S.T.A.G.E. said:
I know that third party games outsold first party games easily last gen. That is not my issue....the differentiation of brands mostly comes from exclusives and the PS2 era is over and wont return for quite a while where third parties reigned exclusively on one brand because they could support themselves efficiently there. Currently, yes, Microsoft IS useless on a first party front. They just paid developers to make games for them
But where is the difference? Games are exclusive for this system and thus are a differentiation. It is of no use to discuss whether it's paid or first party.
Dead Rising wasnt made by them. They publish it to keep it away from the competition.
Yes, they do. But where is the problem with that? One company buys whole studios, the other one buys single games.
Killer Instinct wasn't made by them, nor one of their owned companies. In Fact they have to find a new company to make the game since they wont let Rare do it.
And? Read what I wrote above.
Titanfall was not made by them nor was it even funded by them according to Respawn. They just paid for edge of peception.
And? Read what I wrote above.
Forza is the only launch title they truly made.
"truly made" In the end it's a game exclusive for one system, no matter who made it. Games don't get better or worse if they are exclusive or paid exclusive.
As i've always said it always comes down to a handful of games first party made from Microsoft when it comes to core IP in a generation.
Yeah, we know what you said from numerous threads and posts... Doesn't make your points more valid.
You say this now that they aren't useless when it comes to being self sufficient, but their value is locked purely into online multiplayer. As long as they have the psychological edge on perception its an uphill battle for them against Sony or even Nintendo. Sony and Nintendo can put up on a first party front and keep pumping out games and Microsoft would be lacking if they didn't pay to keep games away from them or get timed exclusivity. When i was studying marketing this would've been one of the tactics I would've used, but I am not into taking advantage of people nor exploiting the human bias. Money is money in the end and the Xbox One is still a good product, but if you understand the psychology of it all and get past it Microsoft is all talk and pay up for everything. If Sony got parity most former paid exclusives or timed exclusives Microsoft would be stuck to fend for themselves (which will happen in the next couple years). If people didn't learn from the PS3 era it will be a harsh lesson this gen when Microsoft doesn't have a one year lead nor the edge on perception. They will keep paying people to get the psychological edge until they reach some sort of parity with Sony in sales and go beyond that.
So many tex is not needed, we know the strategy. But I definitely have a problem with your point painting a picture in the future where you nothing about. Of course, you can keep your opinion but Xbone isn't out for one year and you are still making it look like a system with first party exclusive draught. I think this is way too much to predict currently, no matter what they did before.
Trust me, I want an Xbox One, but i can accept the fact. Not saying what they are doing isnt smart, becuase it is and I applaud them for staying in the game because of it. They focus on what sells and they pay to keep it exclusive or keep perception up on their console, but eventually it will dry up just like it did during th 360 era.
Their first party support was less, yes, but not entirely gone and generally I think you are giving too much importance about 1st party exclusives, sales definitely showed otherwise last gen.
|
