Do you agree or disagree with MS giving creative freedom to devs currently?

To Rare? I have said that even Kinect was their choice.

And you, are you going to consider the important timeframe is the present? Or current gen? Or if it fits you then 30 years ago is more important?

Mate its an easy question. Current means now not 30 years a ago.

Let me put it this way.. If Sony wasnt giving creative freedom to devs last gen does that mean they arent doing it now?

So you take back your post about FF originating in NES 30 something years ago? Will admit that MGS originated on PS1 while MG:S originated in MSX and not NES? It can't get simpler than that. Because if you read what I wrote you wouldn't need to ask again.

Textbook Strawman! We don't need to go back to the DOS days, and exaggerating the timeframe like that in order to make your point does you no favours. The history of Microsoft over the last two generations has not been good. They did some great things with supporting indies on their platform in the early years of 360, but beyond that their stuff has been homogenized and anything that doesn't fit their mold is cancelled or not given the support it needs. This is drastically different from Sony's wide berth of creativity between their development teams. 

That is why people think Sony having Castlevania, Metal Gear solid, and Silent Hill would be a good idea. They're more likely to say 'hey, Kojima! Here's 100 million dollars, give us a Silent Hills game' than Microsoft would be...becuase they've done things like that with Kojima in the past. Once again, I refer to you Death Stranding. That is one hell of a weird, off-kilter piece of work from a true auteur. That sort of shit would never fly with Konami today (maybe in the 90's?) and certainly not with Microsoft (who mostly focuses on multiplayer and online functionality)

Actually, holy shit, I think I found where this goes wrong. Microsoft is up there with Ubisoft, Activision, EA, and other developers like that. you know, the big third party ones. Most of their stuff has a similar look and feel and style, leading to redundancy. too much trend chasing, not enough unique, singleplayer stuff (And even the singleplayer stuff is kinda generic). sure, there are exceptions, but those are few and far between. Again, Shooters and racers and gritty realism. 

Microsoft has a clear aesthetic, as does nintendo (Bubbly, toony, stylized fun), but I don't think Sony does. you're just as likely to get LittlebigPlanet and Ratchet & Clank as you are Uncharted and God of War. 

Yep.

Ofcourse it does make a difference,a game on only one console is better than no game at all.

Umm are you saying games like FF and Castlevania didnt originate from Nintendo systems? Even Metal Gear was a running game on the NES. Because i believe you are avoiding facts here. Ill agree that MGS didnt however its the same bloody thing.

Are you going to say that Sony refusing Crossplay only months ago is now their permament decision and will never change? Same can be said for creative freedom under MS. They came out and said it. 

You clearly dont understand apples to oranges.

Still waiting on your anwser or you want to continue avoiding it..

Yes that was me being exaggerated because the point means the same thing. Comparing a companies past to there reality now is blind siting facts. MS admitted they are giving creative freedom to there devs and the current crop of games showcase it, are you denying that fact? 

Lets have a look at some games here and see if your point holds up.

ORI WILL OF THE WISP 

GROUNDED

BLEEDING EDGE

PROJECT MARA

EVERWILD

SEA OF THIEVES

BATTLETOADS

CUPHEAD

FORZA HORIZON 4

AGE OF EMPIRES 4

WASTELAND 3

PHYSCONAUNTS 2

No creative freedom you say? What a joke.

And here you are calling me a strawman when you guys are comparing buying IPs to decisions companies made years ago as your counter argument. 

Your logic is this "MS will never allow creative freedom because they didnt do so in the 360 era" 

You guys can try harder atleast.

Do you not understand the difference between 'there are a few exceptions to the rule' and 'this is how ALL of their games are'?

Yes, there are games on Microsoft platforms that are quirky and unique, but are any of those multimillion sellers outside of Forza, Gears, and Halo? They have some indies, sure (I complimented Ori and Cuphead multiple times and absolutely adore those games), but where's the AAA stuff that's really pushing boundaries? Where's stuff like Death Stranding or Scalebound? Where are the niche titles with a huge budget like Bloodborne? Where are the new AAA IPs like Horizon? I use these huge, mega-budget examples becuase sony is willing to take that creative risk on something new or niche, while the only games Microsoft are willing to spend a bunch on are sequels to shooters and racers. 

And the few games that aren't Halo or Forza or Gears tend to not do well. Sunset Overdrive (An Insomniac game, now owned by sony) didn't sell all that well (Which is one of the many reasons Insomniac has sold itself to Sony) despite being critically enjoyed. Sea of Thieves and Crackdown 3 were terrible (Though Sea of Thieves got better). 

Remember how much time and energy Sony put into No Man's Sky? That game was also terrible at launch, but Sony highlighted it on the biggest stage in gaming 2-3 years in a row because it was quirky and unique and promised a wholly new experience. 

Where's Scalebound? 

Where is Scalebound? Seriously! This and a handful of other potentially unique games were cancelled. you know what series I'd LOVE to get back into? Fable. you know what franchise just got cancelled a few years back? Fable (unofficially, of course, it could come back)

the point is, having a few micro-budget exceptions does not mean that's how a publisher/platform holder generally is. Of course there will be a handful of indies and middle-tier games that break the mould - you will ALWAYS be able to find exceptions like that. Hell, even EA, Ubisoft, and Activision have a handful of games that break the mold like Unravel, Child of Light, and to a lesser extent the Spyro/Crash Bandicoot games. But as we can clearly see, nothing in Microsoft's last decade or so of history leans towards them encouraging their devs to try new things or be creative. 

On the PS4 especially, Sony has allowed their devs to break out of their comfort zones a lot. Sucker Punch has gone from a comic book game series in inFamous to a pretty serious and sombre-looking samurai game in Ghost of Tsushima. Insomniac went from wacky wild games like Sunset Overdrive and Ratchet & Clank to the outstanding Spider-Man (I figured Sucker Punch would have been better there, but I was wrong). Guerrilla Games went from generic FPS in Killzone to glorious, colourful, open-world dino-hunting game in Horizon. Sony Santa Monica was given freedom to go in a wholly different direction for God of War. Fromsoft mostly stuck to their guns but Bloodborne is undeniably a niche title unlike anything we've seen before since like, Castlevania in 1996. 

Your arguments are bad, dude. Like really bad. 

I have no idea where he got PS is 1/3 of the market when Switch doesn't directly compete and X1 sell less than 40% of what PS4 sells.

So you are ready to accept MS doesn't give creative freedom?

And last month one game have crossplay announced involving PS4, and of course you prefer to forget that MS had closed the crossplay door much before.