I think, arguing their (MS) case a bit, its a function of their roots.  I think MS focus is the HW/SDK/infrastructure with the goal of saying to developers - we have good hardware, it's easier to develop for, and we have (via Live) the better infrastructure to support you for online, XLBA, etc.  You provide good games.

In terms of competing in the console world where exclusives traditionally defined the console, I think MS have always taken the approach of trying to support a small number of key titles then either agree exclusives (a'la Alan Wake and Gears) or take the 'get it first on on platform' approach with timed exclusives/DLC.

I can understand that, but like you I'd prefer them to lay off the timed side - which I don't like as a gamer and which I don't see as really being in my long term better interests - and focus more on either expanding their first party or creating more arrangements such as those which delivered Mass Effect originally, Alan Wake, Gears, etc.

I think a lot will depend on 2011 in that regard.  Sony right now for me has the much better lineup of traditional - i.e. non Move/Kinect focused - titles.  Kinect is selling really well and will demand a lot of focus least sales collapse due to lack of support.  So... I think 2011 MS will have to decide where their focus is between Kinect / traditional and how much they need to continue to combat Sony 1st party titles.

I guess now I have Wii/PS3/360 I'm covered any which way - but with all consoles I'd prefer to see each party (which really means Sony/MS for me) focus more on competition via differentiation and new titles rather than timed stuff or relying on established big multi titles like CoD.

I feel Sony is bringing me a lot of new titles I can only get on PS3 next year, and I'd like to see MS in a similar position as well.  Not sure my bank manager would agree though.

GREAT!

Now that Mass Effect has gone FULLY multiplatform, maybe M$ will get off it’s haunches and get to producing exclusive content using potential Triple-A IPs in it’s library.  One of my favorite games on the old Xbox was Brute Force, and for the life of me, I can’t understand how the heck has M$ let this IP lay dormant for these many years with no significant movement to a new game.  Basically, you’re talking about a 3rd person shooter that allows you to either go the way of Gears of War OR Mass Effect!  You’ve got four distinct characters, very similar to, maybe say a Borderlands, in how they could have some core characteristics, but still be upgradable to develop out your own play style.  To add to it, you could integrate significant RPG, Exploration, Trading, and Space Combat to the game.  It’s not that Microsoft Games Studios lacks IP, it just lacks anybody with any concept of development and vision.  Then again, We’ve not seen a new Freelancer game either, so…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_Force_(video_game)

Sony ALWAYS looks to deliver more exclusive content, heck...look at 2010...GOW3, GT5, etc...but it's just that M$ doesn't release info early...under estimate and over perform I guess.  I think a policy of having timed exclusives is fine, but there needs to be a balance between those titles, and full console exclusives.  It allows developers to push the possible on the console, and deliver a unique gaming experience.  M$ seems to hves no shortage of $$$ to spend, so why not front a developer $7-8 million to get started working on an exclusive...Sony does it all the time, and nobody seems to even blink at it.  Even with a stock engine like Unreal, you can deeply customize it to bring alot to the table for a game...i.e. Mass Effect 2.  With the current $$$ in revenue and profits M$ is making off gaming, I think there is going to be an internal push for this...the problem is that development of software takes 2-3 years...so maybe they started working on stuff in 2008-2009, but we won't know anything about it until E3-'11.

Microsoft desperately needs to work on the quality of their internal games. Banjo Kazooie, Perfect Dark, and Viva Pinata could have become great (reboot) franchises if done right, along the lines of Jak and Daxter, Halo, and Animal Crossing. No exactly of course, but in those same realms of success.

And then the games turned out 'good', nothing close to 'great' new IP, like Gears.

Crackdown could have turned out to be a fantastic superhero-GTA alternative. It faired better, but the game itself wasn't incredible.

It seems to me that they tried to make new IPs originally, or reboot old ones, and it just didn't work out for them because they didn't return enough quality. They probably think this is the fault of trying out a new IP, but its not that at all. MS needs to learn that if you make a quality game, market it well, people will buy it. You can't just rely on the brand name of games whose prequels came out so much earlier.

And then you can make it a franchise. They did it with Gears, I don't see why they can't continue quality. Then again, it may just have been Epic.

They didn't sell the rights...they licensed it back to one of the original creators to allow him to re-boot the franchise:

http://news.bigdownload.com/2009/07/09/new-mechwarrior-game-officially-announced/

The news is dated, and there's been nothing since, so who knows...that was another HUGE waste, since Mechwarrior was one of the gems on the original Xbox.

http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx

Once it gets an official name, it should show up here if it's truly a Microsoft IP.

Really? I thought the next one would be Codename:Kingdoms

Mass Effect wasn't exclusive to begin with , besides Microsoft really relying too much on Timed exclusivety rather than first party stuff this gen.

Microsoft is only publishing the game. It isn't in-house and I havent seen gameplay. Pick another title. Its about as exclusive as the original Mass Effect.