Microsoft is focusing more on old games rather than new games.

[Lrdfancypants]

Risthel said:
Am i the only one who have this impression? Recently I'm reading how many games Microsoft is adding to their backwards compatibility (which is nice), but they're having a poor 2016 so far regarding new titles: - Fable Legends: cancelled, Lionhead closed; - Project Spark: closed; - Phantom Dust: cancelled (not official but come on, you still believe it exists?); - Scalebound: delayed to 2017 - Recore: delayed (again, not official, but I think it's safe to say it). And maybe I'm forgetting something. The only game that came out is Quantum Break, which didn't actually set the world on fire. Not to say that their support for Windows 10 games is pretty bad, but this is another story. Microsoft's management of their first party software output has never been good to begin with this gen, but it's really becoming awful. It's almost like they are slowing giving up and that they don't care so much anymore. Even Phil Spencer stopped tweeting about his daily routine (or maybe the videogame media stopped making news for every tweet he's writing). I'm not expecting anything big at Microsoft E3 this year honestly, only games already announced and some sort of hardware revision. What do you think about it?

I think you get that impression because every new game added seems to result in a new news threads on some sites followed up by an updated BC list news thread.  

This probably speaks to news being slow more than MS focusing on it more. 

The phil Spencer Twitter daily news update was/is weird and does seem to have died down. I often wonder if he is the only game executive that knows what Twitter is or just happens to be the only one game journalists follow.  I don't use Twitter so I don't know the answer but at one point I wouldn't have been surprised to see a news story on Phil's bathroom schedule if it was tweeted.  

They have had a slow start but they did last year as well and ended strong.  Sony seems to spread their releases more and whether that's better or worse is subjective to the particular console owner I'd imagine.  

Old games:  I think they both focus about the same in different ways.  People compare them but they're different services.

MS = BC - If you own the game and it's publisher approved you can play it. If you don't own it you can buy it and play it.

Sony = PSnow - Streaming service for older games.  If you own a game or don't own you can either pay to play it or not pay to play it either by individual rental or subscription.   

Neither is forced as you will most likely hear in this thread.  You are not forced to rent a game you own or don't own on PSnow and you are not forced to buy a game you don't own on MS BC.  It's a silly argument.  They're just different options (something people always argue they want on consoles, which a lot of times seems to correspond to the console they own) available for playing older games.

Remasters: they both do it about the same. off the top of my head:

Ms- Halo 1, 2, 3, 4, ODST, GOW 1

Sony- TLOU, GOW3, UC 1, 2, 3, Heavy Rain, Beyond Two Souls. 

I might have missed a couple but the point is it's not as skewed as people make it either way and it's definitely a minuscule percentage of both overall catalogs.