Thanks, I know. But come on, Halo Halo Halo Halo.... Is MS unable to sell something if Halo or Gears is not in the title ? Are they that afraid to try something really new and to let go these IPs ?

You want to make a RTS ? Bring us Age of Empires back !

Yeah, but Microsoft picked up Ori a year into development. Scalebound and ReCore are published by Microsoft but developed by Platinum and Comcept/Armature, respectively. These aren't really homegrown properties. Even Gears 4, which is technically developed by a subsidiary studio, is based on a franchise Microsoft purchased instead of one that was developed internally. Bringing Killer Instinct back after 17 years was a nice gesture, but employing a free-to-play/season pass model hardly does the series justice.

For me, it's not just about publishing exclusive games. It's about taking advantage of the resources at Microsoft's disposal, specifically its stable of IPs and its studios. Taking Black Tusk/The Coalition away from "the next Halo" to build another Gears of War may have been a good business decision, but I'd much rather see what that studio can make from scratch.

Don't get my wrong: creating deals with independent studios for exclusive content is great. I'm looking forward to ReCore and Scalebound, and games like Cuphead and Below. But I also want to see Microsoft build up its subsidiaries, dust off its old IPs, and allow its internal studios more creative freedom. 

Who would anyone let Halo or Gears just go?! whatever that means.

You asked for new IPs, they will bring you Quantum Break and Scalebound. Both look incredibly promising to me.
Then you go on and say that if they want to make an RTS, they should use an existing IP like AoE?!

That makes zero sense to me.

Microsoft bought the rights to Ori a year into development but it was on par with it since scratch. It was Microsoft that put together Moon Studios across the world. Just like Mistwalker's Sakaguchi.

Homegrown games are no different from third party deals, generally. Homegrown games are made by personnel that could be there today and leave tomorrow. The only place where homegrown term makes sense, is Nintendo.

Gears was shaped by Microsoft; instead of a Thr=ird Person Shooter with Unreal Tournament style, Microsoft asked Epic for a campaign and designated their in-house writer to supply Gears lore. That man is Eric Nylund, MS vet and the writer of the first Halos.

Killer Instinct being a Free to Try game, gave the series more boost than they had antecipated. After it was dormant for the longest time, KI amassed a new base of fan while entertaining the old ones. Even Street Fighter V is adopting its price/sales model, so it can't be that bad.

Microsoft is taking the most efficient and business sound decisions in handling their IPs. Gears was going to be put on hyatus by Epic after being bought by Tencent. MS had a new studio full of talented people, saw an opportunity to snatch back one of the best game directors in business (Rod Fergusson, Microsoft vet) and a lot of them were familiar with Gears; which shift consoles.  Gears fanbase is too big to be left unnatended.

When some of the games listed isn't even first party we start bad

I agree.

Those are fair points. In general I like the fact that Microsoft is working with industry partners to make exclusive content. I guess my biggest concern is that, for me, it's games like ReCore, Scalebound, Cuphead, Below, and Quantum Break - Microsoft exclusives made by third-party studios - that are most appealing. Not games by Microsoft subsidiaries. I just wish it was the other way around.

I think xbox ONE exclusives already show diversity. Some sweet games coming out for the one

Crackdown 3 is not a TPS. You do more platforming in Crackdown than anything once the orb addiction sets in. It should be under action game.

Platinum isn't first party, so you can cross that out.