Reasonable said:
Darth Tigris said:
Reasonable said:
I know, but what it means is that MS is often exposed to the risk of loss of exclusives, particularly now when globally, most popular titles sell roughly the same on each console. For most developers this means multi is the safest route to go. I don't mean MS has to own the studios outright, but it should engage in deals where it owns the IP fully and the developer is just developing it. That way they keep control.
The whole 'sorta exclusive' is just a weak position to be in IMHO.
|
Your average 360 owner, though, doesn't really care about if a game is exclusive or not. They just want to know if they can play it on the 360.
As for the ip/dev situation you mentioned, I'd really be suprised if the really talented independent studios out there would agree to a work-for-hire situation like that. Most really want to retain the rights more than anything.
|
I particularly agree on the bolded, and that's why I'd like to see MS invest directly more as per my posts. That's my point really. MS only actually controls a fairly small sub-set of IPs. I believe to truly dominate - a'la PS1 / PS2 or Wii for most of this gen - you need more control and more differential than that. MS has done very well leveraging a few key IP, but I just don't see them ever achieving what the others have done without more IPs that they fully control that have high demand.
|
Well said. This is another reason I refuse to buy another 360. Until they shape up, it's a no go.
