Microsoft's First-Party Attitude Represents My Larger Issue With the Company

Phil Stortzum of SuperPhillip Central writes, "Microsoft Studios head honcho Phil Spencer recently mentioned to OXM that a console manufacturer doesn't need its own studios to create excellent games. The issue I take with this statement extends further into Microsoft's philosophy with the Xbox. Instead of putting money into their own studios, they simply purchase exclusives, whether they be entire games, downloadable content, or advertising rights. I cannot tell you how many third-party multi-platform game commercials I've seen where at the end the Xbox 360 or Xbox One logo shows up.

The problem in this situation is that-- borrowing a term here-- "moneyhatting" exclusives is much more costly than having capable studios you own that make games for you. As the "boss" of the studio, you have a greater influence on the type of product they create. Then again, looking at Rare, perhaps that's a bad thing to be under the influence of Microsoft-- being forced to make nothing but Kinect Sports and avatar games, having all of your other projects never getting the greenlight."

[OrangePowerz]

True points. Alone the amount they paud for GTA4 timed DLC would have been enough to make a full AAA game and Titanfall and DR3 will have cost a huge amount.

Yet Rare has become a third grade studios focusing on Kinect. They dont even let then make KI and instead outsourced it.

[Genesis5]

Considering that the hardware is suppose to be a means of making money from the software. This doesn't seem to be a very profitable business model.

[porkChop]

It's not profitable at all. Microsoft loses over $2B a year on Xbox as a whole, and they hide this from shareholders by grouping it together with their Android patent licences.

[Godmars290]

Look at Android patent deal to try to understand how MS operates. They put themselves into a position where someone else, a majority of business, largely does the work and pays MS to do the work. That's what they've been trying to do with the Xbox brand, but they keep messing up in one way or another. Usually in regards to hardware.

[nukeitall]

@Gmars290:

Put yourself in MS shoes, if somebody else stole your costly research to enrich themselves, it would be natural you demand a share of that. If you don't like it, you can fight in court.

Fact of the matter is, MS is one of the oldest OS developing country out there, so it is natural that a something new like Android would infringe massively on MS research and development.

[Ritsujun]

Dat fluffy-cloudy mind of Microsofie's.

[UltimateMaster]

I think one of the candidates for the CEO of Microsoft does see it this way too and thinks it's not a worthwhile investment. Because they are loosing money by buying 3rd party games and advertising when they could be focusing on other means to make money.

Instead of the kinect collecting data and reselling them to others, why not sell the kinect to hospital so that they can check your pulse without the need to compress your arm to check it, instead of those expensive monitors?

Why not try to do humanity a favor and try to make it a better world instead of just being greedy and try to make a quick $ off our private life?

There's so many other positive things they can do with the kinect but aren't doing.

Xbox is just making Microsoft loose money overall. Focus on the money, which is where technology used in positive ways comes into play.

[-Foxtrot]

"Yet Rare has become a third grade studios focusing on Kinect"

Which they've said they do not FORCE to make Kinect games....despite the fact Microsoft cancelled Kameo 2, Conker's Other Bad Fur Day and even Perfect Dark 2.

"They dont even let then make KI and instead outsourced it."

Thats what I don't get...they get a crappy studio like Double Helix to make it.

You can say it looks good (LOOKS GOOD) all you want, I won't judge it until it's out, however will you guys judge it based on the game in front of you OR nostalgia for the past KI games. Thats what I'm scared of, it's a F2P game where you only get 5-6 characters I mean come on.

[kreate]

It doesn't matter if they are not forced.

The studio is stripped dry by microsoft and given no other projects to work on.

They work on whatever that's given.

Bungie left Microsoft for the lack of freedom.

Only difference is, rare can't leave.

[nukeitall]

I don't get it, why does it have to be Rare that makes KI?

The vast majority of the old Rare that worked on KI is no longer there. To me, allowing Double Helix to work on it is the right choice, because the game looks great!

Double Helix still gets help from Rare, so it isn't entirely hands free either. Important thing is the game is good, and all early reports are it is awesome!

They should choose the developer that is the right fit for the project, not blindly choose them because of long lose old desires.

"Which they've said they do not FORCE to make Kinect games....despite the fact Microsoft cancelled Kameo 2, Conker's Other Bad Fur Day and even Perfect Dark 2."

And Kinect Sports outsold most likely outsold any of those games combined except for maybe Perfect Dark. Clearly it was the right choice.

"Only difference is, rare can't leave."

Game developers are highly sought after, and if you manage it a certain way, they will leave your company for another. The fact that we don't have a recent exodus of employees (think in the last 3-4 years since Kinect), it seems they are happy.

Those that are unhappy, they left long ago.

[Automatic79]

This article is a flamebait at it finest.

First and foremost he is whinining about MS purchasing exclusive but does not give valid reasons or add to the subject by saying that MS is investing a Billion dollars into games and First party companies.

As gamers we have all seen some of the best games come out of First party but we have seen better out of 3rd party so if MS does not want to rely on First party to carry weight through out the gaming consoles life span and chooses to let 3rd party get shine on Xbox I see nothing wrong with that.

I am all about playing games and enjoying them. I want every developer have great games and experiences.

[SCW1982]

Best games come out of first party but better games come out of 3rd party. This sentence makes my head explode. For the most part this generation first party options especially on Sony trumped third party.

[mkis007]

It is about those games that define a platform. 3rd party games may help a platform, but they can not define it, in the way a first party IP can. Sunset Overdrive may be a great game, but it is owned by Insomniac, they can do with it what they want. Xbox is defined by Halo and Master Chief. Maybe if you want to throw in Gears of War and Cogs. But that is the extent of the characters that define what xbox is.

There is no way for me to explain this reasoning without bringing in a counter-example.

Playstation is defined by Ratchet and Clank, Sly Cooper, The Helghast, Uncharted and Nathan Drake, God of war and Kratos, and Littlebigplanet and Sackboy. Maybe Jack and Daxter and Cole Mcgrath.

And sure Playstation is defined by a few third parties like Kingdom hearts, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid. But they do not really on those third parties to define PlayStation.

Nitendo? Mario, Luigi, Zelda,Kirby, Pokemon...Etc these things define what Ninendo is.

We have a single face for xbox and that is Master chief. The problem is these games that Ms locks up can eventually find their way to other consoles. These characters are not branded to the box.

TL;DR : Xbox buying titles is a day pass for parking.

Nintendo and Sony creating games in house is the year long parking permit.

[rainslacker]

If a company sees a good game concept and decides to fund it completely and thus it becomes exclusive, I feel that's completely fine.

If a publisher goes and tries to sell parts of it's game exclusively to help fund the project, or the console makers shovel a bunch of money towards the publisher to get that exclusive, I feel that's a bit weak, but I understand that it's a way to market the system.

If a console maker pays a butt load of money to make a game completely exclusive to their console just to market the console then I find that stupid. This is particularly true if the game was well in development before that exclusivity was purchased. It's money that could be spent to make an entirely new game, expanding the console makers portfolio, and they still get that awesome game they would have gotten without paying for it. Double dipping you might say.

This is also true for paying for buying exclusivity off another console(say FF13), to make it multi-plat. What a waste of money that could be better spent. MS could have made a FF killer for what they likely spent.

Timed exclusivity is the worst. It does nothing but give bragging rights to the console that gets it, and adds no value to the overall portfolio of the console maker itself.

So much money wasted, when MS could have better invested it into their own portfolio to make even more IP's that could rock the gaming world. It works for Sony in a big way for 3 gens now. Although, I will admit, it does seem Sony is starting to go the exclusive content method more this and next gen.

[MightyNoX]

I've been saying this for ages. Microsoft has no interest in gaming. It's just a means to infiltrate the household so they can sell marketing space to ad companies.

[lifeisgamesok]

They have made changes though. They bought 10 new studios and helping indie developers by making Xbox One a dev kit and giving them Unity for free

If it wasn't for MS helping Capcom fund the game we wouldn't have another Dead Rising

Games like Halo, Gears, Mass Effect wouldn't be nearly as big without Microsoft's help

[Burrito26a]

Thats all Microsoft does. Make changes.

[True_Samurai]

Would you rather they kept the og plan? No?

[KingKelloggTheWH]

Unity is free for everyone, its not MS's.

[OrangePowerz]

I was following Halo very closely and the concept before MS bought Bungie sounded cooler than what we got in the end. You where supposed to travel freely on the ring. I think Bungie finally get to do with Destiny what they wanted to do with Halo in the first place.

Gears would have probably been a bigger success as a multiplatform game.

Mass Effect took really off with the second game. The first one was good but the gameplay was rather bad. The shooting mechanics from the first are atrocious.

[porkChop]

Yeah that was back when Rockstar was publishing Halo as a multiplatform game.

[Soldierone]

Not really, they were good with it for PC gaming and helping stuios there grow. In terms of Xbox, they fail epicly at it.

Of those 10 new studios, how many are making Kinect, dance, or casual titles? Last time I looked, over half of all their games in-development were casual kinect titles.

[lifeisgamesok]

Dude what are you talking about? The only games shown from their 1st party studios so far are

Halo 5
Black Tusk's game (stealth/action)
Kinect Sports Rivals

Everything else is unannounced

[Soldierone]

It's not hard to look up these studios and see descriptions as to what they may be. Hell of the 3 you actually mentioned to argue my point, 1 of them is a kinect title.....

I'm not doing the research for you, go use Google.

If MS was strong with first party support, I'd be happy. Timed exclusives don't count.

[ABizzel1]

True they bought 10 new studios, but look up the job descriptions for them. Most of those studios are doing networking work, and video work (Xbox TV). Only a few are gaming studios.

Of those only 343 (Halo) and Black Tusk (1 new IP) are making a hardcore game, the others are Kinect / Family.

They're doing the same thing they did at the launch of the 360. Buy a bunch of newer IP's exclusivity for the first few years, then back to Halo, Forza Fable, Black Tusk (replacing Gears).

[christocolus]

every company has their own way of doing things..ms doesnt have to do it the way sony does but even at that ms has many new studios developing new ip..they are investing billions int games.there is nothing wrong in doing both...get fresh ip from 1st party and mix it with third party exclusives...any reasonable person looking at what ms is doing with the xbx one(aa games for launch and even next year) will know they are doing good..imo its a smart idea...focusing on just first party has its own disadvantages just look at nintendo. nothing sells on their hardware only nintendo ips...ms created a very good environment for third party games to thrive..its justbabout knowinghow to balance it....this article holds no water imo.

[Joe913]

Lol I agreed until the very last sentence so you don't think Mass Effect would have been anything without MS lol.

[showtimefolks]

They keep paying for short term gains with exclusive DLC and have no long term 1st party planning

MS isn't gonna learn because they are arrogant and have too much money, they are the dodgers of gaming, new kid on the block will buy whatever he wants

[Automatic79]

So investing 1 billion into gaming is not learning. Another fanboy who is stuck in the past. All companies grow from there history.

[rainslacker]

I find it hard to believe that MS is investing that much into gaming, or at least into primarily game software. That's a huge chunk of change even for MS. The average game cost about 40 million to make. That comes to a total of 25 AAA games if you ignore investment into more casual stuff.

No one on here, even the most devout MS fan boy can say with a straight face that MS will be coming out with 25 AAA games in the next three years from first party. Why? Because they'd be competing against themselves.

It defies logic. Nintendo and Sony combined do not even come out with that many games in a 3 year span that amount to 1 billion dollars.

MS is doing some fancy accounting. I guarantee you that 1 billion dollars also includes other ventures related to their gaming division, such as their Halo TV show, timed or paid exclusivity, or whatever R&D they are putting into whatever stupid feature they think will be the next big thing, which has probably been the last big thing from 4-5 years prior, as per their usual MO.

[showtimefolks]

1 billion? how much of that is going towards exclusive DLC from EA games?

Titanfall?
Dead rising?
Fifa

that number isn't right, investing 1 billion into their 1st party studios would count, how about giving funds or buying smaller studios and let them work on some actual exclusives, that won't end up on other consoles

MM went to MS for Little Big Planet and they turned them away

QD asked them about Heavy rain and they said no

so they don't want to take any risks, all safe bets on mostly FPS or sports

[ABeastNamedTariq]

"Instead of putting money into their own studios, they simply purchase exclusives, whether they be entire games, downloadable content, or advertising rights."

"They have been throwing money to further themselves into the industry, going so far as to lose boatloads of money just to get ahead of the competition. Who needs competent first-party studios when you can just buy exclusives? Why compete when you can simply buy market share through immense marketing campaigns and third-party exclusives?"

I agree w/ just about all of the points made. I think it's better to have a stable of developers to make a person say, "Man, I want [X] console for [A]'s, [B]'s, and [C]'s next game(s) (along w/ multiplats and blah blah blah)." Buying can only get you so far.

BUT...

MS seems to be getting better. That BT studios game visually looks fantastical (the trailer was in-engine) - I personally can't wait to see some gameplay, they have 343 for Halo now, Titanfall (1), Quantum Break, and more (hopefully). And Turn 10.

[Hicken]

I don't see where they're getting better. One of the MS fans PMed me with a list of "new" studios, and I did the research on em:

Twisted Pixel isn't new
Lift London renamed from Microsoft London
Press Play was bought, so just new to Microsoft
Black Tusk renamed from Vancouver
Microsoft Osaka is new
Team Dakota may or may not be new

343 isn't new anymore
Turn 10
Lionhead
Rare

That's about it. Frankly, with most of those teams coming from the 360 era and just having new names, I don't see MS changing much of anything. Just like buying Titanfall, rather than spending that money on a new studio.

[ABeastNamedTariq]

Oh damn... I forgot some of those were just renamed studios.

Then... I don't know anymore, haha.

I mean, as of now, they look about the same. Guess we'll see.

[FITgamer]

I agree, dropping money on 3rd party exclusives has always seemed very counterproductive to me. It's like buying milk, when you already have the cow.

[SpiralTear]

Rare's report of losing support for games like Kameo 2 and Black Widow is very saddening, because they sounded like they would've been fantastic games (especially Black Widow)

Microsoft seems to have the ideology that the best way to profit is to just get third-party devs to make games for them. It seems almost exploitative, as if they're making a profit off of the sales while the third-party devs do the actual game development work. First-party Xbox games are few and far between (at least the ones that matter).

Interesting article and I think it shows Microsoft's place in the grand scheme of things. They're so ingrained in the gaming industry, but don't actually produce many games themselves.

[DanielGearSolid]

I honestly think MS views themselves as industry bullies

They tried dissing Google in their Bing and Outlook commercials. Fail

They tried dissing IOS/Android in that corny Windows Phone 8 commercial. Fail

They tried dissing iPad with Surface commercials. Fail

And ofcourse the article talks about their actions in the gaming industry

[Godmars290]

Unifying industry leader you mean. True villains never see themselves in a negative light.

They think that by providing one platform or group of services that it would be better for all. Nevermind the example of complacency they've shown with IE, or how they'll occasionally strong-arm and copy from the competition.

[DanielGearSolid]

You're absolutely right. They do think they are industry leaders in every electronic category.

What annoys me is the fact they dont even feel the need to prove themselves in any of these categories before boasting and puffing out their chests

[rainslacker]

While they do purchase technology, they usually do so in such a way to improve their already established products. They have also been known to buy out competition, although I haven't really kept up with them the past decade to know if they do this much anymore.

However, MS is certainly innovative in some areas of their company. Their server and cloud markets are very strong, and they are industry leaders in the tools they provide. Their productivity software, particularly programming tools are exceptionally good and less cumbersome at times than some of the cheaper or freer options out there. Not perfect by any means, but still quite good once you get past some of the MS "default" quirks.

I can't really speak to the rest as I don't follow it, but they, like most other software tool companies are moving more towards an integrated services business model as opposed to a software product model. This is what they tried to bring to a gaming console, and they didn't ease users into it like the computer market has been doing for the past 10 years. It really bit them in the ass.

[Godmars290]

@rainslacker:
In regards to servers, its my understanding that Amazon "leads" the industry in providing them to other companies. That this push by MS is their attempt unseat them. Just like Silverlight was a try at taking over for MPEG and HTML 5.

That is MS's major problem; even if they do honestly innovate in other areas, the most notable examples of them doing so amounts to them copying a company which has done better, already has established dominance, them force use of their apps and tools. Like Silverlight being this thing no literally uses but has been integrated into Windows and can't be removed.

[rainslacker]

I'm not sure where Amazon and MS sit in terms of server usage to the end user. However I do know that MS server software is generally well respected. It's been a while since I really looked into this.

Amazon may be unseating them, because many times MS does become complacent with their place in the market.

For example, they were complacent with their dominance of the home PC market, and completely ignore the rise of smart phones and tablet computing which was doing everything that most people do with more convenience. They came late into the market, with a nice OS, but the hardware is generally more expensive in a market where people generally don't see it as worth the extra cost, despite how nice they actually are.

I think this is where other companies are making headway, much like you say, as they are able to offer something different, whereas MS tends to be set in it's ways a lot of the time.

[staticdash22]

Microsoft: We don't make games, we buy them

[kwyjibo]

I disagree that you need to own first party studios in order to succeed, or even create great games.

Sony never owned thatgamecompany, and they produced some of the finest work this generation. They own Team Ico, and they've failed to produce anything.

[DanielGearSolid]

Idk about thatgamecompany, but isnt team ico the Shadow of the colossus team?

Thing about Sony I like is when they do get 3rd exclusives alot of Times they co-develop, without ridiculous clause in the contract. Example: the Demon Souls/ Dark Souls series

[Hicken]

Two examples hardly makes your point, given that Sony DOES own Sucker Punch, Naughty Dog, Guerilla Games, Media Molecule, and Polyphony among others. Have they not also produced excellent games?

And so what if Team Ico hasn't finished The Last Guardian? Do you think any other publisher would let them work so long on a title? Given their track record, expectations should be high, but if it were Microsoft, the game would be out already, unfinished. And that's assuming they'd even fund a game like The Last Guardian in the first place.

The point is that it's very hard to be successful in the industry if you don't have your own studios pumping out a good number of exclusives. And thinking you can buy up third party exclusivity and live off that and multiplats is bad, and bad for the industry.

[kwyjibo]

Sony don't own Quantic Dream, From Software or Kojima, yet they produced great exclusives.

My point was that you don't need first party studios to create great games. This is proven beyond doubt by pointing to great games by third parties.

Pointing out that first parties can also create great games does not actually counter my argument. Either way, you're paying for exclusivity, whether they're your employees or someone else's is irrelevant.

I believe that the return, both critical and financial for Journey will be significantly greater than that of 10 year dev cycle Last Guardian.

[maniacmayhem]

"but if it were Microsoft, the game would be out already, unfinished."

Even though MS let Remedy take all the time needed for Alan Wake and Halo 3 and 4.

"hard to be successful in the industry if you don't have your own studios pumping out a good number of exclusives."

Oh, lets take example of the Dreamcast who had nothing but great 1st party titles and still failed because of a lack of third party support. Also another example and not as extreme as Dreamcast is the WiiU which also has great 1st party games but it is ridiculed for having no 3rd party support.

Here's my puzzlement, what does it matter if MS buys a third party game? Why is this bad? Does it matter which party made the game if the game is good?

People complain MS doesn't have a lot of exclusives, then they complain that their exclusives are bought, then they complain that the exclusives bought are from a third party.

"And thinking you can buy up third party exclusivity and live off that and multiplats is bad, and bad for the industry."

Why Hicken? I see a lot of you complaining but I see no one giving a reason why it's bad for the industry. What reason could it be bad? MS is paying for a game, keeping developers in business, funding their game and publishing them. This to me sounds like job security, rather than some dev pull out a million on an unproven IP just to see it fail.

Buy up exclusives and live off that and multiplats is bad? Isn't this what all consoles do? They provide exclusives and multiplat games to live off of. Who cares where these exclusives come from.

[SpiralTear]

When it comes to buying a game console, you buy it to get the exclusive stuff, the stuff that you cannot get on another console. Otherwise, you'd just get a competitor's system.

And what's a more sure-fire way of having a game that you can't find on another console? Have a first-party studio make it. Not only is it a great way to secure exclusivity, but by working internally within the console's company, you're bound to get better support from them, both financially and in terms of publicity.

Usually, some of the best games you'll find on a console are first-party exclusives. Halo, Uncharted and Super Smash Brothers are examples of this.

[kwyjibo]

Take a look at Apple, who make more money from handheld gaming than Nintendo and Sony combined, and yet have zero first party games.

[iceman06]

No you don't. BUT...in order to maintain longevity in the industry you do.
MS basically bought their way into the industry and stated "we have all of the games". For the most part, they did. However, as the generation went on, they lost several of those "exclusives". As the generation ended, there was very little to cling on to. While Sony, on the other hand, used their first party studios to pad the end of the generation with games that you couldn't play anywhere else.
So, yes you can be successful. Lord knows that MS has been. But the real question is for how long? Adding studios creates a larger portfolio of games that you can draw from in those lean times and keeps you from having to release sequel after sequel. (that becomes an option instead of a necessity)

[Hicken]

You can only lose when you argue with a fool, so I concede.

It must be hard for you to understand that Sony doesn't rely JUST on third parties for their games, that they produce a helluva lot of quality from in-house. I don't know WHY that's hard for you to get, but it is. And I can see that trying to use reason or logic with you will fail.

So you win.

[rainslacker]

Team Ico isn't a development studio, it's a team, headed by Fumito Ueda that works within SCE Japan Studio. Most of that team has been redistributed working on other projects, with Puppeteer being their most recent release. SCEJ also created Knack, Rain, Gravity Rush, and many other highly acclaimed new IP's the past few years. Here's a list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

I hardly call that "failed to produce anything".

Keep in mind this is only one studio(actually a publishing arm with it's own studios, similar to Atlus or NIS). A large one no doubt, but makes MS 20 some first party studios look pretty weak in comparison. Now factor in all of Sony's other 1st party studios, and their other big studios similar to SCEJ, and it paints a very different picture to what MS is doing.

[Rachel_Alucard]

I think this picture sums up whats wrong with MS as a whole.

[cyhm3112]

Because Microsoft is rich but stupid, haha, they don't know how to use that money, probably lazy too. Don't want so many troubles by making first party games. Just sign a cheque is much easier, hahahahaha

[LoveSpuds]

I thought this was one really great article and sums up exactly how I perceive MS and their strategy in the console market.

I am happy to admit that I am disappointed that TitanFall will not becoming to my console of choice as I have many more pals on PSN that I do on my PC.

Ultimately, I guess if the game turns out as good as it looks I will pick it up on my PC.

I am not naive enough to think that Sony are not in it to make money, but I honestly feel like their approach is more supportive of the gaming community.

They want to make money but they know that the best approach is to foster growth and success by offering a huge variety of quality games. Most people (outside of the most blinkered of XBOX fans) would admit that Sony have a proven track record of releasing amazing games over the last 20+ years, they have a legacy that no amount of money or mass advertising can buy.

[madjedi]

Well supposedly only tf1 is exclusive but it's sequel will be on both

[D-riders]

I think that sums up alot for Nintendo fans Sony fans and some design I know

[rulakir]

Sony has the best 1st. party studios period. Exclusives do matter. It's undeniable.

[JasonKCK]

Strange MS would say that when they have a bunch of first party studios.

[urwifeminder]

Don't like don't buy or don't buy and still whine anyway.

[GoodnessGreatness]

And there you go. This is why Sony has the better games, they have talented developer teams and let them do the games they aspire to make.

[rickybadman]

People are gonna bash Spencer but he has a point. Just look at Gears, Alan Wake and Mass Effect

[Manic2014]

He has a point but it doesn't change the fact first party games are needed for a console to succeed. Just look at the PS3 and Wii. MS Needs more IP's they own and develop themselves....

[rickybadman]

But why is such a big deal if they employer the developers and fund the projects.

When Sony had the third party exclusive advantage, it was a good business move, MS does it and people act like it is ruining the industry

[LoveSpuds]

Had MS not bought the rights to these games they still would have existed and MS could have invested in even more titles for the Xbox community.

All MS do is pay companies to withhold games from a segment of the gaming community rather than invest in their own - not good for gamers in my opinion.

[rickybadman]

MS funded Gears from the ground up, funded Mass Effect from the ground up, Alan Wake too.

These games wouldn't exist in their current form with MS's money.

The money they gave to EA, and 2K covers the development cost of the project too. Then what is left over is pocketed. MS's investment helps insures the financial success of a project.

When Sony was doing the same thing, people said nothing, it was good business. But with MS, they are hurting the industry/games.

I don't buy it

[nasnas76]

MS exclusive = bad business decisions
Sony exclusives = best system ever
Some arguments don't make any sense.

[BlueTemplar]

Their whole business model is based on depriving owners of other consoles of games that would otherwise be multi-platform rather than creation of new IP.

Thats why the sooner they f**k off the better imo.

[DivineAssault]

great article.. MS is a tyrant & its a damn shame that they dont have 1st party studios to make great games... I liked it when they had 2nd party like bioware but still.. I left MS yrs ago & wont ever go back

[Manic2014]

i hope this certainly changes as they have opened 5 new Studio's for AAA Projects. I think the reason MS never focused that much on Core exclusive's is because they knew that Multi-platform games look best on 360 and hence they focuses on the damn kinect. Now it looks the PS4 will have better looking multi-platform games, It looks like MS have to provide great Exclusives to succeed.....Hoping for the best.....

[NewAgeisHere]

Great article, couldn't agree more...it's exactly because of this that MS will be punished by gamers shortly...........

[kewlkat007]

I agree. ..been saying this for ages. They should put more money into good game studios..it's not like they don't have the money.

At the end of the day..they need to get the right person heading the Xbox division with a different strategy might be best. People say sell the Xbox division buy what kind of financial backing will the lead to?