Sunset Overdrive would probably not exist with out MS; the jury is out on Titanfall. I'll give you the other two. 

Does the market leader matter at all?? Nintendo had a couple of deals for the GCN, Sony for the PS3, and MS will likely have more deals for the XB1 with Tom Clancy's The Division being the next game. The market leader has little influence on who gets deals. 

The current state of video game quality has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 360 being at the forefront last gen. It's related to game budgets and publishers not willing to take risks anymore. Most publishers these days are "rehashing the same franchise over and over". Sony makes so many new IP for a completely different reason, and that has nothing to do with the market leader (hint; they only have one true long running since PS1 franchise that will be returning and many of their games die). Sony is a completely different can of worms, but I will tell you, people praise their new IP, but they can't seem to keep any going. 

Sunset Overdrive is a Insomniac IP. It just needed a publisher. Insomniac built a name making games for Sony, hence why EA was so easy to pick them up after they dropped exclusivity with Sony. Sony would've funded Sunset Overdrive if Insomniac would've let them have the IP but seeing that they didn't Sony was doing other things internally so it wasnt going to hurt them to let go of that game. MS really needs more games and internally they just arent cutting it so sloppy seconds isnt exactly new to them from Sony.

Ok so.many in this thread are not even reading what Phil has said.

He wants to bolster IPs owned by Microsoft.

He isn't talking about 3rd party owned IPs like tomb raider.

On the 3rd party exclusives, its not microaodts fault that they have more money than Sony. Why shouldn't Microsoft get timed exclusive deal or exclusive like titanfall if they fund some or all of the development? Funding a game for the dev takes a lot of pressure of the team and gets great support in the process. It makes no sense to dis Microsoft for helping to fund development. In some cases it allows devs to get the game out earlier ans gives them access to support from Microsoft studios.

So basically Phil is saying he's concentrating a lot more than previous heads of Xbox on their own IPs like banjo, conker, killer instinct etc. And he's lucky enough to also have money available ti get 3rd party games to. It's Sonya fault they don't have any money. Not phils.

This is nonsense. Mass effect was incredible and was.originally funded by Microsoft. Titanfall is a success. It's still selling. We have no idea how many people will consider Xbox one over Christmas due to titles like sunset overdrive or titanfall or tomb raider next year. It's not microsofts fault that Sony has no money.

Yeah....most of the games which made the launch for MS was either made by third party or not even owned by MS. It will continue to be that way throughout the gen.

Sony make new IP's because they can. They are much more willing to leave old successful franchises tahn the other 2 publishers.

Besides they had only like 3 franchises they owned during PS1 era, so its not hard to imagine why they only have one running since the PS1 era.

That really irked me last gen. In a 200m dash, you don't sprint the first 100m and then, do a light jog for the last half. Similar thing applies here.

However, does MS really have any other choice with these deals? MS knows that they're falling behind in exclusives, especially in 2015. Getting timed exclusivity for Tomb Raider was a smart move on MS's part (and supremely dumb, on SE's part). The other problem with the X1 is the taste of the system's userbase. It's pretty obvious that Halo and Gears will sell well as well as sports games and major 3rd party franchises like COD. However, what about the other games that don't fall under those genres? Last gen, reception towards non-shooters/action and sports games from the 360 userbase was pretty anemic with the exception of Forza. Heck, Forza Horizon 2 didn't even reach the Top 10 in software sales according to September NPD despite getting good reviews. So while MS can churn out exclusive after exclusive, will much of the X1 userbase actually buy RPGs, platformers, sandboxes, and other non-dudebro genres? I'm very skeptical that it will.

Another huge problem is the image that X1 exclusives aren't really exclusives. We saw what happened with Ryse and Dead Rising 3. I remember two of MoHassanie's threads regarding the exclusivity of Sunset Overdrive and Halo. Neither dev shot down the possibility of the two IPs going to PC and/or PS4. The lack of confidence of the actual status of these two games' exclusivity is pretty telling. Similar thing applies to Quantum Break, considering Alan Wake eventually came out on PC. It would benefit MS if they actually keep X1 exclusives exclusive to the X1.

Why. Please explain.

Phil hasn't lied yet and has been totally honest even about areas that need improving. If he sys he is different.ofrm.previous people in the position then he.is. he's already told rare to work on non Kinect games. He made Xbox one available without Kinect and he's looking like dropping the parity clause for same day releases. He's also going to rare next month to see their non Kinect projects.

They own Alan wake and own quantum break. There is also nothing wrong with having an outside team work on an ip Microsoft ow. If its a good game what's the difference? Its actually good rothe industry as other devs get o have great support for a game they are making even if its owned by Microsoft.

Let's see what Phil announces from now till e3. We hve athe Xbox event in February next year. Phils been awesome so far, so putting him in the asme bracket as don mattrick is just silly.

We will see banjo 3 this gen. Also conker to. He's bringing phantom dust back owned by Microsoft which he already announced. And they built a brand new studio to look after gears.

Of course they "could" easily do it but they wont because no one at MS wants to invest that much in gaming.

Don't know about the guy you quoted by my issue isn't so much that I think Phil is lying it's just he's not in charge at MS. He has to answer to people just like everyone else. So while he can tell us what he needs to do and what needs to be done whether or not the execs at MS will support and fund the things he wants to do is another story.