http://www.oxm.co.uk/65227/you-dont-need-to-own-studios-to-make-great-games-argues-xbox-one-boss/

"I think to some out there there's a fixation with which studios you own, which studios you work with, and for better or worse I'm not fixated on that," he told IGN as part of the latter's Podcast Unlocked.

"I lived through the Xbox 360 generation and we had a great relationship with Epic, and we built Gears of War, and really that franchise was born on the Xbox 360 and hit incredible heights on the Xbox 360. And whether we owned Epic or simply worked with Epic was not part of the conversation [about whether] that game was going to be great."

More at the link. I gotta say I agree with him. Some people make a big deal about buying games versus "making them yourself" but I think it's a bunch of BS. Is there really any difference between MS paying Crytek to make Ryse, and Sony paying Naughty Dog to make Last of Us? Not at all. You form partnerships, you foster ideas, you create good games. The partnerships MS had on 360 this gen were amazing, both at retail and on XBLA. In fact when the retail side of things dried up a little bit, all of the XBLA partnerships kept my 360 stocked with great exclusives.

So do you guys view it differently? When you buy Ryse, or when you bought the amazing State of Decay, is it somehow different than when you played through Halo or Forza?

I'd say it depends on how it's done. If you fund a game that would otherwise not have been made, it's great. When you pay for exclusivity of a game that was going to be made anyway, it's bad. And when you own a studio that makes games, you have paid for the ownership and you also fund the development. Also, you probably own the rights to the created game. So yeah, three different cases.

No, you need to own studios to profit big. Ask Nintendo why they are still in the industry after N64 and Gamecube sales.

Inbetween the lines I read Titanfall.

If you're funding the development of a game from the start, I don't really see a difference as you mentioned. Buying exclusivity rights after development (or near the end of development) is different though.

I find buying the whole developer or paying him to make games exclusively for you ok (like the gears example).

what i don't like is paying a developer who is working on a multiplat game to release it only for your console, paying a developer to release a game timed exclusive (microsoft did that "often"  on 360 and sony seems to do it now for indie games on ps4, if with money or time on a stage is another question), paying him so that he will release dlc earlier on your console and stuff like that. because that doesn't increase the outcome for your system, it only makes it worse for the other.

Considering that this is the same Microsoft who suddenly created a ton of first-party studios to make exclusive content, I'm not really sure what he's getting at. Obviously Microsoft felt the need to be in possession of a lot of studios regardless of if they are building from the ground up or buying one. So it seems to me that MS has the same fixation right now that he is downplaying. The lesson they obviously learned is that partnerships only take you so far and can change with the wind. The only studios you can actually depend on are the ones you own. Those are also where you get the biggest returns for each sale.

Funding development is good. Helping out with publishing is good. No problem with that.

Having to buy exclusive rights of a game part way through development though just seems beyond desperate.

Playing great games is all that should matter to a gamer. Where they come from, is a question that verges on philosophy. Consider the next example:

You can either grow vegetables in a garden, or go buy them in a grocery shop. Eventually, they both end in a salad bowl and eaten by you. The result is the same.

There are some people though, that feel better if that salad came from their own garden. The feel fullfillment and satisfaction. Also there are others that believe a "home grown" product has a higher quality and tend to prefer it over bought ones.

These are the people that would likely prefer the product of a "home" studio rather than one that has been bought from a third party one. Of course, we should take into account tha "your own" studios develop according to the strengths and weaknesses of "your own" machine. 

Yep. Can always rent them. If only everyone was as smart as him we wouldn't have had a financial crisis with the housing and all. Am i right guys?