By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why Halo 4 may be the savior of First Party Titles for MS..

S.T.A.G.E. on 27 September 2012
Argh_College said:
They cant compete ? haha

i rather have Halo than any other Sony game. But thats my opinion and for me.

MS >>> Sony >>>>> Ninty.


So essentially you're majorly a shooter fan.



Around the Network
usrevenge on 27 September 2012

halo 4 doing well will just bring more halo games, if we get halo wars 2, or some halo conquest we will be set but chances are it will be halo rehash number 5 and 6 we get instead.



Proclus on 27 September 2012

... Well this thread certainly made me chuckle.

MS's first party/exclusives might not have a billion and two "unique" titles in it but overall it is more than adequate and needs no saving.



kain_kusanagi on 27 September 2012
ethomaz said:

kain_kusanagi said:

The OP's logic is flawed and so is yours. The Gears of War series is published by MS and therefore it matters. Sony buys up developers and MS makes deals for publishing rights. The end result is the same.

ME1 is an exeption. There are always going to be special cases.

All that matters is what was published by Sony and MS.

So I do not understand your point. Geasr is not either exclusive or first-party.


Don't tell me your one of those guys who thinks that if it's also on MS Windows it isn't exclusive. Even if that were the case, only the first Gears of War got a MS Windows port. All the rest are only available on Xbox 360. But it doesn't matter. If MS publishes a title, it is essentialy theirs with an exception here or there.

Like I said. Sony and MS just go about things differently. Sony buys out devs to get exclusives. MS buys publishing rights to get exclusives. The end result is the same. Exclusive games published by them.

It doesn't matter how you define 1st party games because what really matters is if the games were published by Sony or Microsoft.



Argh_College on 27 September 2012
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Argh_College said:
They cant compete ? haha

i rather have Halo than any other Sony game. But thats my opinion and for me.

MS >>> Sony >>>>> Ninty.


So essentially you're majorly a shooter fan.

Shooters

RPGs - Dark Souls, Witcher, Skyrim Styles

Sports Game - I Like FIFA and play it.

Action/Adventure

Those are my favorite yes.



Around the Network
Pjams on 27 September 2012

When the new console arrives, MS will do what it does, outspend everyone else in advertising and secure exclusive publishing rights for some big AAA games. As far as the 360, they have already established that direction - Halo, Forza, XBLA.

They make a ton of money off of multiplatform games and there is no risk involved on their part, that's why they don't do many AAA exclusives. Everyone pays for Gold, everyone bought a Kinect, MS has accomplished everything they wanted with the 360 and is ready to move on to the next console.



 

S.T.A.G.E. on 27 September 2012
Argh_College said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Argh_College said:
They cant compete ? haha

i rather have Halo than any other Sony game. But thats my opinion and for me.

MS >>> Sony >>>>> Ninty.


So essentially you're majorly a shooter fan.

Shooters

RPGs - Dark Souls, Witcher, Skyrim Styles

Sports Game - I Like FIFA and play it.

Action/Adventure

Those are my favorite yes.



That can be said for any HD console  or PC now. Essentially you're saying the 360 is the superior choice because they have one game that is above most in its genre.



ethomaz on 27 September 2012

kain_kusanagi said:

Don't tell me your one of those guys who thinks that if it's also on MS Windows it isn't exclusive. Even if that were the case, only the first Gears of War got a MS Windows port. All the rest are only available on Xbox 360. But it doesn't matter. If MS publishes a title, it is essentialy theirs with an exception here or there.

Like I said. Sony and MS just go about things differently. Sony buys out devs to get exclusives. MS buys publishing rights to get exclusives. The end result is the same. Exclusive games published by them.

It doesn't matter how you define 1st party games because what really matters is if the games were published by Sony or Microsoft.

Exclusive for me is exclusive... Gears 1 is not exclusive, Gears 2/3 are exclusive... the franchise not.

Well I use the market definition...

First-party: IPs owned by the company and developer owned by the company (Eg: Halo, God of War, Gran Turismo, Forza, etc).
Second-party: IPs owned by the company and deceloped by third (Eg. Heavy Rain, Resistance,  Racket & Clank).
Third-pary: All the others (Eg. Gears, Metal Gear, Mass Effect, Resident Evil, etc).

That's it.



S.T.A.G.E. on 27 September 2012
kain_kusanagi said:
ethomaz said:

kain_kusanagi said:

The OP's logic is flawed and so is yours. The Gears of War series is published by MS and therefore it matters. Sony buys up developers and MS makes deals for publishing rights. The end result is the same.

ME1 is an exeption. There are always going to be special cases.

All that matters is what was published by Sony and MS.

So I do not understand your point. Geasr is not either exclusive or first-party.


Don't tell me your one of those guys who thinks that if it's also on MS Windows it isn't exclusive. Even if that were the case, only the first Gears of War got a MS Windows port. All the rest are only available on Xbox 360. But it doesn't matter. If MS publishes a title, it is essentialy theirs with an exception here or there.

Like I said. Sony and MS just go about things differently. Sony buys out devs to get exclusives. MS buys publishing rights to get exclusives. The end result is the same. Exclusive games published by them.

It doesn't matter how you define 1st party games because what really matters is if the games were published by Sony or Microsoft.


So why is Alan Wake on PC? This essentially means that is anyone is has PC sensibilities they can overlook the Xbox knowing exactly where Microsoft will go for their exclusives.



pokoko on 27 September 2012
kain_kusanagi said:
ethomaz said:

kain_kusanagi said:

The OP's logic is flawed and so is yours. The Gears of War series is published by MS and therefore it matters. Sony buys up developers and MS makes deals for publishing rights. The end result is the same.

ME1 is an exeption. There are always going to be special cases.

All that matters is what was published by Sony and MS.

So I do not understand your point. Geasr is not either exclusive or first-party.


Don't tell me your one of those guys who thinks that if it's also on MS Windows it isn't exclusive. Even if that were the case, only the first Gears of War got a MS Windows port. All the rest are only available on Xbox 360. But it doesn't matter. If MS publishes a title, it is essentialy theirs with an exception here or there.

Like I said. Sony and MS just go about things differently. Sony buys out devs to get exclusives. MS buys publishing rights to get exclusives. The end result is the same. Exclusive games published by them.

It doesn't matter how you define 1st party games because what really matters is if the games were published by Sony or Microsoft.

The difference is, if Epic ever wants to put Gears on other consoles, they can.  They own the IP, period.  Will they?  Probably not, I'm sure Microsoft shells out big to keep the frachise exclusive.

As for the OP, Microsoft tried to buy up timed exclusives at the start of the generation, but I don't think it worked out well for them.  Their new practice of buying up exclusive DLC seems to be the better route.  They're trying to entice people to buy 3rd party titles on their system and it's working reasonably well.  I don't think they have to change that model for the next gen.

Not sure why people have gotten ruffled over a simple question like this, though.