focus their messaging, so they avoid these issues with headlines?
Instead of it seeming like week after week, they say and mean differnt things.

its a PR issue.

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 21 August 2019

Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:
Well seems like a lot of users were wrong on the thread of Halo on Switch.

No, people were arguing Halo on Switch SHOULD happen. Not that it will happen. Perhaps you didn't read the thread title.

This article is also being taken out of context. They're talking about the NEW games being created by their recently purchased studios. "As these new studios transitioned in, we were aware of some existing commitments to other platforms and will honor them. However, going forward these new studios will focus on making games for our platforms."

Maybe Switch support is over for MS, we don't know. But we can still discuss what we would like MS to put on Switch.

OP yes, he was saying it should. Some other were acting more like it will, and is already happening (like Ori) and would continue to happen.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

JRPGfan said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

Yeah but when someone posts about an interview and includes a link... shouldn't you read the interview before making a crazy reaction?

There is no messy messaging, just people who make the messaging messy with spins and opinions. Microsoft bought some studios. Some of them have games already coming with prior release arrangements. Microsoft will honor those. Past that, they have no plans to support other consoles. See how easy that is?

Your explaination is better than the one Phil or whoever this quote is from, is.
You should do PR for Microsoft, your take is much better.

Still.... all this coulda been avoided I feel like, its unnessary to even say this much. Theres probably ways around running into such issues.
(like saying things everyone expects = pointless to say so)

My question is..... if Ludicrous is able to give a short, sweet, precise answear, that leaves no room for confusion.

Why the hell cant the guys at Xbox do the same?


Why do they give messy answears like this:

"The past year has been an exciting time for us as we have more than doubled the internal creative teams making up Xbox Game Studios. As these new studios transitioned in, we were aware of some existing commitments to other platforms and will honor them. However, going forward these new studios will focus on making games for our platforms. We have no plans to further expand our exclusive first party games to other consoles. We continue to believe deeply in cross play and progression of games with the right flexibility for developers to insure a fair and fun experience."

Why is it that long?
why does it mention cross play?
and allowing the "right flexibility" of devleopers (of what happends) to insure fair and fun experiances?

Why dont they focus their messaging, so they avoid these issues with headlines?
Instead of it seeming like week after week, they say and mean differnt things.

its a PR issue.

Probably because Ludicrous is doing his interpretation and simplification and that isn't the true message MS is giving.

Better yet, let's accuse everyone of spinning since MS doesn't spin things.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

chakkra said:

I'm surprised nobody has thought of the possibility that they might have been trying to convince Nintendo to bring some of their games to X1 and Nintendo refused. This one way street "partnership" didn't make sense to me since the very begining.

A lot of things that Microsoft did during the last several years don't make sense from the strict point of view of a console manufacturer, so there's not necessarily some coherent ulterior motive behind their actions. One of these things being the idea that exclusive games aren't important, so Microsoft didn't replace closed studios with new ones for years; eventually somebody realized that Microsoft needs to have their own content whether the future of their gaming business is consoles or streaming, so they made a U-turn on that call.

The possibility you bring up is farfetched, because for one, Nintendo's IPs are much more valuable than Microsoft's, and two, most of Microsoft's IPs on Switch being low profile (the exception is Minecraft) isn't a good way to convince Nintendo to make games for Xbox.

chakkra said:
Barkley said:

It's called money. No one is buying an Xbox One because of Cuphead or Ori. So if they're not selling hardware what's the point in keeping them exclusive when you can make money from them elsewhere?

Well, No one is buying a Switch because of Mario Galaxy or Zelda WindWaker. So if they're not selling hardware what's the point in keeping them exclusive when you can make money from them elsewhere?

Indeed, Barkley's point doesn't hold water.

chakkra said:

Besides, that is a really shortsided point of view. Yes, most people don´t buy a console for just one game, but once any particular console has 5 or 6 games that you want to play and cannot find anywhere else, that´s when your more likely to make the jump. Why are we arguing this? It has worked pretty good so far for Nintendo and Sony.

An exclusive portfolio of IPs is indeed very important, but Microsoft tossed that overboard when they decided to make all of their future games available on Xbox and PC. That's a strategy that undermines the goal of selling as many Xbox consoles as possible and it does more damage than putting low profile IPs on Switch, because IPs like Halo, Forza and Gears have more pull.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Barkley said:
chakkra said:

Well, No one is buying a Switch because of Mario Galaxy or Zelda WindWaker. So if they're not selling hardware what's the point in keeping them exclusive when you can make money from them elsewhere?

Mario & Zelda are very valuable IP's and their are reasons to keep those IP's as intrinsically linked with your company and hardware as possible, though even so Mario is on mobile, with galaxy on nvidia shield in china. Cuphead and Ori are not valuable IP.

But here we are not talking just about Ori and Cuphead, we are talking about all the other games that people were expecting to make the jump (with some even going as far as to mention Halo and Ori 2).

Now, which Switch exclusives do you think would benefit from this "partnership"?



JRPGfan said:

My question is..... if Ludicrous is able to give a short, sweet, precise answear, that leaves no room for confusion.

Why the hell cant the guys at Xbox do the same?


Why do they give messy answears like this:

No offense but you've read PR before, right? Why are you surprised or bothered by wordy, fluffy PR? That's how these work. Outlet asks Microsoft for a statement regarding something, Microsoft sends back a PR response that paints them in the best light possible and answers their question. There is no mess, there is no room for confusion. Unless you're looking for it. Again, just look at your first post here. Does it really matter what MS would have said? You weren't going to read it, whatever it was wasn't going to be good enough.

DonFerrari said:

Probably because Ludicrous is doing his interpretation and simplification and that isn't the true message MS is giving.

Better yet, let's accuse everyone of spinning since MS doesn't spin things.

Oh please, bestow upon us what this "true message" is lol. Should be hilarious.

Also, I never said or implied that Microsoft doesn't spin things. They're a business, they have PR, they spin things. Just like every publisher, just like Sony, just like Nintendo. Of course, the difference is I would expect an employee of any of these companies to spin and use fluff in PR. They're literally getting paid for it. What I don't get is any time there's MS talk the threads are full of people who don't use Xbox spinning and applying their own PR to Microsoft's PR. I don't really ever even click on comparable Nintendo or Sony threads because I'm just not interested, but when I do, I certainly don't see posters who prefer Xbox or Nintendo doing the same thing. So yeah, I'll call that nonsense out, because it is in fact utter nonsense. Hope that helps.



RolStoppable said:


"A lot of things that Microsoft did during the last several years don't make sense from the strict point of view of a console manufacturer, so there's not necessarily some coherent ulterior motive behind their actions. One of these things being the idea that exclusive games aren't important, so Microsoft didn't replace closed studios with new ones for years; eventually somebody realized that Microsoft needs to have their own content whether the future of their gaming business is consoles or streaming, so they made a U-turn on that call."

I actually agree with you there. It has been hard to keep up with MS decisions in the last couple of years. I just find it hard to believe that they would be doing this just to get a few bucks from extra sales.

"An exclusive portfolio of IPs is indeed very important, but Microsoft tossed that overboard when they decided to make all of their future games available on Xbox and PC. That's a strategy that undermines the goal of selling as many Xbox consoles as possible and it does more damage than putting low profile IPs on Switch, because IPs like Halo, Forza and Gears have more pull."

Again, I agree to some extent. I think they are making a terrible mistake by releasing their exclusive games day one on PC. I think they should wait at least one year before doing it.



LudicrousSpeed said:
JRPGfan said:

My question is..... if Ludicrous is able to give a short, sweet, precise answear, that leaves no room for confusion.

Why the hell cant the guys at Xbox do the same?


Why do they give messy answears like this:

No offense but you've read PR before, right? Why are you surprised or bothered by wordy, fluffy PR? That's how these work. Outlet asks Microsoft for a statement regarding something, Microsoft sends back a PR response that paints them in the best light possible and answers their question. There is no mess, there is no room for confusion. Unless you're looking for it. Again, just look at your first post here. Does it really matter what MS would have said? You weren't going to read it, whatever it was wasn't going to be good enough.

DonFerrari said:

Probably because Ludicrous is doing his interpretation and simplification and that isn't the true message MS is giving.

Better yet, let's accuse everyone of spinning since MS doesn't spin things.

Oh please, bestow upon us what this "true message" is lol. Should be hilarious.

Also, I never said or implied that Microsoft doesn't spin things. They're a business, they have PR, they spin things. Just like every publisher, just like Sony, just like Nintendo. Of course, the difference is I would expect an employee of any of these companies to spin and use fluff in PR. They're literally getting paid for it. What I don't get is any time there's MS talk the threads are full of people who don't use Xbox spinning and applying their own PR to Microsoft's PR. I don't really ever even click on comparable Nintendo or Sony threads because I'm just not interested, but when I do, I certainly don't see posters who prefer Xbox or Nintendo doing the same thing. So yeah, I'll call that nonsense out, because it is in fact utter nonsense. Hope that helps.

The true meaning? Is that they made a convoluted mess that can mean anything until it happens.

No user here spin more than MS, so that type of accusation is ludicrous.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994