By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - This is not the first time microsoft has published third party similar to Sony's games

Hardcore_gamer said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


Name two games that were timed exclusive that Sony has published to keep away from Microsoft. I can add mass effect to he ms list. That's three now.


Street fighter V 

Its not a timed exclusive.



Around the Network
NightDragon83 said:
MikeRox said:
 

It still cracks me up. People on this forum constantly bang on about the importance of exclusives and first party. Yet throughout gaming history, with the exception of a few notable titles and Nintendo, 3rd party always has and pretty much always will be the driving force of the industry.

Hell the lack of 3rd party for Nintendo right now is clearly very damaging.

Yes a game like The Last of Us is cool, but when most gamers are playing Call of Duty, FIFA and Grand Theft Auto. Surely it's more important that you offer those titles?

Exactly.  In fact, one could make the argument that M$'s stable of 1st party exclusive franchises are much more crucial to their success and have a much greater impact on console sales than Sony's do, because IPs like Halo and Gears do far more for the sales of Xbox consoles than many of Sony 1st party exclusives like Killzone, God Of War, InFamous, Little Big Planet etc have.  Only Gran Tourismo has been the consistent 1st party console mover for Sony for every PlayStation generation.  Beyond that only Naughty Dog's Crash Bandicoot (when it was Sony exclusive) and Uncharted IPs have really moved consoles on a similar level to M$'s heavy hitters.  Even Jak & Daxter is way down the list on the PS2 software chart despite being a fan favorite IP.

That's a load of bullshit. MS have Halo, Gears and Forza as console movers, Sony has GT, Uncharted and God Of War, looks like they are not really that crucial to the success of Xbox (other than Halo, which is the only reason Xbox still exists). Should I make a list from VGC's sales database to tell you that? I thought, since you were so quick to list down PS4's best-selling games, you might as well take a look at XB1's best-selling games.

Oh, and on that note, PS4 has not yet recieved even one of Sony's big first-party heavy hitters, whle XB1 has alraedy got a Halo and two Forza games. But still, MS software sales are in no better position than Sony on eighth-gen consoles (rather, worse) despite them having already churned out their biggest cards o the table, while Sony saves their own for the future.



sasquatchmontana said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

No. A First party denotes ownership of said intellectual property overall. Microsoft owns the IP to Quantum Break and Scalebound, but they are both made by third party, hence why its definitively called first party. The deal to make the games gave them the rights from the start to the IP as their own property. The struggle over intellectual property with Sony is why they went to Microsoft. They dont want anyone owning their game, its theirs. They just need to find a publisher and Microsoft needed games so they published it.

Actually, you are so wrong on this it is remarkable. Being first or 3rd party has no relation to IP ownership. It's relative to a publishers relation to the hardware they publish on. Here is the definition in relation to video games:

Adjective

first-party (not comparable)

  1. Of or relating to someone directly involved in a given transaction, such as a buyer or seller.
  2. Of or relating to the plaintiff in a lawsuit.
  3. (video games) Of a video game, developed or published by company responsible for the platform on which it is released (or its internal developers), as opposed to third-party.

Microsoft is the only first party publisher on Xbox consoles. Xbox. Xbox 360. Xbox One. Full stop. The couldn't be 2nd party of 3rd party if they tried. Unless you want to argue that fact. Anything Microsoft publishes on Xbox consoles is a FIRST PARTY GAME. That includes games from Studios and IPS that don't fall under their ownership.

At best you could say Insomniac and the Sunset Overdrive IP are not first party (they are not second party either), they are 3rd party. But the Sunset Overdrive videogame that came out last year is first party as it falls under Microsofts publishing arm.

You're making a point that falls short to example. I gave you examples...here...I shall give you more.

Microsoft's first, second and third party studios (as well as IP's are listed here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Studios

 Microsoft published Ryse...but it was not a first party game nor venture. Quantum Break is....why? Because they own the IP. Any commission that they own the sole rights to is first party. Microsoft is the first party as in they are the console maker or buyer engaging in a transaction with a third party. That denotes being a primary entity in a transaction . I'm even using your number one of your example to get this through to you that I am not speaking about the person but the assets said person (because a corporation counts as a person) owns. Context is key here.  You will see what I mean when you check out that link I provided. Once again (and for the last time) I am only speaking of Microsofts first party as in their owned studios and intellectual property, not the first party as in the primary person (which again would be Microsoft).

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Let me create an example for you. Marvel/Disney owns the rights to the Marvel family of games, but Activision develops and publishes the games via a license. Through the license, Disney and Marvel collect fees even though they dont publish because they own the Licensce and through ownership collect royalties and other things from the game because of the value of their product when other vendors feel the need to create a business proposition to create games from said companies IP license. Recently Marvel stripped Activision of their rights to their games license and all Activision made games were stripped from PSN and Xbox Live.

This is a redundant example, neither Activision or Disney manufacture Xbox or Playstion consoles so could never be anything but 3rd party unless Activision or Disney start manufacturing consoles of their own.

We've never spoken about this. so It's not redundant. I was just giving you an example of the power wielded once one owns an IP. Once first party...more than likely it will stay that way.

S.T.A.G.E. said:

I never saw this post, but my point is Sony has all bases covered from a first, second and third party end.

What are your thoughts on this years lineup given that The Order, Bloodborne, Until Dawn and The MLB license were all products originating outside of Sonys internal studios? That's a year and a half gap between any idea conceived by them, could you explain how that shows Sonys 1st party is covered during that period of time? This is assuming Knack and Driveclub were "bases covered" quality.

The order is first party co-developed project led by long time second party Ready at Dawn. Both Bloodborne and The Order were was co-developed. Sony owns the IP...meaning its first party. A third party is a contracted entity who works outside of Sony and makes games for them, but is not beholden to them. Sony makes so many IP's that even though there are errors there will definitely be quite a few gems. Once again....their first two years are generally the worst. As I said if you havent noticed some of Sony's top second party devs emulate Sony's signature style they built when they bought Naughty Dog where cinematics and gameplay intertwine. 

S.T.A.G.E. said:

My issue isnt with them is that they are almost solely reliant on third party for AAA new IP's. From that perspective its easy to see that Sony and Nintendo are on a whole level in creativity even though they dont have as much money. Its also noticable in gaming droughts because strategically Microsoft and Nintendo are the ones who have the hardest time there. With Nintendo its third party and with Microsoft its first party when the third party publishing stops 2/3 of the way through the gen and they start relying more and more on sequels.

What's your definition of AAA? Sales or scores? Because Knack and Driveclub garnered neither and every other new IP on PS4 up until Holiday 2016 comes from third parties.

AAA is just a game with a high development and marketing budget. 

In fact the only new IP of note on the Horizon... is Horizon, which was born out of Killzones declining stagnent receptions then a drive to create new IP.

Well...perhaps it was time they tried something new. Thats the great thing about Sony. Even after a while they let their devs try something new. You see if Microsoft struck oil they would keep their devs on duty to that game forevermore. This is the primary reason why bungie left them.





AG80 said:
Hardcore_gamer said:


Street fighter V 

Its not a timed exclusive.


Exactly. The more you force people to think, the more it sinks in.



S.T.A.G.E. said:
AG80 said:

Its not a timed exclusive.


Exactly. The more you force people to think, the more it sinks in.


Sony is finally starting to realize how little relevance their 1st party AAA exclusives really have. Less than 6% of PS4 owners bought Bloodborne (1.35m sold to 23.1m console owners), and it's the only great exclusive the console has had since it launched! That's why Sony is buying everything now. Destiny, Star Wars, CoD, Assassins Creed, Street Fighter etc. They have the console that everyone wants for 3rd party games so why not take advantage of it? When less than 6% of your install cares about your best reviewed game, it's time to stop investing time and money into future 1st exclusives and that's exactly what they're doing.  Buying the future of PlayStation. 



Around the Network

S.T.A.G.E. Bungie wanted freedom from MS well before Halo 3. And they got it right after they released H3.
Good lord.



It is a bit strange. MS are investing in gaming more than ever before I think (in terms of money), but they seem to focus more on buying other people's stuff as opposed to building their own. I guess it makes more business sense but it would be nice to see some MS startup developers producing some in-house content.



XBL: NathObeaN | PSN: NathObeaN | Steam: NathObeaN

Goatseye said:
S.T.A.G.E. Bungie wanted freedom from MS well before Halo 3. And they got it right after they released H3.
Good lord.


I know this. Bungie had plans to make other games and Microsoft wasnt up for anything but Halo, so they parted ways.



IamAwsome said:
AEGRO said:


Name the new 1st party IPs from Microsoft then, i cant think of any.

Project Spark, Sunset Overdrive, Ryse, Quantum Break, ReCore, Scalebound, and Sea of Thieves. 


Ori and the Blind Forest.



jlmurph2 said:
IamAwsome said:

Project Spark, Sunset Overdrive, Ryse, Quantum Break, ReCore, Scalebound, and Sea of Thieves. 


Ori and the Blind Forest.


Most of those games are first party commissioned by Microsoft to third party. Sea Of Thieves and Project Spark are the truest idea of what what Microsoft can actually create because they are made by internal studios. Last I checked, Moon Studios was independent. So the majority of their IP ownership comes from third party. The one I miss the most was from last gen in Lost Odyssey.