How should Microsoft approach first party development going forward?

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - How should Microsoft approach first party development going forward?

JRPGfan said:

"Variety is the spice of life"
Thats the main issue..... too much of their focus seems on online-multiplayer and GaaS type games.
They should get praise for doing a platformer as good looking as "Ori" though.

Sadly this isnt going to change imo, because of Gamepass, and them viewing xbox as a service.
They want things that could potentially last, so everything needs to be online multiplayer focused GaaS.

It actually could. Microsoft never really said they're doing away with Single player games necessarily, it's just that they want to focus on multiplayer games specifically. Now Multiplayer service games aren't the only things they should release. But there's nothing wrong with them being the killer app or selling point. With more studios under their belt, Microsoft could provide a very diverse library.

"Obviously you can't make every game a blockbuster"
You actually could, you controll these companies and their pockets.
MS could dictate they all need to hire, and only do AAA games.

MS doesnt want to give them time to do quality, or open the pocket book for it, though.
Developers say MS interfer, changeing their plans for games mid developement, and when they ask for more time, they just get cancelled.
Its why quality is low on alot of these titles, their rushed out the gate.

-edit:  Sony basically came out and said their doubleing down, on AAA focused developements for the PS5.

Yes, you could make every game a blockbuster, but I don't think that's actually a good strategy. It stifles creativity and after a while all your games look and play very similar because of it. Case in point, just look at how homogenized so many of Sony's recent first party games have been.

Now I do agree that Microsoft needs to have more patience with their developers and give them the budget needed to make the game they want. But I don't think mandating them to spend as much money as possible to make their games needlessly big is good idea.

"Keep them Xbox exclusive"
What is xbox though? because Phill isnt even trying to sell you consoles anymore.
Play anywhere, old console? new console? PC? want to stream it? ect they just want the sale of the game.
At this point, xbox future could end up as a "app" you install.

They even talked about putting Halo on competeing platforms (ei. playstation)
like How you can play Minecraft everywhere now..... imagine next gen, Halo also launches on playstation 5.

Xbox is a brand of Gaming platforms run by Microsoft. It doesn't have to be a console anymore, it can be a service on PC, or a streaming platform you can access from your phone. The goal isn't to get people to buy a console per-se, but buy and ecosystem, and make sure they're locked into it fairly with compelling exclusives, and great services. If I buy an Xbox exclusive, I should only be able to play it on an Xbox Console, xCloud, or the Xbox on PC platform. As for the competing platforms thing, Companies kick around ideas that they never follow through on all the time. I think the most we'll see come out of that is maybe the Halo Trillogy and xCloud coming to Switch, and that's it.

Around the Network

I feel like we're still in 2015 or 2016 when I read this thread? Haven't people at a gaming website been following gaming news? Haven't they seen that they tripled their 1st party studio count to diversify their line up and produce more than Halo, Gears and Forza, not that I agree with the statement saying that's what they only had. Haven't they looked at the studios and saw that the majority of them are a single player focused studios? Haven't they noticed that those studios are known for RPG, Action, RTS, platformer, story driven games? Haven't they noticed Halo is taking 5 years to develop, Motorsport is taking an extra year and other developers is taking their time as well?

I agree that GamePass will push them to find GAAS games. I also think it will push them to diversify the line up. It will push them to get single player, multiplayer, MMO and other type of games. It will push them to get games from US, Europe and Japan. It will push them to keep pumping game to keep the subscriptions coming. Why only look at what you think is the bad side?

They are doing it the right way. Instead of pushing devs to produce game in a crazy schedule, they got more devs so they can take their time. They are allowing them to do whatever thing they would like to do. They are allowing them to grow and higher more people.

CaptainExplosion said:

How about they make games with old Rare IPs THAT DON'T SUCK?

We want this:


I am not complaining. Nutz n Bolts was a solid spin off and Battletoads looks fresh. Cannot wait to play it. Be very nostalgic.

I still want a Banjo Threeie and a Prefect Dark 2 title aswell.

CaptainExplosion said:

How about they make games with old Rare IPs THAT DON'T SUCK?

We want this:


Weird, Rare had the freedom to create what they want with Banjo. The new Xbox boss stated he would like to see Conker back and every Dev (not only Rare) may make it. The new Xbox boss also went to every dev and said what is your goal and what can we (financially) help to achieve that goal. Undead labs asked for an animation studio + experts as an example. The Turn 10 Forza devs asked that they could spend more time working on their next game and instead of a new forza game they can spend more time on achieving things in their next game without worrying about time pressure.

Xbox doesnt have an actual identity. The consumer base will decide that for them. It depends entirely on what ventures succeed.