300°

Editorial: Microsoft Still Using Xbox 360 To Carry PS3

53
Blend Games writes: "About a year ago we had an article here on Blend Games about the Xbox 360 having to carry the PS3, in regards to third-party support. Not only has this prediction come true, but Microsoft is reaping some of the benefits from developers using the Xbox 360 to leverage software for the PS3, simply because it makes the 360 look like a decent console.

It would seem like the red rings of doom would have put MS and the Xbox 360 six feet under. The virtual grave of failed consoles extend back a long ways, and everyone was sure that the 360 was destined to lie in the pit next to Sega's promising, but doomed, Dreamcast. Instead, Sony had to go and release the PlayStation 3, sparing Microsoft from suffering a blatant defeat at the hands of Nintendo and its steam-rolling Wii. "
Read Full Article >>   
cinemablend.com
TheDynamo - contributor
Published: 441 days 1 hour ago | Article | PlayStation 3 | Xbox 360
 
 

Showing: 1 - 45 of 45 Comments
1 xSHROOMZx | 441 days 2 hours ago - User only got 1 bubble - Show
Shut this user up Let user speak
DARKKNIGHT - 440 days 19 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
1.1 -
wow, its like the golden girls reunion in here. can anyone please insult someones mother?

to the dude below me, you basically took my thoughts and you sugar coated them so you dont get your s#it set on fire by the xbox fans.

Me i tell it like it is. no sugar coating or bubble whoring here. Just headshots all day
Agree(2) | Disagree(4) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
Master Debater - 440 days 12 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
1.2 -
no u
Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
Tacki - 441 days 1 hour ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2 -
As an owner of all 3 next-generation consoles I must say that I'm a little displeased with Microsoft's strategy thus far. Please, do not misunderstand that statement. It's not a mere attack on the company itself. I have genuine concerns over their approach to the gaming industry. They've no doubt contributed some fine things like their online service which has no doubt been influential throughout this generation. Who knows if Sony would be so dedicated to pushing out firmware updates to add functionality if it weren't for Microsoft providing them with competition. I give alot of credit to them for that.

What I'm displeased about is the way they have gone about delivering content for gamers. And no I'm not mad because they stole 'precious PS3 exclusives'. If more gamers get to enjoy great games then that's wonderful for them. Though in a way I wish to see less of those me-too tactics. The reason being.... Microsoft did a fantastic job with features like their xbox live service as I mentioned before. They really carved themselves out a unique place in that regard. I love that. I love that they were able to stand out with that. I love that they really helped push the industry forward in that way and I wish to see them do the same on the gaming side of things.

No doubt they've provided quality content for their users... but I feel they focus their resources on many things that are not helping to expand the industry. I'm not saying Sony has done all or any of these things better, so please take these as my thoughts on Microsoft and not so much the competition between two or more companies. It's the things like paying $50 million for GTAIV downloadable content. That's an absurd amount of money and could easily have gone towards the development of a new IP. I want to see them open new studios and invest in the future if they really are serious about staying in this industry.

As it is it seems to me as though they're too focused on their competitor(s). Their mindset seems to be "We will provide you with the best content available." Notice that word 'available' I used. They don't appear interested enough in making their own games. This generation there are so few third-party exclusives and there's probably more similarity between consoles (with the exception of the Wii) than we've ever seen before. Is Microsoft trying to make a name for themselves... or take a name? Now I don't agree with a few of Microsoft's practices, but believe me I do very much enjoy my 360. It's a great machine and I'm not trying to put it or the games down.

Microsoft has done a good job at getting their foot in the door... but I want to see them push the envelope. I want to see them aim higher. Right now it looks to me like they're aiming for their competitor's kneecaps instead. I don't one to see one winner. I want to see a bunch of winners when it comes to gamers. I want to see the industry pushed forward by each of the big 3 doing their own thing. Define gaming in seperate ways.
Agree(29) | Disagree(10) | Report | Reply
Shut this user up Let user speak
pwnsause - 441 days ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2.1 -
"It's the things like paying $50 million for GTAIV downloadable content. That's an absurd amount of money and could easily have gone towards the development of a new IP. I want to see them open new studios and invest in the future if they really are serious about staying in this industry."

or open a new game studio. Because of their Money Hatting, one of their best Studios are closing down, in fact one of my favorites, Ensemble always delievered with their RTS games.
Agree(11) | Disagree(1) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
LinuxGuru - 441 days ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2.2 -
Yeah, ensemble only made AGE OF EMPIRES, one of the most often-played series of RTS games in history.

Dumbass Microsuck had to close them down like the pure idiots they are.
Agree(10) | Disagree(1) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
PoSTedUP - 441 days ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2.3 -
woah woah WOAH, did yall just say no more Age Of Empires?!?
Agree(6) | Disagree(1) | Report
2.4 CIO Caveman Trolls | 440 days 23 hours ago - User only got 1 bubble - Show
Shut this user up Let user speak
pwnsause - 440 days 23 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2.5 - PoSTedUP
Ensemble Studios Develops for the Age of Empires IP and the Halo Wars IP. Halo Wars will be Their Last game before the close down for good. So it means no more Age Of Empires games unless Microsoft passes the IP to another in-House Studio, either way, its going to suck. Microsoft's Money Hatting is one of the Biggest Threats other than casual gaming in the Gaming Industry.
Agree(6) | Disagree(1) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
mikeslemonade - 440 days 23 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2.6 -
Microsoft can only lean on the 3rd party after already reaping from there few 1st party games which is why we see exclusive DLC and timed exclusives such as Rock Band. The first Rock Band was a simultaneous release and now all of sudden it comes 360 first and Microsoft realized Rock Band is a huge seller so they payed for that. How long can Microsoft capitalize on the 3rd party and how much are they willing to spend? It certainly cost a lot more to get a 3rd party to do favors then a 1st party that is already under your hood.

These 3rd party games are not going to be system sellers, but they are very compelling with the $199 arcade price. Frankly a 2006, 2007, 3rd party multiplatform game looks visually the same as 2008 and also what 2009 will look like. The gameplay is no different aside from a few gimmicks. What does Tekken 6 really do more than Virtua Fighter 4? What does Dead Space do more than Bioshock/Prey? This is why if a person just wants a solid next gen experience and they don't mind playing the generic games then the 360 is compelling at a cheap price. With the PS3 there's more potential, the games are more diverse, and the games make greater leaps visuals and also in gameplay. Killzone 2 arguably the best looking game for all of 2009 uses only 4.5 cores of the PS3's cell processor.
Agree(6) | Disagree(5) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
JokesOnYou - 440 days 23 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2.7 - @ Tacki
I do agree with your sentiment overall about pushing the envelope instead of just more of the same, however I do just see it as a "strategic difference" micro has adopted to be competitive. In other words who says micro NEEDS to own more dev studio's (like sony) to produce quality exclusives, when Gears itself is a great example of them just paying a 3rd party dev to make a awesome *exclusive game.... who cares HOW or WHERE micro got it from in the end all that really matters to the consumer(gamers) is that they get to play a great game, I don't see anything unethical or troublesome about that strategy.

Also you say:

"As it is it seems to me as though they're too focused on their competitor(s). Their mindset seems to be "We will provide you with the best content available."

No thats simply just NOT true when you look at the overall strength of their gaming library to date....its much more diverse than the original xbox, which was once their biggest criticism being labeled a "shooters" console. They've changed that stigma mostly and in doing so they also brought over some previously notable ps2 exclusives to further the idea of having the best and most diverse lineup available on any platform (subjective, but I believe thats the idea). I think there are plenty of examples of micro exclusives at least "trying" to push the industry or do things differently...some succeeded to an extent (Gears, -rodie run/cover system, benchmark in graphics) (Mass Effect -facial animation/interactivity) (Bioshock -gameplay/moral choices/atmosphere) (Halo -multiplayer depth/co-op gameplay) and some didn't quite live up to their full potential (Too Human -new control scheme) Now am I saying these games are totally new and innovative, NO but they all did up the ante a bit in their respective categories but in any case comparatively speaking I don't see where they've dissapointed in the gaming dept by NOT PUSHING the industry IF others have succeeded. Also why do we act as if this is a brand new concept first adopted by micro, sony did the exact same thing with the ps brand, they had a few great 1st party exclusives but also benefited greatly from franchises that were once only on Nintendo platforms. Again its all about doing what works to grow your business model, getting popular 3rd party IP's available on your platform isn't a "me too" attitude its just practical business because obviously those games sell well, at the same time this does not mean micro is only focused on old ps IP's, no its simply one facet of their strategy so far not the entire scope, which again is evident if you actually judge by their current gaming library compared to the competition.

JOY
Agree(8) | Disagree(4) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
Why o why - 440 days 23 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2.8 - JokesOnYou
you get a bubble for being one of the better 360 guys on N4G. I remember the old you. Its like you was pretending to be a rabid fanboy but now your just a guy with a preferance for the 360 so kudos.

What you said about gears is a substantial point. You could only say gears and not a plethora of titles because 3rd parties seem like exclusive is a word that has to have some type of prefix like 'console' or 'timed'. MS are making strange decisions in terms of their identity and future imo.
Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
JokesOnYou - 440 days 23 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2.9 - why o why, yes...
I've been on my best behavior for quite some time, I promised myself no more getting drunk and ranting on n4g when I'm pissed off.

I come in peace, only to shed light where there is only darkness.

Bubbles to you, Sir.

JOY
Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
Why o why - 440 days 23 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2.10 - wouldnt let me edit.....
Also comparing the library does not tell the whole story. The year headstart may mean a bigger library but how many of those games honesty are totally irrelevant now? Sony's library is catching up quickly even after a year delay. Sony has a game type that MS does not have which is the in between game titles like siren, tekken DR, WipeoutHD etc. MS has nothing to counter that plus sony have many studios so it wont be long before there are actually more games on the ps3 than the 360 and a good proportion of those games will be TRUE exclusives making the library thing redundant.

oh

'and you speak sooo well', lol
Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
JokesOnYou - 440 days 22 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2.11 - not so fast....
Well of course you CAN compare the entire library, micro had a yr head start, but so what....it is what is which means right now their library is in fact more diverse, you can't penalize micro for getting the jump on the competition, just like you can't say RROD problems never existed, "take the good with the bad". Also if you ask how many of them are "irrevelant" now then we can ask the same of some past decent sony exclusives like R&C, you see what I mean?

Then you say sony's library is catching up, maybe it is but whats so impressive about those games you mentioned like WipeoutHD as opposed to the titles already on or coming to the 360?, hell I still think Forza 2 with its physics and customization is the best racer I ever played, in other words "to each his own".

And whats a "True" exclusive?, oh are you saying its only a true exclusive if its made by 1st party devs? NO, if micro pays a 3rd party studio to create a new IP, they are buying the rights so its their IP not the studios, so again its possible for them to get a fair share of their *exclusives simply by paying for them as oppose to sony having most exclusives dev'd in house, why do I care if the game is 1st party or not, as long as its good, right? hell I don't care if they only pay for timed exclusives, I have both consoles but I'm still going to play it day one on whichever console it hits first.

JOY
Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
Tacki - 440 days 22 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2.12 - @ JokesOnYou (2.7)
Well, I'm not saying that Microsoft NEEDS to do anything really. All I was really talking about is what I personally would like to see and what I feel is good for the industry as a whole. I agree that where great games come from doesn't really matter as long as it's reaching the consumers... but as it seems to be happening third-party exclusives are becoming slim and we're starting to see alot of titles appear on several platforms. The way I look at it... those games from third-parties will be made (granted they have the budget to create the game themselves) regardless.

While those games may exist... why not come out with your own? That's what I meant when I was talking about the way they use their resources. I'd rather see them fathering a new studio and/or putting that towards the development of new IPs. They don't NEED to do this... but I feel it would be to their and the consumer's benefit. You can always take some fish out of the pond but if you throw in some of your own then you're creating growth within the industry and giving gamers even more.

As for where you quoted me... I think I just wasn't clear enough. The above is all I really meant. I don't think it's 'wrong' that they've gone after some franchises previously associated with the Playstation brand. It's a smart business move for sure... but it simply falls back on my desire to see them contribute more 'in-house' titles. Nintendo and Sony have such a strong first (and second) party and I think Microsoft should work on improving theirs in this age where third-parties aren't as likely to focus on just one console. First party games are more important than ever when it comes to defining a console.

I agree with alot of what you said and you do make good points... but I think maybe I just wasn't as clear as I could have been in my first comment. I was doing other things and kind of rushing a bit. Hopefully you have a better understanding now. I meant in no way to say that Microsoft hasn't improved greatly from the original xbox. In terms of getting gamers quality content and variety I think they've very much suceeded. My comment was less criticism and more like... my hopes for them I suppose you could say. I'd just rather not see two consoles I own start to blend together in terms of the games where they become less distinguishable. I'm not saying that it is happening or will happen... it's just something I'd rather not see.

And I tried to keep it strictly about Microsoft for that comment (may have wavered a bit) because I feel there's alot of could say about all 3 and my posts already run long enough. That, and I don't always have time to address every matter I'd like. Still I like to contribute my thoughts whenever I can.
Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
Jdoki - 440 days 22 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2.13 -
Fantastic comment Tacki. I completely agree.
Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
Why o why - 440 days 22 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2.14 - by True
i mean not timed. I dont mind it being console exclusive and on pc like gears which i still consider a true exclusive, some dont but i do.

The games that fall into the category im on about are ones such as bishock, lost planet, eternal sonata UT4 etc. Gears, Mass effect, Forza, Drakes, Wipeout, Heavenly sword, Gran Turismo are the true exclusives im on about and when you weigh those up its clear that most of the titles mentioned are 1st/2nd party. Its an exception that 3rd part games will be total/true exclusives therefore MS and Sony like Nintendo have to rely on themselves to differentiate themselves by producing them themselves.

Dont get me wrong, my irrelevant games are the ones that have already been followed up like GRAW, COD3 FIFA 07 etc not 'one aways' like mass effect heavenly sword or R+C. If we done the library like you kinda suggested with 08 titles only then sony has released more but thats not either of our points. Im just saying that the thing that will seperate one from the other is the exclusives and i feel MS might be hurting themselves in the long run if they continue with their current model
Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
JokesOnYou - 440 days 21 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2.15 - @2.12 Tacki
uhm, OK I get where you're coming from in fact, I read the whole thing twice looking for something to disagree with but I just couldn't find anything....its hard to disagree with a sensible common sense response so I've given up on you. What better way to pop my last bubble.

Good day, Sir.

Edit: @why o why vvvvv, I kind of agree with you but I don't know if micro is hurting themselves in the long run, this could be a short term strategy, micro could be right around the corner from buying or starting a few internal dev studio's. Who knows what will be announced in the future but remember although micro aren't some small time company they are still essentially the underdog still fighting against two heavyweights like Ninty and Sony so in the short term they need to keep the momentum of delivering great games anyway they can until their brand gains the right amount of creditability worldwide= imo.

JOY
Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
Jdoki - 440 days 21 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2.16 -
JOY, some of your past comments I couldn't agree with, but at least they were (generally!) well reasoned and could never be categorised as rabid fan boy! :)

Bubble up as your point of view in this topic is interesting.
Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
edhe - 440 days 21 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2.17 - Re: library comparisons.
You must compare the entire library of all systems of the one generation no matter the difference in launch period.

Because it's the entire library that a consumer would be looking at, not the '2nd year' library.

The release date of the console is no argument for or against quality games. If they didn't want the competitor to be ahead then they should've released earlier.
Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
jfrdricks7931 - 440 days 10 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
2.18 - I wouldn't
Exactly call the wii next generation. It is more like almost next gen.
Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
thereapersson - 441 days ago
PM
Track
Ignore
3 - @ PostedUP
Yes, that is correct. Unless Microsoft decides to pull some sort of trick and have some other company develop the games, there will be no more Age of Empires games.
Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Shut this user up Let user speak
dimeford - 440 days 18 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
3.1 -
"Unless Microsoft decides to pull some sort of trick and have some other company develop the games"

Like the new company they're forming from the bulk of Ensemble after they close that studio?
Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
RememberThe357 - 440 days 12 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
3.2 - I read that that bulk your talking about are going to start a new studio.
But who really knows what MS is going to do, they acting like crakcheads right now. Unpredictable and edgy.
Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
Why o why - 440 days 23 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
4 -
MS wants sonys identity. Everything sony had last gen MS wants this gen. It is the console that is lacking in identity. Its fast becoming the mr me too of this gen with only gears, halo and a couple others + unreal engine leaving a lasting legacy. There is becoming less reason to own both consoles nowadays. Its like owning an amiga and an atari st, too similar. Games that were born on the ps brand are now on the 360 but gamers remember which came where first. What is MS bringing to the table in terms of identity except the concept of 'we want that too' or 'we'll pay for timed'

Hats off their making their console owners happy and ultimately thats the point but by doing so and culling their own internal studios they have lost their identity and the means to create its own. Sony are doing sony whereas MS are doing what they do in all their industries

Im lost on MS's strategy for the future and the financial implications of buying everything. Yep sony are also guilty of these practices especially in the ps 1 days but it seems they'd learnt from that and shifted focus to a model that still had 3rd party support whilst acquiring and developing 1st/2nd party relationships which could differentiate them from their closest competitors in various ways
Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Shut this user up Let user speak
Dark General - 440 days 23 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
4.1 -
I think the internal studio's is a pretty big thing. Like you said over the course of time Sony has brought out studio's and have 2nd party dev's like Insomniac backing them. Over time. That's the key word there i think. Microsoft is now showing they are "legit" when it comes to this console business. Sure you want to have appealing titles that the competition doesn't have and MS is doing that by paying for exclusives.

With grabbing Sony's old exclusive games MS is doing 2 things. Developers and big name console publishers are becoming more familiar with them. At the same time all the big name games are also coming to the 360 as well as Ps3. Almost like addition by subtraction, taking away some things Sony once held while adding them to their own merits. In the long run they will have to build a stronger 1st and 2nd party base. Developers will start to take notice and milk MS for making "timed exclusives" and the like.

Not only would that undercut the Playstation base with it's someodd million owners it would also be throwing off the balance of things. Paying 3rd parties to make games for you is fine. But if that's (almost) all you're doing it's going to come back to bite you because the dev's will not only recoup their losses over time by selling on both systems. But also your own in house engines and IP's will be lacking. What happens when you decide you no longer want to pony up the cash? That could be a interesting issue down the road.
Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
JokesOnYou - 440 days 22 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
4.2 - read between the lines...
Great post Dark General, but I think theres one key point that your arguement overlooks.

Now heres a question is it more cost effective to pay hundreds of employee's salary/and overhead costs of maintaining an internal dev studio for its entire existence or is it simply cheaper to pay 3rd party studios individualy to make new IP's?

I do remember reading somewhere a few months ago where micro mentioned that focusing less on internal studios vs securing 3rd party support/exclusives/DLC was in fact more cost effective than owning them...I think it was their reply to a rumor about buying out Take Two or something....honestly I don't know which is cheaper for sure but I guess it would depend on the dev and the type of game, in general though I think its logical that micro's "apparent" strategy is at least a little cheaper.

JOY
Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
Dark General - 440 days 21 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
4.3 -
That's a good question. I think in the long run it would be better to uphold your internal studio's more than support third parties for exclusives. Look at games like BioShock, Mass Effect they were exclusive (ME still is) but after the contractual agreement is up they could port or move base to another console. There's a difference i think there between really owning (rights, universe, characters etc) titles and paying 3rd parties to exclusively release them on your system for awhile.

I think over time that 20 million you invest for a title by a third party could have been distributed for developing in house tech or new franchises. I think you could capitilize more off of that, and you wouldn't have to rely on third parties in the end. Look at Nintendo and Sony. They have (and in Sony's case are) standing more or less on their own relying more on their first party offering now that the market has changed. Also i think that statement is pretty dead on about owning take-2 a pretty big publisher. I think that's much harder entity to take under your wing then say buying Rockstar.

Also look at in house studio's like Naughty Dog and Sony Santa monica. those two teams aren't over 100 people each (though i think Santa Monica might be a little above that). I don't think the numbers are that big, not like say a MGS or RE team where it's 200+ people.
Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
Jdoki - 440 days 21 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
4.4 -
If MS were smart they would offload all their 1st party studios.

This may sound crazy, but hear me out...

Owning IP is cheaper than owning a studio (as JOY mentioned).

Plus, talent moves around, IP's don't. Rare are still a talented bunch, but do they have the same level of talented personnel they had in the N64 era?

MS would be smarter cultivating a lot more 2nd and 3rd party relationships. Creating new IP, or buying exisitng IP. Plus it gives them the flexibility of moving their IP to the best company available.

In the long run it would be cheaper for MS and better for the industry.

Look at the massive stable of IP Nintendo STILL has not tapped in to with the Wii.
Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
Why o why - 440 days 21 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
4.5 - I think you have to strike up a balance
it may be more cost effective in the short term but it shows less foresight by disolving or culling internal studios like MS has done of late. They're here to stay so people not taking them seriously is a non issue tba. I think the game cube software problem was that it was overly reliant on 1st party games and lacked in the rest. I think MS's issue as of today is that they dont have enough 1st/2nd party support. This console generation is fast becoming which of the big 2 next gen consoles differentiates itself and by definition its harder to do this with less studios because 90+% of the games on their system are on the other.

I think we can all agree that proportiantely True exclusives sell better than other games and theres only a few titles out that disprove this. With that being said the rewards and risks taken with internal are greater but unestimated advantages develop like the sharing of knowledge and techniques, even staff. Im sure some of sony's devs have worked with other teams within the sony umberella. I know its been said many times but you honestly have to look at the exclusives when it comes to pushing the limits of each console. Ports are not the gage in my opinion.
Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
Jdoki - 440 days 20 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
4.6 -
I get what you are saying Why o why, but I don't think many people care where a AAA exclusive title comes from.

Would Gears sell better if made by a 1st party company? Would Halo 4 sell less than Halo 3 if it were not made by Bungie?

If MS had no 1st party companies it could essentialy employ the 'best of breed' 3rd parties to make the games it wants. And it has no issue about talent leaving.

If MS could invest directly in the development of it's IP's, and leave the overheads to the 3rd party studios it would definitely benefit in terms of the final product quality.

For those of us gamers who come to this site and endlessly debate the nuances of the industry then maybe Halo 4 by Gearbox would be a big deal... But for the masses Halo 4 is Halo 4 and the developer is meaningless.

For example, my Dad and brother are huge CoD fans, but they don't know/care about the whole Infinity Ward / Treyarch situation - they like the series and buy each CoD game on day 1.

Bungie is still Bungie regardless of it's 1st or 3rd party status. MS can now invest directly in to Halo 5 (for example) and leave the running of the company to Bungie.
Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
Dark General - 440 days 20 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
4.7 -
You hit very valid points. The thing is in the long run don't you think these companies would exploit MS's 1st party shortcomings? Business is cut throat either way you slice it or dice it and over time companies would catch on to MS's tactics. Charge more for exclusive deals, have MS cover more expenses like researching tech etc. Not to mention these companies would probably lobby to keep the IP (or at least the universe ala Project Origin).

You're definitely right about what MS did with Bungie though. They released Bungie from their fold to let them do as they please but they still own the rights to Halo. This has definitely been an interesting discussion though guys. Better than the usual console war banter bullsh*t. It'll be interesting to see how things unfold, that's for sure.
Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
Jdoki - 440 days 17 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
4.8 -
I agree with you Dark General. And it's my biggest concern about Microsoft's tactics with exclusive DLC.

I'd hate to see developers moving towards intentionally holding back content (which is probably already happening) just seal an exclusive DLC deal.

I kinda see this like any other free market - for example if I want a plumber or a mechanic I will take my business to a reputable one who gives me the best value for money. MS could do the same with developers, and hopefully avoid being 'exploited' by greedy devs.

Despite this interesting discussion, I guess the bottom line is that hardware manufacturers are always going to want to hold on to a few 'prestige' 1st party developers, even if it's just to reatin IP, or for marketing purposes.

For example, personally I think a company like Rare is still a competant developer, but a long way short of their N64 (and 8-bit)days. But MS would be unwise to sell them off at the moment, because Rare still conjures up fantastic memories for many gamers; and has a bucket load of solid IP.
Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
McValdemar - 440 days 23 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
5 - Bah!
I won't ever understand people that say they're a gamer and they complain about HOW MS brings more games, exclusives or DLCs.

Are you a gamer?
F*ck the reasons.
F*ck how much MS spent.

And thanks that you can have more games or can decide to extend your games via exclusive downloads or can play sooner many titles.

MS simply delivered a console that had a terrible break-ration in the first period but that also have an incredible ammount of software.

Sony simply isn't doing enough. And is all their fault.

So please, stop with this articles of pissed fanboys.
Don't complain on what is doing MS sinceid GIVING GAMES and exclusive contents to costumers.
Ask what Sony could do and is not doing.
Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Shut this user up Let user speak
Jdoki - 440 days 21 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
5.1 -
I don't think the issue here is people complaining about MS bringing content to the masses, it's about how they are going about it.

For me the GTAIV DLC on 360 was not an incentive to buy the 360 version - and I would argue that 50million could have been and SHOULD have been invested in new IP or a sequel not wasted on DLC for GTAIV.

As I said in a previous post - Apparently Gears cost 10million to make. So by that rationale MS could have invested that 50mill in to 5 new titles on the Unreal platform. Out of GTAIV DLC or 5 new titles, I know which I would prefer.

In fact I would say out of all the good MS have done for the industry, their attitude towards paying for exclusive DLC is a BAD thing for consumers. Why?

Because, it encourages developers to hold back features, as they know MS may get their cheque book out and pay for some DLC. It creates a situation where some gamers (like me) view DLC not as adding-value, but as a rip off - look at Tomb Raider; the game isn't even out yet and MS are crowing about the DLC. Plus it doesn't necessarily shift consoles - for example... Do you think LBP will shift more PS3's than the GTAIV DLC will shift 360's? I'd be interested to know how much LBP cost to develop, because I would bet it was far less than 50mill.

The first two years of owning a 360 was great for me. Plenty of quality, plenty of choice.. But in the last few months their strategy seems a bit fuzzy, and the appeal of the 360 to me is really tailing off.

I'm not saying Sony are perfect - they can certainly do more. but out of the 3 console manufacturers I see MS as the most desperate and lacking startegy beyond 'me too' multiplaform stuff (like FFXIII) and 'late to the game' titles like Scene It and Lips.

Considering how 'young' the 360 actually is, that's a bad sign as I know I am not in the minority.
Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
edhe - 440 days 20 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
5.2 - @5.1
I agree that recently it's been tailing off however there's a good reason for that.

All the games are coming soon, and there was a gap in the last few months which i filled will the orange box and summer of arcade (and obligatory halo/cod4 sessions).

MS have been focusing far more on their service & interface and i think once that, and all the games, drops then there will be a big upturn again. We barely know what's coming in 2009, i'm sure there's a lot there to be revealed.

In the meantime - fable, gears, fallout, saints row, gta4 dlc, halo mp et al will be sure to keep me not only busy, but happy.

I won't shell out £300 for a ps3 with LBP, though i do want to play that.
Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
kratos-i-am - 440 days 20 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
6 -
Seriously as an Xbox owner PLEASE! PLEASE! as Peter Molyneux has begged reviewers don't buy one! The RROD, the loud noises, the scratched discs and the problems I had to get the thing networked why no wi-fi? It's the console for fools definently don't jump in! Get a Wii or a PS2! Or better still a PS3
Agree(5) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
Shut this user up Let user speak
seraph741 - 440 days 19 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
7 - I'm impressed
I was really surprised to see these comments. They are actually intelligent and making great points. There is actual discussion going on without resorting to blatant fanboyism. I'm pleasantly surprised and impressed N4G'ers.

Keep it up!
Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Shut this user up Let user speak
dimeford - 440 days 18 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
7.1 -
Even open zone is pretty sober. I'm shocked.
Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
LikAChicken - 440 days 18 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
8 - This guy seemed really informed in the forums...
PS3Owner Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 08:36
"That article made very little sense to me, but if you are trying to claim that 3rd party developers covering their costs by using more than one console is somehow down to the 360's success you are dead wrong.

3rd parties have been going this way for a while because of how much it costs to develop new games, in the past games were exclusive on the PS2 by default because it outsold the competition 10 to 1, but now globally it's 50-50 between the 360 and PS3 so it makes sense to develop for both.

What you are completely missing in this article are the real implications for this shift:

1) MS will find it harder and harder to buy exclusivity, they have been riding on the success of 3rd party games that they could afford to buy exclusivity for because of the PS3's slow start. As we are seeing more and more lately this constant outflow of cash is only able to secure the odd bit of DLC nowadays.

2) With 3rd party titles becoming almost irrelevant as they can be had on either system the only differentiating factor will be 1st party titles - this is the 360's biggest downfall - Sony have around 23 in-house studios creating amazing and varied exclusive games that can ONLY be experienced on PS3, not even the PC gets most of them - things like LBP, Resistance, KillZone, WipeOut to name but a few. By contrast MS have around 3 studios making games for them.

3) MS has one strategy and that is to stop Sony from winning. Note this is a completely different strategy to making sure they win. In other words they are spending millions, not on new and unique hardware shifting games, but on making sure they get as many ex-PS2 3rd party titles as possible (or getting some extra DLC for their customers to pay for) - this doesn't encourage PS2/PS3 owners to switch alliances, it just encourages 360 owners to not get a PS3! - GTA IV proved this strategy doesn't work!

4) SOE have teamed up with SCE to make sure the PS3 will become the console home of MMORPG's, opening up the console market to a whole new and lucrative audience of gamers previously catered for exclusively on PC.

5) Developers are now getting to grips with the PS3 and a lot of them are beginning to make the PS3 the lead platform - this means that dodgy ports will soon be a thing of the past and who knows perhaps the 360 will start getting it's share of dodgy ports. Games like Skate 2 and Mirror's Edge are being developed on PS3 as the lead, and let's not forget that the Tekken 6 arcade game out since 2007 actually runs off PS3 hardware!!!

6) THE PS3 HAS GLOBALLY OUTSOLD THE 360 BY AROUND THREE MILLION UNITS SINCE LAUNCH AND BEFORE THE RECENT 360 PRICE CUTS IT WAS OUTSOLD BY OVER FOUR MILLION! Microsoft is the only company in the world that would run a marathon the day before and claim victory in the race!!!!

FACT: The 360 launched with NO next-gen competition, with a relatively LOW retail price, with a relatively LARGE software library, and SIMULTANEOUSLY worldwide.

FACT: The 360 sold 12.4 MILLION units GLOBALLY in it's first 100 weeks on sale

FACT: The PS3 launched with INTENSE next-gen competition, with a relatively HIGH retail price, with a relatively SMALL software library, and SUFFERED DELAYS worldwide.

FACT: The PS3 sold 15.7 MILLION units GLOBALLY in it's first 100 weeks on sale

This alone makes anyone claiming the 360 is a unrivalled success, who doesn't work for Microsoft, an idiot or a mis-informed fanboy.

7) I'm sure most people have the sense to realise you get what you pay for, it's all very well having a dirt cheap 360 Arcade if you're a casual gamer only wanting to play games, but the minute you want to expand it's capabilities you have a HUGE bill to upgrade thanks to MS adopting a greedy closed-proprietary system with peripherals selling at hugely inflated prices (the HDD being a case in point). I think it costs about $850 to get a 360 Core console up to the same functionality of a PS3!!!

Go out and buy me a 360 equipped with a large HDD, HDMI output, Wi-Fi broadband capability, online game access, rechargeable controller and a blu-ray player. You will NOT be able to find all that for even close to what it costs for a PS3 (which includes all of the above out of the box).

The cheap price of the 360 is an illusion for marketing purposes, in the long run it will cost your more, potentially significantly more...

IN SUMMARY: The PS3 is not in the 360's shadow, and only a 360 Fanboy or a Microsoft employee would claim it was..."

These are actually facts too.
Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Shut this user up Let user speak
Jdoki - 440 days 17 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
8.1 -
Regardless of who is outselling who, who is price gouging for peripherals more than the other and so on... One thing we should all remember is...

...Competition is good.

If MS pounded Sony in to submission - or visa verse, it would be one less player in the market. Considering Nintendo have gone their own way and are not directly competitors for MS and Sony (at the moment) it is a very good thing we have MS in the market place.

It keeps Sony on it's toes. And after 10 years of utter dominance it's kinda nice to see them having to fight for their leading position - it creates innovation, creative thinking, results in lower prices and higher quality.

I for one would hate to see one of the players leave the market - even if it does mean I end up having to buy 3 next-gen consoles!!

However I would like to see MS define a better strategy beyond 'me too' titles, and making PS stuff multiplatform. It's an endeavour that will ultimately fail. On the other hand Sony do need to address some serious definciencies in it's line up of games (JRPG's for one)
Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Shut this user up Let user speak
Jecht - 440 days 11 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
9 - HAHAHAHhahahahahaHAHAHAHAHhahaha
The 360 is carrying the PS3? HAHAHAHhahahahahaHAHAHAHAHhaha ha!!! OMG, I'm dying here. LMFAO!!! That's the most hilarious thing I've ever seen.

And OMG, Blend Games reported it. Well then, stop the presses because the truth has been spoken. /sarcasm

OMG, ever since TGS started the news has gotten better and better for my funny bone.

You wouldn't believe how many "Why Microsoft is winning" threads I've seen all over the place after the 360 has a couple of good months in Japan.

Don't stop the hilarity.
Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Shut this user up Let user speak
Jason 360 - 440 days 9 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
10 -
The PS3 is a failure dying a slow painfull death.
Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Shut this user up Let user speak
Jecht - 440 days 5 hours ago
PM
Track
Ignore
10.1 - Yeah you wish
If that's true, then the RROD is the 360's best selling, AAA, exclusive.
Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
Add Comment (Gamer Zone)
Gamer Zone Posting Guidelines
The Gamer Zone is for members who want a more friendly and civilized discussion. This section is heavily moderated by the N4G staff, so leave your fanboyism at the door please. Members who are unable to behave in a mature and respectful manner will be temporarily or permanently restricted from posting in the Gamer Zone. Using words such as Xbots and Sony droids, or other words from the console war vocabulary, is strictly prohibited in this Zone.
Read More...
 
 
You must log in to post comments.
Username:  
Password:  
 
 
About N4G
N4G is a social game news site that covers the game industry 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
More Info... | Submit News