Pathfinder
Member
I imagine these type of deals are tougher to make due to the PS4's success.
Definitely more expensive.
They can't keep buying exclusivity deals forever. Publishers are going to start asking for more moolah.
I imagine these type of deals are tougher to make due to the PS4's success.
Pretty much a role reversal from the last gen
Hahaha. Spencer saying that he wants to focus on first party titles instead of going after exclusive third party deals is simply because Rise of the Tomb Raider is going to bomb all things considered and get crushed by Fallout 4. Hell, I would be saying the same thing now too if I was him. What's truly funny is that he wasn't saying this pre-E3. I'm sure he was all hyped and happy that Rise of the Tomb Raider was no longer going to go head to head with Uncharted 4 but then Fallout 4 gets announced for the same day at E3 and it all went down the drain. And quite honestly, this is something that Spencer and Microsoft should have been concentrating and focusing on BEFORE acquiring Rise of the Tomb Raider to be a one year timed exclusive.
Great news; I feel this is what Sony were pursuing post PS2 era. After the very rocky launch of the PS3 and losing a lot of the marketshare to the Xbox 360 (especially considering how much marketshare the PS2 held and did manage to strike a lot of third party deals/timed exclusives, eg. GTA San Andreas), Sony focused a lot on first party output, especially post 2009.
It's pretty much the same here; after the successful Xbox 360 (i.e. like the PS2, it had many third party deals and majority marketshare in many countries), Microsoft have lost majority marketshare to their competitors in countries like NA and UK, so now they will focus mainly on first party output rather than strike third party deals.
I think that's a fair assessment of the situation(s).
What was the question he responded?I just made this thread when I uploaded the video. (It's not dualshockers lol)
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1088067
Maybe we can merge the two?
I found IGN's article and saw roughly 10-11 solid studios for PlayStation. Can't find anything for Xbox. Is there a thread we can discuss this, I have a feeling that the "Sony has more first party studios" line needs to be reanalyzed with all the studios Xbox created under Spencer.
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.
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 found IGN's article and saw roughly 10-11 solid studios for PlayStation. Can't find anything for Xbox. Is there a thread we can discuss this, I have a feeling that the "Sony has more first party studios" line needs to be reanalyzed with all the studios Xbox created under Spencer.
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.Great news; I feel this is what Sony were pursuing post PS2 era. After the very rocky launch of the PS3 and losing a lot of the marketshare to the Xbox 360 (especially considering how much marketshare the PS2 held and did manage to strike a lot of third party deals/timed exclusives, eg. GTA San Andreas), Sony focused a lot on first party output, especially post 2009.
It's pretty much the same here; after the successful Xbox 360 (i.e. like the PS2, it had many third party deals and majority marketshare in many countries), Microsoft have lost majority marketshare to their competitors in countries like NA and UK, so now they will focus mainly on first party output rather than strike third party deals.
I'd say that's a fair assessment of each respective situation. What do you guys think?
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. ._.
How much is Tomb Raider going to sell? Please tell since you have a crystal ball.Hahaha. Spencer saying that he wants to focus on first party titles instead of going after exclusive third party deals is simply because Rise of the Tomb Raider is going to bomb all things considered and get crushed by Fallout 4. Hell, I would be saying the same thing now too if I was him. What's truly funny is that he wasn't saying this pre-E3. I'm sure he was all hyped and happy that Rise of the Tomb Raider was no longer going to go head to head with Uncharted 4 but then Fallout 4 gets announced for the same day at E3 and it all went down the drain. And quite honestly, this is something that Spencer and Microsoft should have been concentrating and focusing on BEFORE acquiring Rise of the Tomb Raider to be a one year timed exclusive.
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.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).
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 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.
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.
Microsoft added 6 new studios to their first-party (MS Vancouver, Victoria, Lift London, Team Dakota, Twisted Pixel and Press Play, although Victoria was shut down and Lift are on Hololens now) line-up by around 2012 and before that they added a couple of others too, 1st party "expansion" was the plan before Xbox One came out, now they're owning almost all the IP they are making too.
I don't really see much changing since that expansion period of 2011/12, since then we've added some Hololens studios (undetermined size), Decisive Games which haven't been officially announced or detailed and Mojang which employs 40~ people I think?
Im sure that the PS4s success has dented their ability to get third-party exclusives but a focus on 1st party as I said isn't exactly a new thing.
Would you consider Bloodborne and The Order first-party Sony games? I think anything they own is reasonably a first-party game, although he also considers SO/Ryse first party because they funded and published them, which also seems somewhat reasonable although others may not agree so much.
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.
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.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.
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?
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's funny. Between Microsoft and Sony, Microsoft is actually the publisher sitting on a gold mine of IPs that they're simply not utilising. Which is why Sony continues to come up with new ones to try and create franchises.
So you'd think that all these years it would have been Microsoft pumping out the 1st party exclusives instead of Sony. Funny how that works. Hopefully this means Microsoft will start to put these IPs to work. From Rare's stable alone they have a shitload sitting there.
Forget stuff like Crimson Skies, MechAssault, RalliSport, N3 (loved those games), Black & White and stuff like that. They're really sitting on a LOT of genuinely worthwhile IPs and if you can combine that with new stuff, they could really build themselves a pretty good library of 1st party exclusives if they so chose to.
Doesn't seem like they have a choice when PS4 is dominating third-party sales.
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?
What was the question he responded?
MS is gonna make TR2 their main bundle this Fall (similar to ACU last year) so the game won't bomb.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
why don't they have a choice? MS shits money. If they want an exclusivity deal they'd probably get it easily.
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.
thanks!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.
It's more than likely Battletoads
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.
why don't they have a choice? MS shits money. If they want an exclusivity deal they'd probably get it easily.
Who originally setup the Tomb Raider deal? Was it Don Mattrick?
How did that work out for Nintendo?
Edit: I think that his back is against a wall and MS can't lock in the third party exclusives like sony can (or even if 3rd parties want exclusivity anymore).
Yup. Especially with Windows 10 and cross-buy items. They may end up selling less Xbox's, but they'll sell more software.
How did that work out for Nintendo?
Edit: I think that his back is against a wall and MS can't lock in the third party exclusives like sony can (or even if 3rd parties want exclusivity anymore).