More Exclusives = More reason to buy the thing.

I completely agree with what you are saying and I would like to expand on this.  I feel that Microsoft missed their chance on really building up their first party studios.  That is not to say that they can't do it right now with the XB1, it's just that the best time to do it was during the 7th generation with the XB360.  

As you have mentioned, Microsoft hid behind third party games (looking better on XB360, timed DLC, etc) and gained success through Sony faultering with the PS3.  They had huge support in America and Europe over their direct competitor, Sony.  They had their blockbuster hits coming out (Halo, Forza, Gears, and Fable) to compliment their third party success and rode that the entire generation.  Keep in mind that the 7th generation wasn't short, but rather, the longest a gaming generation has lasted to date.   There was so much negativity surrounding Sony during this time, which was exactly the right time to purchase studios and/or start developing a close relationship with other studios.  Microsoft had timed exclusive games, Bioshock/Mass Effect, and the gaming community was not in uproar because the XB360 was the place to play.  You had Sony losing exclusivity with games, such as Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy, with a constant "PS3 got no games" circulating around the internet.  

What I am trying to say, is that THIS was the perfect time for Microsoft to increase their first party studios just as how Sony did during the PS1 and PS2 era. You don't try to do it when you are down and you have so much negativity surrounding you.  Now it's not like Microsoft had only two or three years to gain support from studios and to partner with them during this time.  They had eight years (2005-2013) to increase their first party studios and they didn't capitalize on it.

Phil Spencer is doing a phenomenal job trying to turn the XB1 around, but I feel it is too late.  The time to steal the thunder away from Sony was during the XB360 era.  Of course the console reveal at Microsoft's E3 Press Conference didn't help their image, but they would still have DDR3 instead of GDDR5.  Sony would still have third party marketing rights with timed DLC over the XB1.  So I think we would be in the exact same place, where Microsoft needs to have an increase in 1st party studios, with or without the bad 2013 reveal.  Now Microsoft can try to increase their first party studios; however, they have to convince the studio to work with a system that isn't selling as well while battling the gaming communities negative remarks.  That is why I have been stressing that they needed to do this last generation instead of this one.  

Another big issue that Microsoft needs to fix is their image, and I don't mean the bad image with the DRM policies etc.  I am talking about differentiating themselves from the XB360.  Microsoft should continue to support Halo, but I honestly feel that they should drop Gears since the last installment took a dive and to get rid of "the same exclusives as 360" argument.  Of course it was a smart move to release Gears 4 so that you can see this franchise on the next generation hardware; however, I feel that this should be the last in the series.  Microsoft needs to take a gamble, although a rather small one, and allow The Coalition to develop their new IP that they had envisioned prior to jumping on the Gears wagon.  Now I say that this is a gamble because they are afraid that the consumers aren't going to buy the new IP as much as Gears.  But this is where they are all wrong!  This is one of their top developers, not a gamble.  That is like not trusting Naughty Dog on their new IP after Uncharted 4.  Have some faith and take a risk Microsoft.  Complacency only leads to failure, only the paranoid survive.

The last thing that Microsoft needs to fix is to not compete against themselves.  We saw it last year when Sunset Overdrive got smothered with Halo: TMCC and Forza Horizon 2.  We are again seeing this with Rise of the Tomb Raider, Halo 5, and Forza 6, not to mention games like Battlefront, Fallout 4, and COD.  It baffles me as to why they didn't release Sunset Overdrive in the Spring of 2015 when they knew they were going to have such a huge gap without games.  Releasing all of their games all at once causes XB1 exclusive games to steal sales from  other XB1 exclusive games.

My point is that you don't have to do one or the other. Sony have struck a lot of 3rd party deals but that doesn't mean that their studios will stop making games and it hasn't stopped them investing in new first party IPs.

I'm just saying MS aren't in the position to invest into 3rd deals effectively and Sony are because of the market share explained in my other posts. Phil knows this and he's making a negative sound like a positive. It's very good PR actually.

Marketshare doesn't matter if a majority or large portion of game sales take place in a territory where the consoles sell a lot closer. See: Fallout 4. You think Bethesda cares if PS4 is outselling Xbone worldwide by whatever the margin is (just checked, +10.7 million or so if VGC is correct), if a majority of the sales come from the US where the gap is a million or whatever? Furthermore if you're talking about a CoD or Destiny type content deal where the new content is just delayed on the other console, that's nothing obviously compared to the amount of money that would be required for a Tomb Raider/Street Fighter V type deal.

We've already seen a very large push by MS this gen towards unique IP's that they own as opposed to third party deals. Plus a sizable increase in studios recently to expand their studio. Maybe, idk, the guys from last gen are gone and there is new leadership at Xbox with a different vision? Or maybe it doesn't take nearly as much money to make exclusive content deals as some here believe? Last gen the 360 sold almost 20 million more than PS3 in the US and yet Sony still got exclusive content/timed exclusive deals for games that sold most in the US. So it either doesn't cost as much as some think or Sony blew shit tons of money on turds like Medal of Honor, Ass Creed, etc.

I'm siding with the idea that the math is off from some ITT. Publishers love money and know that little pieces of content here and there don't sway sales much. Clearly it would take a ton of money to completely buy a game, for either company.

I agree with everything, including the part where Microsoft had eight years of success to build up their first party and do Sony in. Sony's first party and level third party helped them catch up to Microsoft. A lot of people just want to ignore the tools Sony had at their disposal to come back, but Unless Microsoft learns that lesson they wont be able to come back at Sony like Sony did them last gen. Dwindled a 10 million console lead to eight and then pretty much to nothing.

I think it is two things:

1) I think MS really doesn't care enough to try much of anything else.

2) It takes a lot of effort to launch new IP's / buy new studios.  You can't just "Buy good studios."  Sony had to discover Guerilla Games and Naughty Dog first, or offfer them the best deal  first.  Not every studio is this good, and so again with them not caring...

Sony had already invested in building their own first party before they bought those companies. All it really takes is an interest, especially when inspiring studios you buy to make the type of games you want. Microsoft currently has more studios than their compeition and nowhere near the output.

By no means am I saying MS couldn't do this if they tried.   The fact is they easily could, it would just take effort that they have never been willing to put forward.  

From the start MS stated that they created XBOX to stop Sony from owning the entire market, and to sneak Windows into the living room.  That's it.  They never really were commited to making money through truly being a part of the industry, they just want their piece of the pie, and a new avenue for selling their non-gaming products.  That is why they have always left one of their feet outside of the door so-to-speak.