protomouse
Member
Purchasing a studio does not secure you the talent from which the studio's pedigree derives. I'd feel much better about Microsoft taking their vast catalog of IP to the best and most suitable talent in the industry.
-
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.
Phil Spencer: Fewer 3rd party exclusive deals in future; 1st party is the focus
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
- Status
Purchasing a studio does not secure you the talent from which the studio's pedigree derives. I'd feel much better about Microsoft taking their vast catalog of IP to the best and most suitable talent in the industry.
PhantomVash808
Member
A 1st party game is created by a studio that is owned by the platform holder. In this case both the studio and the IP are both owned by the platform holder.
Some examples include 343 with Halo or Naughty Dog with Uncharted. Microsofts owns both the studio 343 and the Halo IP therefore the game is a 1st party game. Same goes for Sony and Naughty Dog. Any game Naughty Dog makes ever since they were purchased by Sony, belongs to Sony on account of the fact that they own the studio thus they also own the IP.
A 2nd party game is a game in which the IP is owned by a platform holder and published by them as well but is being developed by an independent studio.
Some examples include Insomniac with Ratchet & Clank, Platinum Games with Scalebound, and Quantic Dream with Beyond 2 Souls. Sony owns both the Ratchet and Clank IP and Beyond 2 Souls but they do not own the studios that create them, both Insomniac and Quantic Dream are completely independent developers.
Now when it comes to 3rd party exclusives things get a little confusing as there is essentially two different types:
First their is a straight up 3rd party exclusive. These types of exclusives are not published by the platform holder, instead it is being done via a 3rd party company who owns the IP and has decided to create their game for a specific platform for various reasons, which sometimes involves their financial budget, moneyhatting by a platform holder, or it simply being the choice of IP owner.
Some examples include Atlus with Persona 5, and NIS with Disgaea 5. Sony does not own Atlus, the Persona IP, and isn't publishing the game on their platform. The same goes for Nippon Ichi Software and Disgaea 5.
The second type of 3rd party exclusive is when a game is being published by a platform holder however they do not own neither the IP or the developer. This is why so many of these type of exclusives eventually go to PC and can even go to a rival platform with the next installment in the franchise.
Some examples include Ryse which was published by Microsoft and developed by Crytek who owns the IP, Sunset Overdrive which was published by Microsoft and developed by Insomniac who owns the IP, and Street Fighter 5 which is being published by Sony and developed by Capcom who owns the IP.
Some examples include 343 with Halo or Naughty Dog with Uncharted. Microsofts owns both the studio 343 and the Halo IP therefore the game is a 1st party game. Same goes for Sony and Naughty Dog. Any game Naughty Dog makes ever since they were purchased by Sony, belongs to Sony on account of the fact that they own the studio thus they also own the IP.
A 2nd party game is a game in which the IP is owned by a platform holder and published by them as well but is being developed by an independent studio.
Some examples include Insomniac with Ratchet & Clank, Platinum Games with Scalebound, and Quantic Dream with Beyond 2 Souls. Sony owns both the Ratchet and Clank IP and Beyond 2 Souls but they do not own the studios that create them, both Insomniac and Quantic Dream are completely independent developers.
Now when it comes to 3rd party exclusives things get a little confusing as there is essentially two different types:
First their is a straight up 3rd party exclusive. These types of exclusives are not published by the platform holder, instead it is being done via a 3rd party company who owns the IP and has decided to create their game for a specific platform for various reasons, which sometimes involves their financial budget, moneyhatting by a platform holder, or it simply being the choice of IP owner.
Some examples include Atlus with Persona 5, and NIS with Disgaea 5. Sony does not own Atlus, the Persona IP, and isn't publishing the game on their platform. The same goes for Nippon Ichi Software and Disgaea 5.
The second type of 3rd party exclusive is when a game is being published by a platform holder however they do not own neither the IP or the developer. This is why so many of these type of exclusives eventually go to PC and can even go to a rival platform with the next installment in the franchise.
Some examples include Ryse which was published by Microsoft and developed by Crytek who owns the IP, Sunset Overdrive which was published by Microsoft and developed by Insomniac who owns the IP, and Street Fighter 5 which is being published by Sony and developed by Capcom who owns the IP.
Doug Heffernan
Member
What are you talking about? It works exactly as it should.
How do I know this? I'm in the preview program and have seen it for myself.
But you go ahead, keep on moving those goal posts!
Neuromancer
Member
No interest really. I had enough games to play as it was. I ended up playing some of the more interesting ones I missed on the 360 anyway.
gaming_noob
Member
What is this fud?
lol.
Nightengale
Member
I'm going to take this opportunity... to whine! 
These threads are often some of my favourite threads to discuss stuff, but it's definitely annoying to discuss certain things on both sides of the spectrum, when some stuff like "new IPs" or "marketing deals!" are broadly thrown around without actually actually talking about it in detail, but when you get down to brass tacks... it ends up going down the road of "listing stuff against each other", which could potentially lead to list wars.
These threads are often some of my favourite threads to discuss stuff, but it's definitely annoying to discuss certain things on both sides of the spectrum, when some stuff like "new IPs" or "marketing deals!" are broadly thrown around without actually actually talking about it in detail, but when you get down to brass tacks... it ends up going down the road of "listing stuff against each other", which could potentially lead to list wars.
It wasn't meant to be an analogy.
Oh, I thought you meant taxi as the expensive route (aka. Call of Duty marketing), and public transportation as the cheap route (aka. first party titles).
Good news they been doing that for about 10, 15 20 years
EHH its all right doesn't live up to the praise it gets, now Lords of the Fallen thats the shit
/end sarcasm
HighResTomato
Member
Most 3rd parties has abandoned ship? That's news to me.
What third parties have abandoned ship?
Chobel
Member
I stand corrected then.
I would say Activision going from Xbox to PS is abandoning ship for marketting deals.
Why try to be a 3rd party and try to focus on the minority to get sales vs the majority.
This leads microsoft to have to try to focus on their own games(1st party) more to make up the difference, create something that will sell.
Basically a result of 3rd parties now favoring the better selling console, just how it was on 360 days.
Why try to be a 3rd party and try to focus on the minority to get sales vs the majority.
This leads microsoft to have to try to focus on their own games(1st party) more to make up the difference, create something that will sell.
Basically a result of 3rd parties now favoring the better selling console, just how it was on 360 days.
Yeah, activision look at who's selling the more consoles. That's all they care about when deciding who to side with for timed exclusivity......
No, wake up. Money talks, they don't care what console is selling more for timed DLC, they don't lose out in anyway, the game always comes out at the same time and consumers who get the content delayed will always pick it up regardless if it's out on Xbox/PS4 first.
MS probably looked at the numbers of how much they were paying, how much they were making back and it just wasn't adding up and hopefully they put the money to better use.
I'd say that Microsoft found it redundant to have both Halo and COD in their advertising blitz this holiday because there's far too much overlap, as much as Playstation has sold more consoles, I don't think Call of Duty had the sales disparity that would cause Activision to "jump ship".
Man this must be the first year Halo has ever released on Xbox. No way ever would MS ever advertise Halo and COD in the same year. It's just strange because it seems a Halo game comes out just about every year and COD comes out every year.
I think some of you really have no idea how wide a gap there is between X1 and Ps4. Jim Ryan has said himself that 3rd parties now come to them first when they want to make marketing deals. I wonder why that is? Could be that when ever we get software sales Ps4 is number one by a large margin.
Steverulez
Member
I don't believe that. I don't think Microsoft would have willingly given up COD if a deal could have been struck. Having COD and Halo has done pretty well for them in the past.
More likely to me that Activision either wanted a lot more than before, just wanted to switch to Sony or Sony offered a lot more than MS did. I can't foresee a situation where MS just said "We don't want COD marketing anymore"
Oh agreed. Maybe my choice of words wasn't clear.
I see MS focusing on 1st party exactly as Sony did with PS3 however I see Sony, with the install base lead and decent follow on from last gen both focusing on 1st party and 3rd party; the 3rd party focus being less exclusive title focused (although there will be some of that) in favour of exclusive content and marketing deals.
...Scatter...
Banned
I think its about 50/50. Part of it is definitely circumstance and sales figures. Spencer is smart enough to understand what position he inherited this ship in and what it will take to salvage and rebuild that image and bring users back to XBOX.
He understands that Halo is his Gjallahorn and he has to make sure its a huge success. So should he pay for COD marketing or give 343 extra resources to make the game a winner? The answer in this instance is clear.
He needs to keep XBOX in a strong enough position to be ready to come correct Next Gen with his influence and vision and to build a stable of strong IPs that will get peoples attention.
Ricerocket
Member
Too much focus on one title wouldn't be something someone like Phil is worried about.. it's more about Xbox as a brand and if he can have CoD marketing and Halo too? That would be the most ideal situation.
Pretty much, I think if Phil could have both he would but I think it's out of his hand
Steverulez
Member
I dont think COD marketing had any effect on Halo's resources at all tbh. Perhaps more likely is MS used that COD money on Tomb Raider exclusivity or The Division or Fallout marketing or something than anything first-party related
Except that hasn't been the case for COD, it's been one of the rare games to not defacto sell better on PlayStation.
Yes and no, I'm just not seeing how having 2 FPS games is going to reach to any more people than say a FPS and an action adventure game, yes having both lined up helped them dominate the US market last gen, but it could have worked too well for them, the genre's that don't have the Xbox get creamed In the software charts this gen have generally been FPS' racing and sports... And Lego.
I may shit on the Tomb Raider deal from a great height, but it is the type of thing MS needs to have the Xbox brand branch out of being tightcasted to Murica dudebro FUCK YEAH!
It's a result of Sony having a better offer.
A marketing deal usually contains something in the lines of brand-association and/or exclusive content. As a result of that deal the platform holder will pay a large part of the marketing budget for the product, and probably also push the product on their community platforms. Other result may also be official console bundles for the game.
Xbox One isn't loosing 3rd party support, they are still getting Battlefront, CoD, Batman, etc.
It's also a result of Sony being more active with 3rd party marketing deals. And let's not forget that they had marketing deals for PS3 as well (Assassins Creed, Far Cry 3, Battlefield 3).
PdotMichael
Banned
Well, CoD is way stronger than Halo outside of the USA so it would be quote silly to give it up for an American centric title. But Microsoft has a history of being way too USA centric.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
COD is still the biggest franchise around after GTA. No way Xbox just decided they weren't interested in partnering any more. Activision is in deep with Sony just like EA is in deep with Xbox.
That... Doesn't make much sense if we're using the consensus is that Activision jumped ship because hardware sales, EA has more reason to side with Sony over MS, based on Battlefield and Fifa alone.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
I didn't say the allegiances were for the same reasons. Just that they clearly exist. Peter Moore being a former leader of Xbox explains that partnership.
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
To put some context on this:
Even if Phil is being truthful and intends to continue bolstering Xbox's first-party offerings, we won't see it for a while. Mattrick's decisions at the end of the 360's life and the Xbox One's original plan was a path they'd walked for several years. They basically assumed that Xbox gamers would be fine with yearly Halo/Gears/Fable/Forza, 3rd parties would still give Xbox a ton of exclusives, Indies would still be in love with XBLA, which meant Xbox could focus on "the casuals" with the TV/Kinect focus.
They were wrong, obviously. But that plan took years to bring about, and it will take years to get the ship back on course. We're still not seeing a large number of X1 1st-party exclusives. It's still Halo/Gears/Forza this year.
It is nice that Phil "says what you want to hear" Spencer is reiterating Microsoft's dedication to 1st party, but let's see the games come out first. He said this last year at E3 and Phantom Dust ended up being left to die and Black Tusk got pulled from their new IP to make Gears. Microsoft has been lagging behind significantly this year both in terms of downloadable/indie games and retail releases. Sony is beating them to a pulp. Truthfully, he shouldn't be praised for doing what they should've kept doing since the middle of the 360's lifespan.
Even if Phil is being truthful and intends to continue bolstering Xbox's first-party offerings, we won't see it for a while. Mattrick's decisions at the end of the 360's life and the Xbox One's original plan was a path they'd walked for several years. They basically assumed that Xbox gamers would be fine with yearly Halo/Gears/Fable/Forza, 3rd parties would still give Xbox a ton of exclusives, Indies would still be in love with XBLA, which meant Xbox could focus on "the casuals" with the TV/Kinect focus.
They were wrong, obviously. But that plan took years to bring about, and it will take years to get the ship back on course. We're still not seeing a large number of X1 1st-party exclusives. It's still Halo/Gears/Forza this year.
It is nice that Phil "says what you want to hear" Spencer is reiterating Microsoft's dedication to 1st party, but let's see the games come out first. He said this last year at E3 and Phantom Dust ended up being left to die and Black Tusk got pulled from their new IP to make Gears. Microsoft has been lagging behind significantly this year both in terms of downloadable/indie games and retail releases. Sony is beating them to a pulp. Truthfully, he shouldn't be praised for doing what they should've kept doing since the middle of the 360's lifespan.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Especially when Spencer has been in charge of game development for a while now (it was his job before he became the head of Xbox).
In what world does COD not definitively sell better on Ps4? Only in US Npd(x1 on top) and its close in the UK (ps4 on top) every where else it's ps4 version by a landslide. MS would not give up COD without a fight.
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
One could argue that Mattrick didn't want to take the Xbox brand in that direction and therefore cock-blocked Spencer's efforts to put more games on the system.
I don't believe that, but it could be argued.
In either case, you're right. Spencer has been at the helm of making Xbox a "gamer's machine" for a long time now. His track record so far has been poor, in spite of his pandering and nostalgia-soaked Twitter comments.
It could also be argued that they've put out way more than just Halo/Gears/Forza already... but that would require actually acknowledging the other stuff.
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
Define "way more". What major titles are coming out this year other than Halo 5, Gears Remake, and Forza 6, all of which are lumped at the very end of the year, by the way?
Tomb Raider? Which is a timed exclusive?
My point stands. Xbox One's library is sparse compared to what's available on PS4 and Spencer has yet to change that fact.
TheUnsunghero26
Member
Everybody always says their own definition of what a first party/second party/third party game is, but can never provide any sources. I've always gone with what Phil Spencer and Shu have said, since they are the ones in charge of first party for MS and Sony.
In the U.S. yeah it has a higher sales on Xbox but WW is a whole other story. There is absolutely 0 doubt that more copies are sold WW on PS4 than on Xbox. You have to consider the bigger picture: the world at large.
Why do people keep saying this?
Aquiring and founding new studios is precisely what Microsoft has done for the past five years. They haven't shut down an established studio since 2009.
We are seing the games coming out right now.
Project Spark in 2014 was Team Dakota's first game.
Halo 5 is 343 Industries' second game.
Gears 4 is The Coalition's first game
Twisted Pixel was aquired in 2011, and is currently working on its second game as a Microsoft studio (new IP).
Press Play was aquired in 2012, and has released 3 (or is it 4?) games since then. Currently working on a new IP.
Mojang was aquired in 2014. Currently working on more content for Minecraft. Too soon to tell what they'll do with the Minecraft brand in the future.
Rare, while not a new studio, should also be mentioned. They're finally making a core game again.
I don't think that Microsoft Studios in 2015 is perfect or anything. My point here is that the whole "MS was shitty and didn't do anything useful in the second half of the previous generation" narrative is bullshit.
The worst damage to Microsoft (Game) Studios was actually done in the 2007-2009 period when FASA and Ensemble were shut down and Bungie given back its independence.
After that, MS slowly started to rebuild its first party stable....and yes, it happened while Don Mattrick led the Xbox Division and Phil Spencer was the Head of Microsoft Studios.
There's still a lot of room of improvement, of course. I hope Decisive Games will be one of those improvements some time in the near future. It'd be great if they could get a few more homegrown teams off the ground.
+
-Screamride
-Ori
-State of Decay
-Rare Replay
-Fable Legends
-Gigantic
...and so what if some of them are Gears, Halo and Forza? They're still first party releases.
vpance
Member
While I don't think they can't afford it, I'm not sure they should be trying to match the scale of Sony's 1st party development, because the returns might not actually be worth it for them. Contracting titles here and there and hoping for a 3-4M seller is probably their safest gamble.
Would respond with list... but I think Leflus has got it mostly covered. "Way more" is obviously subjective... but is infinitely more true than just Halo/Gears/Forza is.
This I can agree with.
My biggest wish is that they'll continue pushing Rare and Rare-related games. I'm loving the Rare-naissance that's going on right now.
Give me a Banjo Racing game co-developed by Rare and Sumo, please!
Regret Upon Approval
Member
Since collaborations and publishing titles from independent studios falls under 1st party. I've got high hopes especially since,
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/new-xbox-one-ip-in-the-works-that-will-push-the-bo/1100-6423154/
Combined with old statements that they won't be all spess mehreen shooters and racing games. That there might be some cool games.
And revivals that need a push. Like Ace Combat 7 pls. ZoE 3 too pls.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/new-xbox-one-ip-in-the-works-that-will-push-the-bo/1100-6423154/
Combined with old statements that they won't be all spess mehreen shooters and racing games. That there might be some cool games.
And revivals that need a push. Like Ace Combat 7 pls. ZoE 3 too pls.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Locked