I never alluded to all of Sony's developers being great. There are some who shine above the rest.

I wrote what's cost effective couple of pages back.

Perhaps we'll see more diversity now from MS?

Have you ever visited X360's Arcade marketplace? The place where we got State of Decay, Iron Brigade, Shadow Complex, Max: The Curse of Brotherhood, Mr Splosion Man, etc... maybe small downloadable titles didn't count back then.

By the way MS has been supporting small titles (Arcade/Indies) on Marketplace since 2004, on the original Xbox.

Driveclub is successful because it was able to capture both casual and hardcore racing fans.  This was achieved by having in-depth physics models for all of their cars, in order to create a simulator driving experience, while incorporating an easy-to-drive almost-arcadey feel.  It was a fantasticly designed hybrid racing game that appealed to all racing fans.  Driveclub also provided a very interactive and connective racing experience in beautiful cars, locations, and environmental conditions.  

Like every other game, Driveclub was scored right when the game was released, which is also the same time when the game was riddled with online connectivity issues.  It is safe to assume that most of the reviews for Driveclub can be attributed to this shortcoming.

Now Halo: The Master Chief Collection scored an 85 on metacritc, 14 points higher than Driveclub, and released during the same holiday season.  Halo: TMCC was also riddled with online issues and was down for a significantly longer time (approximately 100 days) in comparison to Driveclub.  So here we have a game (Halo) score a perfect 100 on one review and get numerous other highly rated reviews as well.  Most of the reviews would simply state that they had issues getting online but brushed it off by saying that this will simply be patched in 2 days and then slaps a review of 90.  Are you serious?  

So I would like to ask why you think Driveclub deserved their low review, while Halo rightfully deserved their high score.  If you don't want to bring Halo into this, then talk about Battlefield 4.  I don't want this to be an exclusive game war battle, but rather the complete and utter bias towards a new franchise versus an established franchise.

Microsoft, yeah.

The xbox division ? I doubt so.

Remember ppl, Ms funds are NOT Xbox division funds.

You don't know how burden of proof works. The person making the claim has to provide evidence for the claim.

I always said big franchise. Something people look forward to, something someone thinks of when they see Xbox. 'Halo' was not created under a microsoft studio, Bungie were acquired by microsoft during development. Halo by 343 is just a continuation of that xD But it's nice to see all the IP you think of a franchises that people associate with Xbox. Kudos.

I stated before they launched Driveclub in an unforgivable state, and unfortunatly for them the game is very good.

I never said that, I'm saying Driveclub wasn't bundled with every single PS4. I've literally repeated this point 3 times now.

Killzone? Really?  70, 91, 84 73 = a BAD IP? Not even average but BAD? Okay dude xD And Driveclub launched awfully but it's by no means a bad game. Some people who played it consider it average which is fair enough everyone's entitled to their opinion but if you want to call it bad you can..

Yep. Microsoft really screwed Apples chances of joining the gaming race by taking Halo for them, because it was originally them publishing Halo in the first place. The look on Jobs face after Microsoft bought Bungie must've been priceless. He must've been like "F'n Microsoft screws me again!"

Holy crap though, imagine if Apple did have Halo, the gaming world would be so different today. Xbox would've done so much worse, if the 360 still had RROD that'd be it. We could see a Apple/Sony/Nintendo console race, although they probably aren't too sour about it since the whole iPod iPhone thing happened..

For one, the pre-launch reviews of both DC and MCC mentioned no online issues. I read one review of DC that mentioned the online issues...3 weeks after launch.

Both Driveclub and TMCC, launch day were reviewed on the basis that their online worked correctly as these issues evidently did not occur for reviewers. Driveclubs launch day meta is based on it working correctly. It was low because the game pretty much missed some glaringly obvious staples, which for any modern racing game is a big no-no

Aiming for 60fps? Released at 30fps. Zero splitscreen. Hyped up weather? No weather. No replay? What is this 1996? Content lite. Yeah, last time I saw a racer with 5 tracks it was on Sega Saturn. There's barely any game. A 12 month delay and the the whole game reeks of simply being a small scale game, shoved onto a disc because maybe Sony didn't have enough retail exclusives.

Now I think it's perfectly fine if you don't want to make an open world racer, but you should be at least 60fps (Especially since Forza was doing it a year earlier witth 50% less power right?) and if you're not 60fps , you should be a looker at 30fps

I mean, i'm used to this from my 30fps racers

Freaking PGR4 from 7 years ago. 7 YEARS!!!! 2700 days difference. Split-screen? Check. Free-roam mode? Check. Lacking in content? Hell no. Weather? Day 1. Photomode and replay? You bet your ass.

And if you're not a looker, you should have a game with content and local multiplayer. And if you got little content, you should at least have a fun game. Driveclubs gameplay is unremarkable. And the bare minimum you should have a god-damned replay in a freaking racing game. Seriously?

N64 racers had it, but not with 8GB of GDDR5 you don't? Gah.

Driveclub had low targets and it missed them all. Evolution would have been better off making another Motorstorm, at least it would have had some off road mayhem with some cool destruction, instead we have neither a top tier sim or arcade, with minimal content on realistic grey roads missing base staple functionality.

Well as I stated, both games were reviewed on the basis their online modes did function. But even then, MCC has 4 amazing remastered campaigns . Too much for Driveclub to have one?

So what was your problem with his statement then? He is correct that they cannot pay for third party exclusivity going forward because it is cost prohibitive and developers are more likely than not asking for larger sums of money to do so. It's that simple. Take my example of Batman AK. The PS4 version is reportedly selling roughly three times the number of copies of the XB1 version. Could WB afford to forgo those sales for an upfront payment from MS? And would it make good business sense for MS to pay enough to make it worth it? Doubtful. It's dollars and cents here. 

I'm talking AAA first party titles which pretty much consists of Halo/Forza and Gears of War. Plus, we are discussing current events and right now MS's first party lineup is woefully incapacious. Granted, those are great franchises but they could use more and have the necessary resource to stand up/buy new studios to continue to create new ip. Look at MS 'best first party lineup ever;' Halo 5, GoW 4 and Forza 6.

Besides, when was the last time XBox Live arcade was actually  great? It'd be nice if MS got back to that as well but they seemed to lose that focus years ago. But not really germaine to the topic.

Well other studios have arguably better games but fail to achieve the same level of success. Sometimes arguably inferior games trounce Naughty Dog numbers.

I'm merely pointing out success isnt as black and white as you feel. We can both agree successful games arent always the most notable. Sometimes it just depends on what appeals to many gamers at the moment.

For example, I think Rare games sucked on the N64 and thats why they didnt age well. But for some people... that was gaming at its prime.