i am just wondering why dont they have there own studios of great exclusives like Sony.

You see great studios at work for Sony as in ;

- God of War , Killzone , Uncharted , Little Big Planet , InFamous , Twisted Metal, Last Guardian.... and more

Microsoft has great games but;

Gears of War is amazing exclusive

Halo = Bungie is leaving multiplatform ( yes MS owns the name but will the game still be good) 

Epic games is going multiplatform on there new game

They had to buy the rights to Splinter Cell; Conviction ( still not there studios)

BioWare is multiplatform just mass effect series seems to be xbox exclusive

i just think that MS should invest more money into studios and have more great exclusives coming out.

LOL.

OT:

They have a few studios who showed no games at E3. 

But I agree. I'd like to see a few more 2nd parties to be honest. They could officially own Remedy. That would be a good move. Rare seem to be on Kinect right now. Although I'm hoping for a Killer Instinct 3 and/or Banjo Kazooie racing.

they can only afford timed exclusives, that's a reason

Microsoft has been starting up a few development studios just recently. That doesn't mean they are instantly going to start putting out games...

They own:

1. Big Park
2. Rare ltd.(two studios)
3. Lionhead
4. MGS
5. Firebird
6. Spawnpoint
7. Turn 10
8. Wingnut Interactive

Now we have only seen games from:

1. Big Park
2. Rare ltd.(one studio)
3. Lionhead
4. MGS

So they still have four(five) development houses that should be working on new games.

I keep reading people placing so much importance on the 'first-party' studios and games - last I checked Microsoft isn't running out of money and it makes no difference to you, me or joe consumer whether MIcrosoft pays for Splinter Cell from Ubisoft or Sony buys Media Molecule for LittleBigPlanet. 

IMO, it makes better sense to shift the risk onto the publishers rather than take them on themselves.  As long as they play to their strengths - strong developer support, good APIs, and dev friendly hardware they really have no reason to start up first parties.

I think it's a better strategy for them to ensure a diverse library as well - I think if they had paid for a developer to continue making games for their existing fanbase, they wouldn't have been able to (well less likely to) give money to Square Enix or Tri-Ace to grow the Xbox brand in Japan for instance.  I guess Sony has been universally liked across all territories in the past, which enabled them to concentrate on keeping good talent. 

They just got crytek to build them an exclusive. They also got Remedy to make them another one after alan wake from the looks of things.

It seems like a much better strategy fromt he looks of things. Its a different strategy from sony's but seems like its jsut as effective.

They are able to say..."We got money, who has cool game ideas?" and choose from the best of the bunch.

Microsofts goal this gen has been to make a profit.  If they owned a lot of studios they would have to continue to pay employees annual salaries even when a game is no where close to being released and they would have to add or replace employees.  They would have to pay to maintain buildings, utility bills, equipment, land etc 

By seeking out partnerships they can go to a developer that is creating a game in a genre that microsoft wants to compete in and they can just pay a lump sum to get it and release it during whichever time period they choose. 

They don't have to worry about the costs of maintaining buildings and keeping good workers etc for x amount of years until a title can be produced so its probably cheaper for them.

Developer acquisition is often treated in forums as if it were a magical panacea. Well in the real world there is no such thing as a cure all. Let alone a drug that doesn't come with strings attached in the form of side effects. The truth is that developer acquisition is filled with its own downside. For every development studio that is purchased, and does well for the buyer. There are two or three that are miserable failures. Further more doing well doesn't necassarily mean it was a windfall purchase. You can spend years just waiting to make back what you spent upfront before you see any actual profit, and even then there is no guarantee that the profit will be great, or that the studio will keep being successful. 

Sometimes when people discuss studios you get the impression that in their minds these studios are some form of mantra of a symbol. What gets lost is that these studios rise or fall on their employees which aren't neccessarily expendable. They are teams of highly skilled individuals that have free will. The studio they work for can be bought, but that doesn't mean that you instantly gain their loyalty, or their desire to stay working where they are. Without those employees you literally have nothing but a building.

Sony and Microsoft have two different mentalities. Sony prefers to buy the finished goods. Microsoft is wanting to create the finished goods. Basically Microsoft is establishing greater control over the risk at a lower price. This could actually work out fairly well. They aren't paying out the ass, and they are the ones in control of the talent pool. They do not have to basically buy and hope, and with it being strongly internal they can probably shift resources more quickly. This is basically what Nintendo does, and they rarely buy third party developers.

So in the end the question really isn't who do you feel does it better Microsoft or Sony. The real question is who do you feel does it better Nintendo or Sony. Microsoft hasn't quite polished off their product to Nintendo standards, but its going to be cheaper to make so they can spend that money on just buying the exclusives. Microsoft must see something in building up a large internal studio.