By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - I think Microsoft will release an xbox console every three years.

S.T.A.G.E. on 12 March 2017
Snoopy said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

1.Agreed. They are huge franchises. I am just outlining Microsofts ability to make games. The very thing people are complainng about right now.

2. Sonys first party is doing just fine. The last guardian landed an 82 Metacritic, Horion just dropped and by itself is better than anything Microsoft has ever created (im not kidding...play it). Halo Wars has no real competition on consoles because the real RTS games are made for a mouse and keyboard. Halo Wars is RTS lite. I would recommend another RTS if you have a PC. Forza is amazing. Yeah...no ones really salivating for anything Micosoft has announced outside of State of Decay.

3. Saying Sony wins because of brand name isnt logical in this day and age. They are losing popularity in the electronics industry by the day, and yet they are still ahead of their competitors in many respects. Part of it has to do with the pricing of their tech.  Regardless of that...if Microsoft could buy their competitors development studios they would, just like they bought Rare. Look at Rare today.

1. Microsoft funded Halo, Gears and Forza and helped direct it to what it is. Only minecraft isn't made or have anything with Microsoft.

2. Games are subjective. I prefer online multiplayer games more than single player games. Also, Halo wars is addicting to me because I like the online multiplayer a lot especially blitz mode. Just like how I can't wait to play State of decay 2, and Crackdown 3 the most because of it's online. I love online games the most and Microsoft has deliver the best online games imo than any publisher except for maybe EA (I love titan fall ,BF and Madden). Not to mention I prefer xbl over psn. Thats why I like xbox a lot more than Sony and Nintendo. It gives me the best multiplayer experience.

3. That has nothing to do with playstation though. When people hear GTA, Fifa, Resident Evil, MGS, FF, ect they think Playstation automatically because thats where the games started on and that is the mentality people have. Sony started at the right time and Microsoft only had real third party support for eleven years (og xbox had terrible third party support compare to ps2) while playstation had it for over twenty years.

If I was honest the only thing that dissapointed me with xbox one was they didn't go for the VASTLY SUPERIOR graphics for multiplatform games in favor of Kinect. They correcting it with the xbox scorpio which excites me, but Microsoft always aimed at this which always made me appreciate the system because I know most of my gaming are multiplatform games.

1.Funding is contributing, its not actually developing, but moreso acting as a benefactor so a job can reach its end. Gears of Wars development was funded to keep the game from going to Sony. Once again, Halo was developed to prove Apple computers could be seen as gaming machines, but steve jobs did not want to purchase bungie, so Microsoft saw the real estate after the popular tech demo of halo with jobs and yes contributed to the changing of its directions. The point is that Halo was already seen as prime real estate by Microsoft before product was finished. 

2. Games much like opinions are subjective. Trust me I love Halo and Gears hence hy I own and Xbox one. The second Microsoft lost those two key franchises (If they didnt create newer fresh IP to replace them like Sony) I probably wouldnt buy an Xbox again. With their PC initiative, theres little reason to do so, especially since I can get third party titles elsewhere.

3. What has nothing to do with Sony? Sony has to fix their issues in the electronics industry before they lose marketshare and thus continuing to lose popularity. I was referring to the electronics industry, not just the playstation brand. If I was talking about playstation by itself, its one of the major reasons why the console industry is so large and why Microsoft is even in it. Sony is more popular on more contenents than any other brand because of their offerings and thats why they always win. They have the perfect blend of first, second and third party games. Something (once again) their comeptition lacks.

Microsoft doesnt need to make a console with the greatest graphics to beat Sony. They just have to outmatch them (with tech, price and game selection) and knowing how Sony has dominated the console industry since 1994, I cannot see this happen anytime Sony. They just get what people want which is why they keep winning. Dont take for granted that the highest selling Sony home console was the weakest of all of the competition. They just had all of the games. Trying to wow people with graphics when you lack games is only a distraction from the real issue.  The issue is Microsofts ability to make games.



Around the Network
LudicrousSpeed on 12 March 2017

That's another STAGE staple, "Microsoft only purchases games/studios". He will then go on to list a bunch of games made by studios Sony actually bought, like Naughty Dog... Guerrilla, Sucker Punch, Bend, Media Molecule, among others that I'm probably forgetting. The response to this is going to be "well Sony may have bought these studios, but they totally influenced their games and instilled Sony philosophy to make them way way better!" while at the same time he'll downplay Microsofts influence on Halo.



S.T.A.G.E. on 12 March 2017
LudicrousSpeed said:
That's another STAGE staple, "Microsoft only purchases games/studios". He will then go on to list a bunch of games made by studios Sony actually bought, like Naughty Dog... Guerrilla, Sucker Punch, Bend, Media Molecule, among others that I'm probably forgetting. The response to this is going to be "well Sony may have bought these studios, but they totally influenced their games and instilled Sony philosophy to make them way way better!" while at the same time he'll downplay Microsofts influence on Halo.

Have all of those studios gone on to be superior than they were before Sony purchased them? Now let's talk about rare.



Snoopy on 12 March 2017
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Snoopy said:

1. Microsoft funded Halo, Gears and Forza and helped direct it to what it is. Only minecraft isn't made or have anything with Microsoft.

2. Games are subjective. I prefer online multiplayer games more than single player games. Also, Halo wars is addicting to me because I like the online multiplayer a lot especially blitz mode. Just like how I can't wait to play State of decay 2, and Crackdown 3 the most because of it's online. I love online games the most and Microsoft has deliver the best online games imo than any publisher except for maybe EA (I love titan fall ,BF and Madden). Not to mention I prefer xbl over psn. Thats why I like xbox a lot more than Sony and Nintendo. It gives me the best multiplayer experience.

3. That has nothing to do with playstation though. When people hear GTA, Fifa, Resident Evil, MGS, FF, ect they think Playstation automatically because thats where the games started on and that is the mentality people have. Sony started at the right time and Microsoft only had real third party support for eleven years (og xbox had terrible third party support compare to ps2) while playstation had it for over twenty years.

If I was honest the only thing that dissapointed me with xbox one was they didn't go for the VASTLY SUPERIOR graphics for multiplatform games in favor of Kinect. They correcting it with the xbox scorpio which excites me, but Microsoft always aimed at this which always made me appreciate the system because I know most of my gaming are multiplatform games.

1.Funding is contributing, its not actually developing, but moreso acting as a benefactor so a job can reach its end. Gears of Wars development was funded to keep the game from going to Sony. Once again, Halo was developed to prove Apple computers could be seen as gaming machines, but steve jobs did not want to purchase bungie, so Microsoft saw the real estate after the popular tech demo of halo with jobs and yes contributed to the changing of its directions. The point is that Halo was already seen as prime real estate by Microsoft before product was finished. 

2. Games much like opinions are subjective. Trust me I love Halo and Gears hence hy I own and Xbox one. The second Microsoft lost those two key franchises (If they didnt create newer fresh IP to replace them like Sony) I probably wouldnt buy an Xbox again. With their PC initiative, theres little reason to do so, especially since I can get third party titles elsewhere.

3. What has nothing to do with Sony? Sony has to fix their issues in the electronics industry before they lose marketshare and thus continuing to lose popularity. I was referring to the electronics industry, not just the playstation brand. If I was talking about playstation by itself, its one of the major reasons why the console industry is so large and why Microsoft is even in it. Sony is more popular on more contenents than any other brand because of their offerings and thats why they always win. They have the perfect blend of first, second and third party games. Something (once again) their comeptition lacks.

Microsoft doesnt need to make a console with the greatest graphics to beat Sony. They just have to outmatch them (with tech, price and game selection) and knowing how Sony has dominated the console industry since 1994, I cannot see this happen anytime Sony. They just get what people want which is why they keep winning. Dont take for granted that the highest selling Sony home console was the weakest of all of the competition. They just had all of the games. Trying to wow people with graphics when you lack games is only a distraction from the real issue.  The issue is Microsofts ability to make games.

1.  Wrong. Halo for example was an RTS. Microsoft redid it to make it Halo. Also, when you're funding a game you have a say on the direction of the game.

2. Not everyone likes PC gaming. Best selling games on xbox and playstation are found on PC, but people choose consoles. I prefer consoles for multiple reasons that I won't get into (because I know I will get banned lol).

3. Playstation isn't the same situation as Sony tvs. Just like xbox isn't in the same situation as the Zune. One failure device doesn't determine other devices or products. Sony exclusives once again don't sell all that well. Sony hit around 60 million before this year and it wasn't because of bloodborne or uncharted 4. It had to do with brand name, cheaper console (something I blame Kinect and Microsoft on), world wide appeal and where people friends play.

Microsoft can beat Sony in North America and UK, but rest of Europe/Japan they will lose unless something bad happends to Sony. PS3 outsold the 360 in one year in Europe despite the 360 have a year and half head start, better multiplatform games, better online, better exclusives for the first year and was cheaper. They still gravitated to ps3 eventhough they weren't buying it's exclusives and there wasn't much exclusives for the first year. Playstation is just a bigger brand in those areas because people grew up with playstation more than xbox. Sony started at the right time and xbox although very successful will never get playstation popularity unless they buy out GTA or another huge exclusive in my opinion. I think Minecraft can help a lot honestly in the future, but won't be enough for Europe. Japan, isn't something Microsoft shouldn't worry about because Consoles aren't selling well there currently.



Snoopy on 12 March 2017
S.T.A.G.E. said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
That's another STAGE staple, "Microsoft only purchases games/studios". He will then go on to list a bunch of games made by studios Sony actually bought, like Naughty Dog... Guerrilla, Sucker Punch, Bend, Media Molecule, among others that I'm probably forgetting. The response to this is going to be "well Sony may have bought these studios, but they totally influenced their games and instilled Sony philosophy to make them way way better!" while at the same time he'll downplay Microsofts influence on Halo.

Have all of those studios gone on to be superior than they were before Sony purchased them? Now let's talk about rare.

A lot of Sony studios ended up biting the dust or doing terribly (media molecule comes to mind). Also, rare did Microsoft very well for those kinect games. They were to be commended for making the kinect the success it was on the 360. Thats why they are around because they do what Microsoft tells them. Also, I have some friends playing sea of theives and they are telling me it is a fun game. They can't give out too much details due to NDA.



Around the Network
Dallinor on 12 March 2017
Snoopy said:

2. Sony's first party AAA games this generation isn't good. This year sony only has Horizon zero dawn and GT sport (which will be lack luster). Microsoft has sea of theives, halo wars 2, forza 7, crackdown 3, state of decay 2. Sony only looks decent this year because of the niche japanaese games it gets which don't sell that well outside of Japan and doesn't cater to the big western / european market.

If anything, Sony are far less hit and miss like last gen, and have the strongest future lineup ever, that I can recall from memory. I'll update my comparison thread in the future, but they're also projecting way, way higher in sales this gen.



 

Dallinor on 12 March 2017
Snoopy said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Have all of those studios gone on to be superior than they were before Sony purchased them? Now let's talk about rare.

A lot of Sony studios ended up biting the dust or doing terribly (media molecule comes to mind). Also, rare did Microsoft very well for those kinect games. They were to be commended for making the kinect the success it was on the 360. Thats why they are around because they do what Microsoft tells them. Also, I have some friends playing sea of theives and they are telling me it is a fun game. They can't give out too much details due to NDA.

Yeah they certainly don't have a good track record with their UK studios. Evolution, Sony Liverpool, Cambridge etc.

The verdict is still out on MM. They're releasing critically well recieved games, but with Tearaway, and now Dreams, I feel they're going more niche in comparison to the more widespread appeal LBP had. Still their franchise continues to sell, the last game sold 2 million. If dreams flops though, they could be in trouble. I'm not sure if it's the laws, or some sort of tax issue, but studios in the UK seem to be at a higher risk.



 

Snoopy on 12 March 2017
Dallinor said:
Snoopy said:

2. Sony's first party AAA games this generation isn't good. This year sony only has Horizon zero dawn and GT sport (which will be lack luster). Microsoft has sea of theives, halo wars 2, forza 7, crackdown 3, state of decay 2. Sony only looks decent this year because of the niche japanaese games it gets which don't sell that well outside of Japan and doesn't cater to the big western / european market.

If anything, Sony are far less hit and miss like last gen, and have the strongest future lineup ever, that I can recall from memory. I'll update my comparison thread in the future, but they're also projecting way, way higher in sales this gen.

No, Sony first party was much better last gen. PS4 is three years into their life cycle, but ps3 had way more first party in it's first three year (published) games. 2 Resistance games, 2 Uncharted games, GOW 3, Warhawk, 2 Ratchet and clank games, GT5, Demon Souls, Infamous, Heavenly Sword,KIllzone 2(way better than Killzone sf),LBP (better than LBP 3 imo),motor storm series and more.  I do agree PS4 will have higher sales than PS3 overall however.



Snoopy on 12 March 2017
Dallinor said:
Snoopy said:

A lot of Sony studios ended up biting the dust or doing terribly (media molecule comes to mind). Also, rare did Microsoft very well for those kinect games. They were to be commended for making the kinect the success it was on the 360. Thats why they are around because they do what Microsoft tells them. Also, I have some friends playing sea of theives and they are telling me it is a fun game. They can't give out too much details due to NDA.

Yeah they certainly don't have a good track record with their UK studios. Evolution, Sony Liverpool, Cambridge etc.

The verdict is still out on MM. They're releasing critically well recieved games, but with Tearaway, and now Dreams, I feel they're going more niche in comparison to the more widespread appeal LBP had. Still their franchise continues to sell, the last game sold 2 million. If dreams flops though, they could be in trouble. I'm not sure if it's the laws, or some sort of tax issue, but studios in the UK seem to be at a higher risk.

Honestly, I hate seeing people being let go, but if you can't make money that is what happends. Lionhead was the same way. I heard they spent over a hunder million dollars on freaking Fable Legends lol. That is such bs man. They should've been making Fable 4.



Dallinor on 12 March 2017
Miguel_Zorro said:
Snoopy said:

No, Sony first party was much better last gen. PS4 is three years into their life cycle, but ps3 had way more first party in it's first three year (published) games. 2 Resistance games, 2 Uncharted games, GOW 3, Warhawk, 2 Ratchet and clank games, GT5, Demon Souls, Infamous, Heavenly Sword,KIllzone 2(way better than Killzone sf),LBP (better than LBP 3 imo),motor storm series and more.  I do agree PS4 will have higher sales than PS3 overall however.

Exclusive and first party isn't the same thing.

In any case, I would argue that new first party quality has been lower across all three hardware manufacturers.  Nobody is at the level of*new*IP that they were at last gen.  I could be overlooking some games though.

I hope you didn't overlook Until Dawn.

Damn that game is good.

I must have a look back and compare the new IP for this gen and last. I'm not entirely sure, but you might be right.