By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
fillet on 30 March 2013
Edit Thread
Adinnieken said:
fillet said:

Again this is all true and I agree with you. But let's assume for a minute that Kinect didn't exist and thus no Kinect games. The question is would there be more of the traditional games released? Would they have invested resources on more traditional games (FPS etc etc). What do you think? This isn't bait, I'm genuinely interested in your view here.

My post wasn't complaining as such just to be clear, just an observation but yours is likely more valid than my own, hence asking what you think? :)

Honestly, prior to Don Mattrick it felt like Microsoft was divesting itself of its gaming interest, and it was.  The reason for it was publishers and studios didn't want direct competition from Microsoft, so Microsoft took a back seat.  You'll recall in the beginning of the generation Microsoft was a first-party publisher to many third-party games.  The only studio to remain independent has been Epic.  All the rest of the studios have been bought up and or now are shut down.  So Microsoft's plans for this generation, take a back seat and let third party develops/publishers have free reign self-imploded when the two big publishers started buying up all the third-party game studios Microsoft was using to create content with.

So there was a lull.  A time when Microsoft was neither approaching studios to create new content, or creating new content of their own.  Then a shift happened within Microsoft.  The MGS VP left, the Xbox VP left and there was a change of guard.  All of a sudden Microsoft is reviving old IPs, farming them out to studios to do something with, buying studios and starting up new studios. 

As much as Microsoft wanted to be everyone's friend, it wasn't working.    New studios, in these economic times weren't happening fast enough and they don't have the cash necessary to fund big games, so if Microsoft wanted something it was going to have to do it themselves.

While I will concede some resources may have been diverted to broadening the gaming experience, I would argue that had it not been for Kinect and the late resurgence of the Xbox 360 in it's life span because of it, Microsoft as a whole might have looked at the Xbox business as a bad long-term investment and possibly something to divest itself from.

There was a time, mid-generation, when there was talk that Microsoft was looking to sell off the Xbox business.  Had it not been for Kinect, the success the product itself became, and its contribution to the resurgence of the console, I think Microsoft might have been looking to get back to a software-only company.  But the success of the Xbox and Kinect, the inroads into the home and living rooms as not only a gaming console but a media center have made Microsoft even more bullish about being both a hardware and software company.  Without Xbox and Kinect, I don't think you have investments in Nokia or the Surface tablets.  I think you have Microsoft desperately trying to get back to it's core business and falling down hard in the process.

You know what, that all makes perfect sense very interesting insight. Thanks indeed for taking the time to give your thoughts here. It's strange as I read that something clicked reminding me of the general direction MS has taken and I never could see the real direction, in all honesty it looked like they didn't have one. But this post definitely gives a proper explanation of the general idea.