Didn't Bizarre let themselves get bought by Activision? I guess you can fault MS for not buying them earlier, but MS also doesn't seem all that interested in directly buying studios. They rather let a 3rd party develop an exclusive i.e. Mass effect, ryse, dead rising.
-
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
I get what you mean but 343i new what they were getting in to they wasn't lie to the studio was made for it they new what the were working on also halo is going no where any time soon it always makes Microsoft a killing.
If you was making this point about black tusk I would agree with you but not 343i
lets be real here what did everyone expect with phil spencer ? that magically tons of first party titles get released, new studios get build ? this stuff takes years and seeing how their focus was on games only since spencer is on the helm i have good hopes.
drek should have waited till 2016 to make that post cause thats when we will know if microsoft has actually changed under spencer. for all we know hes still dealing with the shit from 2013.
cant blame them with this tomb raider situation. they need every game they can get for 2015.
drek should have waited till 2016 to make that post cause thats when we will know if microsoft has actually changed under spencer. for all we know hes still dealing with the shit from 2013.
cant blame them with this tomb raider situation. they need every game they can get for 2015.
There is less risk when funding 3rd parties. That is why they do it.
BlazingDarkness
Member
Yes, this is how they leverage themselves in the industry.
Rely on their core stable of franchises (Halo/Forza etc) and then purchase third party offerings to flesh out the rest of their catalog.
They benefited greatly last generation, due to Sony's misfire with the PS3 (in which many third parties went multiplatform) but now Sony has the lead, Microsoft will resume their cherry picking approach to keep on top.
Whereas Sony spent their time on developing internal studios since last generation, while third parties shifted to a multiplatform approach, Microsoft failed to bolster themselves internally, so now they will naturally move back to the third party sphere to supplement their lineup.
digoutyoursoul
Member
To be honest it hasn't stopped me enjoying their systems. The whole "the 360 was more successful because of the PS3 clusterfuck" didn't stop me one bit from enjoying it, I thought it was a great console. Maybe I'm part of the problem then ?
You see, I buy consoles that I think would give me entertaining experiences and their systems have done that, Sony's too to some extent and Nintendo.
I do agree with the point of not being totally committed, their press conferences are so fucking predictable it's laughable. Every year the Call of Duty and DLC announcement, Halo, Halo and yes Halo. If more third party publishers started their own E3 press events I think they would be fucked. I find it frustrating in a way in the sense if they were a bit more creative first party wise I would enjoy their stuff even more.
You see, I buy consoles that I think would give me entertaining experiences and their systems have done that, Sony's too to some extent and Nintendo.
I do agree with the point of not being totally committed, their press conferences are so fucking predictable it's laughable. Every year the Call of Duty and DLC announcement, Halo, Halo and yes Halo. If more third party publishers started their own E3 press events I think they would be fucked. I find it frustrating in a way in the sense if they were a bit more creative first party wise I would enjoy their stuff even more.
They don't always, Last of Us seemed to do quite well. If all you give people is sequels then they'll take it, maybe the wont like it that much but they'll take it anyway, because that's all there is. But if you give them something better they'll likely take that over the sequel.
It seems like Microsoft likes to focus on marketing more than the product. You can make a mediocre or average, cheap/expensive product, but if you just get the message right, if you just somehow tell people that's it great then they'll buy it.
shacklesmcgee
Member
BibiMaghoo
Member
Ever play poker? If you could bet on two hands, one you can see has a pair at least, and one you cannot see at all, which would you choose?
It's just about that, a new IP is a gamble that doesn't always pay off. A known series has a minimum level of sales above that new IP's potential.
You have to see what they see though. Each year, Ubi, EA, Activision churn out a yearly sequel, and it sells 5 - 10 million copies. In some cases it increases each year. This is the money they want (Sony and Ninty too). Did Gears sales increase each number? Did Fable? What about Forza? I think the answer in each case is yes. It is where the money is, as with DLC you can sell the same game all year round. TLoU is the exception that proves the rule. It is a good example because it goes against the grain, not with it. It is certainly not the standard new IP level of sales, as it did gangbusters.
People want new IP's yes, I should have said most people want sequels to games they loved, and show it with sales.
Then if it it describes you, why would you ask your question under pretense of "who cares if it's fun!"?
Not really. Not when one point of the thread is looking at how MS has built it's own ips vs outright buying things. Also where did the op ignore Halo? Part of the post was even talking about how milking Halo pushed Bungie away, which may not be a good thing as that was potentially one of thier strongest 1st party developers. Then compare that to Lionhead which has suffered a bleeding of talent for much the same reason.
funkystudent
Member
This trend of buying 3rd party exclusives is just a temporary plan while the based Phil Spencer rebuilds MS 1th party and we will see a flood of new and interesting IPs in a few years. Just wait.
Lets just pretend Spencer has NOT been in charge of MS 1th party for 6 years and the companies 1th party output took a turn for the worst when he was put in that role? K
Of course a business is in it to make money.
I think what the OP is getting at is how they do it.
Rightly, selling great game products to gamers isn't much on MS list to bolster their businesses. Simple math and one look at the regular financial reports will tell you that. Its a waste of time that brings in nothing compared to their primary business. So the question is, why are they here and how do they see a future that brings home the bacon.
I tend to agree they've always seen gaming as both PR for the other things they do and sell, and also see the most return in monetizing what has normally been left alone consumer value and trying to monitize personal information.
Love or hate them, Sony is PlayStation and PlayStation makes up a huge percentage of their day to day business. They're selling games and making money on those sales that effects their bottom line every day. That's not really the case with MS. And without Allard who knows what their grand vision and end game is as related to MS as a whole.
Its part of the reason you always hear how flustered shareholders are with MS and gaming.
Point is, you build up your internal First Party studio's with more talent and potential. Eg the way Sony and Nintendo have. It's not like they're any more likely to release lacklustre titles than those bought off from Third Parties, if anything the opposite is largely true.
Hrm... what other developer does this? I cannot think of them for the life of me.
They all do.
0ptimusPayne
Member
It's clearly starting to catch up with them. I was sad to hear Black Tusk had to shelf their game for the sake of Gears of War. It's like they literally don't trust their employees to make new and innovative games that can make good money. I barely used my 360 on the back end of last gen, I'm hoping the X1 doesn't get the same gears/halo/forza repeat treatment this time around...
I think the real issue everyone has is Microsoft's means of obtaining exclusives. Exclusives in and of themselves are not a bad thing.
When purchasing timed exclusives, all that's really done is thrown a bunch of money at the publisher to artificially limit the competing consoles. That's it. It's not so much paying for an exclusive as they are paying to block out the competitor.
When starting a studio or purchasing an existing one for the sake of exclusives, that's a whole different story. The purchaser is now directly funding the studio in question. They're bringing them under the fold and have the potential to nourish the studio in question. That can be through networking, connecting new talent with the studio, or through close cooperation with console engineers to maximize a game's potential on a specific platform. Something is being contributed here, especially in the creation of a new studio, and gamers and the industry have the potential to benefit.
When purchasing timed exclusives, all that's really done is thrown a bunch of money at the publisher to artificially limit the competing consoles. That's it. It's not so much paying for an exclusive as they are paying to block out the competitor.
When starting a studio or purchasing an existing one for the sake of exclusives, that's a whole different story. The purchaser is now directly funding the studio in question. They're bringing them under the fold and have the potential to nourish the studio in question. That can be through networking, connecting new talent with the studio, or through close cooperation with console engineers to maximize a game's potential on a specific platform. Something is being contributed here, especially in the creation of a new studio, and gamers and the industry have the potential to benefit.
I have a very fundamental counterpoint: DUH!
As a value proposition "making dough" is not a very compelling one. The organisation needs to have some other aspirations, and in Nintendo's case it is probably something like "creating interactive fun for all ages" and Sony's probably has something to do with technological excellence and amazing experiences. They are both chasing these strategies, and making money is a happy side effect.
But there's actually an interesting question beneath Drek's brilliant post, that being: would we be better off, if Microsoft had never entered the console market. I mean, Microsoft Game Studios published pretty god damn amazing games before Xbox ever was a thing. If they had just concentrated on making games for Windows, we might still have Mechwarriors and Close Combats and whatnot. Has there ever been a (worthwhile) game that would not have been bankrolled by some other publisher if Xbox had not been around?
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Where are all the medium-sized and independent titles coming for the Xbone though? What is their answer to No Man's Sky, Rime, wILD, and The Tomorrow Children? Where is the diversity? Why are they not collaborating with devs that can make their exclusives library look less like it's from a decade earlier and just simply give them MORE coming on the horizon?
The problem is that Sony matches them up with arguably better AAA titles like Uncharted, Bloodborne and DC but then is completely murdering them with everything else. Indie, independent, f2p etc.
This is the reason the userbase figures are starting to accelerate past 2:1 with Xbone. The Bone needs more games, and way more diversity in its line-up.
Denton
Member
They used to make amazing games on PC before they went for that whole Xbox thing. Midtown Madness, Motocross Madness, Flight Simulators, Age of Empires, Neverhood, Crimson Skies...
I think it was funny people said that MS was holding out all their "cards" ,ie. their first party games, from the last few 360 years for "720" (now known as xbone) release yet here we are and they have really no real new IPs.
I guess they only real way to get them is buying them off.
I guess they only real way to get them is buying them off.
Black Mantis
Member
Seriously, what are you on about? It's one of the biggest IP they own, of course they'll invest in it. They get their millions back, so it's not just spunking money up the wall. There are plenty of franchises MS/Sony/Nintendo make that I don't care for, so I don't buy them. If someone doesn't like Halo, I'm sure they may find some enjoyment in Forza/GoW/Sunset Overdrive/Quantum Break/Kinect Sports/Killer Instinct.
BibiMaghoo
Member
That can prove to be a costly mistake though, how many new IP's did Sony and Nintendo put out last gen that were mediocre to outright terrible? These games did nothing positive, they will have lost money, and had no worthwhile IP to use again. What you say is a great approach, but only when it goes well.
TitusGroan
Banned
Oh your tears. Your beautiful, delicious, tears.
Microsoft has been in the games business for decades. If you want to get real about it, they've been involved in gaming for longer than Sony have. Sony got into the games market to spite Nintendo over a hardware deal that went south. Microsoft were involved in PC gaming for years before the Xbox came out. Age Of Empires. Flight Simulator. Heck, before Flight Simulator there was Microsoft Space Simulator, released in 1994. Fighter Ace. Hellbender. Midtown Madness. Urban Assault. Microsoft were publishing games back when Sony was still nothing more than a TV and Walkman company.
This idea that Microsoft is some pretender in the gaming arena is nothing but rustled jimmies. The original Xbox was a treasure trove of incredible games published by Microsoft or made possible with their money: Ninja Gaiden, Halo, Mechassault, Crimson Skies: High Road To Revenge, Jade Empire.
Remember when the PS3 came out, and developers everywhere were struggling with the nightmare that was its architecture? Which company was the one who provided a console with easy to use hardware for developers to make games on? Microsoft. Yes, they were such a bad company then, providing third party developers with a console they could actually work with.
Which company started the process of using PC parts to make console development easier? Microsoft.
Which company nailed how to do online mulitplayer with consoles? Microsoft.
Which company was the first to include a hard-drive in its console, thereby making downloadable games and content possible? Microsoft.
Which company got the indie development ball rolling on consoles? Take a wild guess...
Microsoft have been in the gaming arena for decades, and they've been doing awesome things with the Xbox since day bloody one. I'm not planning on buying an Xbone any time soon, but I happily still have my OG Xbox plugged in, and have no problem with saying that Microsoft have earned their fucking place in the console business. They're putting out exclusives now, they're bulking up and expanding their development studios, they're turning around the shitfest that was the original Xbone into a console that is actually pretty damn nifty. The only reason they don't have more first party exclusives is because, shock horror, they made an effort to reach out and work with third parties for games instead. The same process people are now clamouring for Nintendo to step out of their ivory tower and engage in.
This is just embarrasing. Microsoft make one announcement, and now everyone's acting as if they never even deserved a place at the table in the first place.
Microsoft has been in the games business for decades. If you want to get real about it, they've been involved in gaming for longer than Sony have. Sony got into the games market to spite Nintendo over a hardware deal that went south. Microsoft were involved in PC gaming for years before the Xbox came out. Age Of Empires. Flight Simulator. Heck, before Flight Simulator there was Microsoft Space Simulator, released in 1994. Fighter Ace. Hellbender. Midtown Madness. Urban Assault. Microsoft were publishing games back when Sony was still nothing more than a TV and Walkman company.
This idea that Microsoft is some pretender in the gaming arena is nothing but rustled jimmies. The original Xbox was a treasure trove of incredible games published by Microsoft or made possible with their money: Ninja Gaiden, Halo, Mechassault, Crimson Skies: High Road To Revenge, Jade Empire.
Remember when the PS3 came out, and developers everywhere were struggling with the nightmare that was its architecture? Which company was the one who provided a console with easy to use hardware for developers to make games on? Microsoft. Yes, they were such a bad company then, providing third party developers with a console they could actually work with.
Which company started the process of using PC parts to make console development easier? Microsoft.
Which company nailed how to do online mulitplayer with consoles? Microsoft.
Which company was the first to include a hard-drive in its console, thereby making downloadable games and content possible? Microsoft.
Which company got the indie development ball rolling on consoles? Take a wild guess...
Microsoft have been in the gaming arena for decades, and they've been doing awesome things with the Xbox since day bloody one. I'm not planning on buying an Xbone any time soon, but I happily still have my OG Xbox plugged in, and have no problem with saying that Microsoft have earned their fucking place in the console business. They're putting out exclusives now, they're bulking up and expanding their development studios, they're turning around the shitfest that was the original Xbone into a console that is actually pretty damn nifty. The only reason they don't have more first party exclusives is because, shock horror, they made an effort to reach out and work with third parties for games instead. The same process people are now clamouring for Nintendo to step out of their ivory tower and engage in.
This is just embarrasing. Microsoft make one announcement, and now everyone's acting as if they never even deserved a place at the table in the first place.
Sorry to be a fellow negative Nancy but Microsoft has basically rubbed me the wrong way since day one and the OP just highlights some of the reasons. I haven't bought the consoles because the libraries haven't sold me on a system, nothing to do with my feelings towards them, but I'm rather happy I don't have to reluctantly support a company that makes me feel so bitter about the industry.
The FASA shit hits me right in the fucking feels. Microsoft has wasted so much.
I bought my X360 Elite in 2007 a month before Blue Dragon was coming and with the promise of Lost Odyssey and other exclusive games in the future. It was a wonderful first couple years with the X360 for exclusive games plus tons of superior performing multiplats. Unfortunately, exclusive games pretty much ground to a halt after only a few years into the life of the console and I barely bought any after that. The system lived out its life being my multiplatform game machine until their incredibly offensive May 2013 press conference. At that point I switched over to the PS3 for all my multplatform games and Resident Evil: Revelations was the last game that I bought for my X360.
And they still haven't recovered from that for me. I look at what the Xbox One has now and what it has coming and the only exclusive games I'd consider buying are Scalebound and Halo 5 and I definitely wouldn't buy multiplatform games on it. There's just nothing promising on the horizon that is compelling me to invest in Microsoft's ecosystem this time around and with their awful track record the last half of the last generation there's no way that I could possibly buy their system on faith.
I bought my X360 Elite in 2007 a month before Blue Dragon was coming and with the promise of Lost Odyssey and other exclusive games in the future. It was a wonderful first couple years with the X360 for exclusive games plus tons of superior performing multiplats. Unfortunately, exclusive games pretty much ground to a halt after only a few years into the life of the console and I barely bought any after that. The system lived out its life being my multiplatform game machine until their incredibly offensive May 2013 press conference. At that point I switched over to the PS3 for all my multplatform games and Resident Evil: Revelations was the last game that I bought for my X360.
And they still haven't recovered from that for me. I look at what the Xbox One has now and what it has coming and the only exclusive games I'd consider buying are Scalebound and Halo 5 and I definitely wouldn't buy multiplatform games on it. There's just nothing promising on the horizon that is compelling me to invest in Microsoft's ecosystem this time around and with their awful track record the last half of the last generation there's no way that I could possibly buy their system on faith.
Those kind of prove the point, given that both those franchises are in questionable positions despite being the best MS have. Halo will probably still sell a ton, but it's obvious that the last game has harmed a lot of the fanbases perception of it, and Gears is pretty much in limbo now after Judgement's poor sales (by Gears standards), even if a new one is supposedly being worked on (and Judgement itself was questionable in the first place, as it both alienated Epic fans who wanted a new game by them, and alienated People Can Fly fans who wanted more of original IPs like Bulletstorm)
What you mean to tell me you aren't waiting for the PS4 installments of great PS3 IPs like The Last of Us, Uncharted, and.......and......................................
And wasn't it great when all those PS1 ips like Wild Arms, Jet Moto, Medevil, and so on got PS3 installments. Man those games were so good.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Wonder what's going to happen to shoot'em'up games now.
They were virtually 360 exclusives last gen, but MS hasn't even brought out the xbone in Japan yet.
They were virtually 360 exclusives last gen, but MS hasn't even brought out the xbone in Japan yet.
Different business strategies are not inherently bad.
I can see why the overly aggressive tone of the poster makes it sound so much more convincing than it actually is.
I have a problem when the OP can't even define "IP" properly and put his own twist on it.
Fable, Gears of War, Crackdown are all successful franchises from Microsoft, created by Microsoft.
Or, by your definition, let's do Sony's :
Gran Turismo and God of War are the only two successful franchises Sony did from 'ground-up' wholly owned studios.
Naughty Dog were independent and Sony bought them, Guerrilla were independent and Sony bought them, Quantic Dreams were independent and Sony bought them. Sucker Punch, Media Molecule, Evolution Studios...
Are you sure it's not a case of cherry-picking? Because it sure looks like it.
I can see why the overly aggressive tone of the poster makes it sound so much more convincing than it actually is.
I have a problem when the OP can't even define "IP" properly and put his own twist on it.
Fable, Gears of War, Crackdown are all successful franchises from Microsoft, created by Microsoft.
Or, by your definition, let's do Sony's :
Gran Turismo and God of War are the only two successful franchises Sony did from 'ground-up' wholly owned studios.
Naughty Dog were independent and Sony bought them, Guerrilla were independent and Sony bought them, Quantic Dreams were independent and Sony bought them. Sucker Punch, Media Molecule, Evolution Studios...
Are you sure it's not a case of cherry-picking? Because it sure looks like it.
Microsoft has already expressed their will to contract third party to produce exclusives rather than developing them in-house. And this is actually not a bad thing per se. Hell, even Sony has been doing that extensively since forever, and their yesterday show was nearly exclusively made of second party contract games (Bloodborne, Wild, The Order, Until Dawn, Rime, Alienation, Tomorow's Children , ...).
The real problem with Microsoft output, whether it is first or second party, is the strong emphasis on shooters and general lack of diversity (compared to the concurrence), the support (rather lack of...) at the end of life of their hardware, the fact their second party exclusives nearly systematically ends up on other platforms, ...
Emphasizing on second party rather than first party games isn't a bad thing in itself. Doing it wrong as they have is.
@OldRoutes : Neither Gears nor Crackdown were first party though. Can't remember about Fable, but I seem to recall it wasn't at the time either.
The real problem with Microsoft output, whether it is first or second party, is the strong emphasis on shooters and general lack of diversity (compared to the concurrence), the support (rather lack of...) at the end of life of their hardware, the fact their second party exclusives nearly systematically ends up on other platforms, ...
Emphasizing on second party rather than first party games isn't a bad thing in itself. Doing it wrong as they have is.
@OldRoutes : Neither Gears nor Crackdown were first party though. Can't remember about Fable, but I seem to recall it wasn't at the time either.
You speak as if it's not costing Microsoft crap tonnes to buy off exclusives. Uncharted 2 and 3 each cost roughly $20-$25 million to develop. In contrast, the prediction is that Microsoft paid an estimated $50 million for Titanfall exclusivity, and up to double that for the Gears IP. I'd imagine they had to pay a hell of a lot for Tomb Raiders exclusivity too, even if timed. The money they're spending paying off third party exclusives could be better spent on first party studios and games, had they the confidence and courage to let them grow and try different projects.
The better the PS4 does, and the further behind the Xbox One falls, the more costly it's going to be for them to secure third party exclusives.
BibiMaghoo
Member
Not sure what you are getting at? Are you suggesting that my unbiased view on the expense of new IP's that can fail, has a bearing on the games I look forward (or not) to playing?
Or is it just a troll? 
No, I know it cost them loads, what I'm saying is the risk of lesser returns is smaller with an existing IP. They have a fanbase already, and so are almost guaranteed to sell a minimum amount of copies beyond what a new IP could, as it has a fanbase of zero. When a company looks to invest in a game, they need to look at what sales can be predicted. This is much easier to do in one case than the other, that's all. I don't disagree that chances should be taken, just pointing out there is good reason why they are not.
Yup. Purchasing is a whole different can of worms (and I think it doesn't really work since the core talent will almost always leave) but at least the purchaser is funding the operation.
Paying to block competition is dirty, and ALL consumers lose. Its bad that Sony is doing so with Destiny DLC, and its worse MS is with a full game.
Its a shame that can of worms was opened last gen. The only time exclusivity should be on the table is when someone wants to directly fund a game that wouldn't have been, ala Titanfall.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
If thats their look on things then they are very short sighted. How long do they think they can keep moneyhatting timed exclusives or exclusives from third parties? Do they honestly think thats a sustainable business model? If so they are in for a nasty surprise this gen.
Ol No Bones
Banned
So you made a thread about a stupid post?
TitusGroan
Banned
Devil May Cry was in limbo after DMC2 took the series to the shitter. Then DMC3 came out, and restored such hype to the franchise that DMC4 then went on to be the best-selling instalment in the series.
Game franchises have peaks and they have troughs. It's certainly not unique for Microsoft (Good luck to Sony trying to market a new God Of War after Ascension), and they're no worse than any other publisher for having single installments that didn't live up to the hype. If they're any good, they'll take that on board and work to make the next installments better. So far, it seems like they're pretty good at the whole 'taking feedback onboard' thing, so I'm not going to write off Gears, Halo or Fable just yet.
well said.
Better for us and better for the health of the industry. I'd argue it might not be better for MS, especially in the short run.
And that's the disconnect.
Where did all these franchises go?
yea you right.
Because they aren't "getting to the platform". They are simply being paid to not release on other platforms.
Black Mantis
Member
So what? They'll make that money back and then some. Not sure on Titanfall's numbers, but Gears is a billion dollar franchise.
http://www.vg247.com/2011/09/29/gears-of-war-3-sells-three-million-copies-in-first-week/
BibiMaghoo
Member
Well, there is precedent now for moneyhatting the IP, then buying it outright after that deal is up, they then have their own IP AFTER it has already become successful on the back of another company.
Epic. Gears.
I second this, the hate is getting over the top