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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Xbox division NOT investing more in first party games: Insider (rumor)

 

What are your thoughts?

Boo! 169 51.68%
 
They are doing the right ... 25 7.65%
 
I really don't care 116 35.47%
 
Other 17 5.20%
 
Total:327
DonFerrari on 24 July 2017

seems to be the case for a long time.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Azzanation on 24 July 2017
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Azzanation said:

MS have been always making games since Age of Empires and prior. There just as creative when they want to be. MS have found a better solution than housing many 1st party developers and only having afew becoming successful and profitable. Why own a studio when you can hire a 3rd party dev to make the game for you. Killer Instinct is a prime example of how successful this decision can be. Ori is another good example.

Even Sony came out and said that only afew of there 1st party devs turn a profit while the rest dont. MS folded and sold off 1st party companies for that very reason. So does Sony.

Incase you didnt know that 343 and Turn 10 are inhouse studios built within the Xbox brand. They wont go rogue like Bungie. Bungie was brought under MS like Naughty Dog was for Sony which can be sold off when nessaccary. Epic was always a 3rd party developer for MS.

MS/Xbox hiring 3rd party devs to make there games is better for the industry because it creates work for the independent developers which makes it healthier for everyone. Some of the best talent out there is not 1st party.

I know Microsoft had been making gamers before. As i've told people before, when I was growing up I played Microsoft Flight Simulator. Perhaps I should say it this way.....they are not as creative in making games that exist in the console realm. As I told someone else, Microsoft has a good eye for seeking out other peoples IP's and making them exclusive. This is where their true talent in the console realm shines.

Sony said something to the effect of... the fact that they put out four games  and one of the four makes the other three ventures profitable in bulk along with their sales.

Of course I know 343 was made in house....they were made to carry on with the architecture that bungie made. Its not that hard to hire the industries best to uphold a franchise that was already great, granted you still have some old talent on board.  Epic was a third party developer for Microsoft, but Microsoft became dependent upon them too much for Gears. Thats probably why Judgement went to hell and they eventually sold Microsoft the IP. Microsoft is like a worse version EA in that they will beat a horse until its dead because they dont have the self esteem in their own studios to make new ips. I mean seriously...last gen Activision was seen as the devil in the console realm and Bungie took a ten year contract with Activision over staying with Microsoft. Somewhere this has to tell you something about how even Activision runs their game development studios better than Microsoft.

Microsoft unlike their compeititon is more known for buying IP's rather than making hit ips with companies they acquire. Halo was an acquisition in development with the purchase of bungie, Gears had to be acquired, Minecraft, Rare and their whole collection. I mean honestly....what would Microsoft be without acquiring IP in the console realm?

The way they handled Killer Instinct....wow....good set up, but they struck out. The hype for that franchise is dead. When they couldve had a huge tournament for that game with a huge pot, they chose to host a tournament for Mortal Kombat. Thats just....lol......bad dude.

You have clearly got a wrong view on things. Sony and Nintendo aquire companies and sell companies all the time. Bungie was sold via Microsoft's choice and look what happened to Bungie, Destiny was nothing but a down hill attempt. Bungie were a much better company under MS than Activision.

MS are more about holding IPs than holding companies in the Xbox devision because in a buisness sense its not very profitable holding onto companies when 70% of them dont turn a profit. 

Sony said 4 out of 10 1st party games make money, abit like Xbox 1st party games except Sony is willing to keep gambling with them while MS choose to let them go. Two different mind sets. However you cant argue why MS is considered one of the richest companies in the world due to there management.

Killer Instinct lasted 3 seasons and possible more with many fans loving the game. The game is a good success story regardless if you like it or not and it still runs tournaments to this very day, not bad for a launch title. Ori is another great IP and one of the best new IPs this gen and MS didn't have to own the company to create it.

You should probably check out the games on Xbox and see how many new IPs they have. Some havnt been successfull like Project Spark and Scream Ride however they are there and were created.

Sea of Thieves and Cuphead coming out soon with many others i dont keep track of.



DonFerrari on 24 July 2017
Azzanation said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

I know Microsoft had been making gamers before. As i've told people before, when I was growing up I played Microsoft Flight Simulator. Perhaps I should say it this way.....they are not as creative in making games that exist in the console realm. As I told someone else, Microsoft has a good eye for seeking out other peoples IP's and making them exclusive. This is where their true talent in the console realm shines.

Sony said something to the effect of... the fact that they put out four games  and one of the four makes the other three ventures profitable in bulk along with their sales.

Of course I know 343 was made in house....they were made to carry on with the architecture that bungie made. Its not that hard to hire the industries best to uphold a franchise that was already great, granted you still have some old talent on board.  Epic was a third party developer for Microsoft, but Microsoft became dependent upon them too much for Gears. Thats probably why Judgement went to hell and they eventually sold Microsoft the IP. Microsoft is like a worse version EA in that they will beat a horse until its dead because they dont have the self esteem in their own studios to make new ips. I mean seriously...last gen Activision was seen as the devil in the console realm and Bungie took a ten year contract with Activision over staying with Microsoft. Somewhere this has to tell you something about how even Activision runs their game development studios better than Microsoft.

Microsoft unlike their compeititon is more known for buying IP's rather than making hit ips with companies they acquire. Halo was an acquisition in development with the purchase of bungie, Gears had to be acquired, Minecraft, Rare and their whole collection. I mean honestly....what would Microsoft be without acquiring IP in the console realm?

The way they handled Killer Instinct....wow....good set up, but they struck out. The hype for that franchise is dead. When they couldve had a huge tournament for that game with a huge pot, they chose to host a tournament for Mortal Kombat. Thats just....lol......bad dude.

You have clearly got a wrong view on things. Sony and Nintendo aquire companies and sell companies all the time. Bungie was sold via Microsoft's choice and look what happened to Bungie, Destiny was nothing but a down hill attempt. Bungie were a much better company under MS than Activision.

MS are more about holding IPs than holding companies in the Xbox devision because in a buisness sense its not very profitable holding onto companies when 70% of them dont turn a profit. 

Sony said 4 out of 10 1st party games make money, abit like Xbox 1st party games except Sony is willing to keep gambling with them while MS choose to let them go. Two different mind sets. However you cant argue why MS is considered one of the richest companies in the world due to there management.

Killer Instinct lasted 3 seasons and possible more with many fans loving the game. The game is a good success story regardless if you like it or not and it still runs tournaments to this very day, not bad for a launch title. Ori is another great IP and one of the best new IPs this gen and MS didn't have to own the company to create it.

You should probably check out the games on Xbox and see how many new IPs they have. Some havnt been successfull like Project Spark and Scream Ride however they are there and were created.

Sea of Thieves and Cuphead coming out soon with many others i dont keep track of.

And you may guess why a lot here preffer the company that knows 60% of their releases won't make money or will even lose right? Variety of choice, risk oriented and may struck a solid hit and create new good IPs. While Xbox is stagnant.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Slap&Ride on 24 July 2017

For Microsoft the Xbox division is a small part of their business. If they feel that they are a liability, they will start to change their approach and modify the business strategy. Maybe more in vain of paid subscription for third party games, and backwards compatible hardware - or no hardware at all. Now Sony and Microsoft are similar in their approach, where Nintendo has a different take on gaming business. Maybe we are seeing a Microsoft transition, and all three companies will have different strategies, and offer something else.



LudicrousSpeed on 24 July 2017
Azzanation said:

You have clearly got a wrong view on things. Sony and Nintendo aquire companies and sell companies all the time.

To STAGE, Sony buying companies is just fine because Sony then applies their "development philosphy" or some bullshit to them, and suddenly their games become ten times better or some crap. It's only inherantly negative if Microsoft does it. But the reality is the biggest Sony titles this gen are from developers Sony simply bought, and moneyhat deals like Bloodborne. But again, it's only an issue if Microsoft does it :)



Around the Network
NawaiNey on 24 July 2017
LudicrousSpeed said:
Azzanation said:

You have clearly got a wrong view on things. Sony and Nintendo aquire companies and sell companies all the time.

To STAGE, Sony buying companies is just fine because Sony then applies their "development philosphy" or some bullshit to them, and suddenly their games become ten times better or some crap. It's only inherantly negative if Microsoft does it. But the reality is the biggest Sony titles this gen are from developers Sony simply bought, and moneyhat deals like Bloodborne. But again, it's only an issue if Microsoft does it :)

There's nothing wrong with buying a development studio. It's just hiring people to make games for you at the end of the day, whether you find them indivdually or a ready made unit is immaterial. 

The difference between Sony and MS is that Sony funds games from the ground up, that's obvious for the first party studios as they're just subsidiaries of Sony. But even in the case of a game like Bloodborne, it was Sony who brought the idea of the game to FromSoftware and asked them to make the game. As in the games Sony puts out wouldn't exist without Sony's involvement. And very often Sony funds games that other publishers just flat out won't. Sony has funded more new IPs this generation than MS, Activision, Nintendo, EA, Ubisoft, etc. all put together.

MS on the otherhand usually comes in and buys exclsuivity for games already in development, as in the game was going to be made with or without MS, so in the end gamers gain absolutely nothing, on the contrary anyone not playing on a MS platform ends up losing out on a game they would've gotten if not for MS.

One company is using it's money to fund new games that wouldn't otherwise get made, while the other is using it's money to deprive most gamers of games they were getting before MS came into the picture. 



Uabit on 24 July 2017

So who'll make Halo 6, Forza 7 and 8 and Gears of War 5 and 6?



Azzanation on 24 July 2017
DonFerrari said:
Azzanation said:

You have clearly got a wrong view on things. Sony and Nintendo aquire companies and sell companies all the time. Bungie was sold via Microsoft's choice and look what happened to Bungie, Destiny was nothing but a down hill attempt. Bungie were a much better company under MS than Activision.

MS are more about holding IPs than holding companies in the Xbox devision because in a buisness sense its not very profitable holding onto companies when 70% of them dont turn a profit. 

Sony said 4 out of 10 1st party games make money, abit like Xbox 1st party games except Sony is willing to keep gambling with them while MS choose to let them go. Two different mind sets. However you cant argue why MS is considered one of the richest companies in the world due to there management.

Killer Instinct lasted 3 seasons and possible more with many fans loving the game. The game is a good success story regardless if you like it or not and it still runs tournaments to this very day, not bad for a launch title. Ori is another great IP and one of the best new IPs this gen and MS didn't have to own the company to create it.

You should probably check out the games on Xbox and see how many new IPs they have. Some havnt been successfull like Project Spark and Scream Ride however they are there and were created.

Sea of Thieves and Cuphead coming out soon with many others i dont keep track of.

And you may guess why a lot here preffer the company that knows 60% of their releases won't make money or will even lose right? Variety of choice, risk oriented and may struck a solid hit and create new good IPs. While Xbox is stagnant.

And you think thats got to do with more 1st party games? And it has nothing to do with marketing, word of mouth, price and perception? 

I check the best selling PS4 games and in the top 10 only 1 makes the list? Thats strange because if what your saying is true than gamers buy PS4s for there 1st party games.. but the graphs arent showing that. Same goes for Xbox. 1st party games is more a bragging right for fans than it is a reality in sales.

If you compare launch line up of games the X1 actually had the better line up of games for the start of the generation before games like Bloodborn arrived so clearly that cant be why PS4s sold so much more at the start and even now.

Marketing is a powerful tool.



PotentHerbs on 24 July 2017

Are we ignoring context again? Sony and Nintendo have a PROVEN track record with game development. MS does not. Sony and Nintendo buying studios, is much different from MS buying studios, since the former has harnessed great games internally, and takes risks every gen.



Azzanation on 24 July 2017
NawaiNey said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

To STAGE, Sony buying companies is just fine because Sony then applies their "development philosphy" or some bullshit to them, and suddenly their games become ten times better or some crap. It's only inherantly negative if Microsoft does it. But the reality is the biggest Sony titles this gen are from developers Sony simply bought, and moneyhat deals like Bloodborne. But again, it's only an issue if Microsoft does it :)

There's nothing wrong with buying a development studio. It's just hiring people to make games for you at the end of the day, whether you find them indivdually or a ready made unit is immaterial. 

The difference between Sony and MS is that Sony funds games from the ground up, that's obvious for the first party studios as they're just subsidiaries of Sony. But even in the case of a game like Bloodborne, it was Sony who brought the idea of the game to FromSoftware and asked them to make the game. As in the games Sony puts out wouldn't exist without Sony's involvement. And very often Sony funds games that other publishers just flat out won't. Sony has funded more new IPs this generation than MS, Activision, Nintendo, EA, Ubisoft, etc. all put together.

MS on the otherhand usually comes in and buys exclsuivity for games already in development, as in the game was going to be made with or without MS, so in the end gamers gain absolutely nothing, on the contrary anyone not playing on a MS platform ends up losing out on a game they would've gotten if not for MS.

One company is using it's money to fund new games that wouldn't otherwise get made, while the other is using it's money to deprive most gamers of games they were getting before MS came into the picture. 

Woah.. i am almost speechless. Your post basically contradicts yourself. First of all you just proved LudicrousSpeed point. *It's only inherantly negative if Microsoft does it*

So NawaiNey Whats your views on below..

-Street Fighter 5 being a permanent exclusive for Sony's PS4.. Did that not deprived all the 360 owners who brought a XB1 and loved SF4 and are now no longer able to play a sequal of a franchise that Nintendo originally made popular? Forced to buy a PS4 or a Gaming Rig.. nice buisness practice.

(Do you really believe SF5 would not be made without Sony's money? One of Capcons biggest IPs they own?)

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2015/06/12/street-fighter-v-ps4-console-exclusive-forever-is-never-coming-to-xbox-one/<Thats fair right?

-Didnt Rise of the Tomb Raider release on PS4 anyway even though MS helped with the funding of the game?.. 

https://www.gamereactor.eu/news/249214/Microsoft+helps+fund+Rise+of+the+Tomb+Raider/ <Thats nice they still allowed it to appear on the opposition platforms. <Thats very nice of them isnt it?

-Doesnt Microsoft still support Minecraft for opposition platforms? Sounds like a good practice to me.

https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/11/microsoft-unifies-minecraft-with-third-party-servers-and-cross-platform-saves/< Sharing and continuing support is a bad thing? < Thats pretty nice of them aswell.

Sony buys 1st party studios like Naughty Dog and Sucker Punch.. wait what? Buying out Studios? I thought only MS do that..

http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2015/12/sonys_open_to_acquiring_additional_first-party_studios < Thats for the gamers because.. Sony?

Sony shuts down afew of many 1st party Studios in Evolution Studios, Guerril Cambridge and Sony's very own Sony Online Entertainment.. And i thought MS were the only ones closing down and selling studios..

https://www.kotaku.com.au/2016/03/sony-shuts-down-driveclub-developer-evolution-studios/ < Thats alright, it helps Sony out alot with the finesses.

So the point i am making here is its okay for Sony to do these things yet if MS do it, its wrong and nothing but an evil practice. I can tell you this, if Sony brought the Minecraft IP, you can bet they will make it a PS4 exclusive and drop support on the other platforms, they simply dont care for Nintendo and Xbox and SF5 proves it.

Everything i said above can be said for Xbox and Nintendo and just about every other brand. The point you suggest MS/Xbox deprive gamers is only just one of many things that is lost in the gaming industry. Dont worry i googled all the info for you.