AlfredoTurkey said:
I don't think they need to be creative so much as they need people there that can properly evaluate creative talent. Halo was a success because someone at MS at the time saw it's potential. Either those people don't exist there anymore or MS isn't giving them the resources. |
I'm writing this on a cellphone so pardon me in advance .
Seeing other people's games potential isn't enough. Microsoft got lucky that Steve jobs refused to to buy bungie when they were making halo for Apple. Gears of war was seen by Microsoft. This is not an indicator of a mission statement for personal success but rather to have success off of Thebes's backs of others genius. People respect Sony and Nintendo creatively because they are synonymous with creative genius. Sony and Nintendo are respected businesswise as well as creatively. You must have a knowhow internally that sets you apart. Would you trust a writer who had all of his work ghostwritten? No. Would you believe in a musician who didn the perform like they believed In the power of their own music? No.people say Microsoft has an identity but they do not, for if they did halo would've been replaced by a game in the same genre long ago. Sony and nintnedo can replace or make new ips much easier than Microsoft because of this. This is something Spencer must work on next gen but paying third party every ten seconds says nothing about Microsoft other than if you succeed and they become dependent, get ready for them to be dependent on you for years to come. This is why infeel there is a silver lining to the platinum games and scalebound issue. If scalebound had been a success Microsoft would've been so depdent on sequel after sequel that muchlike epic they would've had to rethink and rearrange their resources just to stay personally creative.
