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

I really don't think we'll have to worry about droughts on Xbox again. They now have 15 first party studios and seem to have somewhere between 21-27 autonomous teams between those 15 studios. Assuming an average of 3 years of development per game, that works out to between 7 and 9 first party games per year on average. Some games will get more than 3 years (Halo Infinite is getting 5, and a leaker on Era today is claiming that inXile's AAA RPG will get 4-5 years as well), others will get less than 3 years probably (smaller stuff from single A teams like some of Double Fine's teams for instance, Forza could possibly go back to 2 years in the future though I hope it stays at 3 years, perhaps with a 3rd racing franchise added into the yearly rotation like PGR or a kart series), but things should average out to about 1 game every 3 years per team. Even with possible delays or cancellations being factored in, we're still looking at 6 or more 1st party games per year most likely. 

And that is just 1st party, MS currently has 3 announced 2nd party projects (Battletoads, Flight Simulator, and Tell Me Why) plus they say they have quite a few unannounced 2nd party projects as well, including some larger AA and AAA 2nd party projects I believe. Then there are the 3rd party exclusives and timed exclusives like Scorn, The Ascent, and The Medium from the recent 3rd party event. MS strategy seems to be copying Netflix with Gamepass, Netflix has a steady supply of new exclusive content year round, both Netflix Originals and moneyhatted movies and tv shows from 3rd parties, and I think Xbox's goal is to do the same thing with Gamepass, keep up a steady stream of exclusive games so that people will want to be subbed year round instead of only subbing for a month when a big game releases. 

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 21 May 2020

Around the Network
shikamaru317 said: And that is just 1st party, MS currently has 3 announced 2nd party projects (Battletoads, Flight Simulator, and Tell Me Why) plus they say they have quite a few unannounced 2nd party projects as well, including some larger AA and AAA 2nd party projects I believe. 

TBF, there's no such concept as 2nd party. Those are simply 1st party games developed by independent studios. They're overseen by Xbox Game Studios Publishing, which acts as part of XGS in general.



TheMisterManGuy said:
shikamaru317 said: And that is just 1st party, MS currently has 3 announced 2nd party projects (Battletoads, Flight Simulator, and Tell Me Why) plus they say they have quite a few unannounced 2nd party projects as well, including some larger AA and AAA 2nd party projects I believe. 

TBF, there's no such concept as 2nd party. Those are simply 1st party games developed by independent studios. They're overseen by Xbox Game Studios Publishing, which acts as part of XGS in general.

2nd party as I see it are games that are published by a platform holder (Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft for instance), but not developed by an owned internal studio. Then you have the 3rd party exclusives, which are either self-published by indie studios or by a 3rd party publisher, but have a timed or full exclusivity deal with a platform holder, examples being games like FF7 Remake on PS4 and Scorn on Xbox Series X/PC. 



DonFerrari said:
Dulfite said:

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.

I was specifically addressing the 7 month timeframe someone said it took before a new game dropped. I never said it had great support, but the notion that Nintendo was only pumping out one first party game total every 7 months is ridiculous. And again, we have to track combined first party because they split their development teams in half before Switch. If they just had Wii U and not 3ds, they would have had far more first party games come out. We can't penalize them for that.

And I used that argument for all generations, not just Wii U/3DS.

In any case, everytime someone responds so far they aren't understanding what I'm saying, so I give up. I guess this is just a communication error. I'm certainly not going to argue with people.



shikamaru317 said:

2nd party as I see it are games that are published by a platform holder (Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft for instance), but not developed by an owned internal studio.

I find 2nd party flawed as a concept because that can apply to anything. Would Fire Emblem be considered 2nd party? Intelligent Systems isn't technically owned by Nintendo, yet many consider it a first party IP anyway. What about Ratchet & Clank? Insomniac for the longest time was an independent company, yet Ratchet was still considered a first party PlayStation IP. These "2nd party games" are also still being worked on by first party development staff anyway, so the distinction is rather pointless. Sony's Japan, Santa Monica, London, and San Diego studios have worked on a variety of games from independent companies, as have Gruella Games and Media Molecule. Nintendo's EPD division has its hand in practically every game the company publishes, and one of Xbox' studios, is a unit who's sole function is to just oversee games from independent companies. 

Basically anything published by the Platform holder in my eyes, is a first party game, as the publisher is still calling the shots on the game's development. 



Around the Network
TheMisterManGuy said:
shikamaru317 said:

2nd party as I see it are games that are published by a platform holder (Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft for instance), but not developed by an owned internal studio.

I find 2nd party flawed as a concept because that can apply to anything. Would Fire Emblem be considered 2nd party? Intelligent Systems isn't technically owned by Nintendo, yet many consider it a first party IP anyway. What about Ratchet & Clank? Insomniac for the longest time was an independent company, yet Ratchet was still considered a first party PlayStation IP. These "2nd party games" are also still being worked on by first party development staff anyway, so the distinction is rather pointless. Sony's Japan, Santa Monica, London, and San Diego studios have worked on a variety of games from independent companies, as have Gruella Games and Media Molecule. Nintendo's EPD division has its hand in practically every game the company publishes, and one of Xbox' studios, is a unit who's sole function is to just oversee games from independent companies. 

Basically anything published by the Platform holder in my eyes, is a first party game, as the publisher is still calling the shots on the game's development. 

The concept is actually well defined.

1st party - Studios of the platform holder

3rd party - Independent studios working on their own IPs (can be multiplatform or exclusive)

2nd party - comissioned work, IP is owned by platform holder and studio still have independence but almost only develop for that platform.

So Insomniac was a second party for Sony since almost all games were on Sony consoles and Sony owned the IPs, but let's say Atlus is third party as is the Ryu ga Gotoku team from Sega even if most of their games were exclusives to Sony or Insomniac when making Sunset Overdrive that was exclusive to MS.



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:

The concept is actually well defined.

1st party - Studios of the platform holder

3rd party - Independent studios working on their own IPs (can be multiplatform or exclusive)

2nd party - comissioned work, IP is owned by platform holder and studio still have independence but almost only develop for that platform.

I'll buy the concept of 2nd party studios. But 2nd party games aren't a real concept as far as I'm concerned. You're either a first party game, or a third party one. 



TheMisterManGuy said:
DonFerrari said:

The concept is actually well defined.

1st party - Studios of the platform holder

3rd party - Independent studios working on their own IPs (can be multiplatform or exclusive)

2nd party - comissioned work, IP is owned by platform holder and studio still have independence but almost only develop for that platform.

I'll buy the concept of 2nd party studios. But 2nd party games aren't a real concept as far as I'm concerned. You're either a first party game, or a third party one. 

Well the only concept of 2nd party game would be a game made by a second party studio, but sure it would look akin to a first party game.



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:
TheMisterManGuy said:

I'll buy the concept of 2nd party studios. But 2nd party games aren't a real concept as far as I'm concerned. You're either a first party game, or a third party one. 

Well the only concept of 2nd party game would be a game made by a second party studio, but sure it would look akin to a first party game.

I still consider games from independent studios published by the platform holder to be first party. The platform holder is still putting their own money and dev talent on these games, so they count IMO.



TheMisterManGuy said:
DonFerrari said:

Well the only concept of 2nd party game would be a game made by a second party studio, but sure it would look akin to a first party game.

I still consider games from independent studios published by the platform holder to be first party. The platform holder is still putting their own money and dev talent on these games, so they count IMO.

Published I don't consider because that could be temporary exclusive, local publishing among other circumstance. The important part is the ownership of the IP.



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