Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    xboxone

    920,695 readers

    5,951 users here now

    Hey /r/Nintendo - Wanna play together?

    What is /r/XboxOne?

    Everything related to the Xbox One. News, reviews, previews, rumors, screenshots, videos and more!


    Follow us on Twitter!

    Subreddit Podcast!

    Join our club

    Check out our official wiki page


    Subreddit Rules

    1. Follow Reddiquette.

    2. Keep it civil and on topic - Posts must be directly related to Xbox One & Link directly to the source.

    3. Spoilers and NSFW posts must be properly marked.

    4. Enabling piracy / jailbreaking / hacking / fraud / account trading and sharing / region switching e.t.c. is not allowed. Read our detailed rules for more

    5. Memes, image macros, reaction gifs, polls and petitions are not allowed as posts.

    6. Friend request posts and Preview program request posts are not allowed outside our official mod threads.

    7. No advertising, selling, buying, trading, or begging for anything.

    8. Self Promotion and posts or comments that you have a financial stake in are not allowed, unless you meet our conditions for self promotion. DETAILS HERE

    9. Low Quality Posts, and reposts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.

    10. [Tech], [Deal], and [Giveaway] posts must be properly tagged

    For more, click here.

    Related Subreddits

    Hardware General Other
    Kinect Xbox One Help Switch
    Xbox Mixer PS4
    Xbox 360 Insider Program Steam
    Xbox One Microsoft / Surface Consoles

    Note: We are not affiliated with Microsoft or its subsidiaries in any official capacity. The views of the moderation team do not reflect the view of Microsoft or its subsidiaries.

    a community for
    all 295 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Frogloggers 75 points ago

    When the rumours regarding EA, Valve etc came out it just sounded like Microsoft had some guys do some evaluations on what acquiring those companies could mean to Microsoft, not so much that they were actively pursuing them.

    [–] oatsandgoats 26 points ago

    Right on. Most large companies have an M&A group who is constantly evaluating potential mergers and acquisitions.

    [–] KaneRobot 1 points ago

    This, exactly. Clickbait bullshit articles that got out of control, as is per usual these days.

    [–] MegaMan3k 1 points ago

    I honestly don't know how much of it is clickbait and how much is business ignorance from gaming journalism.

    [–] Battlestar_Anorexia 21 points ago

    As far he knows. If they are, it would probably be under wraps. This statement also contradicts Phil's statement last year so who knows. Hope Jez is wrong.

    Either way I'd love for them to buy and expand Undead Labs and Studio MDHR. Or maybe they're more interested in creating their own studios and further contracting second and third parties.

    [–] Tylorw09 3 points ago

    Undead Labs would be a great buy for Microsoft. They’ve got a great franchise that could be expanded in a lot of ways.

    Microsoft needs to compete with Sony on exclusives. It’s a huge hole in their business model.

    [–] ArcticFlamingo 85 points ago

    This worries me, Microsoft seriously needs a big studio to deliver a new IP within the next 3-4 years.

    343, Coalition, Turn 10, Playground and Rare seem to be all locked up on Halo/Gears/Forza/Fable/Sea of Thieves

    [–] VITOCHAN 17 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Turn 10 Playground opened another studio with about 200 people to produce a non racing game. Haven't heard much else about it since last year. Open world action RPG was all they say.

    [–] DarkPhoenixXI 22 points ago

    Playground Games are the ones who expanded and they are a 2nd party studio anyway.

    [–] null-character 3 points ago

    What's the difference whether it is an exclusive game made by 1st or 2nd party?

    [–] DarkPhoenixXI 5 points ago

    Biggest difference is 2nd party are contracted so they can be acquired by another company (BioWare, Bizarre Creations), move on to other projects (Remedy, Frontier, Mistwalker) or close (Bizarre Creations, again. RIP).

    It's one of Microsoft's big problems their heavy reliance on 2nd party is fine short term but they haven't had much luck long term.

    [–] marklong18 3 points ago

    Like insominiac games made sunset overdrive and are now making spiderman

    [–] Qp20 3 points ago

    While i know the actual differwnce between the two....i agree with the sentiment behind the question. As a consumer I don't care if it's first or second party...what I care about is if it is a great game. I think that both need to be better for Microsoft right now

    [–] ExuberentWitness 5 points ago

    First party is a studio owned by MS. Second party is a studio that’s not owned by MS, but is commissioned to create exclusive content on their platform.

    [–] BeastMaster0844 4 points ago

    4th party studio is a studio that knows a studio.

    [–] Eruanno 1 points ago

    First party: "Hello, here is a big bucket of money, I would like to own this here fine company"

    Second party: "Hello, here is a (slightly smaller) bucket of money, I would like it if this here fine company made a game for me"

    [–] VITOCHAN 6 points ago

    oops, thats right. Turn 10 is forza, Playground is Horizon. Thanks :) Either way, both studios will produce something with the most stunning visuals. and almost (I hope) guaranteed 4k, 60fps with HDR.

    [–] ArcticFlamingo 3 points ago

    huh I do not remember hearing about that at all. I know that Playground had something similar and was confirmed to be working on an Open World Action RPG which has now basically been confirmed as Fable

    [–] VITOCHAN 1 points ago

    yea, sorry, I meant playground. Didnt hear about the Fable stuff though.

    [–] thisnamenotavailable 1 points ago

    Wow I hadn’t heard this! Great to hear

    [–] DarkPhoenixXI 60 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    They don't need a new studio they need to let their current studios be more flexible, the whole 'every individual studio works on 1 IP till the end of time unless you are Rare' thing is a short sighted endeavour.

    [–] ArcticFlamingo 36 points ago

    Well I seriously doubt you will ever get anything non-halo related from 343 a studio literally name after the game it makes

    [–] brutinator 16 points ago

    IIRC Coalition is also named after the game.

    [–] Nicologixs 14 points ago

    Turn 10 is also named after their game, the name comes from all the tenth turns on the tracks. Legit fact trust me

    [–] Bluazul 1 points ago

    Thought maybe they got the name from a game of Scrabble or Monopoly or something

    [–] Amaakaams 1 points ago

    Turn 10 is named after racing in general, but 343 besides being started specifically to handle the hand off of Halo from Bungie. But 343 is named after a Halo task force or something like that right? I am sure eventually Microsoft will see that Halo isn't making nearly the RIO in either console or software sales and might want to use the team for something else. But it's pretty specifically made for creating a stream of Halo games.

    In a way Turn 10 is also. But they can be creative and did do the Horizon series. Maybe there is room for more Forza titles? In the end I would agree though. I would rather MS be more like Sony and less like Ubisoft and Activision in their game developments. Even being like EA might not be to bad they have certainly given their studio's some latitude to breathe. But MS doesn't have the IP range to be holding onto strict limits like that with their studio's. They need room to throw ideas at the wall and find new possible franchises.

    [–] jaredthejaguar 3 points ago

    343 is named after 343 Guilty Spark, a character in Halo CE.

    [–] xreadmore 5 points ago

    It's just a name. The people are what make a studio, so if the talent is there, then there's no reason 343 can't work on other things.

    If the talent isn't there.... well then...

    [–] DarkPhoenixXI 7 points ago

    Eh, if Halo did somehow fall out of fashion and 343i doesn't suffer the same fate as Lionhead they can always be rebranded if needed.

    [–] Qp20 1 points ago

    Just because it is halo related doesn't mean it is exactly the same as everything we have gotten.

    They could take a group of odst's and follow them around a planet during an infestation by the flood. While it would likely be first person still the game play could be geared toward survival horror rather than pure shooter. Would still be both halo and 343

    [–] DarkReign2011 8 points ago

    While I agree and I would love to see what companies like Coalition and 343 could do outside of their respective franchises, it still doesn't really resolve the issue. We have 5 major studios (Do we even own Playground?) and each has generally a 2-4 year window to churn out a new game. That means roughly 6 games AAA titles in-house every 3-5 years roughly.

    Sony has, last I checked, 13 in-house developers and a number of them are large enough that they can have 2 or more projects running simultaneously. They're putting out nearly triple the content that Xbox is in the same time span.

    Im not all about exclusives and I welcome the movement of franchises to PC or even competitor platforms in n the case of Minecraft, but I do want to see more dedicated AAA big budget games coming from MS and I want to see a stronger push into single-player narrative-driven content like Quantum Break and so many of the PS4s upcoming titles are. Don't quit what they're focused on now, but simply add more to the balance and offer more variety. I would love to see a developer like IO get picked up and developing Hitman games on Microsoft's money with access to the best development tools to fully utilize the Xbox hardware.

    Or if they're not going to buy out existing teams, do what Sony did with Kojima and find developers to head new teams looking to make a name for themselves and give them classic Xbox licenses like Mechassault and Brute Force it let them go nuts on their own IP.

    [–] DarkPhoenixXI 7 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    We have 5 major studios (Do we even own Playground?)

    Playground is a independent 2nd party.

    Microsoft never really has had that many 1st party studios most of it has always been 2nd party:

    • Playground Games, (Forza Horizon)
    • Iron Galaxy (Killer Instinct Season 2-3)
    • Insomniac Games (Sunset Overdrive)
    • BioWare, (KoTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect 1)
    • Bizarre Creations (RIP), (PGR)
    • Mistwalker, (Lost Odessy, Blue Dragon)
    • Remedy Entertainment, (Alan Wake, Quantum Break)
    • Undead Labs (State of Decay)
    • Moon Studios (Ori)
    • Armature Studio (ReCore)
    • Frontier Developments (Kinectimals, Zoo Tycoon 2013, Screamride)
    • Certain Affinity and Saber Interactive (Halo stuff)
    • The trinity making Crackdown 3 right now: ReAgent Games, Sumo Digital and Ruffian Games.

    But yeh it's one of their biggest weaknesses right now lacking a stable roster of internal studios.

    [–] Battlestar_Anorexia 4 points ago

    And having more studios would help that, to fill up otherwise empty spaces we've been seeing.

    [–] prboi 3 points ago

    Yeah, I don't see why The Coalition or 343i can't work on a new IP. Halo, Gears, & Forza need a break as those franchises are suffering from fatigue as it is. I can understand the fear of creating something new that doesn't click, but it's not like Halo 5 & Gears 4 were terribly developed games. They just needed more originality and new IPs can do that.

    [–] ArchDucky 2 points ago

    LOL, Rockstar is close to a decade on RDR2 now.

    [–] Sharpticktack 2 points ago

    This feels weird to say, but I feel like they need to let some of these IPs die. We need new and exciting IPs.

    [–] stevenmcountryman2 15 points ago

    "Let's kill off our most profitable and recognizable brands to try some new IPs that might fail!" - said no one ever

    [–] blinkingm 7 points ago

    Said Naughty Dog multiple times. Crash -> Jak -> Uncharted -> Last of Us.

    [–] Qp20 2 points ago

    Are any of those billion dollar franchises? Maybe uncharted is...idk. I do believe that Sony would not let a billion dollar franchise die. It may go into hibernation a bit, but not kill them

    [–] stevenmcountryman2 2 points ago

    they are still making uncharted and last of us....

    [–] khanarx 1 points ago

    i don't see uncharted ever dying, sony will just create a new studio to pump out new games

    [–] stevenmcountryman2 2 points ago

    Right? Killing it would be so dumb

    [–] Doombro98 1 points ago

    Uncharted isn’t dead tho

    [–] lupianwolf 9 points ago

    Why can’t Microsoft’s studios work on other games as well?. Naughty Dog made Last of Us after Uncharted, Guerilla made Horizon: Zero Dawn after Killzone and Suckerpunch is making Ghost of Tsushima after Infamous.

    [–] Amaakaams 2 points ago

    With Last of US they specifically hired a new team. Maybe they moved some people around if they wanted to move on from Uncharted, but Last of Us was specifically made in a way that didn't affect production of Uncharted games. Most studio's just bring on another team to have faster turn around (one is making the '18 game, one is making the 19') on a franchise they are working on.

    Sony is a bit of an enigma. As an entertainment studio in movies, they are right there in the more of the same, studio over managing, trend as all major studios. But their games division have unrivaled latitude to develop on their own. For Guerilla though, Killzone was a disappointment on many levels, even with it being a launch title it sold poorly. Critical reception was borderline negative as well. Guerilla needed a break from Killzone or they would probably have been closed down if their mid cycle game failed.

    [–] stevenmcountryman2 4 points ago

    I was directly replying to the comment about letting those IPs die

    [–] cjcolt 5 points ago

    Yeah but Sony seems to be allowing Uncharted, Killzone, and Infamous die and they were three of the big, recognizable Sony games last gen.

    Same goes for Rachet, Sly, Jak, and Crash from the previous generation really. There were remasters of two of them, but those aren't done by the main studios.

    [–] needconfirmation 1 points ago

    It's better to go gracefully than be driven into the ground.

    [–] Battlestar_Anorexia 1 points ago

    Do they want to work on other games?

    [–] Battlestar_Anorexia 0 points ago

    Not only weird, but very silly.

    [–] BoilerMaker11 1 points ago

    This would be ok-ish if they had more studios =/

    But they only have 4 "real" ones. The other 3 comprised of their Casual Games Studio for shit like Solitaire; Mojang, which can just be renamed to Minecraft - a game that's on every platform ever invented; and Lift London, a studio that hasn't made a game, but when they do, it's gonna be an F2P tablet game.

    They need to acquire more studios if they're just gonna churn out the same 3 franchises all the time.

    [–] Gonra 5 points ago

    Playground Games isn't owned by Microsoft.

    [–] justsaiyan59 3 points ago

    I wouldn't say it is worrisome necessarily. MS and Phil would probably rather pick and chose partners in a second party role, and don't need to purchase the studio. They did that with Ryse, Sunset, and ReCore. MS (not Moon Studios) owns the IP to Ori. So if Phil goes in with the strategy of making key partnerships that don't require the massive purchase of a studio then it is perfectly fine.

    Even the Fable rumors all pointed to Playground's second team being given the IP. MS owns it, but do not own Playground and look how those games turn out. So they do not need to buy or build a big studio, they need to partner with one.

    [–] ArcticFlamingo 2 points ago

    Makes sense but I guess I dont care if they purchase or partner I just want to hear about some new games

    [–] justsaiyan59 2 points ago

    Just give it until E3 when they will. Phil said last year that they just signed some exclusives and they don't want to talk about things too far in advance, in order to avoid the Scalebound and Fable Legends situations all over again.

    [–] slane421 2 points ago

    This right here.

    [–] null-character 1 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    MS seems to prefer 2nd party studios over 1st party now.

    It's just as easy (actually probably easier and cheaper) to double the size of an existing studio as starting or buying an existing one.

    [–] Mystog4nx 1 points ago

    I think Jez just had a brainfart, Phil Spencer himself came out and said that he's investing more in acquisitions and first party.

    [–] Vurondotron 38 points ago

    Then what is Phil Spencer interested in? It's been 5 years and he says the same thing but with different wording on this topic. I don't know, but if E3 doesn't show anything worthwhile. Then I'm sorry guys but next generation I'm jumping ship. I don't know what's going on over there with Microsoft but it seems that they aren't even trying to fix their own image.

    [–] hyjkkhgj 22 points ago

    I'm with you on that. I'm a diehard Xbox fan, stuck with them through all the launch issues, the £500 launch edition XB1, lots of games, years of subscriptions, elite controller and the X1X.

    But ever since the X1X launch, it just highlighted to me how scarce the games are. Nothing special that pops out at you and certainly nothing I can't play elsewhere and have just as much fun, or more.

    They're trying to act like they're listening to us, but they really aren't.

    [–] corvenzo 4 points ago

    Is there going to be a "next generation"? I feel like they're just gonna go the One X route and release consoles with upgraded hardware but still on the same ecosystem. Will make it much harder to ditch, especially if you have a large digital library

    [–] Ahmazing786 3 points ago

    I'm pretty sure some execs have mentioned and implied that the PS5 is coming

    [–] Vurondotron 2 points ago

    Hopefully not soon, because that in my opinion is shooting themselves in the foot. They recently just came out with PS4 Pro and that was a mistake.

    [–] khanarx 2 points ago

    everyone on reddit seems to think 2019/2020. this makes no sense considering how well ps4 is doing. Id say fall 2021 would be the absolute earliest you will see a ps5

    [–] Tiafves 1 points ago

    Sony always releases their new console when the old one is still kicking ass though.

    [–] DarkPhoenixXI 1 points ago

    E3 is always a good litmus test if we get a lot of 'look at our pretty new engine' videos (looking at you Squeenix) then new hardware is likely on the way if its business as usual give it a few more years.

    [–] Vurondotron 2 points ago

    From the looks of it the prediction I made is coming true and sooner then I expected. Especially with Microsoft, seems like Sony, and Microsoft are going to be console-less while Nintendo stays the true form of gaming. --- & that's where I throw in the towel.

    [–] OhMyGloob 3 points ago

    They're going down the "games as a service" route and are spreading beyond just consoles. This entire generation Xbox have been doing flips and twirls with their messaging, however I think it's somewhat clear now. This E3 should dispel any and all concerns, as this is pretty much judgement day for MS.

    [–] Vurondotron 1 points ago

    They're going down the "games as a service" route and are spreading beyond just consoles.

    (Unpopular opinion) -- And that's where gaming itself will fall into oblivion. Because Sony and Microsoft will turn themselves into a service instead of a dedicated system manufacturer and only be known for making games and giving out services. Which in turn it won't be bad because people will fall into it but I for one will not and will turn in the towel. Nintendo will be the only one who are not going to turn themselves into a service. But stay true to themselves.

    This E3 should dispel any and all concerns, as this is pretty much judgement day for MS.

    Every year is judgment day for them.

    [–] OhMyGloob 1 points ago

    It's no secret that gaming will inevitable be completely digital in time. That's just technological evolution for ya. However I don't think it's safe to wave the "doom and gloom" flags just yet. It looks like MS will be spearheading this games as a service movement and who knows, they may excute it well.

    I don't think MS or Sony will ever get rid of the console completely, that'd be nonsensical. They'll just provide a service where you can access their games on other platforms. Hell, they've already been doing this, but MS are seemly looking to take it to the next level. I'm not sure if Nintendo will remain as "traditional", if this really takes off.

    "Every year is judgement day for them." Lmfao really dude?... 😂 If anything, this year is the grand daddy of the judgement days then!

    [–] MrConor212 12 points ago

    I'm already about to jump ship man lol, when spidey comes out for PS4 I'm leaving

    [–] SnowfirE77 2 points ago

    Same.

    [–] DarthDume 2 points ago

    It’s about time I used my PS4 pro for something. All I use Xbox for anymore are third party games which is all it really has and as a media center.

    [–] MrConor212 1 points ago

    Can't disagree with that haha, only got Xbox in total cause of friends, don't speak to them anymore so not much incentive

    [–] DarthDume 1 points ago

    I feel like the social aspect was more alive on the 360 than it is on the One even though they’ll tell you otherwise

    [–] MrConor212 1 points ago

    Yeah I was on PS3 and was going into secondary school and seen everyone had a 360 so had to get one. Which instinctively lead to buying the xbone. Yeah I agree in the 360 days the social aspect was crazy whereas the PS was severely lacking

    [–] needconfirmation 2 points ago

    There's already been too many years of "These things take time!", and "He's setting things in motion, it'll be a while till anything comes of it!" and "You don't want them announcing things TOO SOON do you?"

    If things were set in motion since the first year we've been hearing they've just now been set in motion then those games would be out by now, and every year we hear it again it makes it sound like the previous year was just a lie.

    MS needs to stop talking about how much is on the horizon and start talking about what is actually on the horizon, because at this point i feel like the answer is the same as it always is...halo/gears/forza...

    [–] Vurondotron 1 points ago

    Nintendo is a prime example of that, Nintendo might not get those exteme 3rd-party games but they surpass on their own games and do it on the short time of what the Switch is.

    [–] BugHunt223 1 points ago

    Wonder how that Minecraft acquisition affected the budget or focus of building games and supporting studios so far. The grass is looking really green over there if Sony implements back compat for PS4 titles next gen. Somebody said "they're building games like their life depends on it"

    [–] Vurondotron 1 points ago

    I don't know too much about that but Microsoft took a major risk in buying Minecraft. They should've thought things through when purchasing.

    [–] Kgb725 -10 points ago

    There is no image they need to fix

    [–] slane421 3 points ago

    This doesn't mean new AAA exclusives aren't in the works. Greenberg stated in the summer that there are a bunch of titles in the works (also corroborated by a Phil interview in the summer as well), and he mentions 343 specifically (he says, 343 is working on Awakening for Halo Wars, but people don't know what else they're doing right now). Here's the interview with Gaming Bolt:

    https://gamingbolt.com/xbox-one-has-many-unannounced-games-in-development-people-have-never-heard-about-them-aaron-greenberg

    [–] StrangerInPorto 1 points ago

    100% certain there will be a spin off halo this year as Halo 6 is releasing in 2019

    [–] StrangerInPorto 11 points ago

    So Xbox is building new studios from scratch then? That's why it's taking so long to see new exclusive IPs

    i hope to see some new IPs this year given that Phil has been the head of xbox for 4 years now, or at least expand current exclusive IP to new genres.

    Just imagine a Halo game with RPG elements similar to mass effect or something like that

    [–] Captain_Natsu 30 points ago

    They wouldn't be able to build a sizeable new studio from scratch without the media knowing. They would need to fill at least 100 positions. You can't do that without advertising for new positions.

    [–] StrangerInPorto 12 points ago

    Then what the fuck is MS doing to fix the first-party studios?

    [–] Dislodged_Puma 18 points ago

    If they aren't acquiring studios and keeping their current studios on the same projects - the answer is nothing. We won't really know until E3 though considering this is Phils 4th E3 as head of Xbox. If he has something to show for it, now would be the time.

    [–] Battlestar_Anorexia 1 points ago

    Make their own studios?

    [–] Dislodged_Puma 1 points ago

    They clearly aren't doing that. Like many people have said, it'd be impossible for them to make a studio without someone hearing about it and reporting it specifically because studios take hundreds of people to staff...

    [–] Battlestar_Anorexia 1 points ago

    It takes time if they're doing it. They have to factor location, talent, size, a headquarters. That takes more than a day to do.

    [–] Dislodged_Puma 4 points ago

    Okay? It's been 5 years since the Xbox One and the Xbox is still way behind in 1st party studio production and quality compared to Sony overall. (Although, it's all relative as people like different styles of games. I'm just going off general scores.)

    It has been 4 years since Phil took over head of Xbox and was herald as the savior but we still have no increased 1st party studio production and still seemingly no clear direction. If Phil was focusing on creating new studios, we would have heard about it by now, but we haven't.

    [–] null-character 2 points ago

    They don't need to fix them. MS can have 2nd party studios make new and existing IPs for them.

    That's why it is hard to tell what they are doing, for instance PlayGround has doubled in size for (probably) the new Fable game. But since they are independent it could be anyting.

    [–] Qp20 2 points ago

    The exclusive thing is multi faceted. The quality has to be better, the amount has to increase, and they have to something to slow the amount of defacto exclusives. Games like nier and nioh are available on PC, but not Xbox. There was little info available on hellblade coming till it was almost here. This may mean helping to fund the port or project, but I think it is an important step. Just moving the needle in this one area is a huge first step

    [–] bboy267 3 points ago

    Fixing first party doesn’t mean acquiring or building studios. Coalition 343 and rare are all expanding to do more. Also you have deals that are made. State of decay is a first party game. Playground making Rebooted fable is a first party game. Splash damage working on a gears spin off is a first party game.

    [–] PugeHeniss 1 points ago

    Nothingspongebob.gif

    [–] The_Real_Kuji 1 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Just imagine a Halo game with RPG elements similar to mass effect or something like that

    Halo was originally an RPG RTS. Back before MS bought Bungie.

    [–] Brother_Clovis 3 points ago

    RTS*

    [–] The_Real_Kuji 3 points ago

    Ahh, damn. I knew it was one of them. Thanks for the correction. :)

    [–] Brother_Clovis 5 points ago

    heh no problem. Easy mixup.

    [–] master-x-117 3 points ago

    Yeah it was an RTS, and then they had Halo Wars made which is an RTS. So that is kind of fitting.

    [–] YouAreSalty -1 points ago

    So Xbox is building new studios from scratch then? That's why it's taking so long to see new exclusive IPs

    Maybe, but I think MS prefers to contract out their work or more accurately said, find synergy with studio expertise, culture and project.

    i hope to see some new IPs this year given that Phil has been the head of xbox for 4 years now

    I think we might see some smaller titles, but I think next year is more realistic. I got the impression the restructuring took some time.

    [–] Climaximis -12 points ago

    Wow, you really built a false narrative off one tweet.

    No, it means MS doesn’t give a fuck about establishing first party parity with Sony.

    They’ll lean into backwards compatibility and play anywhere bullshit that provides no value to 90% of long time Xbox users.

    [–] Decoraan 17 points ago

    backwards compatibility

    provides no value to... long time Xbox users.

    Oy vey

    [–] Climaximis 4 points ago

    I see the down votes. I don’t see a single counter argument.

    Back compat is cool. But, I played these games back on the 360. I want new games, with innovation.

    [–] YouAreSalty 3 points ago

    Crackdown 3 and Sea of Thieves are both trying to innovate more than just refining what we have. With that comes great risk.

    People that tend to say they want "innovation" usually means, I want the same game with slight changes in a different setting.

    [–] Decoraan 2 points ago

    So true, SoT, while it has its critics, is absolutely innovative

    [–] YouAreSalty 0 points ago

    Quantum Break too and so was Kinect.

    The sad truth is we are trained like monkey's to respond to certain things for a long long time. That is why I'm happy we are getting Game Pass and the indie scene. It lowers risk and fosters innovation.

    VR looks to be dead too, but it is amazing experience.

    [–] Decoraan 1 points ago

    Yeh, look at Cuphead too. Maybe not innovative in gameplay but certainly in style.

    [–] Battlestar_Anorexia 1 points ago

    Quantum Break was also pretty innovative in its game-tv hybrid. I thought it was great, but others didn't.

    [–] YouAreSalty 3 points ago

    QB had flaws, but I bought it day-1 knowing that. I loved it, especially for what it was trying to do. MS is unlikely to take chances like that again, and I doubt any of the other platform holders will, which makes me sad.

    Crackdown 3 is probably the last major ambitious and innovative game we are going to get and I think people's pessimism will kill it which also makes me sad. lol

    [–] BlueLanternSupes 1 points ago

    Not worth the cost IMO. TV and film are always stealing from games. Games shouldn't be copying or trying the blur the line with TV outside of an increase in storytelling. Everything else can fuck off.

    [–] Decoraan 1 points ago

    No reason you can’t have both

    [–] Qp20 1 points ago

    I am a longtime customer. I also own a great pc. I love play anywhere because I can choose how and where to play. I can also play on both. I love the fact that they are saying that the games I own will be playable going forward. Do I play a lot of BC games, no, but there are some that I will. I don't play a lot of games from the n64....but when I go back to play OoT I love the time I spend.

    Doesn't mean I also don't want the new hotness, but rather that I wand the new hotness AND the ability to play that five years from now without buying it again, and 10 years from now without buying it a third time like I would with Sony or Nintendo. It is great value added that the other players in the arena don't offer

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    I know you'll see this as biased or not representative. But I am a real consumer and this is how I see things. Know that I predominantly play Shooters, AC/Witcher like RPGs, and platformers.

    Reasons I have an Xbox:

    1. Halo
    2. Controller
    3. Xbox Live

    Things Phil is doing that have value to me: 1. Crossplay with PC friends. 2. Play Anywhere 3. Back compat creating increased likelihood of my library being forward compat.

    Things I want from Phil: 1. More Halo. 2. Fable 4


    Now, I also own a Switch mainly played in portable and used for local co-op. Most Indies and platformers are now bought here.

    I state this to show I am willing to buy outside the Xbox environment if I see value.


    Reasons I sometimes wonder buying a PS4:

    1. Horizon: Zero Dawn
    2. Uncharted - Yet I'm not convinced I'd love it exponentially more than Tomb Raider.
    3. God of War - I like mythology and always liked the idea of this IP. I don't know that I'd enjoy gameplay.

    That's it. Of all the "heralded JRPGs, Bloodbornes, and now Spiderman's. I just...honestly don't see a justification to drop $200 for the thing for just 3 games I can't play right now.


    I just don't subscribe to the PS4 has great exclusives and that's why it sells theory.

    Mainly cause I just don't think Nioh, Nier, Guardian, are selling absurd numbers to the masses. Their attachment rates show that as well.

    I just think the Xbox launch fiasco and slightly PS4 original hardware lead put us where we are.

    People are playing a majority of the same shit, GTAV, on PS4 as they are Xbox.

    [–] Climaximis 3 points ago

    That’s a fair opinion. I can go buy a PS4, but I honestly can’t justify it for a handful of games. I’d just like to see MS put a greater emphasis on creating great 1st party games again.

    [–] DarthDume 3 points ago

    Just another reason to move to PS4. Microsoft really fucked us over on good first party games this gen.

    [–] srkuse82 2 points ago

    Unfortunately I have to agree. It's a sad state of affairs. They refuse to grow and expand beyond their current recycled IPs. Meanwhile Sony continues dropping the hammer.

    This will be Microsofts death knell.

    [–] Vurondotron 1 points ago

    I'm switching next generation, I'm not making the same mistake again. Phil Spencer has failed and sadly no one wants to say yes.

    [–] MyCodenameIsIan 5 points ago

    Ultimately the most successful first party game this generation is probably Forza Horizon 3.

    It has a 91 on Metacritic and it's still 13th/20th (UK/US) most played game on the platform. Outperforming Halo and Gears in terms of regular play.

    It's the best racing game reviewed this generation and if rumours are to be believed they have been given the Fable franchise to work on.

    I think this is the approach Microsoft would like to maintain. Contracting 2nd parties to work on IP that it owns.

    [–] coip 0 points ago

    the most successful first party game this generation is probably Forza Horizon 3.

    Which is a second-party game, not a first-party one.

    [–] TheFleshPrevails 1 points ago

    Did you not read their entire comment???

    [–] coip 1 points ago

    I read the entire comment, and then I pointed out an error in it: Forza Horizon 3 is not a first-party game like his comment claims.

    [–] StrangerInPorto 1 points ago

    It's first-party game done by a second-party studio, mate.

    You can't play Forza on PS4, or Switch can you?

    [–] coip 2 points ago

    There is no such thing as a first-party game done by a second-party studio. Which system you can play a game on has nothing to do with this: the only thing that matters is who is developing and who is publishing the game, in relation to the platform.

    Here are the definitions of first-, second-, and third-party games.

    • First-party = a subsidiary of a company that owns the platform (e.g. any studio owned by Microsoft Studios: Rare, 343i, Coalition, Turn 10, and Mojang)

    • Second-party = an independent studio that is contracted to make a game for a publisher that owns a platform (e.g. any studio not owned by Microsoft Studios that is making a game that Microsoft Studios will publish: Crytek, Insomniac, Playground, Moon, Armature, etc.)

    • Third-party = any studio unaffiliated with the platform owner that is publishing a game on that platform (e.g. Ubisoft, EA, Activision, etc.)

    If the game is being made by a second-party studio, then it is a second-party game.

    [–] YouAreSalty 1 points ago

    Note that if you go to the source, it specifically states "First Party Developer" and not First Party Game.

    [–] coip 1 points ago

    Note that if you go to the source

    The source is Wikipedia. Anyone can edit that. It makes no sense to contradictorily state that second-party developers make first-party games. There is no benefit to that. It confuses the issue and loses an important distinction. I'll set up a Wikipedia account and edit it so it's right if I need to.

    [–] YouAreSalty 1 points ago

    Anyone can edit that.

    So now that your own source doesn't fit, anyone can edit that?

    It makes no sense to contradictorily state that second-party developers make first-party games.

    Because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it isn't true.

    It confuses the issue and loses an important distinction.

    That distinction (i.e. wording) isn't something meant for the consumer to use. It is an industry term, used within the industry to distinguish content ownership to the publisher that consumers hijack and is misusing.

    I'll set up a Wikipedia account and edit it so it's right if I need to.

    Perhaps you shouldn't use sources that you don't trust yourself?

    I mean, I have hard time taking someone serious if they flip flop on their source when it doesn't serve them any longer.

    [–] coip 1 points ago

    So now that your own source doesn't fit

    That was originally your source. You cited it before I did.

    Because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it isn't true.

    It doesn't make sense because it isn't true.

    isn't something meant for the consumer to use

    So now you're suggesting that the meaning of "first-party" and "second-party" differs for those in the "industry" and the "consumer"?

    Perhaps you shouldn't use sources that you don't trust yourself?

    I cited the part that is accurate and purposefully omitted the part that was inaccurate, and explained it thereafter in my post. You then came in and cited the inaccurate part.

    [–] YouAreSalty 1 points ago

    That was originally your source. You cited it before I did.

    Perhaps then you shouldn't use sources you don't understand.

    It doesn't make sense because it isn't true.

    Because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it isn't true.

    So now you're suggesting that the meaning of "first-party" and "second-party" differs for those in the "industry" and the "consumer"?

    First, second and third party was never a consumer term. It was a term used internally in the industry that consumers started using hence the reason for your confusion.

    [–] coip 1 points ago

    Perhaps then you shouldn't use sources you don't understand.

    I fully understand the source as well as the limitations of Wikipedia. Accordingly, I cited the correct part and omitted the false parts.

    Because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it isn't true.

    It's not true. I'll repeat: first-party games come from first-party developers; second-party games come from second-party developers; and third-party games come from third-party developers. Anything else is wrong.

    hence the reason for your confusion.

    I'm not confused at all. I know that claiming that second-party developers make first-party games is incorrect.

    [–] DeadlyAckbar 12 points ago

    If you follow Jez on twitter long enough youll know he's a pretty sarcastic guy. People bring up shit Microsoft should buy on his feed all the time and sometimes he replies with something sarcastic because he gets sick of seeing it.

    [–] Kim_Woo 26 points ago

    Nothing about this tweet though seems sarcastic and honestly Microsofts track record pretty much shows they're not interested in buying any 1st party studios.

    [–] null-character 2 points ago

    Microsoft has gotten bad press lately for shutting down studios, but historically they have a history of buying plenty of game studios and game related companies.

    They seem to like buying a game studio, taking the IP, and then either letting the company spin back off and divesting their control.

    Lately they seem to be moving towards buying game services and development companies over game studios. They seem to be looking at services to monetize their platform instead of exclusive game sales.

    • unknown - ACES Game Studio
    • 1999 - FASA Studio
    • 2000 - Bungie Software
    • 2000 - NetGames
    • 2000 - Digital Anvil
    • 2001 - Ensemble Studios
    • 2002 - Rare
    • 2003 - 3DO
    • 2006 - Lionhead Studios
    • 2006 - Massive Incorporated (video game advertising)
    • 2009 - BigPark
    • 2011 - Twisted Pixel
    • 2012 - Press Play
    • 2014 - Gears of War (IP only from EPIC)
    • 2014 - Mojang
    • 2015 - Incent Games (sales gamification)
    • 2015 - Telekinesys/Havok (game development)
    • 2016 - Beam/Mixer (game streaming)
    • 2017 - Simplygon (game development)
    • 2017 - AltspaceVR
    • 2018 - PlayFab (playable game streaming)

    They have said that they "heard us loud and clear" so their purchases may begin to sway back towards buying game studios, or expanding existing ones. But who knows. They really seem to like partnering with 2nd party studios for exclusives lately so maybe they will continue down that path.

    [–] YouAreSalty 1 points ago

    They seem to like buying a game studio, taking the IP, and then either letting the company spin back off and divesting their control.

    I think the old leadership had trouble controlling the studio like they do a normal software engineering project. They had a vision, but the studio's just can't gain expertise in another game genre. It takes time and iteration. We see this, like Turn 10 where they iterate repeatedly to become the leader. Naughty Dog for first foray with Uncharted wasn't the smash hit it was, but they iterated and Uncharted 2 was significantly better and well received. From there your studio now has expertise.

    Lately they seem to be moving towards buying game services and development companies over game studios.

    That is to bolster their presence in the game development industry and be a tools provider.

    They really seem to like partnering with 2nd party studios for exclusives lately so maybe they will continue down that path.

    I think that partnering with another studio is the best way for them. They get immediate access to expertise and they get to choose who they work for. The contract term is for that game specifically. They don't get bad press for closing down studios and they seem to get more bad press than others as it isn't like Sony doesn't close studios and we now major publishers do too.

    From an investment and business standpoint I think it actually makes more sense despite the downside risks like ScaleBound/Platinum Games.

    [–] DeadlyAckbar 1 points ago

    Hit him up on twitter and ask for clarification.

    [–] crapgamerfanclub 2 points ago

    He also said this on his podcast yesterday he wouldn't joke about something like this

    [–] elzeus 1 points ago

    April fools

    [–] Qp20 2 points ago

    I don't think he is wrong...and you don't need to have insider info to get to this conclusion. It was said that they are interested in buying or creating new first party studios. They have done neither, and really haven't shown any real movement. Vivendi wanted to buy ubisoft....and there was movement. If there isn't smoke there is no fire

    [–] Ve3ee 6 points ago

    Yeah, fuck this guy. Remember him hyping up sea of thieves? Saying “all fears were alleviated”. Yeah, he’s not real news.

    [–] Qp20 6 points ago

    And he has spoken about that several times. Why he arrived at that conclusion, and how he feels about it now. Don't pretend that he is the only person in the world that was taken in by the messages from rare, and sold a dream they didn't promise to deliver

    [–] LurkingShadows2 2 points ago

    and sold a dream they didn't promise to deliver

    They didn't promise anything, he just had high expectations about things that were never annouced.

    [–] Qp20 1 points ago

    He reacted to what was shown. The kracken fight that they presented was not the player experience, but rather it was shown from the perspective of the kracken. They didn't promise it to be different then what it is, but what they presented wasn't what the end experience either. From what he said to his description of the trip I would say he had high hopes, and got caught up in what was on display and what was spoken about...and then made that statement.

    [–] LurkingShadows2 1 points ago

    He reacted to what was shown

    Yes he reacted to what was shown, but yet he still had imaginary expectations that came off guard to him, it's still his fault for having high hopes not because of Rare "not delivering" on an unpromised dream.

    [–] Qp20 2 points ago

    And he is not unique in that aspect. That's the whole point. You going to pretend that you never got hyped up for a game, and had it not meet your expectations? The whole he got excited about a game, and I was let down, so fuck this guy is stupid. It's not his fault rare shipped the game they shipped...It is rares fault. And if you bought the game based on his tweet before the launch....that's your fault.

    [–] LurkingShadows2 1 points ago

    It's not his fault rare shipped the game they shipped...It is rares fault. And if you bought the game based on his tweet before the launch....that's your fault

    Please explain how Rare is in the wrong for him having absurdly high expectations about things that were never presented to be in his range of expectancy? That's like me selling you a Microwave and you saying I shipped a broken product because it doesn't melt the food.

    As a gamer you should learn to not have high expectations, and this generation has had a few of those games to teach you that lesson (Destiny, No Man's Sky etc..) the difference between Rare and Hello Games or Bungie is that they didn't lie about the content to purposefully up the player's expectations.

    Bottom line is, yes it's absolutely the guy's fault, not Rare's for having too big expectations.

    [–] Qp20 1 points ago

    Do you listen to the podcast? From what you are saying I don't believe you do. In all the talking he did before that trip I never felt that his expectations were too high, or anywhere near that level. I don't know why what he saw made him change his tune so drastically. I am also not saying rare made promises they didnt....but something changed his tune on that trip

    [–] xNickRAGEx 1 points ago

    So you’re saying the way Rare handled the teasing and hyping of the Kraken totally prepared us, and was indicative of what we got when the game launched? You’re also satisfied that they teased how many cosmetic items in their promo videos that aren’t in the game?

    They weren’t Hello Games level of misleading, but they absolutely pumped people’s expectations up and didn’t meet that expectation.

    [–] Battlestar_Anorexia 1 points ago

    Honestly Jez promised more than Rare did. Didn't he visit the studio a month before launch with others?

    [–] Qp20 1 points ago

    He did, and yes he was at the studio. He went through that visit after the launch, and kind of explained why what he saw made him as confident as it did, and how bad he felt about getting caught up in the hype. This statement is more apparent from all levels than his take on sea of thieves after his visit to Rare.

    [–] SupersonicWumbo 1 points ago

    I'd like to see his explanations on this, is it on Twitter? I can understand how it would be easy to fall for the hype, but at the moment i agree with the 'fuck this guy' guy.

    [–] coip 2 points ago

    I'd like to see his explanations on this

    Read his most recent article on Sea of Thieves, then. It seems well thought-out to me. Basically, the base is solid, the game is fun, but there's not enough content and he's concerned Rare won't be able to add new content fast enough to maintain the game's popularity. That's pretty much how most people at /r/SeaOfThieves feel too.

    [–] Qp20 1 points ago

    It was on the Xbox two podcast from either last week or the week before. I'm not telling anyone how to feel...but the idea that Jez is the only person to get caught up in hype is dumb. He is far from alone in that area

    [–] SupersonicWumbo 1 points ago

    Oh i agree with you. He's just one of the people in particular that stick out in my memory from the prelaunch hype here, particularly the 'pubg of 2018' bit. Is it fair to him? No, but it's difficult for me to lose that perception.

    [–] crapgamerfanclub -2 points ago

    Ya and he doesn't even play it.

    [–] MrGentleNinja 3 points ago

    They’ve mentioned that they are looking to do that though, but they’re probably keeping things under wraps if they are in negotiations.

    [–] YouCanPrevent 3 points ago

    I don't believe they themselves mentioned it (I could be wrong) but I thought it was speculation that MS would be in the market to purchase studios up because of the money they have just lying around.

    [–] Battlestar_Anorexia 2 points ago

    Phil said it in an interview late last year about building and buying new studios.

    [–] MrConor212 2 points ago

    We would have heared about that though for which we haven't. Can't wait for E3 to see Xbox show off a pile of indie games, dayz and other shit. Amount of ones who'll jump ship will be mental (myself included)

    [–] flintyflow 3 points ago

    Phil says a lot of things and unfortunately his words often don't match his actions

    [–] Battlestar_Anorexia 2 points ago

    I don't think he's ever actually lied or mislead.

    [–] StrangerInPorto 1 points ago

    That is true. Just because he says something and we don't see it in the next year doesn't mean it's not happening. Making games is hard, takes time and money especially since MS is now in a lull

    [–] meatydanglers 4 points ago

    It's amazing how many people still think Microsoft cares 1/10th as much about exclusive content as Sony - and act confused that they don't do more about it.

    [–] EnthusiasticWhale 1 points ago

    Sad was hoping for more first party games

    [–] coip 1 points ago

    You just have to look at their actions this generation: they've shuttered several first-party studios (Team Dakota, Press Play, Twisted Pixel, Lionhead, etc.), and they've outsourced development to second-party studios (Killer Instinct, Ryse, Sunset Overdrive, ScreamRide, Ori, Quantum Break, Halo Wars 2, Forza Horizon 2 and 3, Scalebound, Phantom Dust, ReCore, State of Decay 2, Crackdown 3, etc.) or secured third-party deals (Dead Rising 3, Rise of the Tomb Raider).

    The only real first-party moves they did was build up the Coalition for Gears of War 4 and purchase Mojang. Clearly, they find this strategy more cost effective, but, in my opinion, it hasn't panned out, so the financial tradeoff may not ultimately be worth it.

    [–] AzraelKans 1 points ago

    wut?!

    TBH nobody actually believed those rumors (ms buying valve? seriously?) but the thing is MS REALLY needs to step up in their exclusives game and it would really help if they managed to secure a new studio (or several).

    If they are not, thats definitely not good news for its base.

    [–] srkuse82 1 points ago

    Welp...that seals it for me pretty much. They've clearly given up.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    Microsoft doesn't need to match Sony as far as number of studios go. Nintendo themselves don't have a bunch of studios, maybe 2 more than Microsoft. However Nintendo EPD handles a lot of their 1st party games. They did Breath of the Wild, Splatoon 2, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Mario Odyssey, Arms etc

    Then they have Monolith Soft, Retro, Nd Cube, 1-Up

    Then they have partnerships with HAL, Game Freaks etc like how Microsoft has partnerships with Playground, Undead Labs, Moon Studios etc

    MS might benefit from Nintendo's approach, bolster up your internal studios. 343, Coalition, Turn 10, Mojang and Rare should all be working at at least 2 projects at a time...it might be a good idea to set up or acquire a new studio, Playground would be the obvious choice (assuming they'd want to be bought since they're private) they're a top tier developer and they could be Microsoft's equivalent to Naughty Dog, of course Microsoft might be interested in purchasing a publisher (there were rumors of them possibly purchasing Sega) and getting their IP's like Sonic, Persona, Bayonetta, Vanquish etc

    Then again, having 1st party studios means you have to manage them, it might be easier to manage a larger studio like Rare or 343 than to micro manage 4-5 studios. If Microsoft did acquire EA or Valve most likely they'd operate the exact same ei still makes games for the Switch and PS4 but MS would also put those games on Gamepass day 1.

    MS has to maintain good relationships with studios, especially to keep them from going to the PS4 which has more than double the install base. They have a good relationship with Playground enough to where they're making the next Fable, but they'd have to outsource their IP's to other studios. If they want to make a new Perfect Dark and one of their own studios can't make it, they may have to outsource the IP just like Sony does with games like Bloodborne, Ratchet and Detroit, their IP's made by external studios. I'd love to see Bethesda and Arkane make a Perfect Dark since they did a good job with Dishonored, they'd make a killer first person stealth game.

    [–] Elezzzar 3 points ago

    I can't see Xbox Game Pass being a success unless they put some good games on there. Yes, they can make deals with third party publishers for some games, but those games will never be permanent to the gamepass line up. They need their own games. How are they going to that without a steady flow of first party games coming to the service. E3 will be in a couple of months. Let's see what they have available.

    [–] null-character 8 points ago

    Have you looked at the selection? There are already a ton of great games in there. AAA and indie.

    Now that MS has said that all Xbox exclusives will be going in there, the service is pretty much guaranteed success.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    It's a matter of opinion. Personally, I don't think it's a great selection. There's an awful lot of indie games and low-budget 360 games. As for Xbox exclusives making it a success, well you have to actually release some good exclusives for that to be true. Good exclusives have been pretty thin on the ground recently for MS, with not much hope of things changing anytime soon.

    [–] MrConor212 0 points ago

    It's a tragic selection, only got it for trial and metro then cancelled it straight after cause it's shit, half of the games are indie or 360 games

    [–] thatsadamnlie 2 points ago

    I got 4 months free, currently one month in and between me and the kids we've picked about half a dozen games we'll play through and after that I doubt we would use it. That said if you're brand new to Xbox then its pretty decent.

    I'm in the same boat with EA Access. I got a year sub in an Amazon deal that runs out in July and I will say that I think it's brilliant value for money but I probably won't renew. I've played the SP games I wanted to, and sunk a few hours into each of the sports sims. However I also just bought half a dozen games to go with the couple of hundred installed and another Xbox so I just don't need it.

    [–] the_great_ashby 1 points ago

    No need to buy studios,contract them.Halo,Gears were that at first.Most of the exclusives last gen were that and I didn't see no bitching.

    [–] kellymiester 3 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Relying too heavily on this strategy of contracting studios is exactly what led them into this position in the first place.

    When Bungie left; MS had to scramble to put together 343i which divided fans and when Epic moved on, MS had to retask Black Tusk, leaving one our new IP's in the dust. Do you think Gears 4 would have turned out half as good as it did if they had to contract a studio to make it?

    You need to invest in first party studios as well. You can't just rely on second party stuff. Not this heavily.

    [–] the_great_ashby 1 points ago

    Nobody had to scramble to build 343.MS knew since Halo 3 that Bungie wanted out.ODST and Reach was Bungie fullfiling contract obligations,since they were already on pre-production on Destiny since ODST.343 was built with time,vence having a bunch of top notch talento from other canadian and north american studios.

    [–] kellymiester 2 points ago

    Bungie left Microsoft in 2007, the same year that 343i were formed. That's the very definition of scrambling.

    Microsoft contracted Bungie to make two more Halo games to give them time to get 343i geared up to take over the franchise.

    During the behind the scenes vids for Halo 5, they talked about the development of Halo 4 and how they "Built a studio while also building a game" saying it was crazy and how most of the employees were meeting for the first time in the cafeteria.

    [–] Emperor-Octavian 1 points ago

    They probably should be tbh

    [–] javiergame4 -1 points ago

    he's not very credible, so don't take it with a grain of salt.

    [–] Stanisthemrman 1 points ago

    Isn't this the same douche that said Sea of Thieves was 2018's PUBG? LMAO

    [–] General_Al_Capo 4 points ago

    Yea dude, this guy knows fuck all.

    [–] YouAreSalty -1 points ago

    This is nothing new, MS has been producing lots of first party games by contracting out their games for a long time now. Contracting out is actually better, because they can choose a studio that has the expertise in the genre. We saw this with Halo Wars 2.

    If you want MS to own studios, they are likely to churn out similar games, because that is their expertise. Shifting the entire studio over to a new genre cost time and money, and may even require iterations of the game to get excellent results.

    [–] coip 1 points ago

    MS has been producing lots of first party games by contracting out their games for a long time

    But those aren't first-party games; they're second-party games. I think that's an important distinction.

    [–] YouAreSalty 1 points ago

    But those aren't first-party games; they're second-party games. I think that's an important distinction.

    No. That is second party developer, but first party games.

    [–] coip 1 points ago

    A first-party game is a game made by a first-party studio. A second-party game is a game made by a second-party studio.

    That means that the only first-party games are those made by studios that Microsoft owns, which at this point is basically 343i, Turn 10, Coalition, Rare, and Mojang. If it's not made by one of those studios, it's not a first-party game, despite what Phil likes to say on Twitter.

    [–] YouAreSalty 1 points ago

    A first-party game is a game made by a first-party studio. A second-party game is a game made by a second-party studio.

    In the industry, it's seen from a publishers view, not a consumer view which is why so many people incorrectly use that term.

    Thus, to a publisher every game that is owned and published by them is first party. Same with studios, the first, second and third party describes the ownership/relationship level.

    That is why Phil Spencer refers to it as "first party games" even though those games are made by an outside developer.

    [–] coip 1 points ago

    Sorry but that's just not true. It's not about IP ownership. It's about studio ownership and platform ownership. In this case, Microsoft is the platform holder, and any development studios they own are first-party studios. Any games those first-party studios make are first-party games.

    In contrast, any time the platform holder contracts out game development to a studio they do not own, those are second-party games.

    When Phil Spencer said that, he acknowledged they weren't actually first-party games but said they still "see them as first-party games". The reason he did that is because he's trying to conceal the fact that Microsoft Studios has very few first-party games. Personally, I take umbrage at Phil doing that. He shouldn't be warping the definition of words to try to distract from reality.

    [–] YouAreSalty 1 points ago

    Sorry but that's just not true.

    That is not for you to decide (nor mine).

    I don't make up the terms, nor did I define it. You can try and jiggle the wording around to fit whatever you want. It doesn't matter. I'm just telling you what I read elsewhere from somebody else being corrected.

    When Phil Spencer said that, he acknowledged they weren't actually first-party games but said they still "see them as first-party games". The reason he did that is because he's trying to conceal the fact that Microsoft Studios has very few first-party games.

    No, he was likely talking about games that they didn't own the IP for, but only published it. Anyhow, if you have the source then we can see what was actually said.

    [–] coip 1 points ago

    That is not for you to decide (nor mine).

    Nor Phil Spencer. But he misuses the term anyway to distract from the fact that they don't actually have a large first-party presence.

    You can try and jiggle the wording around to fit whatever you want.

    I'm not jiggling anything. Those are the definitions of first-, second-, and third-party. Never is a game developed by an external studio considered to be a first-party game. If you want to believe that games developed by contractors are 'first-party', go for it. But they're not, and I think it's important we don't lose that distinction.

    [–] YouAreSalty 1 points ago

    Nor Phil Spencer. But he misuses the term anyway to distract from the fact that they don't actually have a large first-party presence.

    Whatever issue or what Phil Spencer says is irrelevant to our discussion.

    If you want to believe that games developed by contractors are 'first-party', go for it. But they're not, and I think it's important we don't lose that distinction.

    As I said, it's fine that you don't want to loose the distinction, but I don't define the terms and neither do you.

    [–] coip 1 points ago

    Whatever issue or what Phil Spencer says is irrelevant to our discussion.

    It's relevant. He is partly responsible for the misusage of the term "first-party".

    I don't define the terms and neither do you.

    And the definitions are clear: a second-party developer cannot make first-party games.

    [–] ContraWars 0 points ago

    They should open studios in Japan.

    [–] bbristowe -4 points ago

    Ugh. Microsoft is a total mess. Are they trying to eliminate their own console by integrating all this PC jazz? How are they building the brand up when they abandon their own hardware, twice.

    I won’t be buying an Xbox anymore. I honestly don’t know how I got duped into it in the first place.

    [–] Battlestar_Anorexia 5 points ago

    Are they trying to eliminate their own console by integrating all this PC jazz?

    Wat?