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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - With Series X, Microsoft has no more excuses for first party software droughts

DonFerrari said:
Leynos said:
I just don't want to hear MS say yet again for the 15th year in a row "Greatest lineup in Xbox history" . Heard that promise forever and a day. I kinda wish they would revive Rare lesser-known stuff like Wizards and Warriors. Maybe Captain Skyhawk?

But guys here will say Phill Spencer haven't said that nor did promise to improve the first party for several years.


Well then they be liars. I’d say Phil was optimistic in his PR which you can’t blame him for keeping things hopeful. Seems BC, Xbox X and Game Pass was their main R&D for the first few years. Somewhere along the line they realized it’s easier to buy studios then form your own. Phil pitches to the CEO and the rest is history. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Leynos said:
I just don't want to hear MS say yet again for the 15th year in a row "Greatest lineup in Xbox history" . Heard that promise forever and a day. I kinda wish they would revive Rare lesser-known stuff like Wizards and Warriors. Maybe Captain Skyhawk?

But guys here will say Phill Spencer haven't said that nor did promise to improve the first party for several years.

d21lewis said:

I don't agree with your analogy. The generation went on for 8 years before the successors hit the market. M$ was only out one year longer than PS3 and only sold about 5.5m during that first year. They wanted to sell 10 million before the PS3 released but that didn't happen *. There was a "Dreamcast effect" where people just wanted to see what Sony offered before buying. In every reveal, the PS3 looked to be a better system in every way, showing demos that looked better than anything the Xbox 360 was showing. AND it had fancy Wii like motion controls. You remember Sony saying "Next gen doesn't start until we say so".

And even then, Sony didn't surpass Xbox until after the PS4 and Xbox One were released *. And even that came at a huge financial cost.

There's a quote I read in a magazine that I can't find anywhere but it stayed in my mind. It was something like: Sony: "Their lead doesn't matter. We've been in this position before. Dreamcast first, PS2 later. PS1 first, N64 later. It doesn't matter what they sell. We'll quickly overtake them and it will be business as usual." And they had every right to feel that way. It was historically accurate. No matter what the competition did, Sony crushed them. They outsold the competition by five times during the 6th gen.

If you were running the 100m against Usain Bolt and he gave you a 15m head start and you barely lost by seconds even after blowing your hamstring early in the race (subtle RRoD analogy, there), that's actually something to be proud of. I'd say a better analogy would be Rocky vs Apollo Creed. Despite having nobody believing in him, Rocky went toe to toe with the champ. He didn't even belong in the same ring. He fought an amazing fight, almost won, and stole our hearts.

Then later, Mr. T easily beat the hell out of him and killed his manager.

*Sales figures are from memory. May not be 100% accurate.

Rocky managed to be champion on second movie, third and fourth, and even after retired he almost won again.

Don't see MS doing the champion on X1....

It's been said at every E3 last few years.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:

But guys here will say Phill Spencer haven't said that nor did promise to improve the first party for several years.


Well then they be liars. I’d say Phil was optimistic in his PR which you can’t blame him for keeping things hopeful. Seems BC, Xbox X and Game Pass was their main R&D for the first few years. Somewhere along the line they realized it’s easier to buy studios then form your own. Phil pitches to the CEO and the rest is history. 

Yes I agree and I don't blame him for being a PR person trying to promote his console the best he can (even if I point out the hypocrisis in some of his speeches) I just laugh when people deny that he is doing it and have been promising and not delivering until this last year of X1 (even if it doesn't really have a direct impact to releases on X1 anymore) excusing him that it takes years to improve the first party (sure the games to release will take time, but we can't say it takes 4 years to buy the devs, and then excuse another 3 years to release games).

Leynos said:
DonFerrari said:

But guys here will say Phill Spencer haven't said that nor did promise to improve the first party for several years.

Rocky managed to be champion on second movie, third and fourth, and even after retired he almost won again.

Don't see MS doing the champion on X1....

It's been said at every E3 last few years.

Pretty much



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:

Well then they be liars. I’d say Phil was optimistic in his PR which you can’t blame him for keeping things hopeful. Seems BC, Xbox X and Game Pass was their main R&D for the first few years. Somewhere along the line they realized it’s easier to buy studios then form your own. Phil pitches to the CEO and the rest is history. 

Yes I agree and I don't blame him for being a PR person trying to promote his console the best he can (even if I point out the hypocrisis in some of his speeches) I just laugh when people deny that he is doing it and have been promising and not delivering until this last year of X1 (even if it doesn't really have a direct impact to releases on X1 anymore) excusing him that it takes years to improve the first party (sure the games to release will take time, but we can't say it takes 4 years to buy the devs, and then excuse another 3 years to release games).

Leynos said:

It's been said at every E3 last few years.

Pretty much

Well...I admit it wasn't the perfect analogy. 🙄

I don't expect XSX to win either. And I'm pretty sure nobody expected the XBO to compete. As much as I love it, it was doomed since the day it was revealed. No head start, weaker hardware, higher price, etc. I think I made a thread (maybe it was my alt, attaboy) saying this gen was gonna be one sided and no fun. Next gen probably will be as well but I do expect the XSX to have a few victories here and there.

*Edit* I think I quoted the wrong post! Oops. Getting old.



mZuzek loves Smeags. 😢

d21lewis said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes I agree and I don't blame him for being a PR person trying to promote his console the best he can (even if I point out the hypocrisis in some of his speeches) I just laugh when people deny that he is doing it and have been promising and not delivering until this last year of X1 (even if it doesn't really have a direct impact to releases on X1 anymore) excusing him that it takes years to improve the first party (sure the games to release will take time, but we can't say it takes 4 years to buy the devs, and then excuse another 3 years to release games).

Pretty much

Well...I admit it wasn't the perfect analogy. 🙄

I don't expect XSX to win either. And I'm pretty sure nobody expected the XBO to compete. As much as I love it, it was doomed since the day it was revealed. No head start, weaker hardware, higher price, etc. I think I made a thread (maybe it was my alt, attaboy) saying this gen was gonna be one sided and no fun. Next gen probably will be as well but I do expect the XSX to have a few victories here and there.

*Edit* I think I quoted the wrong post! Oops. Getting old.

For all that is worth X360 but one hell of a good fight and got a lot of marketshare, we can expect XSX to also do some good fighting.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Dulfite said:

They still came out with 3ds games during that time.

I know, but for a costumer of WiiU the releases on 3DS doesn't really matter.

It is like saying that because MS was releasing Windows and Office products during that time alleviate they not releasing games.

My original post addresses the perspective you just shared. Nintendo had two different fanbases to appeal, on two different platforms (pre Switch) so to expect them to produce as many first party games on any one platform as Sony/Microsoft does (knowing each of them either hardly builds first party games for a second device or never does) is silly. Sony and Microsoft have a lot more time to develop for their one device each because they don't have a second device to develop for. Vita was mostly a 3rd party device if memory serves me and psp was so long ago it isn't really relevant. 

If we are comparing productive quantity of the big three, then it is only fair to compare how many first party games they had (total) come out collectively, not just on one device.

3DS +Wii I vs. Xbox One vs. PS4 is the only fair way to do it.



PotentHerbs said:

This generation could be the best first party support for an Xbox console ever.

All ready getting 2007 vibes :)



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Dulfite said:
DonFerrari said:

I know, but for a costumer of WiiU the releases on 3DS doesn't really matter.

It is like saying that because MS was releasing Windows and Office products during that time alleviate they not releasing games.

My original post addresses the perspective you just shared. Nintendo had two different fanbases to appeal, on two different platforms (pre Switch) so to expect them to produce as many first party games on any one platform as Sony/Microsoft does (knowing each of them either hardly builds first party games for a second device or never does) is silly. Sony and Microsoft have a lot more time to develop for their one device each because they don't have a second device to develop for. Vita was mostly a 3rd party device if memory serves me and psp was so long ago it isn't really relevant. 

If we are comparing productive quantity of the big three, then it is only fair to compare how many first party games they had (total) come out collectively, not just on one device.

3DS +Wii I vs. Xbox One vs. PS4 is the only fair way to do it.

I know it, but from customer POV is even sillier to excuse the lack of games on the WiiU you own because they were releasing on 3DS you don't own. We can't deny WiiU was abandoned. They had 2 system during GB and DS plus they are multibillionaire and focused on gaming, so we don't need to excuse they not taking steps to ensure WiiU received good support.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
Dulfite said:

My original post addresses the perspective you just shared. Nintendo had two different fanbases to appeal, on two different platforms (pre Switch) so to expect them to produce as many first party games on any one platform as Sony/Microsoft does (knowing each of them either hardly builds first party games for a second device or never does) is silly. Sony and Microsoft have a lot more time to develop for their one device each because they don't have a second device to develop for. Vita was mostly a 3rd party device if memory serves me and psp was so long ago it isn't really relevant. 

If we are comparing productive quantity of the big three, then it is only fair to compare how many first party games they had (total) come out collectively, not just on one device.

3DS +Wii I vs. Xbox One vs. PS4 is the only fair way to do it.

I know it, but from customer POV is even sillier to excuse the lack of games on the WiiU you own because they were releasing on 3DS you don't own. We can't deny WiiU was abandoned. They had 2 system during GB and DS plus they are multibillionaire and focused on gaming, so we don't need to excuse they not taking steps to ensure WiiU received good support.

They supported it just fine until they switched focus to the Switch. But every device is eventually unsupported due to the company focusing on the next gen, not just Wii U. The difference for Wii I I'd it was cut short a year early. Prior to that last year I don't see any difference in amount of first party games produced compared to Wii, GameCube, N64, etc. During their respective supported years.

If you have data to back up that claim I'll admit you are right.



Dulfite said:
DonFerrari said:

I know it, but from customer POV is even sillier to excuse the lack of games on the WiiU you own because they were releasing on 3DS you don't own. We can't deny WiiU was abandoned. They had 2 system during GB and DS plus they are multibillionaire and focused on gaming, so we don't need to excuse they not taking steps to ensure WiiU received good support.

They supported it just fine until they switched focus to the Switch. But every device is eventually unsupported due to the company focusing on the next gen, not just Wii U. The difference for Wii I I'd it was cut short a year early. Prior to that last year I don't see any difference in amount of first party games produced compared to Wii, GameCube, N64, etc. During their respective supported years.

If you have data to back up that claim I'll admit you are right.

The reason used on VGC by almost everyone to show WiiU had poor sales was that they released few games, and Nintendo themselves excused themselves due to the long droughts. You even said you have to use 3DS together to say they didn't had a long period without great games.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994