So basically, they don't have the market share to get exclusives at a reasonable price.

It would depend on the IP. If it's a western IP that sells mostly in the US, I don't think it would be hard to secure one because the Xbox One and PS4 are almost neck and neck. 

And Japanese or EU IP though, like say MGS or FF/KH? No, that isn't going to happen lol

They have to keep commissioning third party devs to continue developing their IPs?

-Like Ratchet and Clank is commissioned? Or Quantic Dreams IPs? How many Souls spiritual successors will be commissioned to From Software?

343i is rightfully made to be a dedicated studio. To be one, you gotta work with a hit, let that one sink in...

Yeah, they probably will commission studios to develop new IPs, and down the road perhaps add them to the first party roster, and might well buy studios outright, but that hardly condemns the exercise as pointless, or any titles released as inferior. o.o If we go through Sony's own first-party staples, both Sly Cooper and Infamous were both made by Sucker Punch before they became a first party studio, the first Motorstorm was released a number of months before Evolution Studios became a first party, and Killzone was released before Guerilla became a first party studio, meaning there were commissioned and third-party titles across the board. Meanwhile, Naughty Dog was acquired by Sony sixteen years after it had been founded, and both Cambridge Interactive and SCE Bend Studio were studios under different names that Sony bought and rebranded.

That's even completely ignoring contracted games like Bloodborne, which is easily my favorite title of the generation thus far, and one of my favorites in MEMORY, despite 'just' being a third party title.

Now, Microsoft's approach last gen shot themselves in the foot, because rather than spend the past handful of years building up their first party staple, they opted instead to chase after the Kinect and focus their other efforts largely on the same few franchises. It's that exact mindset that turned me so thoroughly off to the Xbox 360 during the last few years. If, (again, IF,) their untenable marketshare and resultingly steep 'buy exclusivity' costs are leading them to turn their eye to actually FUNDING games from start-to-finish, and not just paying to keep them temporarily or permanently off a platform, then again, I'm happy. =P Maybe nothing will come of it, time will tell, but even the declaration is still a marked improvement over 2010-2013.

1- They are losing 3rd party exclusives like exclusive advertising, exclusive DLC, timed DLC, timed exclusives and full exclusives because MS will lose more money if they have to pay to keep it off of PS. As long as PS4 has the bigger market share it will always have the advantage because Sony can pay less for the deals.

Say if Sony want to make Watchdogs 2 exclusives. Ubisoft project it will sell 2M on PS4 and 1M on X1 and they want $10 for every lost sale if it went exclusive. Sony would have to compensate them $10M while MS would have to pay $20M. So Sony have a better chance of making the deal work and bring in extra money (shift more consoles,PS+ etc).

2 - This is totally irrelevant. Its about what the publisher project their game will sell on consoles. Of course bigger install base equals more softaware sales but it doesn't go up drastically over time. A game rarely sells over 5M on a single platform.

3 - Colours showing a little here. I'm not even sure what's your point here. Games going to PC? NMS going to PC? What is your point?

I see you logic and thats only one layer of what Sony does.

Can Microsoft make a God of War? Killzone, Uncharted, Last of us, Shadow of the Colossus or even an Ico on their own? 

2 full generations has told us no.

Microsoft has only followed up with Fable and Forza which is just as comparable to GT. As far as getting on Sony's level of internal first party development, they've got a long way to go.

Phil Spencer is headed in the right direction, but hes got a long way to go if he thinks buying IP's is the answer.

Exactly. Microsoft hid behind third party because they were winning and got so many deals. The victor tends to get the spoils and third party are running back to Sony now just like in the PS2 era. While they did that they built up no defenses and had a pretty big exclusives drought towards the end of the gen, proving that trying to emulate Sony's ten year plan is not exactly healthy for them unless they can stretch out their development cycle across a decade. This means they need more internally made first party franchises. People choose to be blind. Its good to read a refreshing comment when someone thinks.

So basically you couldn't answer me.

Killzone is supposed to be Halo killer together with Resistance. Two can't make one, why would MS emulate those games?

If MS can make GOW, Uncharted, etc... in case you didn't notice MS games don't put much emphasis on cinematic aspect of games. And Sotc and Ico, what's so technically difficult about them that MS can't achieve?

Fable+Forza= GT, what's the reasoning behind that? GT hasn't been on Forza level since gen 7 began.

Most of the car roster was detailed, car sound was unparalelled, car & tire physics were better than competition but I guess high standards in gaming is not one of your worries.

Phil Spencer is heading in the direction of 1st party portfolio strenghtening. I guess copying competition IP buy out is not good, The Wonderful 101, Bloodborne and Until Dawn are not good business practice I guess.

.......Anddd you were right.

I see this big foot fellow has a habit of running away when proven laughibly wrong
But I don't even wanna know how this devolved into dc vs pgr graphics..wtf is going on with this forum