Who Will Win E3 2018: The Case for Microsoft

From Cinelinx:

E3 2018 is just around the corner, and as the big companies prepare to blow gamers away, I’m taking a look at how Microsoft (Xbox) can end up winning.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
FallenAngel1984205d ago

Microsoft would need to hit it out of the park with first party support though

204d ago Replies(6)
Godmars290204d ago

More like they have to deliver. Release titles within 2-3 years of announcement if not sooner. With those games being of good or great quality.

204d ago
Fantomex204d ago

"The most important thing is services and getting those up and running"

I disagree. You can have tons of services, or the best services from a technical viewpoint, but without enough games the services won't have much to use them for.

MS needs a lot more MS games for their games console. That is what gamers are complaining about the most ATM.

FallenAngel1984204d ago

You seriously calling franchises Microsoft owns third party?

204d ago
FallenAngel1984204d ago

You’re even more ill-informed than I imagined. Microsoft fully owns the Gears of War franchise since they bought it and they own Black Tusk Studio which are the current developers working on the franchise.

Microsoft also owns the Fable IP.

2nd party titles are franchises still owned by hardware manufacturers that have developers not owned by the manufacturers. Saying it’s 3rd party implies you believe that Fable & Gears of War are owned by the developers and not the copyright owner that is Microsoft.

Do you believe that Kirby, Pokémon, Ratchet & Clank, Fire Emblem, Paper Mario, Earthbound, Hot Shots Golf, Detroit: Become Human, & Until Dawn are all third party because the developers behind them aren’t owned by Sony or Nintendo?

Gears of War was contracted out to Epic when it was created, but it’s already been years since they sold it to Microsoft. Lionhead was owned by Microsoft so idk how you even got Fable confused with 3rd party

RabbitFly203d ago

What he is trying to explain to you is that first an third party has nothing to do with the IP and everything to do with the developer.

Generally speaking for a title to be considered first party it needs to be developed in house. When they make deal with third party developer to work on an ip they own it is Generally considered second party, but this is just a figure of speech.

203d ago
203d ago
FallenAngel1984203d ago

@ Rabbit

What I’m telling you is that Lionhead & Black Tusk Studios was/is first party developers so it’s stupid to label either game a third party game. Do you actually look up this basic information before responding?

The IP owner is the thing that separates a first party game from a third party game. Nintendo for example can outsource their IPs to any other developer like they did with Mario + Rabbids & Hyrule Warriors, doesn’t mean it’s suddenly a third party game.

@ Mako

And you don’t even seem to know what a third party developer is if you think Lionhead & The Coalition were/are one. Microsoft acquired Lionhead in 2006 and The Coalition were always owned by Microsoft since 2010-2011.

It's really like you didn’t research any of this before responding. Actually look this up before replying because this is getting annoying having to constantly reiterate something that’s easy to look up for yourself.

Also quit thinking 2nd party games are an interchangeable word with 3rd party. They are distinct terminologies and makes you look foolish tryin to make them seem like the same thing.

When did Coalition officially state their next project? I don’t see any unveiling of the such. Not only that but the next Gears of War game hasn’t even been unveiled.

RabbitFly200d ago

"The IP owner is the thing that separates a first party game from a third party game. Nintendo for example can outsource their IPs to any other developer like they did with Mario + Rabbids & Hyrule Warriors, doesn’t mean it’s suddenly a third party game. "

Yes it does. That is exactly what it means.

First part and third party is a designatition of the party that actually creates the game. Not who owns the property. However. As has been pointed out several times now. When something is owned by one company and then licensed out for development to another it is usally referred to as second party. Indicating that it is a "first party" property being developed by a third party studio. This is a figure of speech, but it is a generally acceptable way to refer to such a deal.

No on is arguing that Lionhead Studios or Black Tusk Studios/The Coalition isn't or wasn't first party studios. Mako is citing some kind of third party deals being worked on by Microsoft. I have no idea whether that is true or not, but assuming it is he is correct in his argument.

My reason for stepping in is that I see an individual, you, clearly misinformed - and I would like for you to get a better understanding so you can avoid such misunderstandings in the future.

First and Third party refers to the developers working on the game. Second party is a figure of speech made to describe these tricky situations, because they technically don't fall under what would classically be considered either first or third.

FallenAngel1984200d ago

Yes it is a designation of who owns the IP. If an independent company develops a game that’s owned by any of the hardware manufacturers it’s a 2nd party title, not a third party title. When the independent company owns the IP to that game it’s a 3rd party title. It’s not hard to comprehend.

You’re seriously trying to argue the likes of Pokémon, Fire Emblem and Kirby actually third party which highlights how absurd your logic is.

Mako is making it sound like Gears of War & Fable as a whole somehow became third party franchises which is what I’m correcting him/her on.

First and third party refers to who owns the IP. Second party is an actual thing since we’ve seen various times of independent developers working alongside hardware publishers. Developers like Insomniac, Intellingent Systems, Game Freak, Quantic Dream, Rareware(in the past), & Clap Hands are known for producing second party titles. However since second party titles are in most cases owned by the hardware publishers(except for Rareware which later actually held onto the rights to all of their original IPs) they’re simply grouped alongside other first party titles.

RabbitFly199d ago


Now you are just backtracking. Kinda agreeing, while denying you ever were in disagreement.

It's all semantics anyway and does not really matter. However you are trying to redefine commonly understood terms within the industry.

No one is calling well established franchises "third party" because honestly it wouldn't make sense. Your confusement seems to be why it doesn't make sense.

Being that a franchise isn't a party, it is an IP.

Spider-Man Ps4 is considered second party because Insomniac is a third party developer working on an exclusive game being published by Sony. But second party is just a figure of speech, it isn't actually a technical term.

Just like you can refer to someone either in first person or in third person. There isn't actually any second person.

You are also contradicting yourself. If the party being refrenced was the owner of a franchise, There would be no need for an expression like "second party". It would all be first or third.

But, again. It doesn't really matter to the discussion at hand. Wether Microsoft wants to invest in first or third party publishers. What matters is that they invest. Some people just don't like that investing in exclusives is being equaled to investing in first party studios. Considering the difference in the landscapes between Sony and Microsoft at this moment, it seems to make for an unfair comparison.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 199d ago
showtimefolks204d ago

I fear because of recent success of ps4 and switch games ms maybe pressured into a corner to either buy a small publisher or buy times exclusive game

Let's see

Fantomex204d ago

MS should do the former TBH. The latter wouldn't work out for several reasons. You could get time exclusive deals for example the next Tales of RPG but that would just have anger more people than convince them to buy an Xbox.

gangsta_red203d ago

So this whole time you constantly complain about MS not having enough first parties or exclusive games. But now you fear they might do something about that?

Is it because you'll have nothing to complain about anymore?

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 199d ago
Nyxus205d ago

I can't think of anything that can go up against The Last of Us II, Death Stranding, Ghost of Tsushima and Spider-Man.

ABizzel1205d ago

Different taste but....

Pokemon Switch, Metroid, Animal Crossing, Smash Bros., Bayonetta 3, and more.

MS has to have some groundbreaking announcements to win E3 IMO, or the other 2 have to just completely fail. If there's something MS may be able to squeeze out it's game of the show or best conference from simply having a bunch of 3rd party titles on stage, but game of the show is going to be insanely hard going up again The Last of Us 2, Death Stranding, Anthem, and Red Dead.

Magnetar204d ago (Edited 204d ago )

I’ve always found it amusing how Sony can show the same games for years and people lose their minds about how awesome their showings are.

While I enjoying seeing progress on their games, showing the same games year after year doesn’t blow my mind. I’m sure they’ll have at least one unannounced exclusive to show though.

Nyxus204d ago

Well it's the first time we'll see gameplay for three out of four of those games. They are also among the most anticipated games in the industry, so it really isn't that surprising. Besides, what company doesn't show the same games multiple times?

RpgSama204d ago

You mean like Ms that also shows games year over year, over year, all the games released or still to release this year (Crackdown 3) were showed for the first time at least 3 years ago

Skull521204d ago

We will actually be getting a sneak peak at next gen since some of Sony’s games will undoubtedly be making their debut on the PS5.

204d ago
rainslacker204d ago

They often show new stuff too though. Expanding on what's been shown before can be exciting too. Sony has had their bad conferences in the past, but this gen, they've been good to incredible.

showtimefolks204d ago


I am sorry where did we see death stranding, the last of us 2 and ghost game play? Can you please post some videos or game play?

trooper_203d ago

Because Sony actually makes quality games.

Dragonscale203d ago

@skull, you lot would love that. Whats wrong, can't stand to think that PS4 is gonna carry on killing it. Sony's e3 line up is PS4's future line up tbh.

Skull521203d ago

I just know Sony’s record with games like Last Guardian.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 203d ago
xRacer74x205d ago

Both sides will claim victory. So really the gamers win. Im more interested in PC, XBOX and Switch stuff but that is me.

205d ago Replies(2)
GamesMaster1982204d ago

Not beign a troll or anything but with all the excellent exclusives and upcoming exclusives on PS4 and even Switch, and all the upcoming Microsoft games playable on PC is there any reason to even own a X1 now ?.

Bobafret204d ago

Millions of people do not like PC gaming. Shocking, I know.

204d ago
Tazzy204d ago

Personally I think that's why their sales dropped from over 84 million Xbox 360s sold to just a little over 30+ million Xbox Ones PC gamers don't need to own an Xbox One X for anything they get better graphics.

choujij203d ago (Edited 203d ago )

"Not beign a troll or anything but with all the excellent exclusives and upcoming exclusives on PS4 and even Switch, and all the upcoming Microsoft games playable on PC is there any reason to even own a X1 now ?."

That is a very loaded question. lol

I'll try to throw my 2 cents in though. IMO, there isn't much, aside from a few factors.
I believe there are some titles at this time that are still exclusive to Xbox on console (like Halo 5).
Aside from that, some people prefer Xbox on console with the belief it's less expensive comparing upfront costs. I am of the mindset, where I consider value and total cost of ownership. So for example, let's say buying/building a reasonably equivalent PC was even twice the cost of the Xbox you're interested in (or whatever it is). I would also factor in the yearly savings of not necessarily having to purchase an XBL subscription, plus the fact that I would have access to a far larger library of PC titles available. Xbox controllers are also well supported on PC. And a Gaming PC in your living room (or wherever you play your consoles) makes for an amazing media player, which now gets into everything else you can do with your gaming PC, aside from gaming.

So in my book, no, there is not much reason for someone like myself to ever purchase an Xbox console again, but I'm sure others have their own preferences for their reasons. PC, PS4 and Switch is my current preference.