MS has to own the studio for it to be a 1st party game. That's the definition of a 1st party game. I'm not sure for all of them but for Sunset Overdrive MS doesn't own the IP, Insomniac does. I doubt MS owns the IP for Project Spark because it's coming to PC. You're using 3rd party games as an argument for MS 1st party.

Don't think about it too much, the guy obviously doesn't understand the idea of a 'commission'. I mean, Sony would have went to HouseMarque and commisioned Alienation based on the previous success of their other titles including Dead Nation. I mean, Ubisoft published Outland in 2011 which was made by HouseMarque with critical success and it released both on PSN and XBLive. There is no stopping MS going to them and doing the same thing. 

Innocent victim card? If Rise of the tomb raider was Sony exclusive there would be far less whinging going on right now that I am sure of. From what I have seen Microsoft cops a lot more flack than it is due simply because there are less Xbox fans around than there are sony fans, at least on the forums here.

I also struggle to see where these "many" bitter twisted people are, or is it just easy to call people who don't think sony are the best, or those who dont think microsoft are in the wrong here, haters?

Because moneyhatting is a dirty practice and should be frowned upon. I mean this isn't some lousy DLC that launches a few weeks earlier on one console (which is still questionable, but more forgivable.) This is a game franchise that has always been multiplat, a sequel to a multiplat, and a game that started out multiplat. Even worse, it's a middle finger to those that supported TR the most, PS fans.

It would be one thing if this was a new IP that MS picked up early and helped fund/develop, and was now exclusive (timed or not.) This is what they did with Sunset Overdrive, and what Sony did with No Man's Sky. Or if it was a sequel that never was going to be made and they stepped in to fund it, like what Nintendo did with Bayonetta. No, what this is is MS getting desperate and wanting to add something to their arsenal and to have something to compete with Uncharted 4. So, they'll just pay a crap load of money yo keep it away from gamers who don't have their console, when they would have, otherwise.

If this does turn out to be a timed exclusive, I hope PS4 gamers give the finger back and don't buy the game. Basically saying, "If your loyalty can be bought by anyone with a big enough checkbook, instead of being with your customers/fans, then Uncharted is good enough for us."

Sony's most famous and the last of their notable moneyhats was the GTA trilogy, but it was only timed exclusivity until the trilogy was over. MS almost pulled that on Sony with Mass Effect, but EA bought Bioware. MS was publishing the game and expected special treatment as such. MS always run to PC devs when they don't have any games. I guess I must thank them for the Witcher 2 being on consoles.

Historically Sony is not even on Microsofts level when it comes to moneyhatting. If that were so Sony wouldn't have more IP's than their competition from generation to generation. Sony didn't have to pay devs to jump ship to them because Sony dominated the marketshare of the industry. Sega practically handed third parties to Sony and Nintendo never could see eye to eye with third parties (which is why they have the problems they do today).  Learn some history. Segas fate was sealed because of Sega, but Nintendo held Sega down when it was trying to grow with its first console because it couldnt gain marketshare because of third parties. Sega had to create their own sports titles and other games to supplement the fact that Nintendo had third parties scared to expand. Sega started to gain marketshare only towards the end of its timeline between the NES and SNES era. The saturn pissed off devs because sega found out the playstation was coming out and they jumped the gun on the launch date and threw off every key third party and they all got pissed and ran to Sony (literally, all of them...thats how pissed off they were). Some came back during the Dreamcast era but Sega was just making bad decision after bad decision. A good amount of piracy, lack of third party and bad internal issues sealed Segas fate. I used to actually defend Nintendo but when I looked up the history of Nintendo and Sega I found out what really happend and Nintendo deserves their issues with third parties and Sega only served to do themselves in. Sony's competition helped in steering the market away from Sega, but Sega could've made better business decisions. They both made it relatively easy for Sony to grow within the industry. As for Microsoft, Microsoft started off slow in the industry but built the popularity of the Xbox using methods that made Sony popular. Working with third parties was the start and not fighting them. 

Sony has published and made more new IP's than their competitors in recent years. Even last gen Gamespot held a tally last gen. MS cannot make games on the level of Sony they can only buy the IP's from people or moneyhat to keep games from Sony. If you think about that, i've explained 3/4's of Microsofts time in the industry. When Microsoft invested in studios in the beginning most ventures tanked including their sports venture. Think about it...the 360's launch was full of moneyhatting. They had almost every hot new IP being kept away from Sony either for a year or more. All during this time they had a parity policy which stopped content which didnt come out on the same day as their product or they had the right to deny it. 

LOL thank you for replying to point #4 and then continuing to confirm that point #4 is 100% correct with your irrelevant hair splitting and excuse making.

Bloodborne is made by From Software. SJS is offering assistance, just like Demon's Souls. And of course Sony owns the IP, that is what they require in exchange for publishing these types of games. Be glad MS differs or Tomb Raider 2015 would really be a sore spot for PS owners.

The Order is being made by a 3rd party company in exchange for money. VGC descriptions of games like Dead Rising 3, Killer Instinct, Titanfall, or even Gears of War tells me this is a moneyhat. But in this case it's Sony paying for the game, so it's rainbows and unicorn farts, I forgot. My bad. Also, Halo has always been first party made by studios actually owned by MS. Bungie, and now 343 Industries. The only exception being the CE remake. Hope that helped.

The bolded part is the funniest as we all learned recently that Sony signed a deal for Tomb Raider in 1997 that prevented Sega and Nintendo gamers from playing the franchise on their console for 3 years. You're going on here about sales on Playstation platforms and this fanbase on Playstation, both are a direct result of a moneyhat deal. And yet, MS signing a deal with that exact same franchise, what... 17 years later, is terrible. Please. And this one won't be anywhere NEAR 3 years long. These PS fans will get it early 2015, right after they tire of Uncharted. It's hilarious.

Please take your own advice regarding facts. I am done in this thread though.

First party ip -  Killer Instinct - Scalebound - Crackdown - Phantom Dust are all examples of first party games.  They call this 2nd party developement but they are indeed first party ip.

Project Spark is owned by MSFT as well as the studio making it (Microsoft Team Dakota)

But yes they are all first party games just as Bloodborne and Heavy Rain is a first party game for Sony.  

No. A first party game is when an IP is owned by a platform holder. This is not to be mistakened with a first party developer (which MS barely ever use or are just using improperly). This is why MS isn't known for internal prowess.

Sunset Overdrive is a third party game. Gears of War was made  by second party  until Microsoft made it first party by buying the IP. The game started out third party but Microsoft contracted Epic and funded them for the production of the game which made them a second party studio for them at that time.

Rare was a second party developer for Nintendo until Nintendo gave up their shares and MS bought them and made them first party. First party content can be made by a second party (contracted to make an IP owned by the publisher). We call that a "commission" because you're paying for the work of a contracted outside source.

Also second party dont have to make first party, they are just contracted to make exclusives, but a publisher can request to keep an IP but they have to pay up for the rights. This is why when Rare left Nintendo they took  almost their whole catalogue with them even though Nintendo published most of the games. 

The problem is that they didnt pay to 'secure the game for their system'.

They were going to get that game anyway. They just spent money keeping the game away from gamers on other systems.

Why would you expect people to not hate them for keeping a game they are not creatively associated with away from them?

I can just about understand Ryse and titanfall because they helped establish those (even though they dont own them), but this is some next level shit.

I agree its competition, but i'm damn sure its not healthy competition.

I completley agree with you. Also, I believe that all the hate was caused by MS way of annoucing the TR exclusivity deal. Their wording was not honest at all. Just say something like "first on xbox" next time.