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

Nope they shouldn't buy any developers. It is too risky for a 1st party console maker to have too many developers because it increases their exposure to risk when launching a console is already fraught significant risk and expenditure. Their strategy worked extremely well so I don't see any reason why they oughtn't continue it.

P.S. How many western publishers are in the black this generation? That is another significant reason, and they had access to three consoles,  PC and two handheld markets.

You have this theory dont you? haha

I dont agree with this though on the terms that MS need to protect its exclusives, I personally don't want to see another Mass Effect 2 happening like FFXIII for ps3, they should stick to said consoles, otherwise what the hell is the point of having 2 consoles out at the same time. Nintendo is doing it right, they have an amazing amount of exclusives. And look at the Wii goooooo

Nintendo is doing it right because their exclusives actually count for something and many sell millions of consoles. However given the path that both Microsoft and Sony have taken to truly stand out they have to outspend the 3rd party publishers which is a catch 22 when the games themselves are limited to only the userbase of their specific consoles as they are exclusives.

Microsoft as a publisher are doing pretty well for themselves. If you count home consoles they will outpublish Sony for 2010 which isn't bad considering how Sony is supposed to have that much of a bigger first party studio portfolio. It isn't the size really, it is what you do with what you have. What Microsoft did with what they and likely against the relative investment is probably significantly more cost effective than what Sony has done in this generation. Who are we to say that it is a poor strategy?



Tease.