Top
110°

Xbox One Interview: Phil Spencer on Microsoft's First-Party Focus

GameSpot speaks to the head of Xbox about exclusivity deals, backwards compatibility support, and his toughest decision yet.

Read Full Story >>
gamespot.com
The story is too old to be commented.
BlackPanther863d ago

As of right now. Xbox 2016 first party lineup is simply great and it probably has more games coming as well.

Septic863d ago (Edited 863d ago )

Indeed. Youd be hard pressed to argue otherwise.

Speaking of third parties and Sony, read this from Spencer :

"So, they don't "gobble" the deals up. They buy them. You know, I read the same things you do, and I know some people think it's somehow less expensive to sign third-party exclusives if you have a bigger market-share. I can tell you, it has nothing to do with market share."

This needs to be drilled into the heads of many people who justify the reliance on third party deals on the loose excuse of market share.

TheRedButterfly863d ago (Edited 863d ago )

> "This needs to be drilled into the heads of many people who justify the reliance on third party deals on the loose excuse of market share."

Let's be honest, the people who are attempting to justify the third-party deals based on market share wouldn't listen to reason even if it was drilled into their heads. They have an agenda, and pretending like market share has anything to do with it is how they are currently pursuing said agenda.

If the market share evaporated over night, they'd find another way to justify these practices.

Thatguy-310862d ago (Edited 862d ago )

The deal might not be cheap for Sony but you better believe that it becomes A LOT more expensive siding with a console who's sales are behind the competition. Seeing how it's more expensive for them to secure deals that why they better off investing it into their first party studios. It's nuts to think publishers don't look at Sony for a partnership because of the market lead.
http://www.playstationlifes...

RocketScienceLvlStuf863d ago (Edited 863d ago )

Phil Spencer is just giving empty words at the minute.

The number of first party games since launch for MS and Sony are.

2013. Sony 2, MS 1
2014 Sony 4, MS 1
2015 Sony 3, MS 2
2016 Sony 3 ms 3. (so far)

Adding those up we have Sony releasing 12 first party titles since launch and MS releasing 7.

As we can see MS are severely lacking when it comes to first party titles. They have the least out of the 3 companies.

Empty words from Phil.

@Theredbutterly.

Well First party is in the title of the article. Thats why I am talking about first party.

Septic863d ago

Empty words? This interview is really good and he's being fully sincere, even admitting that he reacted passionately to the question about Sony gobbling third party deals.

Stop spreading complete utter fudd under a username you've created solely to troll Xbox fans with your poorly thought out and frankly useless sentiments.

Quantum Break
Scalebound
Crackdown
Gears
Sea of Thieves

These are some of the great looking games coming out on the Xbox One no matter how some desperate people twist it and flat out lie.

TheRedButterfly863d ago (Edited 863d ago )

@1.2

Keep moving those goal posts lad.

First it was Resolution.
Then it was AAA Exclusives.
Then it was General Exclusives.

Now it's First-Party exclusives? lol

863d ago
RocketScienceLvlStuf863d ago (Edited 863d ago )

@bound

No my comment is not false and you have replied with some false information of your own.

Games are first party when the developer is owned by the publisher.

Killer instinct
Lococycle.
Forza Horizon 2
Halo MCC (developer saber interactive).
Project spark.
Ori.
State of decay.
Gears ultimate

All of the above are not first party. They are second party and third party.

donthate863d ago (Edited 863d ago )

It must be nice to keep moving the goalpost to fit your need. MS first party isn't really first party, it is first and second party i.e. MS contracts suitable developers to do a game that maybe they do not have the expertise for or do not have resources to do internally.

If you look at what MS is outputting this year, and then in 2016 in terms of what MS are funding, the picture is quite different than "first party" in the traditional sense.

Why would it matter if it is first or second party, if MS owns the IP?

MS funds it, they own the rights to it, and they invest into it.

I'm really happy we are gettings games like Quantum Break, Scalebound, ReCore and so on. It does not matter a lick if it is first, second, or third party to me.

I have never bought a game because it is made by a first party or a third party. I buy a game, because it is dang good!

We also know now that size of market-share has little to no impact on "gobbling up" marketing/exclusivity rights to multi-platform games.

Rookie_Monster863d ago (Edited 863d ago )

@rocket,

What a .... post you got there.

It doesn't matter if it is MS owned studio that are making the game or not as long as it owns the IPs and funding these games just like Sony commissioned third party to make the Orders 1886, Insomniac to make the Ratchet remake and Fromsoftware to make Bloodborne. Phil's definition of first party are first party published games and not who are developing it. Smh

gangsta_red863d ago

"All of the above are not first party. They are second party and third party."

But those games are published and owned by MS and they are console exclusive to Xbox One. So it makes absolutely no sense that this would be the argument you chose to make.

"As we can see MS are severely lacking when it comes to first party titles."

But they aren't lacking when it comes to actual games right? Which is probably the reason they did contract their owned IP's to third parties so they CAN have more exclusive games while their first party teams concentrate on the more established IP's they own.

ziggurcat863d ago

@rookie:

"Phil's definition of first party are first party published games and not who are developing it."

no. the actual definition of 1st party = they own the *studio* that is developing the game. simply owning the IP =/= 1st party, hence why we have 2nd/3rd party exclusives.

and as i have said before - it doesn't matter where they get their exclusives from. an exclusive is an exclusive, but you can't just call an exclusive a 1st party title just because it's exclusive - that's factually inaccurate. in order for it to be considered 1st party, the publisher (in this case, MS) has to own the studio developing the game.

TheCommentator862d ago (Edited 862d ago )

There's no such thing as 2nd party... the term is colloquial. If the console manufacturer publishes the title and owns the IP it is 1st party regardless of developer. If Wiki is wrong, change their definition... but until then only the publisher and IP owner determine the party, 1st or 3rd, meaning BoundtoScale was right about almost everything on his list.

3-4-5862d ago

@ Rocket - Number of games doesn't matter.....

Number of GOOD games that people enjoy is what matters. Regardless of which company has them.

christocolus862d ago

@rocket

Lmao. Ok we believe you bro.

-_-.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 862d ago
strickers862d ago

1st party??! Or 2nd party. You know the difference?

XeyedGamer863d ago

I'm getting Phil Spencer fatigue.

nossred863d ago

Of course, when you're a hater anything other platform provides or matter, and at his other comments of to see that you are not worthy of attention.

christocolus863d ago

Then stop reading articles about him. simple

JasonKCK862d ago

Obsessions usually do that

Shazz863d ago (Edited 863d ago )

Phil has done a great job IMO, really focusing on games is all we ask for as gamers

BlackPanther863d ago

"Speaking to GameSpot about third-party exclusives on PS4, Spencer said: "So, they don't "gobble" the deals up. They buy them. You know, I read the same things you do, and I know some people think it's somehow less expensive to sign third-party exclusives if you have a bigger market-share. I can tell you, it has nothing to do with market share."

This right here is the big thing that many people don't understand. Sony getting third party exclusive deals has zero to do with market-share. Activision didn't leave Xbox because of market-share, it is always about money.

CYCLEGAMER863d ago

A lot of people here don't seem to understand this concept. I lost a bubble for basically saying the same thing that is being said here. If MS wanted to get COD dlc again, they could have, simply because things like that go to the highest bidder, not who is more popular.

Rookie_Monster863d ago (Edited 863d ago )

Bingo!!

it just so happen that two of the biggest annual game franchises in Madden and Fifa have marketing deal with MS and bundles are coming out..hmmm wonder why these 2 didn't go to PS4 with a bigger install base? Some of the people here just wanna hear what they wanna hear, that is all. LoL

gangsta_red863d ago

Exactly!

The PS3 last year was just as popular and sold just as well as 360 last gen. It was big in all parts of the world and yet Activision still had DLC deals for CoD with Xbox 360. It wasn't because 360 had a bigger market share it was because MS was paying to get that timed exclusivity.

This is the same thing that is happening now with Sony as they are now paying to get DLC, third party games and other such deals. If it was really about market share then Xbox One would see no deals ever. And that is not the case.

tigertron863d ago

Microsoft has a great strategy right now. The best thing for the Xbox is first party titles and it's great to see a load of them coming out for the XB1.

Show all comments (28)