Pathfinder
Member
Definitely more expensive.
They can't keep buying exclusivity deals forever. Publishers are going to start asking for more moolah.
-
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
Definitely more expensive.
They can't keep buying exclusivity deals forever. Publishers are going to start asking for more moolah.
Is it? Looks like it's the same to me. They stopped buying exclusives for the 360 and only made games internally (or their IPs) after the first 3 or so years.
Steverulez
Member
Im sure Microsoft were well aware of when Fallout 4 was shipping in advance of E3, they even have the marketing deal on it, I doubt it blind sided them.
See my post above about their first parties, they were expanding before this, if anything they've slowed down.
TheSpoiler
Member
Sony did, but at the same time, they had a heavy 3rd party line of weird/fun Japanese games and titles that just didn't show up on the Xbox 360/Xbox. Spencer needs to look at not just creating deals but relationships with 3rd party boys, because it's completely doable to do both or go for broke.
It's very difficult for a machine to rely on 1st party only, and even more so to try and stay relevant against another that has both. Carve out your sector and go for it.
What was the question he responded?
Kralamoonard
Member
I agree, however I think it tends to be that way due the output of each respective first party studio from both Microsoft and Sony, and how well established they are, particularly in the AAA space.
I mean yes, I agree, some first party studios go unnoticed; Twisted Pixel for example, is making its [first] AAA title for Xbox, and yet not that many people anticipate what they're working on (or even acknowledge that they're a first party studio) compared to some of Sony's first party studios like Sony Bend or Suckerpunch. At least that's what it seems like IMO.
I hope MS's first party studios opened under Phil Spencer can get that reputation, but it does take "breakthrough" games. I'd say LittleBigPlanet were Media Molecule's breakthrough game, and inFamous was Sucker Punch's breakthrough games, even if they weren't owned by Sony then, they got themselves a name in the AAA space.
Oh yeah, and in case you're interested, (straight from Wikipedia), here are MS's owned studios (not counting defunct ones):
343 Industries – Halo series.
Decisive Games – Working on a "beloved" strategy game
FIT – Holobuilder/Minecraft on Microsoft HoloLens and Xbox One
(FUN)ction Studios – Microsoft HoloLens and Xbox One
Good Science Studio – Kinect Adventures, Kinect Fun Labs, Microsoft HoloLens and Xbox One
Kids and Lifestyle Entertainment – Xbox Fitness
Launchworks - South Park Scott Tenorman's Revenge , South Park Let's Go Tower Defense Play!
Leap Experience Pioneers – Working on HoloStudio, building your own holograms on Microsoft HoloLens and Xbox One
Microsoft Garage – Voice Commander exclusively for Xbox One
Platform Next Studios – Microsoft HoloLens and Xbox One
SOTA - State of The Art Studios – MARS on Microsoft HoloLens
Team Dakota – Project Spark
Turn 10 Studios – Forza Motorsport series.
Twisted Pixel Games – The Gunstringer, LocoCycle, The Maw,The Adventures of Captain Smiley 'Splosion Man series
Lift London – Cloud digital games for tablets, Xbox consoles and mobiles
Lionhead Studios – Fable series
Rare Ltd. – Banjo-Kazooie series, Viva Piñata, Kameo: Elements of Power, Conker, Kinect Sports, Sea of Thieves.
Press Play – Max: The Curse of Brotherhood, Tentacles, Kalimba
Mojang – Minecraft
The Coalition – Gears of War series
BigPark – Joy Ride series, Kinect Sports: Season Two
Kralamoonard
Member
I agree, especially regarding the Japanese games and what Spencer needs to do regarding that too, but you also have to remember, the machine is obviously not going to just be first party games and that's it (pretty much like Nintendo). I mean Microsoft will still have third party games, but just not third party exclusives.
But yeah, I get ya.
Krappadizzle
Member
Phil Spencer,
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
Inconsequential. The number isn't the focal point here. Sony has a higher number of established developers, if not more developers outright. Microsoft definitely has more developers now compared to 3 years ago, that cannot be disputed. But Sony has a large number of established, AAA developers who create year-round releases. Microsoft does not. They are playing catch-up and have yet to actually catch up.
I fear that while it's great and wonderful that Papa Spencer is focusing on 1st party now, this is simply PR with no substance. In reality, we won't be seeing the benefits of this "first party focus" for another few years, late 2016 at the very earliest but more likely mid-2017. Until then, it's the same Halo/Gears/Forza with the occasional timed deal (Tomb Raider).
Not a fair assessment. If you compare the libraries, Sony put out more 1st party games on PS2 compared to PS3, or at least it was very close in number. The notion that Sony only kicked PS3 1st party production into high gear because they were losing marketshare to Xbox is revisionist history.
It was not so much a matter of "Sony really fought hard to win back marketshare on PS3 by pushing 1st party games". Sony was following the same game-plan they had with the PS1 and PS2. Only difference is they didn't have as much support from 3rd party devs.
daTRUballin
Member
I hope Rare shows something at Gamescom. Phil Spencer is saying that Gamescom will show that MS will be focusing on investing on first party games, so that sorta gives me hope that Rare maybe has something else next week. ._.
I don't get the trend of MS can't afford third party exclusives.
It doesn't make sense in a long term strategy to money hat one title in a franchise for 6-12 months when you can own the IP and get publisher, developer and platform fees from first party games or second party games where they might not develop the game but still publish it and in most instances own the IP.
I believe Phil will always be on the look out for games like sunset overdrive, scale bound and quantum break where it makes more sense to invest in them over the titanfalls and tomb raiders.
Can they make good successful first party games (outside forza, halo and gears), time will tell.
It doesn't make sense in a long term strategy to money hat one title in a franchise for 6-12 months when you can own the IP and get publisher, developer and platform fees from first party games or second party games where they might not develop the game but still publish it and in most instances own the IP.
I believe Phil will always be on the look out for games like sunset overdrive, scale bound and quantum break where it makes more sense to invest in them over the titanfalls and tomb raiders.
Can they make good successful first party games (outside forza, halo and gears), time will tell.
Rare is large enough to work on several projects, no doubt they're working on something besides Sea of Thieves. I don't think we're going to see it at Gamescom though.
How much is Tomb Raider going to sell? Please tell since you have a crystal ball.
He been saying for a while they are focusing on 1st party support.
http://www.polygon.com/2015/4/20/8456445/phil-spencer-e3-2015-first-party-exclusive-games
Yea, I suppose, I overlooked the "established" component. But yea, Microsoft has been adding a bunch of studios lately, let's hope in 3-5 years they turn as good as Sony's.
Kralamoonard
Member
Exactly this; it's what I was trying to get at in my reply to etta. It's not just about the numbers, it's about the respective output of each studio, particularly in the AAA space where studios can make or break their career. It's how well known they are and how good the games do, commercially or critically. At least that's how I see it as to why that narrative revolves around Sony's WW studios vs Microsoft's.
Pathfinder
Member
I have no doubt that they can. They just have to take some initiative and stop pussyfooting around.
D
Deleted member 471617
Unconfirmed Member
So, Microsoft is pissed off AND stupid? Why they would release Rise of the Tomb Raider on the same day as Fallout 4 is beyond me. Microsoft should flip it with Halo 5 as Halo 5 is going to sell either way. Tomb Raider I see being a huge waste of money for Microsoft and a huge disappointment. And that's just head to head. Imagine when you add in Halo 5, Uncharted Collection, AC Syndicate, Battlefront and COD all around it. Even Just Cause 3 could impact it's sales but to a much lesser extent. Seriously, Microsoft should move up Rise of the Tomb Raider to October.
I saw your list of first party studios but what are they working on for Xbox One?
Exactly. I'll never understand why people can't process the idea of a first-party IP being developed by a third-party studio.
State of Decay, Forza Horizon, Quantum Break, ReCore, Scalebound, Killer Instinct, and Crackdown are all first-party IP being developed by third-party studios. I suspect it's easier to find strong teams than it is to build them from scratch.
I believe they said 60% of the studio (I think Rare is around 120-130 total) was on SoT and about 20 people were on Rare Replay. They have hinted at a third project and even teased something around Gamescom.
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
I definitely think there's potential for them to rank up there with the best of Sony's devs. Microsoft has the money and the talent and (hopefully) the long-term vision to accomplish it.
If Microsoft wants to follow Sony's example, though, they'll need to give their devs more freedom (something MS is not exactly known for, unfortunately). We wouldn't have Uncharted (or Last of Us) unless Sony allowed ND to move on from Crash and J&D. We wouldn't have Horizon: New Dawn unless Sony allowed Guerilla to move on from Killzone. We wouldn't have inFamous unless Sucker Punch was allowed to move past Sly Cooper. You get the idea.
Chobel
Member
MS is gonna make TR2 their main bundle this Fall (similar to ACU last year) so the game won't bomb.
Kralamoonard
Member
Well no, I don't agree with the notion that Sony only emphasised first party support in the PS3 era; of course they did with the PS1 and PS2. I guess it just "felt" more emphasised due to the lack of previous third party exclusives like Final Fantasy, Tekken, Ominusha Devil May Cry, Kingdom Hearts, Metal Gear Solid (yes I know MGS4 was, but I mean it was the norm with MGS2 being timed exclusives and MGS1/3 being wholly an exclusive), and GTA being timed exclusive too and other third party deals etc
But yeah I get what you mean. And hell, it might just be my subjective preference of Sony's first party output in the PS3 era compared to the PS2. I'm probably in the minority, but regarding the games that I played from each of their now first party studios, I actually prefer the PS3 output over the PS2.
That's true for Sony and Microsoft.
Death Metalist
Member
The way it should have been from the beginning. Let's hope we see this sooner rather than later.
why don't they have a choice? MS shits money. If they want an exclusivity deal they'd probably get it easily.
Steverulez
Member
I think a large part of the TR deal is that they are going to bundle it heavily. I don't think you can do a particularly good job of avoiding other games in the holiday period, sure November 10th itself might not be the best date, but if CD need that time to get it right, better than that than shove it out weeks/a couple of months before when it might not be.
I don't think they are stupid or pissed at Fallout 4 release date, it happens.
All of their known studios are working on various Xbox One games, Halo, Gears, Forza, Fable (...), Sea of Thieves, whatever TP/PP are doing, Team Dakota are doing Project Spark stuff and looking at something else, Lionhead have a new IP too, with the exception of Lift London who I'm not sure if they are wholly Hololens now or not.
Their first party still needs to be beefed up but its not like they haven't made significant waves on that in recent years, a large majority of their current line-up either didn't exist or weren't owned by them as recently as 4 years ago
If you press the CC button on youtube you will see that each question is subbed in English.
He was asked about whether Xbox One will have more exclusives in the future and what they'll be.
Fallout 4 and Halo 5 as well.
Kralamoonard
Member
Again, I completely agree with this. I feel they need to get their devs outside of their comfort zone if they are to succeed and give them the creative freedom they fully deserve. Which once again, makes me happy that Guerilla are working on Horizon
That's true. I was just thinking, maybe with this Windows 10 synergy in play, maybe Microsoft themselves will think about investing more into studios. It would give the Windows Store and edge over Steam if they get AAA exclusives up on it.
Oh look, another arm chair analyst. Have you thought that Microsoft may have bundle plans for ROTR? A $299 Black Friday bundle with ROTR and DE will sell like nuts.
daTRUballin
Member
Microsoft might be rich but it not like all the departments have free access.
All them have a budget, some smaller or larger then others.
Budget wish completely securing a third party game completely might be too expensive for what they want now. TR will probably be one of the last major ones.
Kralamoonard
Member
I actually believe putting their first party games on PC will be a good move for Microsoft. Yes you'll get people arguing what this means and its implications for Xbox, but I don't see how it can be a bad thing getting more people to know their franchises and getting more sales as a results. I honestly think it's a win-win for MS.
thanks!
It's more than likely Battletoads
There have been enough hints that I believe it.
I wonder if the Rare Replay team are going to be split up among SoT and project 3, or if they start on something new.
Pathfinder
Member
Yup. Especially with Windows 10 and cross-buy items. They may end up selling fewer Xbox's, but they'll sell more software.
You're right they could. But they're also a business who needs to make a return on their investments, and throwing obscene amounts of money at third party devs is not a very good way to do that. Can you imagine how much it must cost them to keep third party content off the PS4?
Digital-Hero
Member
Chobel
Member
Most likely Phil Spencer as the deal happened around E3 last year.
Lol, what a bizarre question.
Is that right?
When Spencer talked about it around the reveal he kept referring to it as "the deal he made."
Kralamoonard
Member
Yup exactly!
I mean, I always see people arguing "oh, that will give people less of a reason to buy an Xbox", but if you actually think about it, there will always be people who will prefer buying and playing on consoles, even if a game is a console exclusive i.e. on PC too. And with a bit of marketing, you can still get a game on PC/Xbox to sell quite a few Xbox's too.
Worst comes to worst, it sells less Xbox's than usual, but then MS get's that revenue from PC and a larger playerbase playing their games and getting their franchises more well known. A win-win IMO.
JayhawkerStL
Banned
Phil,
For the love of God, please use the High Heat license and put out an MLB title. Please!
For the love of God, please use the High Heat license and put out an MLB title. Please!
Kralamoonard
Member
This puzzles me greatly. You do realise not having third party exclusives anymore is different to not having third party support at all?
The latter is Nintendo, which is what you don't want to be in. MS still has that third party support, they'll just focus more on first party this time which isn't all that bad.
I'm sorry to say but it's a pretty shoddy comparison bud!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Locked