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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Microsoft is deserving of praise, not criticism, for XBox 1 not having many exclusives

Mr Puggsly on 05 July 2017
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Replace them? Most new IPs don't sell as well as them. Hence, more IPs doesn't mean you have to retire popular IPs.

This is why we're getting a God of War reboot. Could have been a new IP, but the IP will sell more units.

Microsoft cannot be compared to Sony in output. Microsoft scouted bungie for halo while in development and they funded gears to keep it exclusive for years.its only recently become their ip. This is why I say they cannot replace them. You have to have high calibur developers to do that. I would love for them to increase the size of the coalition and have them work on two projects at a time like naughty dog. The coalition has developers from proven studios in it (ontop of the gears devs). The coalition has the pedigree to be bigger than 343 as 343 is only tasked to maintain halo. That's the very thing bungie wouldn't do, ironically.

god of war isn't being rebooted btw... It's a continuation. Looks like kratos is passing the torch to his son. I would've loved to get a Deimos game but we can't always get what we want. I trust Sony santamonica though.

as for the new ip... since when has Sony ever given reason for people to question their ability to make them? We can debate the quality but not the potential. We still have to see what suckerpunch is doing too. Sonys list of successful ips are only growing and now have a unified expression that brings identity of what Sony wants to convey to the masses. They need to work on their co op experiences though. 

 

Yeah, this new God of War is basically a reboot. I know the BS speak you read, but this is using the same old IP for sales reasons. At best they crowbarred some excuse to make this a successor.

Sony makes new IPs, but they aren't always hits. This is why we get a God of War, Gran Turismo Sport, etc. I'm suggesting making new IPs doesn't mean you have retrie the old successful ones.

MS has been apart of new IPs this gen, they just haven't had much luck. But we ignore Sony's failures because some succeed.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network
vivster on 05 July 2017
S.T.A.G.E. said:
vivster said:

I said "most" not "perfect". The fact that consoles in their current form even exist is already a very shitty deal for consumers.

From the current console manufacturers in this generation MS is the most consumer friendly. Sony and Nintendo are as usual bottom tier. At least since they both adapted the paid online model.

Interesting. Bottom tier.... this obviously does not explain nintnedo or sonys situation in internal output and reception this gen. So... console that traditionally excel  brand identity and exclusivity  in and of itself aren't consumer friendly ? 

 

As for adoption of the online model, it can only worked on a closed platform, not an open one. This is why it's not on PC. PC gamers spoke and Xbox gamers foot the bill. I'd say thank Sony for turning Xbox lives venture which gave little back to a discounted game venture wheee you could amass a library just by paying for online.

Read my first comment. Console gamers have been conditioned to love their brand overlords. They don't see anything wrong with exclusives and are even demanding it. That's why sales do not reflect consumer friendly behavior. I mean look at the richest companies in this world, most of which behave like complete assholes to both consumers and competitors.

I mean look at you, actively trying to justify paid online. They got you too.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

PEEPer0nni on 05 July 2017
vivster said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Interesting. Bottom tier.... this obviously does not explain nintnedo or sonys situation in internal output and reception this gen. So... console that traditionally excel  brand identity and exclusivity  in and of itself aren't consumer friendly ? 

 

As for adoption of the online model, it can only worked on a closed platform, not an open one. This is why it's not on PC. PC gamers spoke and Xbox gamers foot the bill. I'd say thank Sony for turning Xbox lives venture which gave little back to a discounted game venture wheee you could amass a library just by paying for online.

Read my first comment. Console gamers have been conditioned to love their brand overlords. They don't see anything wrong with exclusives and are even demanding it. That's why sales do not reflect consumer friendly behavior. I mean look at the richest companies in this world, most of which behave like complete assholes to both consumers and competitors.

I mean look at you, actively trying to justify paid online. They got you too.

And pc gamers are conditioned to love DRM with their Lord Gaben talk.



S.T.A.G.E. on 05 July 2017
torok said:
It's good for us consumers. However, this is a sales site, so people try to evaluate stuff through a market perspective. Moneyhatting exclusive games or content and developing exclusive titles help the platform to sell.

Moneyhatting generates a bit of bad press, but this is overshadowed by the benefits. Developing exclusives won't result in any bad blood, since no one thinks that, let's say, Sony should expend money developing Uncharted for Xbox or MS should make a PS4 port of Halo.

I don't think that having games available on PC impacts the sales of X1. A decent gaming PC costs more than the X1X, while not giving you the same return. Let alone competing with the C/B of X1S. AAA PC gaming market is also smaller, so you aren't losing many sales here, specially when you factor in that most of these people want to play on PC anyways.

What is impacting X1 is that it has few noteworthy games that are not on PS4. This years specifically, PS4 got a lot of exclusives, both first and thirdy party, and they also happened to be the best reviewed titles of the year. So, people are seeing the PS4 library as basically a superset of the X1 one, which isn't good for the brand.

Nintendo Switch also added some salt to the wound. While it has way less titles than X1 (less 3rd party support), it got highly praised exclusives, so people started comparing exclusives. It also may impact the situation of people that buy multiple platforms. Right now, a PS4 + Switch combo is the one that results in more games for you to play.

Almost perfectly stated. In the spirit of competiton i disagree that Sony and Microsoft should give one another their premier exclusives. That would be anti business especially when both brand are trying to have a selling point to differentiate themselves from one another. They cannot compete based on online infrastructure and power alone. These things come secondary to the value of a library at an affordable price with as much packed in as a whole.



vivster on 05 July 2017
PEEPer0nni said:
vivster said:

Read my first comment. Console gamers have been conditioned to love their brand overlords. They don't see anything wrong with exclusives and are even demanding it. That's why sales do not reflect consumer friendly behavior. I mean look at the richest companies in this world, most of which behave like complete assholes to both consumers and competitors.

I mean look at you, actively trying to justify paid online. They got you too.

And pc gamers are conditioned to love DRM with their Lord Gaben talk.

No one on PC loves DRM, dunno where you did get that from. PC has GOG and cracks, consoles have DRM only. Nobody who does not like DRM on PC has to live with it, on consoles you have to.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
derpysquirtle64 on 05 July 2017
Azzanation said:

If exclusives are lost to its competitor than i will agree. However its not. PC isnt a competitor to Xbox. Its an alliance. Xbox is always the home to Halo, Forza and all of Xbox 1st party games. You can always garentee the next big Xbox IP will be on Xbox. There is no garentee they will be on PC. Where MS is smart is because there are PC gamers that dont buy consoles. Thats a huge market in itself.

I think there is. MS stated that all there games will come to PC in the future. This year they even have an exclusive game for PC which is not on Xbox.

Azzanation said:

Like i stated before. The Gaming community needs to accept that Win10/Xbox is the same thing. Xbox will always be Xbox. You cannot play Crackdown 3 on Nintendo or Sony platforms.

No, it is not. And that is the main problem with MS strategy.

Azzanation said:

Also you still avoid the fact Halo 1 and 2 were available on PCs for a long time. How did that affect the Xbox brand? Hmm it didnt.

Halo 1 was released on PC almost 2 years after the release on Xbox. Halo 2 was released on PC almost 3 years after Xbox release. And by that time MS was focused on Xbox 360 and original Xbox was discontinued everywhere except in North America. It just couldn't have affected Xbox brand in any way considering such long delays. And now you compare it to having all the games on PC the same day they release on Xbox. 



 

S.T.A.G.E. on 05 July 2017
vivster said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Interesting. Bottom tier.... this obviously does not explain nintnedo or sonys situation in internal output and reception this gen. So... console that traditionally excel  brand identity and exclusivity  in and of itself aren't consumer friendly ? 

 

As for adoption of the online model, it can only worked on a closed platform, not an open one. This is why it's not on PC. PC gamers spoke and Xbox gamers foot the bill. I'd say thank Sony for turning Xbox lives venture which gave little back to a discounted game venture wheee you could amass a library just by paying for online.

Read my first comment. Console gamers have been conditioned to love their brand overlords. They don't see anything wrong with exclusives and are even demanding it. That's why sales do not reflect consumer friendly behavior. I mean look at the richest companies in this world, most of which behave like complete assholes to both consumers and competitors.

I mean look at you, actively trying to justify paid online. They got you too.

I have no brand overlord. I give my money to whoever gives me what I want. 

I never justified online gaming either. when I was first on this site I had no PS3 only had a 360 and still was against paid online gaming. It's just known logic that you can only hold people to certain experiences  with a monthly price of admission. When I argued last gen against online paywalls 360 gamers came at me with the argument about server. It's such a funny thing because no one talks about the servers today. The narrative has changed to the cloud. The narrative with PlayStation and Nintendo has never really changed. It's always been about the games.

 

For growth to ensue the deal between consumer and console makers has to be more even. If you take from them their individuality you take away their survival and in a way that's anti business or just anti capitalist in general.



Conina on 05 July 2017
genius16 said:
Who started with paid online multiplayer games?

Nintendo and SEGA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellaview#Events_and_prizes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Meganet



derpysquirtle64 on 05 July 2017
vivster said:
PEEPer0nni said:

And pc gamers are conditioned to love DRM with their Lord Gaben talk.

No one on PC loves DRM, dunno where you did get that from. PC has GOG and cracks, consoles have DRM only. Nobody who does not like DRM on PC has to live with it, on consoles you have to.

It is true and false at the same time. If you don't pirate the PC games you are basically tied to Steam with the majority of games. So, PC gamers have to live with DRM the same way as console gamers.



 

vivster on 05 July 2017
S.T.A.G.E. said:
vivster said:

Read my first comment. Console gamers have been conditioned to love their brand overlords. They don't see anything wrong with exclusives and are even demanding it. That's why sales do not reflect consumer friendly behavior. I mean look at the richest companies in this world, most of which behave like complete assholes to both consumers and competitors.

I mean look at you, actively trying to justify paid online. They got you too.

I have no brand overlord. I give my money to whoever gives me what I want. 

I never justified online gaming either. when I was first on this site I had no PS3 only had a 360 and still was against paid online gaming. It's just known logic that you can only hold people to certain experiences  with a monthly price of admission. When I argued last gen against online paywalls 360 gamers came at me with the argument about server. It's such a funny thing because no one talks about the servers today. The narrative has changed to the cloud. The narrative with PlayStation and Nintendo has never really changed. It's always been about the games.

 

For growth to ensue the deal between consumer and console makers has to be more even. If you take from them their individuality you take away their survival and in a way that's anti business or just anti capitalist in general.

If the narritive is just about the games then I wonder why online gaming is not excluded from the paywall.

I think the value of PSN Plus is already fine even without the forced online. But Sony saw that console gamers forfeited and wanted to get in on the action. Now Nintendo is following. Of course it was never about servers. It was always about money and extracting as much of it as possible without gamers revolting. It's even easier when you already have a very shitty environment that conditioned people to lie down and just take it. Which Nintendo and Sony are doing with their exclusive and very restrictive closed boxes.

Why do you think it's so hard to do the same on pc? Because there, people are used to the highest freedom and consumer choice. On console there never was much choice and there isn't to this day. Which makes Sony and Nintendo bottom tier in consumer friendliness and choice.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.