Wow.

Now every single thread on VGC has to derail to a pick and choose counting of exclusives.

Jesus, man.

This is about hardware, development costs and envaironments.

90% of the best sellers of both consoles are multiplats any way that look and play 99% equaly. You guys act like it is Sega and Nintendo all over again.

1. Halo was always Halo. The concepts for combat evolved were pretty much dead on with the tech demo before Microsoft bought them. Look up Steve Jobs revealing Halo for Apple computers.

2.  Its been a while but Goldeneye sold just as much as the first Halo and it wasnt a PC title and I also believe it was Halo 2 that was the first true non-lan shooter outside of PC for the original Xbox. Nintendo along with Rare (pre microsoft) deserve that crown for being the console to bring FPS popularity to consoles. Once Halo came, that was the second dose of FPS greatness.

3. The Zune is a small product, but Sony corporation is not. Its the reverse of the situation with Microsoft where Sony was in danger and had to sell buildings and assets to recover from the financial blow that Sony took. The Playstation brand is the crown jewel of Sony at this point so in essence Sony has to deliver quality in order to survive (not to mention that Playstation has been at the forefront since the PS2 era expanded the gaming market). Microsoft on the other hand dont really need the industry, they just want the multimedia marketshare. This is why the Xbox One almost lost focus in the beginning of the gen making the Xbox the best center of the home and almost forgot about the games causing a backlash. Phil Spencer saved the Xbox brand from losing focus, because the market that was invested was not having it.

4. This is a problem, which is the last paragraph. Microsoft needs to stop buying things and start to create some grade A developers internally that they can depend on to make what they want at all times. Dedicated studios like Nintendo and Sony that are capable of covering numerous genres.

As for Microsofts consoles, it wouldnt be wise for them to release consoles every three years. The reason being, Microsoft has two titles which they are dependent upon which demand at least two to three iterations per gen in Halo and Gears. Id say at 4 to five years. This will secure interest and profits. The reason why I am talking about the games is because the cart doesnt come before the horse. They need to have those major alluring titles and right now they could use new IP to refresh the branding. Sony and Nintendo have already done this with Xenoblade, Splatoon, the Last of Us and Horizon. Microsoft will always be in a graphics war with Sony, so they just need to make the best console they can whilst keeping the consoles affordable. This will take hiring the leading developers of tech which can make consoles that best (or dare i say gradually) squeeze the resources out of a platform in a given time while working in tandem with third party.

This is why the gaming media is going to be extemely focused on Microsofts offerings at E3. Spencer addressed the lack of games issue. Its better hold people in suspense over your offerings than to admit they are sparse. If that is the case, they will compete extremely well vs their competition and you and me as gamers win equally. Again, my skepticism over Microsoft is based on their track record and because ultimately I want them to succeed as a brand.

Microsoft's first party output during the 360 was tremendous, prompting me to get an Xbox 360. When Shane Kim was running things, the focus was on games. I wasnt the biggest fan of Fable, because seriously, thats the weakest RPG on gods green earth, but it was interesting to play for a little while. I never noticed Crackdown because the buzz for it was low and it went past my radar. For me the highest point of the Xbox One was the first year, actually. Sunset Overdrive and Ryse were pretty good exclusives, when didnt have many games to fight back and their first party was working on the higher tier exclusives. 

Even as good as Microsoft generation was with the 360, the PS3 still exclipsed it in new IP's,first, second and third party support. Thats how Sony closed the 8 million console gap, when Microsoft was having exclusive droughts and tried to use the Kinect to keep Sony at bay. It only worked for two years. 

There are $1,000 plus Blu-ray Players, $50,000 TVs, $5,000 Receivers, $10,000 Speakers. If Sony and Microsoft are going to start treating these consoles like real consumer electronic devices and not "Toys", then there is no reason we shouldn't see $1,000 or $1,500 consoles that mach or exceed that top single GPU PCs on the market.

If we are going to be seeing consoles release every 3 - 4 years, or at every fabrication shrink, then all games are going to have to be built on scalable engines. There is no reason we can't have consoles from $149.99 to $1,499.99 with various performance levels.

I think the days of traditional consoles and PCs are coming to an end. I think there will be a crowd of people that want the open and complete freedom of a traditional PC OS, while there will also be a crowd of people that want the more controlled and simplified OS and ecosystem of console OSs.

Sony is already really opening up PS4 to much more than gaming and entertainment, and with UWA Microsoft is taking XB OS even further into the smartconsole type of space. I see no reason why there won't be a market for high end consoles in the future, and I think Sony, MS, AMD, Intel, and Nvidia would be wise give the 10 - 20 million people in this market an avenue to give them there money.

Yeah, I can see that, but all Publishers in terms of quality has dipped. Sony was just worse imo. Also, another game I like, but forgot about was mondation racer. That was a fun karting game, but it didn't get a sequel because it didn't sell very well

It's just a simple fact.

MS first party studios are terrible, as I and many others have outlined before. I don't know why the same XOne fans can't admit this, when the majority of other Xbox fans can, since its an area you'd want them to improve in. We can all see it for ourselves.

The 360's most critically exclaimed exclusives were THIRD party: Halo, Gears, L4D, Mass Effect, Fable, Bioshock. Sony has had critical + commercial first party hits since the PS1, not funded, but developed by studios built from the ground up. MS has one, Forza, and a ton of other IP's tossed to the side. That's why MS gets harped on. If we compare critical + commercial success of exclusives between MS and Sony based on original studios, none of them bought or funded, you'd think MS has the edge? Lmfao hell no.

I edited my original post to fit the definition I wanted to convey, which is originally developed, not owned, funded or anything. So games like R&C, BloodBorne, Resistance, were games I wouldn't count.

I see it as a way to trust a console manufacturer, kind of the same way I view artists, or just entertainment in general. Obviously its a business, to make money, expand brands, etc, but Sony and Nintendo have proven, through originally developed first party games, they have an extensive + successful portfolio in the gaming industry. Its kind of like saying DC has better movies than Marvel, and using the Dark Knight trilogy as an example, instead of say Suicide Squad or BvS (which I still haven't watched!). As an entity, it is all technically the same, but in a industry like film or gaming, I'd want to support a company that has a proven, internal track record, since it proves they have a better overall understanding of the industry. Basically, it's a brand I can support. 

I think both Sony and MS will have yearly console releases in the future

Edit: whoops I'm late to the party, didn't realize this  devolved into a list thread hours ago

I come in here expecting to see a discussion about the possibility of a console coming out every 3 years and I see almost none of that. Somehow turns into console wars thread again. Arnt the mods supposed to keep this in check not fuel it?