I feel Playstation games are way more diverse than Xbox. Xbox doesn't have games similiar to Spiderman or God of War. Sony also has games like Twisted Metal which is being revived Ghost of Tsushima is something Xbox can't make too many games etc.

Cherry picking much? Xbox has more than Halo and Gears. If I look at Grounded, Pentiment, Psychonauts, Flight Simulator and Minecraft, than each pair in this list leaves Ratchet&Clank and The Last of Us look somewhat similar.

Also, in the past Sony has catered to worldwide tastes, but they at least abandoned japanese tastes for the most part (illustrated not only by dissolving their japanese game branch) and focusing on western tastes.

He's using Halo and Gears to demonstrate that two games with different perspectives (Halo 1st person, Gears 3rd person) can have more similarities between them than two games that are both 3rd person. He's right.

Microsoft has to have more diversity due to the sheer volume of developers under them, which they owned through means Sony can't possibly match. They're like 3 giant publishers combined into one, so of course they have the upper hand in diversity and output. And yet... Sony still does cover genres/styles that Microsoft don't. Vehicle Combat, Sports, and Souls-like come to mind. They're also funding more platformers and semi platformers (Ratchet, Astrobot, Sackboy) as Microsoft leaves Conker and Banjo to rot, and Psychonauts 2's completion had nothing to do with them, just like Minecraft before it. VR is another unique area Sony is exploring and innovating in.

There's a lot of room for improvement but this whole thing about them having little to no diversity is just nonsense. Their games remain reasonably diverse functionally and aesthetically. They've also expanded Team Asobi from 25 at the time of Astrobot to over 60 atm and looking to reach a 100. Closing Japan Studio isn't the end of it.

Do Runa mean that? Because nothing in the post actually points to your interpretation.

And regarding Japan Studio, Sony really lost the talent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-32ayyFomc&ab_channel=GoodVibesGaming

EDIT: Also, I didn't made the claim, that Xbox has more diverse gaming than PS. But some of the replies of defenders of Sony have been so outragously removed from reality, that I had to answer and now talk more about Sony in a MS thread. So course correct: MS shows much more incredible diversity than they did in the past (again, take a look at Grounded, Pentiment, Psychonauts, Flight Simulator and Minecraft), and studios they acquired earlier like DoubleFine, Obsidian and InXile are thriving and are very creative. So I am positive about Zenimax and ABK, even though it will take some time until they show games that started under the umbrella of MS.

I'm not saying I agree entirely with Runa here, but to say "nothing in the post actually points to that interpretation" is ridiculous.

Most of Runa's first paragraph is about comparing the look/feel/aesthetic of different games. 

I would say though that MS is at the very least building towards having more variety. A lot of those fruits haven't come out yet. We're still waiting on Bethesda, id Software, Arkane, inXile, etc, etc. to launch most of the games they've announced since they were acquired by Xbox. But they're in a strong position with lots of variety.

They need variety for Gamepass. They need to give as many people as many reasons as they can to subscribe to Gamepass, and to stay subscribed to Gamepass.

I would say right now, Microsoft has more diversity in their studio line up, and the games are following. And it's something that Sony is making lots of efforts to compete with. 

Okay, a few things: 

1 - I wasn't 'cherry picking', it's well known that Halo and Gears are two of the most popular and successful Xbox game franchises ever. I chose them becuase they're successful and popular and  yet aside from the 1st vs 3rd person perspectives, their overall look, feel, style, and aesthetic are pretty similar. Space marine shooters fighting aliens. Not to say they don't have their niches and don't have strengths and weaknesses, but that they are more similar in look, feel, and tone to each other than any two of the list of Sony games I provided. (The closest you could get is that The Last of Us and Days Gone are both zombie games) 

2 - I deliberately chose to not include games published by a company but on opposing consoles (like Minecraft and Psychonauts) because they're not selling Xbox consoles. Just like MLB the Show isn't selling Sony consoles despite being published by sony. When I make these discussions I'm strict about 'Xbox games' being games you can only get on XBox but not Playstation or Nintendo (I include the family of consoles, so if it's Xbox One and Series X but not Sony/Nintendo then it counts; I also don't factor PC into the equation since if I did Xbox would never get a single game and Sony's output would also slowly be whittled down)

3 - I specifically chose a bunch of well-reviewed, high-selling, popular games on Sony's and Microsoft's; the fact that I had to google what Pentiment even is doesn't help your case at all. 

4 - Have you seen all the JRPGs that either have been or are Sony exclusives for years? Sony very much so has done a good job juggling all worldwide audiences, including Japan (Though Nintendo is still better at Japan and Microsoft is still better at America; The key is that Sony does a bit of EVERYTHING, hence the argument about diveristy). 

To be fair I wasn't talking AS MUCH about the 1st person vs 3rd person narrative here, but I was thinking it because it seems to be a very popular talking point when comparing Sony to Xbox games on this forum and elsewhere. I hear a lot about how 'all of Sony's games are 3rd person, action-adventure, narrative-driven, singleplayer games' despite how BROAD of a category that is. And every time I've ever argued that fact, I point out that bit about Halo and Gears being so similar, and I get the same kick-back of 'they're not even the same perspective', like that separates them entirely despite their overall look and feel are really similar. 

So yeah, I didn't explicitly say so in this post/thread but it has been an ongoing narrative and I think they are rightly extrapolating from prior discussions. 

As an aside, I'm still waiting on Xbox to actually GET diverse. They keep buying up all these companies with virtually limitless potential but we're still only getting the basics most of the time. Any attempts to try something new is rife with problems, takes WAY too long to properly get moving (Sea of Thieves, took years to become what it is today), is loaded with glitches (State of Decay, Crackdown), is just outright bad (Ryse), or is eventually ported to the comptetition (Cuphead, Ori). 

And the games/developers they do have still seem to have a VERY western focus. Americanized. I LOVE Bethesda (I'm literally buying a Series X primarily for Bethesda Games), but they do a very western style of RPG. I love Doom and Wolfenstein and the other stuff made by id software but...more shooters for the shooter crowd. I don't hate Call of Duty but...another heavily western-focused military shooter. A lot of their biggest games are heavily americanized, fixating on shooters, western RPGs, Racing (in the case of Forza and Forza Horizon), etc. That's not a bad thing, which is why I actually hope that Microsoft gets Activision-Blizzard.

They need to bring something to the table and I think specializing in these genres or the american marketplace is going to be their best bet. Trying to compete with sony worldwide is never going to turn out in their favor; even the 360 ended up getting bested by the PS3 mostly due to Sony's wider range of audiences. Diversity is not Microsoft's strength. And until we start seeing more of these promised games from these 23+ dev teams they've bought, they just haven't been delivering on variety or quantity. They NEED this. 

I do hate that they can just BUY all the competition instead of actually creating IP on their own, I hate the fact that they can have influence by brute force rather than innovation or what-have you, and I generally disrespect the fact that for most of Microsoft's time in the games industry they've only existed to compete and take a piece of the pie (IT's well known they only made the original Xbox to compete with Sony, they put out the 360 early to beat sony to the punch, they made kinect to compete with Nintendo, and more and more they just keep buying companies to hoard them and take away from the competition rather than create games on their own; even Gears and Halo were first developed outside of Microsoft rather than created in house.) 

IT's clear they are trying to do the 'good for consumers' route by making their console have a bunch of awesome features and quality of life improvements, I don';t personally see the use in Gamepass when my PS5 has over 375 games on it, most of which are better than Gamepass (Actually owned, not PS+ or PRemium), but I understand why other people like it. I have my rants on Gamepass and subscription-based games (I don't think it's a good way to do it since games are an interactive medium and thus not fit for most subscription services...but I also know I'm in the minority here.) 

Point is, right now Xbox doesn't really HAVE an identity. Their variety is nonexistent compared to sOny and Nintendo, and the only way they're going to compete is to really nail down the western/American audience by buying all the FPS games and western RPGs, etc. They need to either get this shit done and stop waffling about or they need to get the heck out of the console market becuase they have nothing unique to offer. T

As I've said though, they're literally doing both. Spending $69bn doesn't stop them from doing the other things that you want them to do so I don't understand the complaint. Isn't Eiyuden Chronicles coming to Game Pass on day one? That's just another form of Microsoft providing financial support to a developer.

If you simply dislike large companies acquiring large companies then that is fine but all the stuff about what Microsoft should have done instead, despite the fact that they are doing that stuff, is a bit odd to complain about Imho...It seems like your actual complaint is simply not liking large publisher acquisitions.

Nobody thinks it's risky, Microsoft is literally doing both things as we speak from acquiring large publishers, acquiring smaller developers, funding projects, providing financial assistance through Game Pass, improving and providing tools (see Game Stack). They're doing almost everything you're asking.

So, Microsoft is spending billions on that stuff already. That $69bn spent on Activision was just chilling in the bank in a total balance of $100bn+ and Microsoft was looking to invest it quickly. It probably would have just been used on something else. They tried to acquire Pinterest for $50bn and Discord for over $10bn as well, Lol. It is earmarked for acquisitions.

This isn't entirely true; Tim has praised Microsoft a lot for Psychonauts 2, it had a lot of cut content and they were running out of budget until Microsoft acquired them, Tim said the acquisition helped them to delay the game and add back a bunch of the cut content, including the praised boss fights.

Implying that Halo/Gears are that similar is just as silly as the Xbox fans saying that all PlayStation games are the same, Lol. It's lowering yourself to that level of debate, a level which makes zero sense.

"Yet aside from the 1st vs 3rd person perspectives" - You say this as if this isn't already a huge difference for a shooter, Lol.

Halo/Gears look nothing alike. Halo is often more vibrant, colourful with grand sci-fi set pieces and futuristic equipment. Gears is often more dreary, dark, realistic and closer to modern look, they have two completely different art-styles.

Halo/Gears also feel nothing alike; I don't even know how you can play both games and say this with a straight face, Lol. Heck...Not even some Halo's feel like other Halo's, Lol. Gears has relatively kept the same feel since its inception whilst Halo has changed it up quite a bit. I like them both, but I'd always prefer Halo's gameplay and always get demolished on Gears MP. The combat encounters are completely different.

"Space marine shooters fighting aliens" - This isn't even accurate either, the COG in GoW aren't even space marines, they've never even stepped one foot in space throughout the whole of Gears 1-5, Lol. The Locust (the enemies in GoW) are not aliens either, they're native inhabitants to Sera, the planet which GoW takes place on.

The Locust and Covenant couldn't be any more different in terms of motivation, technology, story, design and feel to fight.

Even with Halo/Gears having heavy military themes too, they're still different tonally, Gears is a lot more personal than Halo I would say, it's less a story about humanity at war and more a story about "brothers" while Halo has Chief basically solo everything and barely show any emotion whilst doing it (although he receives more characterisation in later games) it is mostly just Chief kicking ass with a grander story overlapped over him.

If does feel like you've not played either and just think they're similar because they've both got guns and have military themes, Lol.

As for Pentiment...It doesn't help your argument that you just discount any game simply because you've personally not heard of it, isn't the first time that you've completely discounted an Xbox game on the basis that you specifically haven't heard of it, Lol.

Buying 3rd partystudio or buy exclusivity there is a big difference, the first option allows everyone access the second removes access

Wait.. did you just say that Halo and Gears have more things in common than all of the "Third person perspective and a focus on singleplayer" games on Playstation?? Dude, Halo and Gears are not even in the same genre..

What's next? are you going to tell me that you see more similarities between Gears 5 and Gears Tactics than between TLOU and Uncharted?