Phil Spencer: Fewer 3rd party exclusives, focus is on 1st party

[SWORDF1SH]

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Exactly. Microsoft hid behind third party because they were winning and got so many deals. The victor tends to get the spoils and third party are running back to Sony now just like in the PS2 era. While they did that they built up no defenses and had a pretty big exclusives drought towards the end of the gen, proving that trying to emulate Sony's ten year plan is not exactly healthy for them unless they can stretch out their development cycle across a decade. This means they need more internally made first party franchises. People choose to be blind. Its good to read a refreshing comment when someone thinks.

My point is that you don't have to do one or the other. Sony have struck a lot of 3rd party deals but that doesn't mean that their studios will stop making games and it hasn't stopped them investing in new first party IPs.

I'm just saying MS aren't in the position to invest into 3rd deals effectively and Sony are because of the market share explained in my other posts. Phil knows this and he's making a negative sound like a positive. It's very good PR actually.