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

Forums - Microsoft - Microsoft Has So Much to Show at E3 They’re Having to “Move Stuff Out” of the Show

walsufnir on 21 March 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
walsufnir said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Let me guess..... They paid more developers to go exclusive? I haven't seen a hot internally made new IP from them in years.


Where is the difference? Do you care if a game is paid for exclusive? Buying studios also locks out other platforms...

From a gamer's view I want to play games. Why should I bother how a game comes to my system?


This isn't the PC realm where all the devs are third party. First party is a testament to the abilities of the company themselves. If third parties are doing all the work for you when the exclusivity dries up you're useless.


Well, looking at sales 3rd party games outsold 1st party games easily last gen . And I am glad that currently MS doesn't seem to be useless despite your opinion about their exclusives.



Around the Network
TheBlackNaruto on 21 March 2014

That is EXCELLENT news!!! Can't wait for E3!!!



The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence...

PSN: StlUzumaki23

endimion on 21 March 2014

Yeah I still would care about numbers first... Since you usually don't see much of the video in the live stream... They always cut to different view angles and all...

to put it differently I'd rather have a presser with talk and numbers and announcements with more substance than video content... Streamed online on a nice website or app on Xbox one with interactive html5 content... That redirects me towards videos of stuff I want to watch... Like the "do you want to know more" in the starship trooper movies....

like I said I rarely pay attention to the videos during the conference I usually go watch them again after the show because it is more comfortable to appreciate it... It's not like I have to wait a week after the show.... Usually within a few hours of the presser everything is available...



endimion on 21 March 2014

@S.T.A.G.E.

3rd party exclusive are way smarter and better... Buying a studio doesn't guarantee you the retention of the talent...
3rd party exclusivity rights is what sway in new customers... If they were first party fans they'd be already acquired... And while the initial cost might be be higher the long term investment is smaller and you have more power over your capital... Pretty much the same as any subcontractor in any business..



S.T.A.G.E. on 21 March 2014
walsufnir said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
walsufnir said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Let me guess..... They paid more developers to go exclusive? I haven't seen a hot internally made new IP from them in years.


Where is the difference? Do you care if a game is paid for exclusive? Buying studios also locks out other platforms...

From a gamer's view I want to play games. Why should I bother how a game comes to my system?


This isn't the PC realm where all the devs are third party. First party is a testament to the abilities of the company themselves. If third parties are doing all the work for you when the exclusivity dries up you're useless.


Well, looking at sales 3rd party games outsold 1st party games easily last gen . And I am glad that currently MS doesn't seem to be useless despite your opinion about their exclusives.

 

 I know that third party games outsold first party games easily last gen. That is not my issue....the differentiation of brands mostly comes from exclusives and the PS2 era is over and wont return for quite a while where third parties reigned exclusively on one brand because they could support themselves efficiently there. Currently, yes, Microsoft IS useless on a first party front. They just paid developers to make games for them 

Dead Rising wasnt made by them. They publish it to keep it away from the competition.

Killer Instinct wasn't made by them, nor one of their owned companies. In Fact they have to find a new company to make the game since they wont let Rare do it.

Titanfall was not made by them nor was it even funded by them according to Respawn. They just paid for edge of peception.

Forza is the only launch title they truly made.

As i've always said it always comes down to a handful of games first party made from Microsoft when it comes to core IP in a generation.

You say this now that they aren't useless when it comes to being self sufficient, but their value is locked purely into online multiplayer. As long as they have the psychological edge on perception its an uphill battle for them against Sony or even Nintendo. Sony and Nintendo can put up on a first party front and keep pumping out games and Microsoft would be lacking if they didn't pay to keep games away from them or get timed exclusivity. When i was studying marketing this would've been one of the tactics I would've used, but I am not into taking advantage of people nor exploiting the human bias. Money is money in the end and the Xbox One is still a good product, but if you understand the psychology of it all and get past it Microsoft is all talk and pay up for everything. If Sony got parity most former paid exclusives or timed exclusives Microsoft would be stuck to fend for themselves (which will happen in the next couple years). If people didn't learn from the PS3 era it will be a harsh lesson this gen when Microsoft doesn't have a one year lead nor the edge on perception. They will keep paying people to get the psychological edge until they reach some sort of parity with Sony in sales and go beyond that. 

Trust me, I want an Xbox One, but i can accept the fact. Not saying what they are doing isnt smart, becuase it is and I applaud them for staying in the game because of it.  They focus on what sells and they pay to keep it exclusive or keep perception up on their console, but eventually it will dry up just like it did during th 360 era.



Around the Network
walsufnir on 21 March 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:

  I know that third party games outsold first party games easily last gen. That is not my issue....the differentiation of brands mostly comes from exclusives and the PS2 era is over and wont return for quite a while where third parties reigned exclusively on one brand because they could support themselves efficiently there. Currently, yes, Microsoft IS useless on a first party front. They just paid developers to make games for them

But where is the difference? Games are exclusive for this system and thus are a differentiation. It is of no use to discuss whether it's paid or first party.  

Dead Rising wasnt made by them. They publish it to keep it away from the competition.

Yes, they do. But where is the problem with that? One company buys whole studios, the other one buys single games.

 Killer Instinct wasn't made by them, nor one of their owned companies. In Fact they have to find a new company to make the game since they wont let Rare do it.

And? Read what I wrote above.

Titanfall was not made by them nor was it even funded by them according to Respawn. They just paid for edge of peception.

 And? Read what I wrote above. 

Forza is the only launch title they truly made.

"truly made" In the end it's a game exclusive for one system, no matter who made it. Games don't get better or worse if they are exclusive or paid exclusive.

As i've always said it always comes down to a handful of games first party made from Microsoft when it comes to core IP in a generation.

Yeah, we know what you said from numerous threads and posts... Doesn't make your points more valid.

You say this now that they aren't useless when it comes to being self sufficient, but their value is locked purely into online multiplayer. As long as they have the psychological edge on perception its an uphill battle for them against Sony or even Nintendo. Sony and Nintendo can put up on a first party front and keep pumping out games and Microsoft would be lacking if they didn't pay to keep games away from them or get timed exclusivity. When i was studying marketing this would've been one of the tactics I would've used, but I am not into taking advantage of people nor exploiting the human bias. Money is money in the end and the Xbox One is still a good product, but if you understand the psychology of it all and get past it Microsoft is all talk and pay up for everything. If Sony got parity most former paid exclusives or timed exclusives Microsoft would be stuck to fend for themselves (which will happen in the next couple years). If people didn't learn from the PS3 era it will be a harsh lesson this gen when Microsoft doesn't have a one year lead nor the edge on perception. They will keep paying people to get the psychological edge until they reach some sort of parity with Sony in sales and go beyond that.

So many tex is not needed, we know the strategy. But I definitely have a problem with your point painting a picture in the future where you nothing about.  Of course, you can keep your opinion but Xbone isn't out for one year and you are still making it look like a system with first party exclusive draught. I think this is way too much to predict currently, no matter what they did before.

Trust me, I want an Xbox One, but i can accept the fact. Not saying what they are doing isnt smart, becuase it is and I applaud them for staying in the game because of it.  They focus on what sells and they pay to keep it exclusive or keep perception up on their console, but eventually it will dry up just like it did during th 360 era.

Their first party support was less, yes, but not entirely gone and generally I think you are giving too much importance about 1st party exclusives, sales definitely showed otherwise last gen.





S.T.A.G.E. on 21 March 2014
walsufnir said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

  I know that third party games outsold first party games easily last gen. That is not my issue....the differentiation of brands mostly comes from exclusives and the PS2 era is over and wont return for quite a while where third parties reigned exclusively on one brand because they could support themselves efficiently there. Currently, yes, Microsoft IS useless on a first party front. They just paid developers to make games for them

But where is the difference? Games are exclusive for this system and thus are a differentiation. It is of no use to discuss whether it's paid or first party.  

Dead Rising wasnt made by them. They publish it to keep it away from the competition.

Yes, they do. But where is the problem with that? One company buys whole studios, the other one buys single games.

 Killer Instinct wasn't made by them, nor one of their owned companies. In Fact they have to find a new company to make the game since they wont let Rare do it.

And? Read what I wrote above.

Titanfall was not made by them nor was it even funded by them according to Respawn. They just paid for edge of peception.

 And? Read what I wrote above. 

Forza is the only launch title they truly made.

"truly made" In the end it's a game exclusive for one system, no matter who made it. Games don't get better or worse if they are exclusive or paid exclusive.

As i've always said it always comes down to a handful of games first party made from Microsoft when it comes to core IP in a generation.

Yeah, we know what you said from numerous threads and posts... Doesn't make your points more valid.

You say this now that they aren't useless when it comes to being self sufficient, but their value is locked purely into online multiplayer. As long as they have the psychological edge on perception its an uphill battle for them against Sony or even Nintendo. Sony and Nintendo can put up on a first party front and keep pumping out games and Microsoft would be lacking if they didn't pay to keep games away from them or get timed exclusivity. When i was studying marketing this would've been one of the tactics I would've used, but I am not into taking advantage of people nor exploiting the human bias. Money is money in the end and the Xbox One is still a good product, but if you understand the psychology of it all and get past it Microsoft is all talk and pay up for everything. If Sony got parity most former paid exclusives or timed exclusives Microsoft would be stuck to fend for themselves (which will happen in the next couple years). If people didn't learn from the PS3 era it will be a harsh lesson this gen when Microsoft doesn't have a one year lead nor the edge on perception. They will keep paying people to get the psychological edge until they reach some sort of parity with Sony in sales and go beyond that.

So many tex is not needed, we know the strategy. But I definitely have a problem with your point painting a picture in the future where you nothing about.  Of course, you can keep your opinion but Xbone isn't out for one year and you are still making it look like a system with first party exclusive draught. I think this is way too much to predict currently, no matter what they did before.

Trust me, I want an Xbox One, but i can accept the fact. Not saying what they are doing isnt smart, becuase it is and I applaud them for staying in the game because of it.  They focus on what sells and they pay to keep it exclusive or keep perception up on their console, but eventually it will dry up just like it did during th 360 era.

Their first party support was less, yes, but not entirely gone and generally I think you are giving too much importance about 1st party exclusives, sales definitely showed otherwise last gen.



LOL...Your point is easily remedied as to little things such as online and where you find it to be valuable or price and power. Anyone could flip-flop between PC/Xbox/Playstation at any time of the day. 

This....is what makes first party so special. Yes, It might not be the end all be all, but it sets you apart. 

If I was an MS gamer and liked PC games, unless I was desperate for Gears and Halo I would just stick with PC. I'm not really a fan of buying two games for a console. Only reason why I take risk on Sony because they focus on new experiences and they are well above average at doing it, really. I get my multiplat experience and my exclusives and personally to me thats all that matters. I have no argument about multiplats. We all no when it comes to those its really a no holds barred game.



IsawYoshi on 21 March 2014



walsufnir on 21 March 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
walsufnir said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

  I know that third party games outsold first party games easily last gen. That is not my issue....the differentiation of brands mostly comes from exclusives and the PS2 era is over and wont return for quite a while where third parties reigned exclusively on one brand because they could support themselves efficiently there. Currently, yes, Microsoft IS useless on a first party front. They just paid developers to make games for them

But where is the difference? Games are exclusive for this system and thus are a differentiation. It is of no use to discuss whether it's paid or first party.

Dead Rising wasnt made by them. They publish it to keep it away from the competition.

Yes, they do. But where is the problem with that? One company buys whole studios, the other one buys single games.

 Killer Instinct wasn't made by them, nor one of their owned companies. In Fact they have to find a new company to make the game since they wont let Rare do it.

And? Read what I wrote above.

Titanfall was not made by them nor was it even funded by them according to Respawn. They just paid for edge of peception.

 And? Read what I wrote above.

Forza is the only launch title they truly made.

"truly made" In the end it's a game exclusive for one system, no matter who made it. Games don't get better or worse if they are exclusive or paid exclusive.

As i've always said it always comes down to a handful of games first party made from Microsoft when it comes to core IP in a generation.

Yeah, we know what you said from numerous threads and posts... Doesn't make your points more valid.

You say this now that they aren't useless when it comes to being self sufficient, but their value is locked purely into online multiplayer. As long as they have the psychological edge on perception its an uphill battle for them against Sony or even Nintendo. Sony and Nintendo can put up on a first party front and keep pumping out games and Microsoft would be lacking if they didn't pay to keep games away from them or get timed exclusivity. When i was studying marketing this would've been one of the tactics I would've used, but I am not into taking advantage of people nor exploiting the human bias. Money is money in the end and the Xbox One is still a good product, but if you understand the psychology of it all and get past it Microsoft is all talk and pay up for everything. If Sony got parity most former paid exclusives or timed exclusives Microsoft would be stuck to fend for themselves (which will happen in the next couple years). If people didn't learn from the PS3 era it will be a harsh lesson this gen when Microsoft doesn't have a one year lead nor the edge on perception. They will keep paying people to get the psychological edge until they reach some sort of parity with Sony in sales and go beyond that.

So many tex is not needed, we know the strategy. But I definitely have a problem with your point painting a picture in the future where you nothing about.  Of course, you can keep your opinion but Xbone isn't out for one year and you are still making it look like a system with first party exclusive draught. I think this is way too much to predict currently, no matter what they did before.

Trust me, I want an Xbox One, but i can accept the fact. Not saying what they are doing isnt smart, becuase it is and I applaud them for staying in the game because of it.  They focus on what sells and they pay to keep it exclusive or keep perception up on their console, but eventually it will dry up just like it did during th 360 era.

Their first party support was less, yes, but not entirely gone and generally I think you are giving too much importance about 1st party exclusives, sales definitely showed otherwise last gen.



LOL...Your point is easily remedied as to little things such as online and where you find it to be valuable or price and power. Anyone could flip-flop between PC/Xbox/Playstation at any time of the day.

This....is what makes first party so special. Yes, It might not be the end all be all, but it sets you apart.

If I was an MS gamer and liked PC games, unless I was desperate for Gears and Halo I would just stick with PC. I'm not really a fan of buying two games for a console. Only reason why I take risk on Sony because they focus on new experiences and they are well above average at doing it, really. I get my multiplat experience and my exclusives and personally to me thats all that matters. I have no argument about multiplats. We all no when it comes to those its really a no holds barred game.


You bring in PC gaming as if it was an alternative for the gaming masses when it is clearly not. I intentionally don't play games on PC like million others. And Sony focusses on new experiences? Hmm, Second Son and Killzone on PS4 showed otherwise, didn't they?

But I think we will never agree in our points so we can finish the discussion here.

To me at least choosing a console is a vector of parameters and not just first party exclusives with subjective quality.



endimion on 21 March 2014

Well yeah but an exclusive is an exclusive whether it is 1st 2nd or 3rd party is irrelevant from a customer point of view... If they can't get it somewhere else it is just the same as a 1st party exclusive... It just matters from a business strategy point of view...

I couldn't care less if TF KI GoW DR is made by first second or third party... Fact is if you want to play it on console they are only on XBox and in general on MS platforms....