I just thought I'd make a post on something thats come to light for me during this E3.
Microsoft are filthy rich and have billions of dollars. Sony on the other hand have looked to be in a bit of trouble financially in recent years. Why is it that Sony are throwing money and time at their 1st party studios, allowing them freedom to create whereas MSFT are more happy to give their 1st party just a little, but throw money at 3rd parties to secure deals?
To me, it doesn't make any sense at all. At the moment MSFT are getting upstaged by Sony's 1st party games. They look a cut above the 3rd party offerings on their console and look better than anything on any other console. On the other hand with MSFT we have 3rd party games looking better than the 1st part games. How is that even beneficial? How does it help when COD4 looks better than Halo 3 and you are having to showcase that at your conference when it is multiplatform? The same goes for other titles such as Forza 2 where titles like Dirt look streets better.
The most impressive games on the system are coming from 3rd party studios or independant developers. Games like Gears (Epic), PGR (Bizzare), Mass Effect (Bioware) are all from external studios. The only 1st party company that seems to know how to get a lot out of the hardware is Rare.
It also seems to me that MSFT work with stricter time constraints than Sony do with their 1st parties. Rather than allowing their devs more time to nurture their games and create something that will be remembered, they will rather get them to finish up the game and get it on the shelves. If Forza 2 was allowed 6 more months, I'm sure it could have looked a darn site better, had all the features originally promised and have been more balanced in terms of the career mode. The way I'm seeing this is that they'd rather make money quicker than delay games until they are ready (like Sony does) and lose more money. More dev time = more wages and possibly more capital investment = money being spent.
I'll just add in something interesting. This is a quote from the Team Ninja's blog:
Publisher #1: "We think your gameplay features are too ambitious. Perhaps you could simplify it and make it more like…" DROPPED.
Publisher #2: "We love the ambition and production goals, but can you do it for [a third of the budget it would cost to develop]" DROPPED.
Publisher #3: "We will not fund a prototype but we are happy to direct you while you develop it" DROPPED.
http://www.ninjatheory.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=52
Thats the response they got from 3 out of the 4 publishers they presented Heavenly Sword to. Any guesses as to which is Microsoft? I certainly have my suspicions.
So where is Microsoft's $20 million game that will come out and set new standards for the industry? Where are the games with high production values? Where's the game that will help further blur the line between the film and game artistic mediums? They can afford to do it, so why isn't it happening? Is Microsoft simply not daring enough to take such big risks with their games? Games such as Halo should be pushing the bar higher than anyone could have imagined, but to me it looks like they are playing it safe.
IMO its a risky game that MSFT are playing. While they are pouring money into 3rd party titles at the expense of 1st party titles, that money could ultimately be ending up going into projects that end up on Sony's consoles as well. In an age where game engines are flexible and assets/techniques are shared amongst different IP's within the same dev studio, there's nothing to say thats not already happening.
. I have half a mind to reply in the same aggressive vein, but that would be even more pointless than attempting an answer. If you have to be nasty you can ignore me, I do not recall having tagged you.
