Historically. Well that's quite the word to use. Because there's no question this has diminished severely over the last few years. What if we use the word "currently"?

And yet as a pattern, Sony have no problems porting pretty much everything from their own studios to a platform in likelyhood, many already own. You might be right in that it hasn't happened yet, but based on historic precedant, it definitely will. You're right in that Sony would get the money, but in no way could it be argued it isn't diminishing the exclusive draw to their consoles less so than Xbox games going to PC.

Well you would also be ignoring Mass Effect and Limbo and Braid in addition to Gears that Microsoft created abd published last gen, the last 2 in particular very artsy crap. Of course a few did go to other platforms eventually, just like The Last of Us and LBP did.

More revelation than development, MS has been expanding since forming 343 and Sonys been at the chopping block since 2012. It's just become quite obvious from E3 2013 to holiday this year.

Well i'd have to respectfully disagree and say MS has been on this artsy train since Mr Braid in 2008 (several years before as thats when they signed it)...Honestly, I can't think of any game as artistic as that on PSone and on PS2 the only ones that come to mind are Ico and SotC.

A console, they're publishing several games for the 360 this year. Wasn't the PS3 supposed to have a 10 year plan and if so was porting every thing to tablets part of that plan?

"Be the change you want to see in the world" - Isn't Sony charging for online? Were they wrong last generation? Charging to play games you already own. Killing off servers to games less than a year old. Is this what it takes to earn a soul?

Longevity? Sony can't guarentee they'll be around in 2020. Dumping backbone franchises because they sold poorly? Backwards compatibility is important to a lot of people, evidently it isn't in Playstations DNA. Did Sony really spend $450 million on Gakai for that or is it because they're exiting hardware? Losing Spider-Man? Selling off SoE, gutting their first parties. I can't even get spare parts for my AIBO man.

 Meh, they seemed to do ok last time in the devils 3-way.  I doubt they care too much as long as the system is profitable and outsells the 360, of which it is for now. When you have eternity and a nigh-unlimited pile of cash and a short live cash strapped competitor ...control...is more an inevitability.

Truly have no desire to go tit for tat with you on this issue.

Playstation the brand has been notorious with varied and a wide library of genres.  It's never been one exclusive dependant on maintaining a user base or popularity.   Sony has been a company that has consistently maintained their promise of supporting their console well into their later years with their 10 year promise.   

Microsoft has been known for shooters (Primarily one -- Halo) and PC ports.   I believe their lack of compelling varied software is a primary reason for their inability to do anything other than third place finishes in practically ever console generation they've participated in.   This is no big surprise and everyone is aware of the nature of Xbox exclusives.  

If you have another compelling reason as to why MS can't produce a console that people want to own (With their vast array of monetary resources) and their high bar for number of first party studios, I'd love to hear it.  If Halo didn't exist on a Microsoft console would many people still own the console?  I can't emphatically say yes,  can you?  

The main complaint is the 60fps. This is one of the main reasons for dynamic resolution and the main reason for not having split-screen at all.

What do you mean? The complaint is that it shouldn't be 60fps so that it can be full 1080p and/or have splitscreen? That seems a bit strange coming from a multiplayer FPS audience.

So we are getting out of the context now but ok :)

What I meant with this thread is that I think MS should, like Sony, emphasize graphics and eye-candy more than they are doing now. No matter what people think would be important on forums, you have to convince the masses to buy a system, you can't make many off forum specialists.

So making a game at 60fps means automatically the graphics won't blow your socks off because you have only half the time to render a frame opposed to 30fps.

That doesn't mean I don't want Halo 5 to be 60fps. From a gameplay perspective it is clear that 60fps is the way better option. But it is also the reason why we don't have split-screen now. So MS has to tell people now that, although because of 60fps there is no split-screen, the game will be "better" and I think this is a very, very difficult task to do and most people would probably gladly swap 60fps with split-screen.

Ok, but that takes me back to my point. Splitscreen is the biggest let down for Halo 5, which we assume is a compromise for 60fps and dynamic 1080p. But splitscreen is not eyecandy, splitscreen is actually an important gaming element to many people, especially with fewer and fewer FPS games having splitscreen. For Halo it is a point of difference, which helps sales. Arguably decreasing the eyecandy to facilitate 60fps and splitscreen is the best thing for Halo 5 in terms of hardware selling potential. So the Halo 5 situation runs counter to your thesis that more eyecandy = better Xb one sales. In the case of Halo 5 less eyecandy to allow splitscreen+60 fps would be the better option.

Halo 5 will sell pretty much not one console to people who aren't pretty much Halo fans, or kinda fans. This means MS MUST first appeal to the desires of the Halo fanbase, not the general masses. MS has to convince Halo fans that it's worth buying Xb one to play Halo. Removing an important feature immediately reduces that desire. The kinda-sorta Halo fans will perhaps be disinclined to choose Xb one this gen. Though maybe the kinda-sorta fans don't care about splitscreen and only the hardcore Halo fans do. If this was the thinking of MS when deciding what compromises to make to achieve performance benchmarks then it's a cynical F-you to the Halo fans because MS is chasing the margins rather than appealing to the core.

I don't say 60fps excludes eye-candy but it is the reason we don't get split-screen. Is split-screen a selling point? Definitely? Is 60fps a selling point? I doubt so because if, way more games would be at 60fps. Does it make certain genres better in terms of gameplay? Definitely.

Also I didn't say that Halo 5 would mean more Xbone sales. MS has to put more emphasize on every game for more eye-candy, not only Halo 5 but that is already in OP.

Than again, MS should target new customers and not hardcore Halo fans. It's wrong to expect all the people who bought Halo 4 were hardcore Halo fans, this is illusionary. There are not about 10 million hardcore Halo fans out there.

Again, I don't think we generally disagree but the thread isn't about Halo 5 alone. It is only a good example how MS tried to make Halo better but will most probably fail with it because 60fps is something the average customer doesn't see or feel immediately or ever. More polygons, more effects, richer environments will be apparent to everyone.

Its strange that when it comes to graphics you choose Playstation when on paper PC is the clear winner if your looking to play games that blow you out of the water visually. PS1 and PS2 were the least graphically capable systems in there generations. The PS4 is the first PS console to actually be on top of its competition when it comes to hardware. 360 outperformed the PS3 in many games so those saying PS3 had better looking games based off 1st party exclusives is incorrect. I base that claim on ports and the general games.

Xbox seem to be focusing more on multiplayer and gameplay then just good looking games. Its great to have both when you look at most of the 1st party games for both PS4 and XB1, the reviews are favouring the XB1 meaning there games are just a lot more fun to play compared to good looking games like The Order, Killzone, DriveClub etc.

We all have our tastes, but its a lot harder making a smooth good looking game then just making a really good looking game. Sony do market there games more with its visuals which is ok for some, while MS focus on the other. Just remember when years go by, visuals age, while a very smooth running easy to play game doesn't.

As for Halo being spilt screen, its got nothing to do with the framerate but more with the sqaud based AI which is what i beleive is the reason they couldnt do co-op. Its no loss for me and some others because there are gamers out there who just play games solo. Achieving 60 frames is a very good trade off considering Halo still offers one of the most addictive multiplayers on the market. Its not like they canned multiplayer altogother to achieve 60.

History shows that the best graphical consoles dont always sell well. Xbox, Gamecube, PS3, 360, Vita, Game Gear etc never sold the most units in there generations. Games look good enough today even on the WiiU to really be caring on visuals. Aslong as games arent broken and are fun to play thats all i care about.

For the record Ryse still stands as one of the best looking games on all platforms, it sits right under The Order in my opinion. It was the best looking game for almost 2 years with it winning SIGGRAPH for best visuals in a video game in 2014.

Stop with your half informed and biased talk about Sony and their games.

SSM - got to try a new IP but failed, also since the launch of the first GoW they got to collaborate on well over 10 different IPs

SSD - are also doing a new IP (Killstrain) and have also been working on other games aside from MLB The Show

Team ICO - has, as is normal within Japan Studios, worked on other games during those 10 years, also this is one game and not a series they've been forced to milk dry

Sony Bend - is now doing a new IP, have also been able to work on different, albeit not their own, IPs in the last years.

How about instead of that you bump this thread if one of MS studios among 343, the Coalition or Turn 10 actually get to make a new IP? Cause nobody is suggesting that Sony isn't doing sequels at all, the point is that they are still giving their devs the possibility to try new things at a certain point, meanwhile MS has created one studio to make nothing but Forza titles, one to take over Halo after the original dev wasn't interested in it anymore, forced Gears on another new studio that was going to make its own thing at first because the original Gears dev was, again, not interested in the series anymore and bought a fourth so it could entirely focus on making Minecraft and nothing more.

Kinect Adventures was bundled for life with a product that was sold on straight up lies, better be proud of that. Also it didn't sell 30 million copies.

GT is at 70mil without GT6, so really Halo is not on the verge of exceeding it, also don't forget that despite those 4 years MS managed to churn out just as many Halo games as there are GT games, if not more, that series is on almost a yearly release schedule now.

MS created Minecraft now?? Geez, you should really stop rewriting history books. Stop fucking crediting MS for Minecraft.

So TLOU a game that likely sold over 10 million copies is not a blockbuster? Or Uncharted? Or God of War? And GT isn't a blockbuster anymore because of one game that released at the stupidest time possible on PS3? Wut? Forza is not a blockbuster because without bundling the games in the series would all sit in the range of where Forza 5 sits right now, just look at the Forza 6 announcement trailer on Youtube, that thing has hardly any views for what is supposed to be a "blockbuster franchise". And before anyone starts, I'm not saying that bundling is bad or that none of the mentioned PS games were bundled, but take a look at the sales in the first weeks of those games, they sell millions on their own.

Also good job on concentrating on this year alone, yes Sonys first partly lineup is thin for the rest of the year, we've been over that, how about you look a little more into the future?

Ms first-party has way more problems than their presentation.

Yeah sure, Halo and Gears Of War look great gameplay-wise, but that's pretty much all that MS has alongside Forza and Fable. They lack variety, and quality wise Sony is easily better than MS as well, not counting third-party Japanese exclusives.