Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Saying 't's a business' really doesn't contribute much to debate. Do you not think MS could offer more quantity, diversity and originality with their internal games development and studio partnerships?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Looking Back At Microsoft's 13 Years of First Party
- Thread starter QaaQer
- Start date
Saying 't's a business' really doesn't contribute much to debate. Do you not think MS could offer more quantity, diversity and originality with their internal games development and studio partnerships?
rokkerkory
Member
Who cares, give me games. Thanks that's all.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
MS brought nothing to gaming?
Seriously?
Fucking hell. It's clear decent discussion won't be possible when the OP is based on a quote that says that.
I mean Christ, Microsoft is the reason Sony and Nintendo were dragged kicking and screaming into the world of online and they did it off the back of their FIRST console which sold a measly 25 million units.
They made a controller design which is now arguably the defacto standard dethroning Sony's Dualshock which had held that throne for a loooong time.
They essentially forced the rest of the market to take an OS on console seriously (partially because of Live on OG).
The fact that they used a cheque book to get their way into a crowded market as a newcomer should be no surprise. How else did you expect it to happen?
Yeah, they didn't get all their first party content out in the "traditional" way but it still happened we still got - and get, to play all those games for the last 13 years.
I mean, I get that it seems trendy to hate Microsoft lately but geez some people forget things very easily. All 4 manufacturers (love you Sega) have done shitty stuff and great stuff and the industry as a whole is better for the competition. They keep each other on their toes and we benefit.
Seriously?
Fucking hell. It's clear decent discussion won't be possible when the OP is based on a quote that says that.
I mean Christ, Microsoft is the reason Sony and Nintendo were dragged kicking and screaming into the world of online and they did it off the back of their FIRST console which sold a measly 25 million units.
They made a controller design which is now arguably the defacto standard dethroning Sony's Dualshock which had held that throne for a loooong time.
They essentially forced the rest of the market to take an OS on console seriously (partially because of Live on OG).
The fact that they used a cheque book to get their way into a crowded market as a newcomer should be no surprise. How else did you expect it to happen?
Yeah, they didn't get all their first party content out in the "traditional" way but it still happened we still got - and get, to play all those games for the last 13 years.
I mean, I get that it seems trendy to hate Microsoft lately but geez some people forget things very easily. All 4 manufacturers (love you Sega) have done shitty stuff and great stuff and the industry as a whole is better for the competition. They keep each other on their toes and we benefit.
Best post in this thread. The Microsoft hate has gotten to the point of beyond ridiculousness at this point.
So what if MS doesnt have many first party games out now if they still have compelling exclusives, why does it matter who makes them? This is so ridiculous.
Good recounting thread, OP.
MS has also heavily damaged third parties through deals, maybe I'll make a separate thread about that. For the first year of the 360, MS aggressively went after third parties for the first two years of the 360, even contracting them to release games earlier for their console before they were finished.
Maybe I'll make a similar thread in the future detailing that.
MS has also heavily damaged third parties through deals, maybe I'll make a separate thread about that. For the first year of the 360, MS aggressively went after third parties for the first two years of the 360, even contracting them to release games earlier for their console before they were finished.
Maybe I'll make a similar thread in the future detailing that.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
Yes because Nintendo and Sony never had shady deals or money hats or flat out threatened third parties in the past.
MS's defining legacy of first party efforts has to be in their work done on the original xbox, as a publisher and developer.
the 360 saw that growth in concepts and genres shrink or vanish, with a few memorable titles. the brightest new IP probably being viva pinata and alan wake for me (if were talking about memorable content).
while i want to think the opposite will occur for XBO, im a bit more jaded on MS at this point and their abilities to deliver.
the 360 saw that growth in concepts and genres shrink or vanish, with a few memorable titles. the brightest new IP probably being viva pinata and alan wake for me (if were talking about memorable content).
while i want to think the opposite will occur for XBO, im a bit more jaded on MS at this point and their abilities to deliver.
TheUnsunghero26
Member
A lot of first party games come from external developers. Not owning the studio doesn't change the fact that they're first party games. Some of my favourite games from last gen were first party games from external developers. Stuff like Mass Effect 1, Alan Wake, Gears etc. It lets them work with a lot of different developers, some who wouldn't want to be bought in the first place (Like Insomniac).
I mean its not a perfect approach, you can end up having a BioWare situation where the developer gets acquired by another publisher, but it can lead to some really exciting stuff. I think they should continue publishing/funding games from external devs, and a continue building up their internal studios. I wouldn't be surprised to see Remedy be acquired by MS.
Also, something I learned from Phil Spencer on twitter a while back, there's a difference between games with the Microsoft Studios logo, and the ones that just say Microsoft (like Dead Rising 3).
I mean its not a perfect approach, you can end up having a BioWare situation where the developer gets acquired by another publisher, but it can lead to some really exciting stuff. I think they should continue publishing/funding games from external devs, and a continue building up their internal studios. I wouldn't be surprised to see Remedy be acquired by MS.
Also, something I learned from Phil Spencer on twitter a while back, there's a difference between games with the Microsoft Studios logo, and the ones that just say Microsoft (like Dead Rising 3).
It's not like you couldn't make a similar thread about Sony -- they've abandoned dozens of popular IPs, shut down studios, cancelled games, and mismanaged their most popular properties (Gran Turismo is a shadow of what it once was). Perhaps it's not as bad as Microsoft, but if you consciously choose to focus only on the negative then almost every publisher is going to look bad.
HighResTomato
Member
truthfactsbombingrun.gif
Xbox Live/360 revolutionised console gaming and match making. Too many fail to see the benefit of MS's investment and R&D into the OG Xbox/360.
UltimaPooh
Member
It is a business... It's called investing.
While Sony and Nintendo buy studios to a lesser extent than Microsoft they also continually invest in them ensuring strong studios in the future.
Yeah, it kinda just sucks that someone chose to make a thread that claims to be about Microsoft's development history, and then just quotes an older post from another thread that is intentionally meant to ignore every good thing or significant development that MS brought about.
To be fair though, I do miss the days when Microsoft was publishing multiple new IPs every year. But at this point in time, almost no publisher is taking the same risks as they were in 2001-2007.
UltimaPooh
Member
Title really isn't that misleading. Yeah you can get a small positive connotation from it but the OP is on point.
Yeah Microsoft did other things to help advance home consoles but they certainly didn't help advance their first party.
TheOhrenberger.
Banned
quick, someone quote this guy and make another thread!
On a more serious note: I couldn't have said it any better. A lot of people are blateny ignoring any positives Microsoft brought into the gaming world. Great post!
JimmyRustler
Gold Member
To be fair, the original post from Drek was aiming more towards the First Party studio issue. We all know that MS pretty much revolutionized the console OS and online experience. Though that has already been some time ago. Ever since complete revamp of the 360 dashboard they kept fucking it up and making it worse.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
Around the time I bought a ps3 was about the time I started noticing a huge drop off of 360 first party games. Relying on third party games to carry youis all good and well when you have the best versions of those games, but when the market is this tight you need to start exceeding expectations than merely meeting them. I'm not saying Sony's first parties are in fantastic shape either (what is going on with), but at least their franchises are on an upward momenum through the latter half of the PS3's life.
IV Wolfe VI
Neo Member
I for one don't enjoy console gaming nearly as much now as I did when I had xbox original. To me that was the golden era of gaming. The online was better. The games were simpler and there wasn't so much b********. To many people worry about what the company's are doing and seem to forget about why we are here, cause last time I checked we are all here for the games.
thewhitehawk
Member
This is 2014 and numerous examples of governments data-mining people's information have been leaked and verified. It's not a tin-foil hat theory anymore.
Exploratory
Banned
If you believe the blades were better than the pins system you're just wrong. Objectively.
Matchmaking and XBLA yes, both good innovations (although not everyone thinks that about matchmaking). Nintendo and Sony both had online games prior to that, but sure, MS made it a lot better. The OS sort of follows suit; consoles had no need for an OS without a game store and online games. The DualShock was never the defacto standard imo. While I really like the 360 controller (shared favorite together with the gamecube controller), it's hardly an innovation. Thing is, I think everyone agrees Microsoft can make a good platform; they're not making many good games.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Because if you are deliberately ignoring the facts here, this is what people want. They WANT to give Microsoft money. They do care about where it comes from because they want to see commitment. If you have something that you are promising us, and we see nothing; but then see money spent on something that we didn't want, how are we suppose to buy into the vision? We want more games from you. You brought Halo, Gears, Forza and loads of other franchises into what they are today because of that dedication to bring Xbox only exclusives from Microsoft Studios. We ALL want to see that. You want the hating for Microsoft to stop, well then it starts with people buying the console who in the majority, wants to see them flex their first party. That's like one of the huge problems in every single thread.
I like that they introduced a standardized API for PC controllers. I like that they paved the way for indies on consoles.
Xenon
Member
I couldn't find anything on that for Fable. The first time I heard of the game was for the Xbox.
No. MS pushed for a better campaign. Halo could have went the way of tribes had MS not stepped in. Sure the MP was great but single player made Master Chief and icon.
Different classes, magic, and focusing only on MP. I agree that the lack of the SP hurt it but it had some interesting features.
So you think MS said hey rare why don't you take Banjo and Kazooie and change the focus from platforming to vehicle building. Or hey, make me a game about pinatas that dance to procreate. How about making a adventure game but throw out conventional controls, Kameo. Rares failures were their own. MS biggest mistake was giving them too much freedom.
True, once again MS put too much trust in their acquired company's leadership.
I know MS flaws. They lost the plot and went for a media center, when all personal electronics can provide that fuctionality. They focused on and released with Kinect without a single piece of software to justify it. They overstepped what people find acceptable by adding a 24 check to play their content. They tried to eliminate the resale market, this didn't bother me. But this list didn't tell the whole story it also doesn't take into account the fact that MS does business in a different way. So you can't compare them to Sony just on first parties because they have a different business model. I've enjoyed MS partnerships output more then I have all of Sony's first party releases. If you think about it most of titles that are praised were from partnerships with studios like From Software and That Game Studio. Their first party devs are sequel machines LBP123V&PSP, Killzone123LM&SF,WIPEOUT123???,GoW123-etc.
This story that MS just brings it's evil money to gaming, doesn't care as much as the other companies and is BS. Sony and Nintendo have tried to dictate the market and it cost them. Just as MS plans for the XBO hurt the brand they had built up in the previous gen. They are paying for their sins. This emotional hate for MS is just dumb.
This thread is......surreal. I guess that is the best way to describe it.
Also, while I'm not really looking to get into a point by point in a thread started on a different post I made in another thread ('cause that would be meta as all hell), this right here:
Has he since gotten high on his own supply as it where? Sure. Has he always overpromised? Yes, but only because he's the video game embodiment of the expression "if you shoot for the moon and miss you'll still end up among the stars". He's on par with Will Wright, Shigeru Miyamoto, Sid Meier, and many others. He's an all time great. Just because he hasn't done anything worthwhile in several years now doesn't mean we should forget that. He's hardly a charlatan, let alone one of the biggest in the industry. He's just a very different individual. Once upon a time that difference resulted in completely new experiences that defined some of our childhoods. Respect the legacy by showing some respect to the man.
Also, while I'm not really looking to get into a point by point in a thread started on a different post I made in another thread ('cause that would be meta as all hell), this right here:
Is just hurtful and wrong. Peter Molyneux was once an absolute visionary in this industry. Populous, Dungeon Keeper, Magic Carpet, Syndicate, Black & White, and even Fable are some of the best games of all time.
Has he since gotten high on his own supply as it where? Sure. Has he always overpromised? Yes, but only because he's the video game embodiment of the expression "if you shoot for the moon and miss you'll still end up among the stars". He's on par with Will Wright, Shigeru Miyamoto, Sid Meier, and many others. He's an all time great. Just because he hasn't done anything worthwhile in several years now doesn't mean we should forget that. He's hardly a charlatan, let alone one of the biggest in the industry. He's just a very different individual. Once upon a time that difference resulted in completely new experiences that defined some of our childhoods. Respect the legacy by showing some respect to the man.
It always goes back to "but but but Xbox Live!" when the console space would have gone that direction with or without Microsoft. They brought competition of course. Someone had to otherwise Sony would have continued dominating the entire market. But saying that they're the only ones who were thinking about the online space at the time is just silly.
So should we thank MS for getting Sony off it's ass? Sure! But like the OP mentioned, they're involvement in this industry, especially for many developers, has not been a good thing. They seemed to be on a good course in the early years of the 360, but the Wii stepped in and completely changed MS' course.
I like how you conveniently eliminated games like The Last of Us, Tearaway, Knack, Demon's Souls (Sony Japan Studio worked on that, you know), Ico/SOTC, Gravity Rush, Siren, Driveclub etc. that go to show Sony are more than willing to take chances on new IP.
"You people"? :/
Kazuma Kiryu
Member
I guess some people just take a little bit longer to reach certain conclusions.
This.
Also some games wouldn't be where they are today if ms wasn't there. Example Halo. It would never have taken off like it did without ms backing it. I think the same stands true for a lot of other games/franchises.
I get the salt that ps only people are shedding, but this has to stop. I think there is no reason this thread exists other than to shit on ms...
Xenon
Member
Well to be fair Team Ico eliminated themselves. I loved Knack but the game is mostly shat on by the community. Sony still partnered with From software for Demon Souls. The Last of Us is the exception for their big studios, not the rule. Up till that they had been churning out Uncharted sequels. Drive Club only exists because Sony needed a racer and Gran Turismo's development cycle is ridiculously long. But yes Sony's first parties do not just put out sequels. Sorry I should have said their AAA first party efforts. The whole reason I brought it up was to show they engaged in the same model as MS of partnering with companies.
Drek said:
I know his history. I loved many of those games. But just like Lucas, past success can only carry you so far. His direction of Lionhead and 22can's endeavors have soured my opinion of the man. Anyone can shoot for the moon, but saying your going to do it without a plan to get there is flat out deceptive.
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
Good post and I agree with it. However, what has this got to do with the topic at hand? We're talking about games. Both OG and 360 were awesome and pushed both hardware and OS to where it needed to be but Microsoft had little interest in game development when compared to monetising the consumer. That's why XBO is what it is.
Uh, it's a 25 person studio with a solid track record of great games and games that sell well, on tiny budgets. How is it a waste of time? Beyond you not liking the games they make personally, that is.
The people at Microsoft that truly made the OG Xbox and 360 what they were are no longer at MS. We can't keep congratulating MS on innovations they brought to gaming several years ago. "What have you done for me lately" is the phrase that comes to mind.
I mean why do you think MS is losing so many loyal customers from last gen? It's because most people don't choose their console based on nothing but the past. They choose it based on what decisions were made towards the device of the CURRENT gen.
I loved my time with my OG Xbox and 360, but that doesn't mean I must continue to press forward towards a machine I'm not happy with. The past is the past and now is now. Thanks for the innovations towards gaming MS, but you went a different route with the design of this machine and most definitely had more top corporate management input into trying to make an everything box with monetization through advertising partners as a primary concern and system power was gimped in the process.
They took those 2 gens of gamers they grabbed through their innovations for granted this time and assumed you would all remain onboard. But we don't stay on a train based on its prior destinations, we stay on based on their current destination and many have chosen to get off.
The false belief that GAF is nothing but Sony fans who are finally able to let loose due to struggling MS sales simply is not true. This forum was mostly pro-MS during the early days of last gen as 360 dominated every NPD and Sony struggled. The hate or love people show towards a console is often a reflection of overall sales trends.
It's not even that they used the chequebook to get into a crowded market as a newcomer.
It's that -- thirteen years after they entered into the industry, an industry many people in here repeatedly point out they "revolutionized" (in their first two years, at least) by pushing the envelope -- they're still heavily reliant on the chequebook to get anything done.
Kagoshima_Luke
Gold Member
People are looking at this too much in black and white.
For instance, it's true that MS pushed the envelope for online gaming and Live was the gold standard during OG Xbox days and helped bring Sony and Nintendo down the same path.
Much of what was quoted in the OP is also true. Instead of cultivating first party series', MS has largely abandoned or mismanaged them.
whynotboth.jpg
For instance, it's true that MS pushed the envelope for online gaming and Live was the gold standard during OG Xbox days and helped bring Sony and Nintendo down the same path.
Much of what was quoted in the OP is also true. Instead of cultivating first party series', MS has largely abandoned or mismanaged them.
whynotboth.jpg
Sure you are. That is why threads like these keep getting made and certain individuals come into xbox exclusive threads to mention PS4 games and start shit. Yeah people who are enjoying their consoles always do things like that i'm sure. I realize that you people feel the need to justify your purchase, and that's fine. Just keep it to yourselves.
They are already offering a lot of diversity in the year they have been out so far, there is always room for improvement as with anything, good thing we've got the whole rest of the gen for that.
Ok that is a discussion for another topic i think, this one is clearly stating that ms was never worth anything in the console space, and that's simply not true. That is exactly the opposite of what you are stating, namely shitting on their past because a present decision doesn't rub you the right way.
And I do agree with a lot of what you are saying, yes they took their base for granted, but even now it's not all shit what they are doing. They have a decent machine (and yes sonys is better hardware wise but that doesn't make the xb1 shit) with nice features and made some mistakes initially, they are trying to correct those mistakes, they still are making some though (tr2 was not okay) and I'm not calling this sonygaf or anything but this thread embodies exactly what is bothering me, this thread has nothing to do with current decisions or the initial messaging of the xb1, it's just here to shit on ms.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
I never said they were the only ones thinking about online. How on earth did you infer that from my post?
OP acted like MS is data mining people for money with the Kinect. If you are talking about governments, it has nothing to do with them. Government could tap into your phone or PS4 camera too if they wanted to. I doubt they would bother though. The Kinect isn't a spy camera constantly broadcasting like people say it is. Hell, games even require you to hit the Home button now before you can even use it so it saves GPU power. If Xbox One is that low on resources why would they constantly be streaming and uploading data to the government. There is literally zero credibility to say that this is going on.
I'm sort of torn on Live. On one hand it was a really tight package and obviously had a lot of thought and development of what features were essential and what weren't for online gaming on consoles. Obviously there was a little bit of help by looking at PC gaming and the DC but what they did making it broadband-only and thus online whenever the console was on allowed them to do some cool stuff that would have been a nightmare on dial-up. At the time it seemed crazy to ditch 75%+ of home internet users, but I think it was pretty forward thinking and those plans have certainly influenced what customers expect from an online network for gaming.
On the the other hand while there were niche-pay networks prior MS is responsible for creating the expectation that online should have a subscription. It sort of made sense when the launched the OG because they were taking a huge chance that it would flop, and it was a great selling feature. But now it just feels more and more like a way to nickle and dime consumers like me who are casual online-players.
While I don't blame MS for Sony following their lead, I don't think anybody would have thought something like that would work if MS hadn't proven it first.
I think in the end it depends on the user whether Live/paid-online is viewed as a contribution to gaming or an excuse to monetize basic features. If you use all the stuff on there it likely is worth it monthly. But for people like me who played maybe 3-4 hours a month I would prefer a bare-bones system that didn't cost me anything.
Same thing applies to Sony obviously.
On the the other hand while there were niche-pay networks prior MS is responsible for creating the expectation that online should have a subscription. It sort of made sense when the launched the OG because they were taking a huge chance that it would flop, and it was a great selling feature. But now it just feels more and more like a way to nickle and dime consumers like me who are casual online-players.
While I don't blame MS for Sony following their lead, I don't think anybody would have thought something like that would work if MS hadn't proven it first.
I think in the end it depends on the user whether Live/paid-online is viewed as a contribution to gaming or an excuse to monetize basic features. If you use all the stuff on there it likely is worth it monthly. But for people like me who played maybe 3-4 hours a month I would prefer a bare-bones system that didn't cost me anything.
Same thing applies to Sony obviously.
JinjoUnchained
Member
I get your point, they have made positive contributions, but everything you listed has more to do with improving general user experience than producing great content. By that logic, instead of being a platform holder, MS should have just been a consultant that helped Sony/Nintendo improve their controllers/UI/online.
Outrun
Member
I would change a certain word that you used, if I were you...
gunslikewhoa
Member
Look at the date.