Cerebralbore101 said:
ironmanDX said:
No, I don't think that. Now that we've established they have bought several developers that were not unknown, did have big games, I'm asking is it really that different? The real core of the question.
MS also have "other" developers they've also built from the ground up (343, initiative, turn 10) or have bought when small and relatively unknown (compulsion, inxile)?
Sure sounds like what Sony has done over the years to me.
|
You are comparing apples and oranges here. Sony buying Insomniac which almost exclusively made games for Sony consoles, is not the same as MS buying Bethesda, which has been entirely multiplatform for 14 years. Then, when people call you out on false equivalence you claim they are moving the goalposts.
Inxile made a name for themselves with Wasteland 2 in 2014. They aren't all that unknown.
I fully support MS building up their own home grown stuff. Initiative, Compulsion, and Rare all have potential to become better studios. But remember that the first Killzone wasn't all that good. It takes years to take a studio from mediocre to good.
The problem I have with MS is that they engage in the Sophistry of claiming that "exclusives are evil" just because their 1st party lineup is lacking. They then go on to release lackluster 1st party games to Gamepass, while Phil Spencer runs his mouth, about how those games really are "good". They rarely release full sales data, and incur the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy instead. "This game has X amount of players on Gamepass" "This game sold X amount in the first week". Nevermind that the game sold poorly overall. They just focus in on whatever data set happens to make them look good.
|
Ok, now, forget the "cherry picking" of Insomniac and look at all acquisitions and developers built from the ground up... Just like I asked...
Is it that different?
I don't care what Phil does with his mouth, sales numbers released or not or MS exclusivity ethos. Nothing to do with the topic at hand.
