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
Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

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.

Yes. It is basically impossible to have more games and variety while making less games and making most of then sequels.

Yes, we all know 3rd party MPs sell more, and that just show you where the 4 in 10 comes from.

PS4 sold more than X1 on release even with X1 having more (not exactly better) games at launch because of not just what you see now but what we already saw last gen. both gens MS started with a lot more exclusives and in the latter years basically stopped caring to release new games besides their 3 rotation (because now even Fable doesn't exist anymore) while PS had less games at release and them started growing.

Azzanation said:
NawaiNey said:

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/

-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/  

-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.

You got so much wrong in this that an airplane in cruise wouldn't really show how much over your head the point and your links are.

1) Capcom themselves and Ono said multiple times before the announcement that they didn't had money to do it at release.

2) MS tried to pretend it was exclusive and they entered the project when it was about done.

So for 1 and 2, you reversed your points.

3) MS paid a fuck ton on the IP and returning it to exclusivity would lose them a lot more than gain, where are the Halo, Gears and Forza on Wii, WiiU and Switch or PS3 or PS4?

4) They basically will gain access to Nintendo base on XBL and not only pad their numbers but also lure them to XBox, so it wasn't from their good heart as we can just remember they blocked shared multi player on FF XIV and lost it, but perhaps you think Sony bought the exclusivity?

5) Yes they buy studio, and no one denied that. What was said is they bought a studio and developed new games there. Naughty Dog made Crash by themselves, and after Sony bought they gone to release new IPs, same with other studios. MS by their side bought Bungie to release Halo and kept them at it for over a decade, they bought Gears and mandate their new studio to dev on it. They trashed Rare with the Kinect.

6) Yes sony closes studios when they can't keep up at all (on PS3 they really needed a lot more output to regain terrain, on PS4 they preferred to keep what gave money). SOE was more likely sold than closed.



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
LudicrousSpeed 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. 

I agree that buying studios is fine. As well as moneyhat deals. And timed exclusive deals. However, others here disagree. Or, I should say, disagree when Microsoft is the one writing the check.

The only real difference between the two when they make these deals is that Sony demands the IP in return and MS does not. Microsoft has helped completely fund games just like Sony. And they've both also funded games that would have come anyway. As far as Bloodborne is concerned, of course Sony asked for another Souls type game. Reading the directors interviews on inspiration and the development process I don't get the idea that the game was Sonys "idea" and that he and his team were just designers making Sonys vision. I mean... it's a Souls game. Developers come to publishers with ideas, publishers go to developers, Sony wanted an exclusive game so they turned to a reliable partner to make a game with a formula that had proven to be successful. Nothing wrong with that. Unless it's Microsoft I guess, according to some.

Can I see your list of new IPs funded by all of these companies? I saw a list recently of stuff that has been released so far and it was 12 for MS and 16 IIRC for Sony. Are you implying EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Nintendo, and "etc" have only funded 3 new IPs this gen? Ubisoft has Child of Light, Watch Dogs, Division, and For Honor alone right off the top of my head. And Steep, and The Crew. Probably missing some others. Don't even need to get into Nintendo, Activision, EA, or "etc".

I don't know of a game Microsoft has handled like Street Fighter V, or a DLC deal they made like Destiny. Both of those fall into the category you're describing of taking stuff that was already coming and making it not playable for other gamers. Closest thing is Tomb Raider... but PC/PS players got that, and in superior form with more content. You talk as if they do it all the time though, what are you referring to?



S.T.A.G.E. 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.

I'm at work so I cannot be 100% certain of the type quality on my cellphone. I apologize in in advance.

1. I never said Nintendo and Sony didn't acquire studios. I said the stark difference between Nintendo and Sony is from Microsoft is that they bear great fruit after acquisitions. Sony tends to buy second party who were bred to make specific games on their consoles. When Sony gives a second party a aaa it's generally a rite of passage to being a possible first party. This is how they build up so many ips. The ips that make it through each gen are more often than no they acquired ips. Micorsoft is the only company who desperately hasn't to acquire already established ip or titles in development that they believe will be a hit.

2. As for your statement about Microsoft holding ips being more important that is the problem. They need competent studios they can trust creatively and profiessionally and then they can make them create new ips that can go on a cycle. The logic you're endorsing now is what has failed them. This is why I have always said that Microsoft should pull a Sony and buy their closest second party.

3. As for Shaun laydens comment on the profitability of exclusives, it was a justification of the risk and the chances were more in favor than out of favor. They just have better studios and more projects.

 

4.killer instinct season 3 was the low point because the horse was dead dude. Id be surprised if Microsoft brought that franchise into next gen.

 

5. I have an Xbox and I will be buying cuphead for sure. Nintnedo and Sony have been pushing out or making deals for exclusives all year. .I've have not had any new exclusives to play on it all year because all they've pushed out was halo wars.  Crackdown is becoming the running joke of the internet and it's just A bad year all around for Xbox. This was the year spencer was supposed to prove Xbox could survive without halo or gears. All I have to say is thank god for the Xbox one x come November because that will save their npd.



Pemalite on 25 July 2017
S.T.A.G.E. said:

4.killer instinct season 3 was the low point because the horse was dead dude. Id be surprised if Microsoft brought that franchise into next gen.

Ignoring the fact I don't think I have ever seen you say a single positive thing about Microsoft, ever... (If you haveI apologise as I haven't read it.)

Killer Instinct is probably one of the best fighting games of the generation. Is it perfect? Hell no.
People whinge when a game isn't supported properly or fully, that same claim cannot be levelled against Killer Instinct.

S.T.A.G.E. said:
5. I have an Xbox and I will be buying cuphead for sure.

I own an Original Xbox, Xbox 360, Xbox One.
I will not be buying cuphead as it's not my kind of game.

 

S.T.A.G.E. said:
I've have not had any new exclusives to play on it all year because all they've pushed out was halo wars.  Crackdown is becoming the running joke of the internet and it's just A bad year all around for Xbox. This was the year spencer was supposed to prove Xbox could survive without halo or gears. All I have to say is thank god for the Xbox one x come November because that will save their npd.


This argument has been beaten to death.
It's common knowledge that exclusives have *never* been Microsoft's strong point across three console generations.
This year is terrible, that's fine. Let's see what they do next year.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

simadmat on 25 July 2017

However It does feel like it has an element of truth to it!

Lionhead, Team Dakota, Press Play studios- all shut down

Fable Legends, Scalebound, Phantom Dust, Project Knoxville- all cancelled

Rise of the tomb raider, dead rising 3/4, Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive- All 3rd Party Produced games.

The higher than expected announced price of the Xbox One X

 

thoughts?

 

 



Around the Network
Slap&Ride on 25 July 2017
simadmat said:

However It does feel like it has an element of truth to it!

Lionhead, Team Dakota, Press Play studios- all shut down

Fable Legends, Scalebound, Phantom Dust, Project Knoxville- all cancelled

Rise of the tomb raider, dead rising 3/4, Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive- All 3rd Party Produced games.

The higher than expected announced price of the Xbox One X

 

thoughts?

 

 

It’s proof to what i wrote above. They are restructuring slowly and silently. Third party games, subscriptions for PC platform + back/cross compatible line of Xbox.  Maybe it’s going to be more similar to Steam + Steam machine, and in addition a few in house titles like Halo…



S.T.A.G.E. on 25 July 2017

The Know just started reporting on this story on Youtube.



pxrocks on 25 July 2017

its not shocking.xbox always operated like that.in the beginning of a gen they drop a lot of games then after a couple of years their software output decreases rapidly.just look at the 360 and ogx.same thing is happening with xbone.they get money from the online services.i mean there are more online services on xbone than actual xclusives.they are not going to drop exclusives every month like sony did with the ps3 to regain market share and mind share,they are not dumb.they are going to squeeze every bit money from there user base till next gen.when xbox gamers ask for games they introduce more online services.its clear that there priority is online services and third party games.they are making money without exclusives and tiny first party games then why take risk investing in first party.xbox gamers have to just deal with it forever.its like the ugly truth of xbox.



Azzanation on 25 July 2017

 

 

 

DonFerrari said:
Azzanation said:

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.

Yes. It is basically impossible to have more games and variety while making less games and making most of then sequels.

Yes, we all know 3rd party MPs sell more, and that just show you where the 4 in 10 comes from.

PS4 sold more than X1 on release even with X1 having more (not exactly better) games at launch because of not just what you see now but what we already saw last gen. both gens MS started with a lot more exclusives and in the latter years basically stopped caring to release new games besides their 3 rotation (because now even Fable doesn't exist anymore) while PS had less games at release and them started growing.

Azzanation said:

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/

-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/  

-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.

You got so much wrong in this that an airplane in cruise wouldn't really show how much over your head the point and your links are.

1) Capcom themselves and Ono said multiple times before the announcement that they didn't had money to do it at release.

2) MS tried to pretend it was exclusive and they entered the project when it was about done.

So for 1 and 2, you reversed your points.

3) MS paid a fuck ton on the IP and returning it to exclusivity would lose them a lot more than gain, where are the Halo, Gears and Forza on Wii, WiiU and Switch or PS3 or PS4?

4) They basically will gain access to Nintendo base on XBL and not only pad their numbers but also lure them to XBox, so it wasn't from their good heart as we can just remember they blocked shared multi player on FF XIV and lost it, but perhaps you think Sony bought the exclusivity?

5) Yes they buy studio, and no one denied that. What was said is they bought a studio and developed new games there. Naughty Dog made Crash by themselves, and after Sony bought they gone to release new IPs, same with other studios. MS by their side bought Bungie to release Halo and kept them at it for over a decade, they bought Gears and mandate their new studio to dev on it. They trashed Rare with the Kinect.

6) Yes sony closes studios when they can't keep up at all (on PS3 they really needed a lot more output to regain terrain, on PS4 they preferred to keep what gave money). SOE was more likely sold than closed.

You made me chuckle when you believe Capcon was never going to make SFV because of... money

You honestly believe Capcon would never release a sequal to one of the biggest fighting franchises in the world and coming off SF4's massive sales and acclaimed success? I mean i am pretty sure the brand Street Fighting rains money. Be sort of stupid not to right?

Sounds more like Sony didnt have an exclusive fighting game on there platform to compete with Smash Brothers and Killer Instinct so they poured a shit ton of money in Capcons bank account and said keep it off every other platform. They were pretty up front about it not releasing on any Xbox consoles  

As for your other points? So everything you mention about MS, Sony does the exact same things. How many new IPs has Polyphony Digital made after GT1? Sounds alittle familar doesnt it. But i guess its okay because of.. Sony. Cant have it both ways. MS like to support the IPs that are successful, they see it as to why fix what isnt broken method. Halo, Gears and Forza are amazing IPs that make MS money. Fable didnt and its why it is binned. Yes its sad however if its not making money and the majority just dont care than why have it. 

Rare is a sad story of a company that has gotten too old. Sure they went to making Kinect games because the original team failed at making a huge splash since Nuts n Bolts. Whats your view on MS now since Sea of thieves is around the corner? And are you going to ignore good games like Kameo and Viva Pinata on the 360? Heck even Kinect Adventures was decent. The guys at Rare left to make Yooka-Laylee, how did that turn out? hmm interesting, sounds like its not MS's fault afterall.

This sounds like your trying to use these pretend *get out of jail free cards* for Sony.



thismeintiel on 25 July 2017

Well, if you want real proof, watch their E3 conference. Mostly 3rd party games. And of the ones that were exclusive (most of them timed), I think most, if not all, were Indies. Sure, they'll keep pumping out Halo, Forza, and Gears til the stop selling, but they are going to be taking fewer and fewer chances on 1st party in general.

The thing is that MS doesn't see it as essential, so they are pumping less money into it to make it succeed. It's just too hard to go head to head with PlayStation when it's on its A game. I think if the X doesn't do very well, they may give it one more shot, possibly making Xbox more of a Windows box. But if that fails, I can guarantee they are done with HW.