And most annoying part is some people really keep ignoring MS new ips in this gen.

What a terrible thread.

I have the feeling that future iterations of Forza will come to PC.

What IPs will stay XB1 exclusive. Just Halo?

Name the new 1st party IPs from Microsoft then, i cant think of any.

I'm certain he's talking about EA's Dante's Inferno.  My friend and I played it and it honestly felt like we were playing God of War, even the story has similarities. 

Sea of thieves is a new IP as well as project spark.

Project Spark, Sunset Overdrive, Ryse, Quantum Break, ReCore, Scalebound, and Sea of Thieves. 

Why should a new IP have to be made by an owned studio? Sony and Nintendo have both published numerous new IPs developed by external studios, and everyone considers them "Sony/Nintendo New IPs". Why doesn't that apply to Microsoft? Why must every MS new IP have to be developed internally when that obviously isn't the case with the other two? 

Microsoft, as a company, has always been about acquisitions.  They've done it countless times in the technology sector so it's no surprise that they're doing the same with Xbox.  They certainly aren't worrying about what is best for Playstation gamers or gamers as a whole, just what's best for Xbox.  They have money and they're going to invest it in ways to benefit the brand.  That a particular property started off outside Microsoft makes no difference to them. 

As far as exclusivity deals go, there is one thing that consumers desperately need to learn--unless we know the exact terms and provisions written into the contract, we can only make guesses as to what will happen with that game in the future.  It doesn't matter if someone said the game is "partially funded" by a console manufacturer.  It doesn't matter if the game has been published by a console manufacturer.  It doesn't matter what happened with previous games that have been in similar situations.  All that matters is what was written into the contract.  Pretty much everything we do here is guesswork and speculation, which is fine, but when people pretend that they KNOW something simply based on previous examples, they're really setting themselves up to look silly.

Can a game be "partially funded" by a console maker and still end up multi-platform?  Of course, all that means on paper is that one company gave another company money.  All that matters is what contractual rights were granted and recorded in exchange for that money.

Can a game be published by a console maker and still end up multi-platform?  Of course, it simply depends on the terms of the contract as to what those publication rights entail.  You can make the publication period one week, if you wanted, though obviously no one would agree to that.

Some people really need to understand that business agreements are mutable from one situation to another.  

Aren't those games 2nd party? Just curious...

I don't know about the rest but I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't own the Sunset Overdrive IP.