Xero said:
DirtyP2002 said:
Xero said:
DirtyP2002 said:
Brennan said:
JaggedSac said:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=244775
MS Response:
"Our partnership with Bungie as a first-party developer for Xbox 360 remains unchanged, and right now we're deeply engaged with them on the development of Halo Reach, which is poised to be the biggest game of 2010."
|
Translation : "It hurts. May you all Bungie scumbags die in hell. But please make Halo Reach another AAA game first before going PS3 / 360."
Priceless. So looks like MS doesn't know the definition of a 1st party dev either. Or they lie again.
Their PR talks look more and more like Iraqi Information Minister stuff recently, between that and "FF13 will sell more on 360" (that one was hilarious, they were outsold like 3 or 4:1). Next PR : "There are no tanks in Bagdad, we're winning the war" ?
Here is a reminder MS :
"In the video game industry, a first-party developer is a developer that is part of a company that actually manufactures a video game console."
List of 1st party devs, strangely Bungie is not on it :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:First-party_video_game_developers
Bad journalism or another MS lie ?
|
There was a nice discussion in this thread aboput bungie, halo, future projects etc etc.... but then Brennan came in to ruin the fun.
You said MS shopuld buy / build 1st party studios... Do you really think this way? You prefer Sony consoles, someone might even call you a fanboy, but I won't go this way. Imagine MS really goes out and buys studios They could buy Remedy, Epic, Mistwalker, Valhalla Games, Valve, Bioware and Capcom with the money they earned this month... Do you really want this? Please be honest.
MS has a lot of talented studios and probably a lot of games in the pipeline we haven't even heard of yet. Lionhead, Rare, Turn10, 343 Industries and Firebird Studios all have at least one game in development we don't know anything about yet.
And they have awesome 3rd party support. Actually the best for any console. Remedy, Epic, Mistwalker say Hi.
We knew that Bungie would go multiplat since 2007. The one thing that makes me wonder is why they picked Activision. I hope Activision does not ruin Bungies games in any way.
|
Lol you really think there'd be any viability in purchasing big publishers like Capcom or Valve? These are god awful examples. I'd be happy to see them buy Mistwalker, Epic (doubt Epic would go for it since they have other obligations). Remedy isn't viable either, 1 game every 5 years is not good enough for the nature of the games they produce and Bioware is a subsidiary of EA... So Mistwalker and Valhalla games... sure why not.
They need to be looking at snapping up new and upcomming developers rather than pre-existing and heavily established.
|
You
[ ] did understand my post
[x] did not understand my post
I never said they should buy these studios, I said they could if they wanted to.
Heck, MS offered 43 billion USD for Yahoo. They can buy any developer they want. Financially there is no limit. That's what I was talking about.
Another thing that needs to be mentioned: The customer does not care about 1st or 3rd party exclusives. All they see is "exclusive". That is enough. 3rd party exclusives like Left 4 Dead, Left 4 Dead 2, Gears of War, Gears of War 2, Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, Splinter Cell Conviction (and hopefully soon Alan Wake) did very well and they are exclusive. That is what counts. Nobody cared if they were made by 1st or 3rd party studios.
|
I did, I just said they were bad examples. What's the point in saying they 'could' buy them? Obviously people suggesting they buy studios were suggesting they buy studios, appropriately. Not publishers. Sure they COULD buy big publishers if they wanted to, but they'd no longer be making a profit on the 360.
Third party exclusives don't hold true, as shown by tonnes of previous titles. I'll be amazed if SC:C and ME stay exclusive. I also don't think timed exclusives add much to system sales, and since this is not a PS3 vs 360 argument, L4D, GoW, ME and SCC are not exclusive.
Personally, I just see first party studios as an investment in the future for the system.
|
First party doesn't mean shit, it is the brain trust that you invest in. PC gamers don't have "1st party studios" in a traditional sense and they do just fine. That's why MS doesn't concentrate on cultivating devs, we live in a free country where people can work where they want to.
You convince devs to work on your platform based on merits - profitability, ease of development, etc. MS has no problems with any of these, so I don't see why people are concerned, especially since the barrier of entry to develop on MS's platform is significantly smaller.
Furthermore, the name of the studio holds little weight when it really is only a handful of devs (people) out there that really make the differences. MS isn't domed, they prefer the ecosystem to be grown from the ground up, unlike Sony which likes to do it top down. This is arguably a better approach, because it preserves developer autonomy and creativity moreso than having to purchase studios to get the results corporate wants. Japanese companies prefer to exert a large amount of control over their platform, which is the wrong model to pursue - as seen by the Iphone/Apple ecosystem.
Finally, in MS's eyes exclusivity on PC or 360 doesn't matter, it's still their platform. If they had wanted to push for exclusivity on 360, they would have made DirectX on Xbox a subset and incompatible to the PC version, but they didn't because they wanted easy ports. All evidence shows that future convergence of the two platforms is very likely.
