With a eye to the future. I decided to do a quick head count on the number of first party game development studios that both Microsoft and Sony currently have. That are likely to develop exclusively for their console brands, and I was surprised to see that they both now have thirteen studios. I am not counting teams mind you, or studios that are unclear about their purpose, or studios that will develop for other platforms, or even service provider studios. In a nutshell I am just going to list off studios that I think are console brand game oriented.

I gathered the list of Microsofts game studios from their own web page, and they are as follows Big Park, Rare, Victoria, Skybox, Lionshead, Soho, Black Tusk, 343, Turn 10, Kids and Lifestyle, Connected Experience, Good Science, Redmond. I gathered Sony's list from Wikipedia, and they are as follows Japan, London, Polyphony, Naughty Dog, Bend, Foster City, Sucker Punch, Santa Monica, San Diego, Guerilla, Cambridge, Evolution, Media Molecule. Honestly I think it is both fair and concise.

That now being out of the way, and I sincerely hope that nobody argues the point. Despite what anybody might think I am not sandbagging Sony. If anything I am giving Microsoft the short end of the stick. It occurs to me that unlike the beginning of the previous generation. Microsoft is now in a position to match Sony first party title for first party title. That means things we took for granted during the previous generation won't be so cut and dry for the generation that will be coming in. This is going to have profound consequences, and I wonder what kind of consequences this community expects to see, because of these very big changes.

The first change that occurs to me would have to be the dispersal of titles throughout the year. While I could still see Microsoft saving three big titles for the last third of the year. With this many studios they should be able to easily produce six or seven titles annually, and that should mean more in sales outside of the traditional peak months for their platform. So what are your thoughts. What changes spring to you mind. Other then it will make for great theater.  

Well, seems to me that a lot of those microsoft studios look like support studios rather than full game studios. Almost all of those sony studios have games that i can point to that they have made.

Also, the size of the studios is also big if you are going to compare how the first parties line up. Most of the big studios have several teams of 100 or more employees working on games so they can push out a lot more games.

So no, I wouldnt say microsofts first party is "pound for pound" what sony has, not even close.

I would suggest that you line up what these studios have done this generation, at least the less known ones, so we at least have an idea of what they might be working on. All the Sony studios I know but, to be honest, I've never heard of half the Microsoft side. Some of them sound Kinect related.

@gergroy

Trust me when I say if I included support studios. Microsoft would have twenty six studios listed. So yes they have a lot of fucking studios. These studios just seem to be their name brands. At least at the moment. They will probably add more, in the coming months. As their newer studios get established. Quite a few of the studios listed have more then one team to them. They at least have the man power behind them to do such a thing. You shouldn't equate a new studio as shit, because it hasn't delivered a game yet either. Remember Sony recently shit canned three studios.

I am not making any claims as to quality. I am just pointing out that Microsoft now has the same amount of real manpower that Sony has. As far as first party game development is concerned. It isn't a matter of preference, or even of pedigree. It is pretty basic math.

@pokoko

Honestly most of them are a complete mystery. That is part of what makes it exciting. Microsoft went out, and built up a lot of new studios. We know they are working on games, and a little about what the games are in a very general sense, but there aren't a lot of specifics.

Whats interesting is that MS tries to keep most of their studios small by contracting outside to outsource stuff. 343i is pretty big, but it would have been even bigger if they hadn't outsource so much. Halo 4 wouldn't have been the best game of the year if it wasn't for the extra help 343i contracted.

Even if they are large they are completely unproven.  Being a complete mystery isn't exactly a good thing.  The number of studios really has nothing to do with nything nor even their size I mean just look at Rare.  It has fallen into a ditch of total mediocraty and can't get out after being on top of the world.  And then we have to look at other companies and studios that prove that the number of games produced per year can vary to massive degrees from once per 5 years to twice per year.  And even then the once per 5 years could end up coming out with a mediocre game.  There is no such thing as pound for pound in this industry, the variables are too great.  In the end I'm not taking any side or the other but what I am saying is that is comparisson is as apples to oranges as a comparisson can get.  And honestly all I see coming out of this is a flame thread.  

P.S. Nintendo has the greatest 1st party games/studios in the history of ever so I really don't care among those two who comes out better becuse they will never match the appeal/innovation/style/polish of Nintendo first party games. :3.

No twisted Pixel or Press play?

Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development is the most powerful studio that ever existed. It is responsible for the development of the three most highly rated games (Mario Galaxy, Ocarina of Time, Mario Galaxy 2) and also maintains an insurmountable lead in videogame sales, numbering in the hundreds of millions. 

Easily pound for pound the best first party studio in existence, by far.

Well, it seems clear to me that MS is ramping up the competition! Lots of those new studios are unproven, but that's a double edged sword. It means new IP's - which gamers are crying for - and it means new IP's - which could suck really bad.

I think this is great for MS! They've needed more 1st party games since they entered the console business. I can name 3 games from MS; Halo, Fable and Forza. What else is there?! So this is good for them. Now it's all a matter of if they can match the quality of Sony.

Another strange title. Anyway....

"Microsoft is now in a position to match Sony first party title for first party title."

What do you mean by "now"? This implies that Microsoft has never matched Sony's first party support. But that has been exactly the case during the first half of the generation. I assume you're talking about quantity though, in which case, you may have a point. But still though, without looking it up, I still think Microsoft also had a quantity advantage over Sony during the first half of the generation. Of course this is only including games that sold meaningful amounts; Sony had an advantage with 1-2m+ sellers, but Microsoft dominated Sony with 2m+ selling games until about 2009-2010 I think. Either way, any disadvantage Microsoft had, they more than compensated for with superior 3rd party support, through more 3rd party exclusives and superior multiplats. I doubt this 3rd party advantage will continue to exist next generation.

We're going to have to wait and see how those Microsoft studios perform since many of them are new and have no track record. If I had to make a guess, I would have to guess that Sony would still have a quantity advantage going into next gen. I haven't even heard of some of those Microsoft studios, even the older ones; I assume many of them are support studios. Also, Microsoft seems have grown less and less focused on traditional first party games as the generation progressed. In fact, after Kinect's release in 2010, their first party priorities have really shifted focus towards Kinect with their hardcore offerings essentially Halo, Gears, Forza, Fable and Kinect. It hasn't particular been a bad strategy - Kinect is one of Microsoft's most successful releases of all time. So I don't anticipate them changing a strategy that's worked so well.

Not only has Kinect been one of Xbox's biggest successes ever, but consumers are primarily concerned with 3rd party games. Xbox consumers don't seem to care about first party games much, aside from 3-4 franchises (In fact, I think Microsoft has even explicitly stated this once). There is room for 1-3m selling games, but Microsoft seems to have adandoned those games altogether. It seems like those small-medium games simply aren't worth the investment to Microsoft. So they focus on making 3-4 franchises as big as possible and leaving the rest to 3rd parties. The rest of their resources will likely be devoted to Kinect and maybe an occasional new IP. Again, this strategy has been very successful for them so why would they change?

Since it's been so successful, I personally expect them to continue this strategy as we transition into next gen. That is, we'll continue to see 1-2 big games per year from Microsoft with a stronger emphasis on Kinect (I believe most of their new studios are Kinect studios). As for Sony, they'll probably continue their strategy of several small - medium games per year, with at least one big game per year (Gran Turismo, Uncharted, God of War, or new IP). So yeah, I think Sony will continue to have a quantity advantage. Microsoft will definitely introduce a few new IPs occasionally. But if they are only small/medium games selling less than about 3-4m, then I don't see Microsoft prolonging their life and the core of their strategy will largely remain unchanged.