This is the exact point myself and numerous other people are trying to make to him but for some reason he's ignoring it or perhaps pretending not to understand. It's weird lol.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
With this generation finally in its last lap looking back isn't it nuts how few games Microsoft had?
- Thread starter Bruceleeroy
- Start date
Lol. That's why I broke it down like that cause there didn't seem to be any other way to explain it to him.
Quite the opposite. Matt Booty stated (I believe in an investors call or something) last year, that their aspiration is eventually to get to a point where they are releasing a "triple-A" budgeted release once per quarter.
Someone on this forum posted me the link to the reporting on him saying it, after I assumed he actually said just releasing a GAME of some kind every quarter. And indeed, he did specify a triple-A release every quarter.
Yeah I think that is the aspiration, it will take some time to get there. So gamers shouldnt expect AAA titles out the gate as these take tears to create obviously.
Well it sounds like there are several in development, but yes, it'll take time for their newer acquisitions to completely spin up (depending on what they already had in the pipeline)
A prediction:
Q4 2020: Halo Infinite
Q1 2021: Forza Motorsport 8
Q2 2021: EverWild
Q3 2021: Forza Horizon 5
Q4 2021: ?
Q1 2022: ?
Q2 2022: Hellblade 2
Q3 2022: Fable 4
Q4 2022: The Outer Worlds 2
Q1 2023: Perfect Dark
Q2 2023: inXile AAA RPG
Q3 2024: Forza Horizon 6
Q4 2024: Gears 6
Still a lot of holes in their line-up. Let's see what they announce the next two months. But they'll also have smaller games, such as Psychonauts 2 and State of Decay.
Q4 2020: Halo Infinite
Q1 2021: Forza Motorsport 8
Q2 2021: EverWild
Q3 2021: Forza Horizon 5
Q4 2021: ?
Q1 2022: ?
Q2 2022: Hellblade 2
Q3 2022: Fable 4
Q4 2022: The Outer Worlds 2
Q1 2023: Perfect Dark
Q2 2023: inXile AAA RPG
Q3 2024: Forza Horizon 6
Q4 2024: Gears 6
Still a lot of holes in their line-up. Let's see what they announce the next two months. But they'll also have smaller games, such as Psychonauts 2 and State of Decay.
Yeah this is where I'm mostly at with it. I think the overall quality of their main games are decent to very good, but there just isn't anything that gives me a lot of the same emotional investment I get from a lot of Sony's games or the pure joy I get from Nintendo's.
It's hard to explain but there is something about a lot of Microsoft's first party output that feels like it lacks personality or identity. I can't quite put my finger on it though. I have definitely enjoyed some of it, but nothing has really stayed with me the way something like The Last Guardian, God of War, Mario Odyssey, or Luigi's Mansion 3.
Thoroughly enjoyed Gears 5, Forza Horizon 3, and Ori, but I'm not sure I'll remember as fondly later on like the other publishers.
As someone who has played exclusives from both publishers. Honestly this baffles me. I'm very curious what your tastes are. For mine, this is the best generation Sony has had IMO.
The issue for me when everyone starts posting lists in context like this is that the actual number of games released actually doesn't really matter. In a consumer market it's perception that matters.
The perception, particularly in PAL region but also i general, seems to pretty consisently be that Sony put out a lot of high quality exclusives and Microsoft didn't. That's what matters and that's what MS have to counter; it's why Spencer talked about Sony having earnt loyalty. They've built perception of trust that they'll deliver a high number of quality exclusives, a solid console at a good price and a good ecosystem to play third party games.
Microsoft has stumbled in all those areas this gen and that's what taints their market perception, even if they did release quite a few games in actuality.
Specific to their games I feel 5 factors also played heaviy into how they were perceived:
In a consumer market perception can often outweight detail so I feel posting lists or arguing numbers is a bit of a delfection really; an attempt to argue the key fact which is Sony ran away with market perception this gen vs MS, particularly with regards to how good their exclusive output was. That's not changing because of Ori or Quantum Break or Sunset Overdrive or any other full or partial console exclusives for the console.
That perception can only changed going forward and MS is going to need to produce a slew of high quality, critically well received exclsuives that sell really well to have any chance to do so.
The perception, particularly in PAL region but also i general, seems to pretty consisently be that Sony put out a lot of high quality exclusives and Microsoft didn't. That's what matters and that's what MS have to counter; it's why Spencer talked about Sony having earnt loyalty. They've built perception of trust that they'll deliver a high number of quality exclusives, a solid console at a good price and a good ecosystem to play third party games.
Microsoft has stumbled in all those areas this gen and that's what taints their market perception, even if they did release quite a few games in actuality.
Specific to their games I feel 5 factors also played heaviy into how they were perceived:
- Sony games seemed to have much stronger critical reception on average
- Sony games got a lot of additional coverage - for example the change of tone in God of War, Alloy as a strong female protagonist - and they seemed to be more in the zeitgeist while MS games got less coverage and seemed to be viewed as somewhat out of touch by comparison
- Gamepass and releasing on PC seemed to dilute impact of bigger titles (I'm glad both exist but they definatyely short term undermined impact of MS titles in relation to the console itself
- After the initial launch group of games the quanitity of games released seem to drop quickly
- They had a lot of high profile challenges with titles like Crackdown (power of cloud but took forever to arrive) and Scalebound (high profile interest and high profile cancelation)
In a consumer market perception can often outweight detail so I feel posting lists or arguing numbers is a bit of a delfection really; an attempt to argue the key fact which is Sony ran away with market perception this gen vs MS, particularly with regards to how good their exclusive output was. That's not changing because of Ori or Quantum Break or Sunset Overdrive or any other full or partial console exclusives for the console.
That perception can only changed going forward and MS is going to need to produce a slew of high quality, critically well received exclsuives that sell really well to have any chance to do so.
I don't know how this is even a discussion. Exclusive matters, BIG time. And not any exclusive.High quality games am talking about.
These games defines the brand and moves hardware too. There are people who bought the PS for Spider-Man only, or horizon , or bloodborne etc. Hell, I had PS4 which I gave to my brothers and now I went out and bought a second one for GOT and FF7R. Even though am a primary Xbox. If the situation was reversed, I can't think of any game on Xbox one that will get me to buy two consoles. Talking as a huge Halo and Gears fan.
All of this is about to change hopefully next gen.
That's why MS spent all that money buying and building 1st party studios. I can't wait to see what those awesome studios have been working on now with MS behind their back.
These games defines the brand and moves hardware too. There are people who bought the PS for Spider-Man only, or horizon , or bloodborne etc. Hell, I had PS4 which I gave to my brothers and now I went out and bought a second one for GOT and FF7R. Even though am a primary Xbox. If the situation was reversed, I can't think of any game on Xbox one that will get me to buy two consoles. Talking as a huge Halo and Gears fan.
All of this is about to change hopefully next gen.
That's why MS spent all that money buying and building 1st party studios. I can't wait to see what those awesome studios have been working on now with MS behind their back.
I totally agree that Microsoft's first party needs to be better. But the thread title literally reads "how few titles" MS has had. Then people say list wars. Well, I don't think it's about the quantity here. Microsoft had some interesting games and some of them might end up more like a cult classic instead of the desired big hit. But I do believe these titles exist even in this abysmal generation that Microsft had. I posted my personal favourite titles a couple pages earlier. Sony also had "fewer" exclusive first-party games with PS4 than previous consoles. It's about a lack of heavy hitters that has hurt Xbox, not necessarily how many or how few games there were in total by their studios. Probably only Sea of Thieves was a real big hit from XGS, and that's just not enough. I think Minecraft Dungeons will be the second one before the end of this gen, but the future looks so much better for them.
This is not the argument here. Yes they published games.
But how many of their games have been runaway hits?
This is probably the most misguided napkin math i've ever seen. Wow. And then to act condescending on top of it. It's precious.
I'll leave you to figure out why your math is hilarious.
It's crazy some people still treat exclusives as those rare instances that occur once in a while and are therefore not as important. This gen my play time was divided between a few multiplat multiplayer games, and the rest were singleplayer exclusives. If Nintendo or Sony didn't have such strong 1P and Nipponese affiliated games, I certainly wouldn't bother with their consoles, or not as much.
This is an argument I saw some Nintendo fanboys make a lot in the Wii era to discredit the exclusive success on other platforms.
I wonder how much time you spend on gaming if those games only amount to 1%.
Bruh, this is one of the worst posts on this entire forum, holy shit lol. There are not many 3rd party games that sold over 10-15 million on PS4 either, even Witcher 3 is at ~10M and PS4 is its biggest console platform. Them exclusives are among the highest selling games on PS4, outselling all multiplatforms but Fifa, CoD and GTA5.
This is an argument I saw some Nintendo fanboys make a lot in the Wii era to discredit the exclusive success on other platforms.
I wonder how much time you spend on gaming if those games only amount to 1%.
What's even more bizarre to me is how some over-emphasize the importance exclusives are. This is the key distraction to game forums because it is mostly driven by console warring. This idea I have something that you don't, therefore my product is more valuable than yours. Look around at the key pattern here and that is those who always seem to talk about exclusives more than they do with such games as say The Witcher 3 or even Cyberpunk 2077.
Let's be honest, the two most guilty camps have and always will be Playstation and Xbox. This is likely linked to how much overlap they each have in software so we have this console warring heightened all the time to try and identify each system better. Meanwhile the average consumer just wants to enjoy FIFA, Call of Duty mixed with your Halo or your Spiderman. Long story short, they just want good and fun games to play and exclusives are just as important as the third party.
I would agree here, but with the caveat that exclusives in general simply don't occupy the same % of a console's library as the old days. Not to say they don't matter, but in truth it would be far more devastating to Xbox One if say Activision stopped releasing CoD titles or Rockstar ignored it with GTAV and RDR2. In cases like that a Nintendo quality first party could help mitigate the loss of support, but as the Wii U shows, an amazing first party will only do so much.
It's of course the differentiation that is most talked about. We have industry insiders in here saying that both next gen consoles are very similar, yet percentages are compared, arbitrarily as compute and storage numbers are compared, and the highest number is set to be the most important because.
That doesn't mean exclusives are not important, they are, but they are not the reason 110 million bought a PS4. There are so many factors why people buy a product, in this case a console, that it is only one part of the equation.
I've spent 50+ hours on Resident Evil this week. I have a job that allows me to game during downtime and there is A LOT of downtime, especially now. I also put 5-6k hours in Diablo 3 since 2012. So it isn't too surprising that 8 games make 1% of my gaming time since 2013. I make time to stay fit as well if it isn't evident.
The one place that Microsoft failed this generation was in third person action adventure titles. They have the best sim racing games in the console arena, in Forza Horizon they have the best non sim racer. They have always had it right when it comes to shooters.
They now have a stable of studios that fixes the RPG need, and the need for action games to go on with the areas where they have been traditionally strong.
They now have a stable of studios that fixes the RPG need, and the need for action games to go on with the areas where they have been traditionally strong.
I think when you look at the 360 era, a lot of MS's strong titles relied on exclusive deals - mostly early in the gen. This time around because PS4 had such a strong lead early, it quickly became prohibitively expensive to pay for exclusives - where you're essentially paying a company on top of the losses they'd get for not selling on PS4. (which is a lot when it's a strong console) You also have the fact that companies usually prefer to make deals with the 'winner' of a console gen.
On the other hand PS4 was able to pay for more third party exclusives because they had a larger base of users. Sony stopped being shy about paying for third party content - so MS didn't get the lions share like early in the 360 gen. I guess moving forward MS has realized this and are trying to prop up their first party a lot, time will tell if they are willing to delay games the time it takes to create top end content.
On the other hand PS4 was able to pay for more third party exclusives because they had a larger base of users. Sony stopped being shy about paying for third party content - so MS didn't get the lions share like early in the 360 gen. I guess moving forward MS has realized this and are trying to prop up their first party a lot, time will tell if they are willing to delay games the time it takes to create top end content.
That is not it works.
There are 8 billion people in the world, Witcher 3 sold only 28 million copies. Multiplatform games don't matter, right?
User Warned: Post count shaming
Yeah whenever somebody is making an argument as ridiculous as that poster is and being stubborn about it I look at post history and when their account was created.
Seeing it was created less than two weeks ago made it pretty clear it is a troll account. I refuse to believe anybody actually thinks that way.
Over the course of the generation, I played *maybe* 3 or 4 more PS4 exclusives to completion than I did Xbox exclusives.
Xbox was fine, but I would also say it was a far cry from the quality and experiences that the 360 and OG Xbox provided during their lifespans. I will miss neither the Xbox One nor the PS4.
I feel like I saw a lot less creativity this gen than ever before. A lot of creative bankruptcy.
Xbox was fine, but I would also say it was a far cry from the quality and experiences that the 360 and OG Xbox provided during their lifespans. I will miss neither the Xbox One nor the PS4.
I feel like I saw a lot less creativity this gen than ever before. A lot of creative bankruptcy.
Yup I agree and I think you said it better than I ever could lol to clarify I'm not saying they don't matter at all, but they don't make or break a systems success.
Hard to compare. Sony's games for the most part are one and done while most MS big games this generation have been GaaS with a single player component. Single Player one and done games tend to be better received by critics because they are a complete product, GaaS games evolve with time.
That being said, I would like MS to heavily invest to diversify their line of big first party games outside of Halo - Gears and Forza. Something like a Skyrim or Witcher 3 killer from Obsidian would be nice.
That being said, I would like MS to heavily invest to diversify their line of big first party games outside of Halo - Gears and Forza. Something like a Skyrim or Witcher 3 killer from Obsidian would be nice.
Both Sony and MS had fewer first party games, probably related to how the cost and time of development grew. Last gen had 4 Gears of Wars and 4 Uncharted games, this one had 2 of both, for instance. I think MS had a slightly lower number and it seems even lower because the PS4 had a few more 3rd party exclusives, the PS4 first party games had more impact (and more quality but that's a bit subjective) and most (all?) Xbox exclusives ended up on PC.
What the hell? I can't remember the last time I've seen such broken logic. Notice how not a SINGLE person in this thread is agreeing with you? That should be telling you something - you are wrong.
It's hilarious that for some unknown reason you think third party games and exclusives don't compete for the same cash and attention of consumers. Your whole flawed logic is based on that assumption, and it's so obviously wrong.
With most 3rd party games running better on PS4 and not many exclusives I care for, Xbox One was a complete waste of money for me this gen. I loved 360 so maybe Series X will appeal more to me, but I think this is probably the end of the road for me and the Xbox brand.
This is why I don't even consider buying an Xbox Series X. People keep saying that it will improve now that Phil Spencer is in charge. Really ? Phil Spencer was in charge of Microsoft Studios since 2008, he was there, leading the exclusive developers at the end on the 360 era when they shifted to Kinect games and was there at the beginning of the Xbox one era, exclusives games weren't that great at this time either. He is also in charge of Xbox since early 2014, sure changing things takes time but it's been 6 years ! And I don't see a trend of improvement in their exclusive games' offer. The recent years output has been pretty bad, with the notable exception of Ori and the will of the wisps and to a lesser extent Gears 5 : Sea of thieves, crackdown 3, stay of decay 2, bleeding edge… All these games had a pretty average critical reception. I found this worrying for the future.
There's still hope since they acquire some studios but I won't put a lot money on huge improvement in 1st party games nonetheless. I can see the potential of Obsidian but other than that… Playground games are excellent but they were already working exclusively for MS so this is not gonna change anything. The Initiative is a brand new studio that has everything to prove. Ninja Theory is the studio that is the most mentioned when people talk about these acquisitions but people act like they are some sort of CDPR or Naughty Dog, but they aren't. Their track record is average at best (Kung Fu Chaos, Heavenly Sword, Enslaved, DmC, Disney Infinity, Hellblade are all pretty meh in my opinion) and their last game, Bleeding Edge, is a critical failure.
On the other hand, Sony is still pumping out highly anticipated and critically acclaimed exclusives on a yearly basis even in the last year of the PS4 with NiOh 2, Dreams, FF7 Remake and with TLOU2 and Ghost of Tsushima on the horizon. I think this instills confidence in gamers to buy a PS5. It is for me, at least.
There's still hope since they acquire some studios but I won't put a lot money on huge improvement in 1st party games nonetheless. I can see the potential of Obsidian but other than that… Playground games are excellent but they were already working exclusively for MS so this is not gonna change anything. The Initiative is a brand new studio that has everything to prove. Ninja Theory is the studio that is the most mentioned when people talk about these acquisitions but people act like they are some sort of CDPR or Naughty Dog, but they aren't. Their track record is average at best (Kung Fu Chaos, Heavenly Sword, Enslaved, DmC, Disney Infinity, Hellblade are all pretty meh in my opinion) and their last game, Bleeding Edge, is a critical failure.
On the other hand, Sony is still pumping out highly anticipated and critically acclaimed exclusives on a yearly basis even in the last year of the PS4 with NiOh 2, Dreams, FF7 Remake and with TLOU2 and Ghost of Tsushima on the horizon. I think this instills confidence in gamers to buy a PS5. It is for me, at least.
This thread has gone exactly where I thought it would.
It hasn't been a great output, but I found a lot to like to go along with the third party games. Im not sure how anyone can just stick to one system and not feel like they've missed out on something. I just love Halo and Gears too much to not buy an Xbox. Anything else Xbox puts out is gravy to me.
There are good, fun games that aren't well received critically that people have every right to be excited about and enjoy. Those games for me are State of Decay 2 and Halo Wars 2. Likewise there are critical and commercial darlings that others don't enjoy or aren't interested in and they have every to that as well. Those games for me are Animal Crossing and Three Houses.
It hasn't been a great output, but I found a lot to like to go along with the third party games. Im not sure how anyone can just stick to one system and not feel like they've missed out on something. I just love Halo and Gears too much to not buy an Xbox. Anything else Xbox puts out is gravy to me.
There are good, fun games that aren't well received critically that people have every right to be excited about and enjoy. Those games for me are State of Decay 2 and Halo Wars 2. Likewise there are critical and commercial darlings that others don't enjoy or aren't interested in and they have every to that as well. Those games for me are Animal Crossing and Three Houses.
I loved Xbox & 360, and a lot of Microsoft's older pc output was fantastic... but this gen was just sadness, next gen isn't looking to great either so I'll probably get ps5 and upgrade my pc this fall... would love for them to regain their form w.r.t. new exciting first party franchises since I think the hardware has generally been a better build quality
If you like videogames you can't live with just an Xbox. If you're casual and play multiplatforms probably yes, buy an Xbox and be happy.
At least for me I haven't bought any Xbox console ever because of that. I want good experiences to play because I don't have enough time to play a different game every week, and that's where Sony and Nintendo shine. Why put my little free time on multiplatforms if I can play gems like the first party games from Sony and Nintendo?
For me multiplatforms are a nice option to have (Like Souls games, Doom, and other stuff) but I'll always put first party as my first choice to buy.
Microsoft has Halo? Forza? Killer Instinct? Ori? They are not even the best games of their respective genres! (Maybe Forza but it's on PC if I ever want to play it)
At least for me I haven't bought any Xbox console ever because of that. I want good experiences to play because I don't have enough time to play a different game every week, and that's where Sony and Nintendo shine. Why put my little free time on multiplatforms if I can play gems like the first party games from Sony and Nintendo?
For me multiplatforms are a nice option to have (Like Souls games, Doom, and other stuff) but I'll always put first party as my first choice to buy.
Microsoft has Halo? Forza? Killer Instinct? Ori? They are not even the best games of their respective genres! (Maybe Forza but it's on PC if I ever want to play it)
He's not wrong, actually. There are multiple ways to buy 3rd party exclusivity, such as signing agreements to fund titles right from the start, but for a 1st party like Sony or MS to buy exclusivity for a 3rd party title, they have to pay a huge amount of money, depending on sales projections.
For example, if MS wanted to buy lifetime exclusivity for Cyberpunk in Xbox, they need to make it financially lucrative for CD Projekt Red. They may need to pay the equivalent of 10,000,000 copies at an agreed price. Sony, on the other hand, may only meed to pay for 4,000,000. This is likely why we rarely see that type of deal.
Console sales momentum is a huge factor when it comes to game exclusivity, and likely means many 3rd parties will prioritize your platform, maybe even release exclusive games without singing deals (Sony had tons of "free/cheap" Japanese exclusive games this gen due to Xbox's poor Japanese sales. Nermind that being the market leader also means huge profits, and even more funds to build exclusive games and buy 3rd part exclusives.
This is not how publishing works.
A developer shops their idea to different publishers. They are looking for funds, and those with funds call the shots on what is acceptable and at what price because publishers do not have a shortage of content that they can publish. They can pick and choose what they think works best for them.
This is why you saw talented teams like Ninja Theory doing work for hire, Obsidian looking to public funding and eventually getting money for a smaller scope FPS RPG. Almost every significant developer that is bought talks about how they like the security and not having to worry about where fund are going to come from.
Money is not growing on trees, and no one is cutting someone a huge discount because a game still has to sell. It is business, not charity.
This is how I understood the market to work... how is it not true?
The Initiative will have their game coming out at some point too. Though 2021 or '22 could be too early considering they're building their studio from scratch and developing their game at the same time.
I think you're assuming that the developer will receive no revenue for sales if they have sold exclusivity to one of their titles to a single platform. That's not always how it works.
At the very least, the 1st party output should be better next gen.
I am not assuming anything though. A developer will be looking to cover costs of development and maybe turn a small profit while also looking to make more money down the line. How much they can command is going to be determined by how publishers view a product as being able to sell and at what time they think they can put it out to market. This is what determines what the scope of the title is.
These developers are not Mother Teresa type charities, they are businesses.
You are only describing a situation where a 1st-party funds development for a financially struggling studio, and funds the title from the start, which I addressed at the beginning of my post.
As I mentioned, there are multiple ways to buy exclusivity. The situation both of us were referring to, was buying exclusivity for established brands for games that would otherwise be multiplatform.
For example, Microsoft buying year exclusivity for Rise of the Tomb Raider or Titanfall, Sony buying year exclusivity for Final Fantasy VII remake, Microsoft paying Rockstar $50,000,000 for exclusive GTA IV DLC. Even when Microsoft funded Gears of War 2 and 3, they had to pay to keep the game exclusive.
It's entirely dependent of sales projections.
Edit. Also, your charity comment goes both ways. If a 3rd party has guaranteed income, such as with Rockstar and GTA for example. Why would Rockstar need Sony or Microsoft to "only" fund development of GTA? At this point a GTA VI would expect to make Billions of dollers. Buying lifetime exclusivity for any platform could cost over a billion. It would make no sense for Rockstar to do what you suggest, since they would be taking a huge sales loss.
Last edited: